Here on Wikipedia, there is a thing called due process. If you believe that the article is so biased, why don't you contact another editor to review the article, preferably a sysops. If you do not wish to do this, you are more than welcome to do the editing yourself. Just let it be noted that your changes, unless substantially referenced and proven, will be reverted immediately. Also, please try to remain civil on the Pavlova talk page. Thanks! Matt ( talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are you removing references and information from Nancy Wake? The ref you removed is certainly relevant. The information about the 2003 heart attack and being wheelchair-bound is unsourced but rather likely to be true; you are within your rights to remove it under WP:BLP but asking for a citation might be more appropriate in this case. A quick glance shows that User:KizzyB is making useful edits.- gadfium 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the reference. Removing it is vandalism. Please consider this a formal warning.- gadfium 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the article's talk page and request for comment, and add your views. Please do not revert again, but discuss on the talk page. Continued reversions will result in a block. Thanks, Swampfire ( talk) 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought i would let you know I have expressed concern to you using 124.190.91.146 as an IP address to commit vandalism and avoid the three revert rule. I am not sure of this though, as you repetitivly claim to be a New Zealander and the IP is an Australian one (although you usually edit from an Australian POV, and use alot of Australian expressions. For the benefit of everyone however, could we clear this up quickly? Either sign out and reply to my talk page with an IP address, or i will request a checkuser. Best, Matt ( talk) 08:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Russell Crowe. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule..
Matt (
talk)
09:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please provide sources for your assertion that Wake is Australian and only Australian. She was born in New Zealand, and has lived in several countries. She is quoted as saying that she has a New Zealand passport and considers herself a New Zealander. To change to another nationality will require at least as strong evidence. You say that you consider the NZEdge article biased, but you also are on record as believing the RSA (of New Zealand) is a poor source. It appears that you are not willing to consider a source to be reliable unless it backs your point of view. However, until you present your own sources, the relative quality of claims cannot be debated.- gadfium 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you find so disrespectful in the RSA and NZEdge sites? By the way, you have now reverted the article to your preferred version four times in less than 24 hours. You should be aware that this is a blockable offence, as you have been warned about the 3 revert rule before. You can avert such a block by undoing your last edit.- gadfium 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of discussing this on the talk page. I consider it to be undignified to do so. I am disappointed, and a little amazed that this could become such an issue. Nancy Wake is Australian, whether she also qualifies as a New Zealand citizen or not is irrelevant. She grew up in Australia, and quite clearly identifies as Australian, a fact which you would be aware of if you'd read any of the books on her life, which quite evidently you have not. I believe you could be confusing the technicalities of citizenship with cultural identity.
Why have you ignored the sources I have referenced in my previous posts on this topic? Do you not believe me? As for the NZEdge article you keep referring to, as I have already said to you, it is written with a clear agenda. The reason I dislike the article is that it attempts to mislead, clearly it has you fooled. I could quote passages from any of the books on her life in which she identifies as Australian. The reason I have not done so is that I find the whole business to be ludicrous. It is unfortunate that the NZEdge article has become a standard internet reference on Nancy, because it is misleading on this one aspect, which is a pity. One of the functions Wikipedia can perform is to serve as a counter balance to incorrect or misleading sources of information that can be found on the internet. This is why I made the change, to correct the record, so people who know nothing of her can be properly informed. Perhaps you need to honestly reflect on your motivations in opposing this viewpoint, and make sure that it is not ego or pride that is leading you to persist in opposing me, because you are likely to end up embarrassing yourself if it is. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Nancy Wake, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.. You obviously know the source of the material, but you continue to remove it without discussion on the talk page, and without providing any contrary evidence. This is vandalism.-
gadfium
09:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Your patronising tone is duly noted. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Nancy Wake, you will be
blocked from editing. -
gadfium
22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You do raise some good points. The best way forward is to discuss the points on the discussion page. If you believe, as I think you do, that the article is or was POV as far as New Zealand is concerned, it does not help to have the article turned around to be biased even more heavily towards Australia. It is also best to not revert articles, as this is a waste of time, and the other side will do the same and invoke all sorts of rules like the 3RR. I have noticed that these things normally sort themselves out, and the truth, whatever it is prevails. If you are unhappy, and you have every right to be, you can make your points, and others will listen, if your points are valid. So - back to the discussion page... Thank you. :) Wallie ( talk) 10:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Phar Lap. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Little Red Riding Hood
