User talk:Geschichte/2021-2024

I will usually reply on this page only.

Archives:

• /(March 2005-June 2006)
• /(June 2006-November 2006)
• /November 2006-August 2007
• /August 2007-May 2008
• /May 2008-October 2008
• /October 2008-February 2009
• /February 2009-April 2009
• /April 2009-July 2009
• /July 2009-December 2009
• /December 2009-March 2010
• /March 2010-July 2010
• /July 2010-December 2010
• /December 2010-May 2012
• /June 2012-May 2013
• /2013-October 2020
• /2020-2021

Hoax

Hello! Following the deletion of hoax article, could you please restore the article in order to add it to this page. Thanks.--Renvoy (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Not all entries in the list are recreations and I frankly don't see the point. As for the dates it was created as a draft on 18 December 2019 and existed in the main space since 28 March 2020. Geschichte (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

unexplained revert

Could you explain your reverts? (Next time, please explein beforehand). -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong speedy deletion criterion. Please find a fitting criterion Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong? Deleting a page I have personally ~edited out of use, made superfluous and unused, why are you questioning this? -DePiep (talk)

In nominating for G8 you claimed that it was "dependent on a non-existent page", which it is not? Geschichte (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried to be as specific as possible in the speedy criterion, as the page is not transcluded any more by intention. But alas, I'll make it generic G6 for the parent, and will wait silently till afterwards G8 applies for the subs. To serve hairsplitters. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

There are normal deletion processes as well- Why was it so important to speedy it? Geschichte (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Because the page is unused by intention & new design. As I wrote above @10:03 (lol has no timestamp?!). In fact, its data job is now perfomed by a dedicated module. Is there a reason to scrutinise my requests this micrographic? Never met such questions in similar situations. -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd say, you could confirm by now right? See Template:P-phrases/text‎‎. -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Rock art articles

Hello. I've noticed that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway. I'm writing this to draw your attention to my message here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#Rock_art_articles,_anyone?.

If this might be of interest to you, please let me know. If not, please excuse me for distubing you. Bw --Orland (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

CSD G13s

Hello, Geschichte,

I found four drafts that 1989 improperly tagged for CSD G13 speedy deletion. They tagged them months before they were eligible for deletion so I have restored them. They look like they went on CSD tagging binge this morning and tagged 68 pages over a few hours even though they have not been a regular CSD page tagger since 2019. I'm going to spot check some other pages on their CSD log to make sure they were properly tagged.

We have several admins working with the daily list of expiring drafts so, please, if you see pages tagged G13, look over the page history and make sure they are eligible. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Witching Season

Hello, Geschichte,

I saw you recently deleted some articles that were PROD'd. Could you take care of this one? I placed the proposed deletion tag on it so I don't feel comfortable deleting it myself. It came due over 12 hours ago but no one seems to be patrolling User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary recently, they must be off doing fun, weekend activities. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh U20 team fixtures

So can I add the match stats from 2019 since those are the teams most recent fixtures?FNH004 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Please consult the pages about the senior national teams; the recent fixtures header should include games from one year in the past. Geschichte (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Tomme Tønner for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article Tomme Tønner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomme Tønner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Geschichte, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just an addendum, a recent RFC passed that removed the autopatrolled user right from the administrator toolkit. As you have created over 20,000 pages, I believe it would be wise to grant you the autopatrolled user right. If you would like it removed, feel free to ping me or post a message on my talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The article Kjartan Antonsson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Momir Mileta has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Pétur Björn Jónsson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Jonas Lind has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Mikael Blomberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Patrik Bengtsson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mikael Blomberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Blomberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonas Lind is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Lind until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Geschichte!

Happy New Year!

