Please be aware that I have removed your submission at WP:3O. After reviewing the linked Talk page, I note that there has not been a thorough discussion there. Please be aware that there must be significant discussion at the Talk page as a prerequisite for requesting a third opinion. If you feel that further discussion at the Talk page currently will not be productive, I would invite you to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago ( talk) 13:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Antan O 02:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) 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/Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) 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. Nick-D ( talk) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Australian Flag Society without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Your edit summary, "I can't think of anything else if the other editor won't acknowledge the third opinion", gives the appearance that you are
disrupting the page to make a point. That is an unacceptable practice on Wikipedia. —
C.Fred (
talk)
04:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Why do you want to put the text about the divinity of the flag under the ACT Branch heading? Is the divinity view exclusive to that branch? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In light of your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) and the above discussion, as well as earlier edits, I think that it's very clear that you have a conflict of interest with the Australian Flag Society. As such, you need to follow the below rules. Nick-D ( talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aussieflagfan. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
FYI, information on dispute resolution is available here. Can I just add that your choice of username isn't assisting your argument in any way, and perhaps to cool off from potential conflict, maybe try editing a different category of articles before somebody dare accuse you of being a single purpose account. You're arguing with experienced editors who have seen this potential SPA/COI stuff many times before and they're trying to steer you away from potential issues should they be proven right. I hope this helps. Spread your wings, Wikipedia is a big place. It often helps. -- Longhair\ talk 08:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the edit hstory at Flag of Australia. As was indicated here, articles are not supposed to be image farms. Multiple examples of how the flag has been flown at different events do not provide any encyclopaedic content. HiLo48 has suggested on the article's talk page that you pause in your attention to Australian flag related articles, and look at the rest of Wikipedia, to see what is normal and acceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a flag fansite and your contributions to the article, and Australian Red Ensign, have largely been disruptive. Your experiences with Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) should have given you some idea of what we expect from, and what does and doesn't make a good article. Please also note that this issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Flag of Australia. Please, by all means join the discussion there and ask questions if you need guidance. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
You really need to start discussing your edits before you make them. Several people have edited the article today and comments about your edits have generally been negaitive. Please familiarise yourself with MOS:IMAGE, and WP:IG. -- AussieLegend ( ✉)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Flag of Australia into
Australian Red Ensign. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
13:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to
Flag of Australia, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors
do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. your comments on the talk page of the article have indicate an intent to ignore consensus, and disrupt wikipedia neither which will be tolerated
Gnan
garra
14:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi I was made aware of the discussion you raised at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard I think it would be good for you to act in good faith and stop editing the article and restore it to the version before you made the complaint. At the moment it appears as if you have acted to stifle others so you can get your way. Gnan garra 06:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought I should declare that I am a member of the FIAV affiliated Flag Society of Australia. Since it is an organisation dedicated to the study of vexillology in an entirely academic sort of way and not a political lobby group and I haven't used any of their sources I didn't see it being an issue. I haven't had any correspondence with them for a long time and as their journal is available at all the state libraries I will gladly resign my membership if that's what is necessary in order that I may keep contributing to flag related articles Wikipedia. Aussieflagfan ( talk) 21:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aussieflagfan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aussieflagfan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Australian Red Ensign into
Flags Act 1953. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
14:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Please be aware that I have removed your submission at WP:3O. After reviewing the linked Talk page, I note that there has not been a thorough discussion there. Please be aware that there must be significant discussion at the Talk page as a prerequisite for requesting a third opinion. If you feel that further discussion at the Talk page currently will not be productive, I would invite you to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago ( talk) 13:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Antan O 02:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) 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/Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) 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. Nick-D ( talk) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Australian Flag Society without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Your edit summary, "I can't think of anything else if the other editor won't acknowledge the third opinion", gives the appearance that you are
disrupting the page to make a point. That is an unacceptable practice on Wikipedia. —
C.Fred (
talk)
04:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Why do you want to put the text about the divinity of the flag under the ACT Branch heading? Is the divinity view exclusive to that branch? HiLo48 ( talk) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In light of your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) and the above discussion, as well as earlier edits, I think that it's very clear that you have a conflict of interest with the Australian Flag Society. As such, you need to follow the below rules. Nick-D ( talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aussieflagfan. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
FYI, information on dispute resolution is available here. Can I just add that your choice of username isn't assisting your argument in any way, and perhaps to cool off from potential conflict, maybe try editing a different category of articles before somebody dare accuse you of being a single purpose account. You're arguing with experienced editors who have seen this potential SPA/COI stuff many times before and they're trying to steer you away from potential issues should they be proven right. I hope this helps. Spread your wings, Wikipedia is a big place. It often helps. -- Longhair\ talk 08:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the edit hstory at Flag of Australia. As was indicated here, articles are not supposed to be image farms. Multiple examples of how the flag has been flown at different events do not provide any encyclopaedic content. HiLo48 has suggested on the article's talk page that you pause in your attention to Australian flag related articles, and look at the rest of Wikipedia, to see what is normal and acceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a flag fansite and your contributions to the article, and Australian Red Ensign, have largely been disruptive. Your experiences with Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) should have given you some idea of what we expect from, and what does and doesn't make a good article. Please also note that this issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Flag of Australia. Please, by all means join the discussion there and ask questions if you need guidance. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
You really need to start discussing your edits before you make them. Several people have edited the article today and comments about your edits have generally been negaitive. Please familiarise yourself with MOS:IMAGE, and WP:IG. -- AussieLegend ( ✉)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Flag of Australia into
Australian Red Ensign. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
13:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to
Flag of Australia, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors
do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. your comments on the talk page of the article have indicate an intent to ignore consensus, and disrupt wikipedia neither which will be tolerated
Gnan
garra
14:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi I was made aware of the discussion you raised at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard I think it would be good for you to act in good faith and stop editing the article and restore it to the version before you made the complaint. At the moment it appears as if you have acted to stifle others so you can get your way. Gnan garra 06:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought I should declare that I am a member of the FIAV affiliated Flag Society of Australia. Since it is an organisation dedicated to the study of vexillology in an entirely academic sort of way and not a political lobby group and I haven't used any of their sources I didn't see it being an issue. I haven't had any correspondence with them for a long time and as their journal is available at all the state libraries I will gladly resign my membership if that's what is necessary in order that I may keep contributing to flag related articles Wikipedia. Aussieflagfan ( talk) 21:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aussieflagfan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Aussieflagfan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Australian Red Ensign into
Flags Act 1953. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
14:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)