talk
20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit here. The anon was right, it does read strangely to go through his life backwards. I think we've already had a conversation on this. Unless you think something as childish as what order the countries are put in indicates any importance, i'd ask you to stop reverting this as there is a logical reason it is this way. Thanks, Matty ( talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I found your recent edit a step in the right direction. However, I must say I am confused at why you left New Zealand first as that seemed to cause of the problem and what you had been debating towards. I hate to say it, but someone reverted your edits. While i'm not sure if there is any basis for it, i've left a note on his talk page about our conversations and have asked him to chime in here. Please can we not start up an edit war again? I am more than willing to look at this from a broader perspective than when we first started. I hope we can work everything out. Thank you, Matty ( talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As a consideration, I am notifying you that I have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard for repetitive edit warring. You have been warned twice already, and have performed 4 reverts within 24 hours without discussion on the talk page. You obviously have a very biased opinion - practically all of your edits are either removing mentions of New Zealand/New Zealand heritage in articles. Please consider WP:3RR before blindly reverting without discussion. Matty ( talk) 13:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Phar Lap. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. again please use the article talk page before makeing any more edits thanks
Oo7565 (
talk)
22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tiptoety
talk
23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)I noticed your latest edit and was very pleased with it. It recoginzes that both Australia and New Zealand are involved. You may think I am being pro-NZ and anti-Australian. However, this is not the case. Much earlier, the article said that Phar Lap was a New Zealand racehorse, and people were trying to bring Australia into the picture and were being reverted. I didn't like that either, as it was heavily biased towards New Zealand. I pointed out that while he was born in New Zealand, he did his racing in Australia and was much loved in both places. I do think that there is an element of gamesmanship on both sides. The classic examples are Tulloch and Gloaming. Tulloch is a national hero in Australia. The New Zealand public wouldn't know him. Even though he was born in New Zealand, he is not an icon there - certainly not. To my mind, putting Tulloch so soon in the New Zealand Racing Hall of Fame is a windup. The Australians did the same with Rising Fast. Crazy! With Gloaming, he is probably more revered in New Zealand, even though he was born in Australia. The old timers in New Zealand worship Gloaming and Nightmarch. With Phar Lap, he is equally revered in both countries. What really interests me is that the Americans owned him, and have never laid claim to him. I personally don't like gamesmanship, as it means the person who playes the game best wins - not a good result for the truth. I think we can both try to get a good balance, particularly between Australia and New Zealand, and prevent the bias going one way or the other. Thanks. Wallie ( talk) 08:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Wallie, you seem like a nice bloke. But very little of what you say makes sense. Tulloch is not a national hero in Australia. Whether Phar Lap was owned by an American is not really that important. When I suggested that you might need to also correct the articles on Makybe Diva and Efficient I was speaking in jest. But I see that you have taken that as a serious suggestion, which is disappointing. I noted in one of your replies to Cuddy Wifter on the talk page that you claimed that no NZer would say Gloaming was a NZ horse. Yet in the Horse racing article you made just such a claim. So you can appreciate why I might have some suspicions regarding your motives. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 22:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Phar Lap. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Matty (
talk)
07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
diff, diff, diff, diff. Simply removing the "undid revision" part of the edit summary does not excuse you. The fact of the matter is, regardless of your new edits (which are very similar to your prefered version even if not exactly the same (which is still not allowed)) you have reverted the material. Please read over WP:3RR again and revert your edits until we can come to consensus - you have still not rationalized your edits on the talk page and have not attempted to discuss them, instead choosing to attack certain editors and accuse others of bias when they make the article more neutral. Matty ( talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please understand that it was a mistake when I reverted your edits, I started editing before you made your changes and by the time you were done I saved it. Just because I did though does not give you the right to revert my fully sourced improvements at all - you have reverted parts of the article you were not even editing. Here you go - ill substantiate my edits:
I added information on his owners in the lead. This is perfectly acceptable, fully sourced, and much more relevant than some of the stuff in there.
