- 1 Entry for Peter Hofschroer
- 2 Sciences Po changes
- 3 User:Davidgsmithmusic/sandbox
- 4 Empty request
- 5 Re: My comment
- 6 Electoral College (United States)#Meetings
- 7 Adding Rooster Teeth to List of Social Networks
- 8 Template lockdown
- 9 Merry, merry!
- 10 Nomination of Submarine ace for deletion
Entry for Peter Hofschroer
220.127.116.11 is NOT vandalizing this page. The culprit is Tirailleur. If you see his talk page, you will see he has a personal grudge against Hofschroer.
The situation is that Hofschroer's mother is the victim of abuse and serious crime. Lord Maginnis has raised her case in Parliament several times, to no avail. Her son, Peter Hofschroer, exposed serious oficial corruption in his mother's case and was framed by the police.
Simply google "Maginnis" and "Barbara Hofschroer" and you will see the record of the statement in the House of Lords.
And do see this TV interview with Barbara and Peter:
Sciences Po changes
Can you explain why you made the changes to the Sciences Po page that Launebee requested on 21 October? If you read the discussion that preceded your response to making those changes on 21 October, there was a long discussion and a consensus against all of them, and no one supported any of them in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- I will take another look — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- The three changes made on 21 October were:
- the shortening or the deletion of the gallery
- the deletion of the paragraph between history and 1872–1945 sections
- changes to lead
- These changes were made because they were first proposed by Launebee on 7 October and received no comment or opposition until the request was made on 21 October. If you wish to see these changes reverted, you should start a new discussion on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, but I think you may have missed the discussion regarding the changes to the lead. In fact the four changes to the lead: (1) Remove "Collège universitaire", (2) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain", (3) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe," and (4) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France," were all discussed by several editors and were all opposed by everyone except Launebee.
More Sciences Po changes
Regarding the discussion above about your making Launebee's changes to the Sciences Po article: In fact the four changes to the lead: (1) Remove "Collège universitaire", (2) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain", (3) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe," and (4) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France," were all discussed by several editors and were all opposed by everyone except Launebee. These changes were proposed 18 September 2016 by Launebee, were all voted down, then Launebee asked why they had not been made on 21 October 2016, at which point you accepted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Trouble at Sciences Po
I just submitted my sandbox for review and have a few questions.
How long does this process usually take? Can I make edits while the sandbox is being reviewed? How might I do that? (continue editing the sandbox?)
- @Davidgsmithmusic: I see your article has already received a review. By the way it is strongly discouraged to write an article about yourself. It might be better if you could find something else to edit. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You recently removed an empty edit request from Talk:List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships. I was tempted to mark it "not done" and "answered" but wasn't sure it was ok to mess with it, as the article is protected. Could/should I have done that, or even removed the request myself? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. There's no hard and fast rule - just whatever you think is most appropriate. If you think it was a genuine mistake then by all means let them know. In this case I judged the editor did not intend to open a request so just removed it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Martin, Is there a way to "flag" a user who tends to Undo edits on Wiki pages for no good reason? I incorporated a link to another Wiki page on the Chris Rice page, and I referred to a documented controversy (documented on the "Cartoons [Song]" page which I linked), and Walter Görlitz keeps reverting my change -- even though the issue is specifically mentioned on the "Cartoons (Song)" Wiki page, and he's not disputing it there. He also has had similar issues with other users in the past, from his History. Thanks for your input! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Grattan33
Re: My comment
Electoral College (United States)#Meetings
Adding Rooster Teeth to List of Social Networks
Hello. It has been over two months since I made my request to add RoosterTeeth.com to the list of social networking websites. May I ask why it hasn't been added? --Count3D (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. here you effectively locked down the template for unstable edits. I can agree with that statement (as my announced I will not revert a 2nd time demonstrates). However, by leaving the template in its altered state, you are effectively freezing it into a non-consensus version. I request that, while maintaining your statement, you revert this edit by CFCF.
The last version with consensus is by December 11. This version I request to reinstall.
I point out that the edit was not the result of a talk (let alone consensus). Minimalistically the editor did 'start a talk' , then the editor did not post any follow up. Actually that is more like another editsummary (one-way announcement). Earlier the editor made heavy but unsubstantiated accusations on my talkpage  that I can take as a personal attack. (Thanks for your replies in there). So: twice the editor did not seek consensus for a change.
So far this can be read as 'process issue only' bickering or wikilawyering (But really, PA and non-consensus editing is process only?). On top of this, I add the material (template content) point that my talk-posted colors table shows: the change is actually bad for reasons of color usage. IMO this is a content reason to oppose the the change. If you revert, talks can start to seek consensus for a change. If not, clearly no talk will happen. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- This template talk says the template is frozen for non-consensus edits,
- But the last true consensus version is from Dec 11,
- And the colors table in here points to bad color usage now,
- So please revert this edit (back to the Dec 11 version).
Nomination of Submarine ace for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)