Geschichte,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Nomination for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oskar Hordnes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oskar Hordnes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aksel Fugelli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aksel Fugelli until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Dimitris Farantos

Hello, I noticed when you created Dimitris Farantos you listed him as a "retired football midfielder". However, I see no information on his career in the given sources, is it correct that he is a former player? S.A. Julio (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for picking this up. It must have been wrongly inserted, so I removed mentions of it. Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Torgeir Garmo

The article Torgeir Garmo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP about someone who fails WP:NPOL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TartarTorte 15:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian film

I saw on another editors page that you have an interest in improving articles about Norwegian film. I don't know many Norwegian films but I greatly enjoyed Headhunters (film) and it could certainly do with a few more reviews of all kinds (and I'm fairly sure I added the single solitary review from Roger Ebert). If you could include a couple of reviews from reputable Norwegian critics to provide a local perspective that would be excellent. -- 109.78.197.54 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll format it in the same way as on the other film - 12 reviews as a starting point! Geschichte (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. -- 109.78.197.54 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Geschichte a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy anniversary, Geschichte! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Football stubs

Hello, Geschichte,

I look at a daily draftication list and noticed that many football stubs by Das osmnezz that you moved to Draft space, were immediately moved back. I don't know whether or not the players meet the football standards for notability but I thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing relisted AFDs

Please remove Category:Relisted AfD debates from AFDs when closing them, as this category is only meant to track active discussions. Having to go through dozens of these on more than one occasion is not fun. ✗plicit 12:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I honestly thought this was done by a bot? Geschichte (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Like here. When did it cease? Geschichte (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Kevin Zhu (violinist) fixed recommended changes and thanks′

I don't know if a User's wikipedia talk page is appropriate for this but I would like to apologize for my comments regarding : "I don't see there is any argument made against my article?" at the deletion discussion page as it is wrong to assume that an article is 'mine' and I wrote that unknowing if the author of a wikipedia article could have a say in the discussion and guessing if I was in the wrong, someone would call me out for it. I would also like to thank you for the suggests of the Kevin Zhu article that I have now implmented into the article. JeffreyViolin (talk) 1:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy for you that it was kept. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASikonmina&type=revision&diff=1066207984&oldid=1066123237 What do you think? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems a little fishy. Do you have any particular previous user in mind? Geschichte (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the other editors on the new account's Talk page said he did recognise someone who had been blocked, Atlantic I think, but he did not say who and was blanked by the new account. Just prior to your own message. The first edits make it clear that this is an account with previous history. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Aksel

I have added the information about Aksel Kankaanranta’s charting song to his article. Please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of JBAND$

Hello there, good morning Geschichte,

I saw you recently deleted my article. Can you please undelete the article so i can get back to work, it shouldn't have been deleted. Even though it was visible that the page had bits of information being added to it at a time, two days after the article was created the page was flagged for WP:PROD and instead of suggesting improvements or contributing the editor further flagged it for WP:AFD. That's borderline vandalism. Nobody contested the article for that 7 day period because improvement edits were being made, when it was time for the discussion to be closed it was relisted by yourself. Later, an editor contributed to the discussion making a personal attack against the person in the article which shouldn't be taken up with me but it was still counted as a contribution which leads me on to say that 3 biased opinions shouldn't count as a voting system resulting in a snowball clause by closing the AfD a day early. I assume as you know when a wikipedia article is created, deleting it is last resort unless it is a personal attack page, spam, copyright violation or promotion and that would lead to speedy deletion which this page was ineligible for as you already know. Thanks! I just came here to follow wiki guidelines instead of deletion review. Kind regards. GsB0414 (Talk) 02:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I can draftify it for you, however I just want you to grasp how Wikipedia works before I do so. For one, you were fully eligible to contribute to the deletion discussion, but did not do so, nor to any discussion, instead you have just removed everything from your talk page. The AFD was not closed a day early, it was closed after 13 days instead of 7 days which is the normal procedure. Deletion is not a last resort in those cases only, there is a number of other guidelines which articles are measured against, see for instance all the listings at WP:AFD/Yesterday. After you reply sommething to this, I will draftify it for you. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the first WP:PROD from my talk page a couple days after because it was messy. With the first discussion i didn't input anything because i thought it was conflict of interest until i read the guidelines and when it was relisted i clicked edit and it told me that i'm banned for a certain amount of days. Also, because the AFD was relisted, i thought it would have gone another 7 days. Nevertheless, i understand what you are saying. Thank-you. Kind regards. GsB0414 (Talk) 22:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You GsB0414 have never been blocked, so maybe you used an IP which is blocked? Several school and public library IPs tend to be blocked. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now restored it to Draft:JBAND$. Please note that the article is currently very far from being acceptable at Wikipedia. Frankly, JBAND$ really has not done anything to distinguish himself in the music world. Primary sources as well as references which are not about JBAND$, do not count towards the goal of the article, which is to show that JBAND$ has got significant and independent attention from reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Rose Deletion