I removed the "but was trained in Australia" part, because the "but" was unneeded.
I added a citation for his Agua Caliente Handicap win.
The {{who}} tag stays as the sentence contains weasel words, sometimes implies that he is occasionally called it and occasionally not with no rationale as to why.
I elaborated further on his trip to America and what happened with his ownership, once again fully sourced.
I changed "When news of Phar Lap's death reached Australia and New Zealand, many grieved." to " When news of Phar Lap's death was reported by the media, his supporters grieved." This should be an acceptable compromise. I understand it doesn't mean your particular point of view but to say that only Australians grieved is incorrect, not every Australian grieved. It was his supporters, and he had many from many countries - he was an international horse that had just won the biggest race of his life.
It seems acceptable to mention other inductees into both countries hall of fames, but if you really need to remove this then the sentences no longer make sense (but you did fix this in a future edit, albeit without rationale).
The see also section is relevant.
I hope you try and understand that these edits were not an attempt to blatantly revert you but were in fact improvements to the article. If you revert my fully sourced edits again, I will bring this to an administrators attention and they can decide who is in the wrong. Matty ( talk) 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I accept that it was an honest mistake on your part Matty, but you should have had the good grace to just add them back in rather than start another edit war. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Nja
247
07:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Your recent edit to the New Zealand section of the horse article removed the names of Phar Lap and Tulloch. When I restored those names in the edit previous to yours, my edit summary said "Read two paragraphs above - "The bloodstock industry is important to New Zealand, with the export sale of horses". That includes Tulloch and Phar Lap". And yet you still reverted by eliminating those two horses, leaving the edit summary "Will it never end?, LOL". You didn't give a reason for the revert. All you did was disrupt wikipedia. I have reverted to the version which includes Phar Lap and Tulloch who are both products [1] [2]of the New Zealand horse racing stud industry. Read the cites. Where they later raced can never preclude them from being part of the NZ horse industry. So please don't revert again. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed
Makybe Diva to the format that has been in use since this project was started. And, after hundreds of horses have had articles created based on that presentation, it is unacceptable for anyone to come along and just change one or two to some new formula they suddenly like. If such change is made, then someone else will justifiably change some other part of the article and we wind up with a mess. There is a reason for uniformity. And, every article has the birth country referenced at least twice: on the introductory birth line if alive, in the racebox and the Category.
Handicapper (
talk)
15:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Australian racehorses bred in New Zealand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bencherheavy ( talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Talk:Pavlova (food). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
From
Wikipedia:Civility:
1. Direct rudeness
(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
XLerate ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You know, we're actually trying to help you.. try not to be so negative.
A8
UDI
03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
Talk:Pavlova (food). If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
XLerate (
talk)
03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to
New Zealand humour, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. -
gadfium
03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
gadfium
08:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing. -
Reconsider
!
09:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
EyeSerene
talk
10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Hi Josette –thanks, yes it appears that I have been blocked indefinitely. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but if they think I’m going to grovel to get unblocked then they’ve got another think coming. If the block isn’t reversed I’ll just have to set up another Wikipedia account. I don’t really want to do that, but if it is my only resort then I will do so. Quite frankly, it’s a disgrace what has been happening. Clearly there is a double standard operating here -the block is both unjustified and shameful and that is why I am calling on Wikipedia to launch a full commission of inquiry into the circumstances behind it. In particular I would like to see an investigation into the conduct of the following editors, User:Gadfium, User:Grutness, User: XLerate.
The inquiry would also need to address the following issues/points of concern.
1. The edit war that occurred over at the Liz Taylor article. My improved edit was continually undone for no good reason. The present Liz Taylor edit is not even the original edit, so I find it difficult to comprehend why my edit was undone, other than for reasons of bad intent on the part of the person doing it. My version of the edit is supported my both Encarta World English Dictionary and MacMillan Encyclopedia, so clearly it had some substance to it.
2. The edit war at Kiwi (shoe polish).
I fail to see how the description of William Ramsay as an “Australian-based Scottish-born inventor” is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. What exactly is supposed to be inferred from the phrase “Australian-based”? According to his Wikipedia article he moved to Australia at age 10, and is described as an Australian shoe polish manufacturer. His bother Hugh Ramsay ,also Scottish-born, is described as an Australian artist. Again as with Liz Taylor, my proposed improved edit appears to be trivial, but again it was continually undone for reasons that do not appear to be obvious.
3. Edit war at Australian cuisine.
I again fail to see how the sentence
“ANZAC biscuits and the pavlova are considered by some as Australian national foods, however the oldest recipes for these items are from New Zealand”
and the allegedly supportive references included can be in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Not only is it a contentious and misleading statement, it is also an irrelevant inclusion and a clear example of the use of weasel words. Some obvious questions that follow from such a statement, as suggested at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, are
Who says that? How many is some? What kind of bias might they have? Why is it of any significance?
When I put this to an editor I was told that there was an exception to the rule: for example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats" would not be weasel words. Well, I’m sorry but the words “considered by some” as used is clearly in the territory of weasel words and it is an insult to the intelligence to suggest otherwise.
Other points of dispute involve the
Buzzy Bee and
New Zealand humour articles, which I might elaborate on later.
Ernest the Sheep (
talk)
06:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't follow what you are saying. My edit of Buzzy Bee is non neutral? How is it any less neutral than the following sentence appearing over at pavlova_(food)?
"All currently available research suggests the recipe originated in New Zealand, and as for the Anzac biscuit, the earliest known books containing the recipe were published in New Zealand."
C'mon now, fair's fair, looks like another double standard to me.
My edit at Australian cuisine lacked reliable sources? I don't really know what you mean. The Wikipedia links Pavlova_(food) and ANZAC biscuits served as the sources. If we're going to follow that logic then there are a lot more claims in that article that lack reliable sources.
My proposed edit to Kiwi (shoe polish) is pointy? I don't know that is supposed to mean. Seems like you are clutching at straws here. I hope this is not the result of some sense of solidarity you feel you have to show to certain editors? Look at the edits to Elizabeth Taylor again. In my opinion that edit war was the result of certain other editors personalising the situation. Exactly the same thing occurred at Kiwi (shoe polish). Yet you claim that I am behaving like the classic POV edit-warrior. Rubbish. If another editor were making edits I disagreed with one thing I would not do is jump in on an article of no particular interest to me and undo edits just for the sake of it. Have another look at the Liz Taylor history, I have similar edits there going back a long time. I would like someone else to adjudicate on this matter, what is the process I need to follow for this to happen? Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"Stalking behavior?" Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and more pointedly, WP:Wikistalking, which states "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." You are not being "stalked", which is a volatile and serious accusation. It is extremely common for editors to check the other edits of someone when they are misapplying some policy aspect, such as your contention that the MOS:BIO clearly says that the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead of an article unless it is related to their notability. Thus, after I reverted your edits regarding that to Nicole Kidman and Bob Hope, I checked other recent edits you have made. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
01:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Whether the particular edits which Ernest the Sheep repeatedly reverted were good ones is of very limited relevance. The 1RR meant "one revert", not "one revert unless you are right". If this were an isolated incident I would be very much inclined to take the line "well, this was perhaps a minor slip, and we can give him one last chance". However, it is not an isolated incident, but rather part of an extended pattern. He has already been given "one last chance". He has repeatedly indicated contempt for Wikipedia's methods, including indicating that he sees no reason to accept any restrictions to a greater extent than he is forced to. XLerate is perfectly right in saying "We've heard promises before but it looks like lip service". He has long ago established a sufficient history of disruption to lead to an indefinite block, which was lifted on certain conditions to which he agreed. Giving one last chance on a condition, and then deciding that breaking the condition doesn't matter, is rather meaningless. Incidentally, I am surprised that Ernest the Sheep forgot about the 1RR restriction, considering what a considerable