Hi Geschichte. Hope you are keeping well. I observe you deleted article on Ronald Rose. The position held by him is considered reputed as he is also a bureaucrat. He did lot of activities in places he served. Can I know the reasons behind deletion. thank you. Gardenkur (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It was deleted not due to my personal opinion, but because a deletion discussion was opened for the article. The discussion ended and deletion was the result as per Wikipedia:SOFTDELETE. While it is possible to create the article again, I strongly advise not to include bullet lists of every activity he has ever done. It violates the rule Wikipedia:NOTCV. Instead, try to focus and explain why he is an important bureaucrat. Geschichte (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect of Matias Moldskred to Matias Belli Moldskred

Geschichte, I was wondering why you redirected the page I created, Matias Moldskred, to Matias Belli Moldskred, because the latter was created a full day after I created the former. On top of that, couldn't my page just be edited instead of redirected? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Having the Belli name in the article title was important since he was notable as a Nicaragua international and was using his Nicaraguan name Belli in that context. Also, as one had to be merged into the other, there was little to merge from Matias Moldskred, barely anything, mostly just the categories. Therefore, the solution was better for content attribution. Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Frank Tandberg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frank Tandberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Tandberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Star Garnet (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank yous!

Dearest Geschichte, thank you so much for the love you have shown me for the articles I have recently started, you are indeed very kind! Sincerest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

Mario Cerrito AfD

Hi, Geschichte. I only just noticed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Cerrito (2nd nomination), and I was wondering if you'd reconsider it, or at least would add a closing rationale. The way I see it:

• I moved to delete
• Summerlee44 !voted keep, but was blocked as a sockpuppet by the time you closed
• Alansohn !voted keep
• Oaktree b !voted delete
• 2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 !voted keep, but was blocked as a sockpuppet by the time you closed
• Roman Spinner !voted keep, but acknowledged having been canvassed by one of the sockpuppets. He argued that the canvassing didn't matter since he always !votes keep, which I don't think is as persuasive an argument as he thinks for his !vote to be counted.
• Lamona !voted weak keep
• Saiskysat !voted keep. This was Saiskysat's 24th ever edit, their first in 2 and a half years, and their only ever edit to projectspace.

Thus if you discount the two sock !votes, the canvassed !vote, and the very suspicious !vote from a long-dormant account, it comes down to two delete, one keep, one weak keep. If your reading of the strength of the arguments, across those four !votes, is that there is nonetheless a consensus to keep, then I'm open to hearing that, but respectfully I don't think this is a case where a one-word keep close is sufficient. Preferable, I think, would be a relist with the sock !votes struck, or a close as no consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito

Hello, this is Mario Cerrito. I am a little upset about what just happened. As a working artist and businessman your name means a lot. I am currently casting for a new movie and was just informed this morning by an actors agent after he "googled me" that my wikipedia is facing deletion. He asked me why. As embarrassing as it was when he asked me, I didn't know how to respond. What is irritating me the worst is after researching the history on the article it was JUST nominated for deletion and passed as "keep." As much as I don't know about wikipedia I started doing some research/reading and found under (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. After checking it has literally been a matter of 5 days and a page about me has the deletion tag again and it is not right. I can read above that Tamzin seems to have the problem and upon looking at the just passed deletion discussion she forgot to mention it looks to be 5 Keep votes including Alanshohn, Eddy, Roman Spinner, Lamona and Saisykat. I see that a few were crossed out for whatever reasons but I am going off of what I am reading. You have to understand that as a working artist and individual something like a deletion tag on the first website that pops up when people "google you" is very demeaning. I am in the process of casting a film and people do research of who they are working with. To point out something else under (Wikipedia : Renominating for deletion) it also states "If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them." I feel this has been handled unfairly and wished to express my concerns with you since you were the username who "kept" and then relisted." I wouldn't normall do something like this but felt I should since it's my name and livelihood. Thank you. Mario Cerrito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioCerrito (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hello. I think the result would have been the same either way. If I hadn't reopened the discussion, someone would have started a new discussion. Also, some people were not struck for "whatever reason", but for misuse of this site, which was why I reopened. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and the dispute should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it or an alternate version. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)