amount of attention was given to it, including Ernest's asking for it to be lifted. What is more, this reversion was not an unconnected edit which just happened to technically breach a restriction imposed for other reasons: it was very much on the same subject as edits which led to the 1RR restriction in the first place. Finally, Ernest the Sheep's original indefinite block was not just a result of edit warring, there were other issues too. Recent edits include this one which continues the old pattern of incivility to other editors, and arrogantly instructing another editor what to do or not do, rather than showing an ability and willingness to work collaboratively. This edit in itself is fairly minor, as was the reversion which, when repeated, was the immediate cause of the present block. However, they are not to be looked at in isolation: they are both continuations of the patterns of disruptive editing which led to previous blocks. I would have declined the unblock request, but since the blocking admin has been asked to comment I have preferred to wait, but to give this detailed explanation of my reason for thinking it should be declined. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I support an unblock and expect that this 1RR restriction should be discarded... or re-applied to the passel of editors that seem to be pushing a New-Zealand-POV. Ernest *is* right here, and the others need to review MOS:BIO. Most interested in seeing what comes of User talk:EyeSerene#Ernest. G'day, Jack Merridew 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back, Ernest; feel free to ping me if you run into further difficulties. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia, there is a thing called due process. If you believe that the article is so biased, why don't you contact another editor to review the article, preferably a sysops. If you do not wish to do this, you are more than welcome to do the editing yourself. Just let it be noted that your changes, unless substantially referenced and proven, will be reverted immediately. Also, please try to remain civil on the Pavlova talk page. Thanks! Matt ( talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are you removing references and information from Nancy Wake? The ref you removed is certainly relevant. The information about the 2003 heart attack and being wheelchair-bound is unsourced but rather likely to be true; you are within your rights to remove it under WP:BLP but asking for a citation might be more appropriate in this case. A quick glance shows that User:KizzyB is making useful edits.- gadfium 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the reference. Removing it is vandalism. Please consider this a formal warning.- gadfium 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the article's talk page and request for comment, and add your views. Please do not revert again, but discuss on the talk page. Continued reversions will result in a block. Thanks, Swampfire ( talk) 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought i would let you know I have expressed concern to you using 124.190.91.146 as an IP address to commit vandalism and avoid the three revert rule. I am not sure of this though, as you repetitivly claim to be a New Zealander and the IP is an Australian one (although you usually edit from an Australian POV, and use alot of Australian expressions. For the benefit of everyone however, could we clear this up quickly? Either sign out and reply to my talk page with an IP address, or i will request a checkuser. Best, Matt ( talk) 08:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Russell Crowe. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule..
Matt (
talk)
09:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please provide sources for your assertion that Wake is Australian and only Australian. She was born in New Zealand, and has lived in several countries. She is quoted as saying that she has a New Zealand passport and considers herself a New Zealander. To change to another nationality will require at least as strong evidence. You say that you consider the NZEdge article biased, but you also are on record as believing the RSA (of New Zealand) is a poor source. It appears that you are not willing to consider a source to be reliable unless it backs your point of view. However, until you present your own sources, the relative quality of claims cannot be debated.- gadfium 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you find so disrespectful in the RSA and NZEdge sites? By the way, you have now reverted the article to your preferred version four times in less than 24 hours. You should be aware that this is a blockable offence, as you have been warned about the 3 revert rule before. You can avert such a block by undoing your last edit.- gadfium 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of discussing this on the talk page. I consider it to be undignified to do so. I am disappointed, and a little amazed that this could become such an issue. Nancy Wake is Australian, whether she also qualifies as a New Zealand citizen or not is irrelevant. She grew up in Australia, and quite clearly identifies as Australian, a fact which you would be aware of if you'd read any of the books on her life, which quite evidently you have not. I believe you could be confusing the technicalities of citizenship with cultural identity.
Why have you ignored the sources I have referenced in my previous posts on this topic? Do you not believe me? As for the NZEdge article you keep referring to, as I have already said to you, it is written with a clear agenda. The reason I dislike the article is that it attempts to mislead, clearly it has you fooled. I could quote passages from any of the books on her life in which she identifies as Australian. The reason I have not done so is that I find the whole business to be ludicrous. It is unfortunate that the NZEdge article has become a standard internet reference on Nancy, because it is misleading on this one aspect, which is a pity. One of the functions Wikipedia can perform is to serve as a counter balance to incorrect or misleading sources of information that can be found on the internet. This is why I made the change, to correct the record, so people who know nothing of her can be properly informed. Perhaps you need to honestly reflect on your motivations in opposing this viewpoint, and make sure that it is not ego or pride that is leading you to persist in opposing me, because you are likely to end up embarrassing yourself if it is. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Nancy Wake, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.. You obviously know the source of the material, but you continue to remove it without discussion on the talk page, and without providing any contrary evidence. This is vandalism.-
gadfium
09:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Your patronising tone is duly noted. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Nancy Wake, you will be
blocked from editing. -
gadfium
22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You do raise some good points. The best way forward is to discuss the points on the discussion page. If you believe, as I think you do, that the article is or was POV as far as New Zealand is concerned, it does not help to have the article turned around to be biased even more heavily towards Australia. It is also best to not revert articles, as this is a waste of time, and the other side will do the same and invoke all sorts of rules like the 3RR. I have noticed that these things normally sort themselves out, and the truth, whatever it is prevails. If you are unhappy, and you have every right to be, you can make your points, and others will listen, if your points are valid. So - back to the discussion page... Thank you. :) Wallie ( talk) 10:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Phar Lap. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Little Red Riding Hood
talk
20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit here. The anon was right, it does read strangely to go through his life backwards. I think we've already had a conversation on this. Unless you think something as childish as what order the countries are put in indicates any importance, i'd ask you to stop reverting this as there is a logical reason it is this way. Thanks, Matty ( talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I found your recent edit a step in the right direction. However, I must say I am confused at why you left New Zealand first as that seemed to cause of the problem and what you had been debating towards. I hate to say it, but someone reverted your edits. While i'm not sure if there is any basis for it, i've left a note on his talk page about our conversations and have asked him to chime in here. Please can we not start up an edit war again? I am more than willing to look at this from a broader perspective than when we first started. I hope we can work everything out. Thank you, Matty ( talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As a consideration, I am notifying you that I have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard for repetitive edit warring. You have been warned twice already, and have performed 4 reverts within 24 hours without discussion on the talk page. You obviously have a very biased opinion - practically all of your edits are either removing mentions of New Zealand/New Zealand heritage in articles. Please consider WP:3RR before blindly reverting without discussion. Matty ( talk) 13:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Phar Lap. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. again please use the article talk page before makeing any more edits thanks
Oo7565 (
talk)
22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tiptoety
talk
23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)I noticed your latest edit and was very pleased with it. It recoginzes that both Australia and New Zealand are involved. You may think I am being pro-NZ and anti-Australian. However, this is not the case. Much earlier, the article said that Phar Lap was a New Zealand racehorse, and people were trying to bring Australia into the picture and were being reverted. I didn't like that either, as it was heavily biased towards New Zealand. I pointed out that while he was born in New Zealand, he did his racing in Australia and was much loved in both places. I do think that there is an element of gamesmanship on both sides. The classic examples are Tulloch and Gloaming. Tulloch is a national hero in Australia. The New Zealand public wouldn't know him. Even though he was born in New Zealand, he is not an icon there - certainly not. To my mind, putting Tulloch so soon in the New Zealand Racing Hall of Fame is a windup. The Australians did the same with Rising Fast. Crazy! With Gloaming, he is probably more revered in New Zealand, even though he was born in Australia. The old timers in New Zealand worship Gloaming and Nightmarch. With Phar Lap, he is equally revered in both countries. What really interests me is that the Americans owned him, and have never laid claim to him. I personally don't like gamesmanship, as it means the person who playes the game best wins - not a good result for the truth. I think we can both try to get a good balance, particularly between Australia and New Zealand, and prevent the bias going one way or the other. Thanks. Wallie ( talk) 08:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Wallie, you seem like a nice bloke. But very little of what you say makes sense. Tulloch is not a national hero in Australia. Whether Phar Lap was owned by an American is not really that important. When I suggested that you might need to also correct the articles on Makybe Diva and Efficient I was speaking in jest. But I see that you have taken that as a serious suggestion, which is disappointing. I noted in one of your replies to Cuddy Wifter on the talk page that you claimed that no NZer would say Gloaming was a NZ horse. Yet in the Horse racing article you made just such a claim. So you can appreciate why I might have some suspicions regarding your motives. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 22:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Phar Lap. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Matty (
talk)
07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
diff, diff, diff, diff. Simply removing the "undid revision" part of the edit summary does not excuse you. The fact of the matter is, regardless of your new edits (which are very similar to your prefered version even if not exactly the same (which is still not allowed)) you have reverted the material. Please read over WP:3RR again and revert your edits until we can come to consensus - you have still not rationalized your edits on the talk page and have not attempted to discuss them, instead choosing to attack certain editors and accuse others of bias when they make the article more neutral. Matty ( talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please understand that it was a mistake when I reverted your edits, I started editing before you made your changes and by the time you were done I saved it. Just because I did though does not give you the right to revert my fully sourced improvements at all - you have reverted parts of the article you were not even editing. Here you go - ill substantiate my edits:
I added information on his owners in the lead. This is perfectly acceptable, fully sourced, and much more relevant than some of the stuff in there.
I removed the "but was trained in Australia" part, because the "but" was unneeded.
I added a citation for his Agua Caliente Handicap win.
The {{who}} tag stays as the sentence contains weasel words, sometimes implies that he is occasionally called it and occasionally not with no rationale as to why.
I elaborated further on his trip to America and what happened with his ownership, once again fully sourced.
I changed "When news of Phar Lap's death reached Australia and New Zealand, many grieved." to " When news of Phar Lap's death was reported by the media, his supporters grieved." This should be an acceptable compromise. I understand it doesn't mean your particular point of view but to say that only Australians grieved is incorrect, not every Australian grieved. It was his supporters, and he had many from many countries - he was an international horse that had just won the biggest race of his life.
It seems acceptable to mention other inductees into both countries hall of fames, but if you really need to remove this then the sentences no longer make sense (but you did fix this in a future edit, albeit without rationale).
The see also section is relevant.
I hope you try and understand that these edits were not an attempt to blatantly revert you but were in fact improvements to the article. If you revert my fully sourced edits again, I will bring this to an administrators attention and they can decide who is in the wrong. Matty ( talk) 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I accept that it was an honest mistake on your part Matty, but you should have had the good grace to just add them back in rather than start another edit war. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Nja
247
07:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Your recent edit to the New Zealand section of the horse article removed the names of Phar Lap and Tulloch. When I restored those names in the edit previous to yours, my edit summary said "Read two paragraphs above - "The bloodstock industry is important to New Zealand, with the export sale of horses". That includes Tulloch and Phar Lap". And yet you still reverted by eliminating those two horses, leaving the edit summary "Will it never end?, LOL". You didn't give a reason for the revert. All you did was disrupt wikipedia. I have reverted to the version which includes Phar Lap and Tulloch who are both products [1] [2]of the New Zealand horse racing stud industry. Read the cites. Where they later raced can never preclude them from being part of the NZ horse industry. So please don't revert again. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed
Makybe Diva to the format that has been in use since this project was started. And, after hundreds of horses have had articles created based on that presentation, it is unacceptable for anyone to come along and just change one or two to some new formula they suddenly like. If such change is made, then someone else will justifiably change some other part of the article and we wind up with a mess. There is a reason for uniformity. And, every article has the birth country referenced at least twice: on the introductory birth line if alive, in the racebox and the Category.
Handicapper (
talk)
15:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Australian racehorses bred in New Zealand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bencherheavy ( talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Talk:Pavlova (food). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
From
Wikipedia:Civility:
1. Direct rudeness
(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
XLerate ( talk) 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You know, we're actually trying to help you.. try not to be so negative.
A8
UDI
03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
Talk:Pavlova (food). If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
XLerate (
talk)
03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to
New Zealand humour, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. -
gadfium
03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
gadfium
08:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing. -
Reconsider
!
09:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
EyeSerene
talk
10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Hi Josette –thanks, yes it appears that I have been blocked indefinitely. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but if they think I’m going to grovel to get unblocked then they’ve got another think coming. If the block isn’t reversed I’ll just have to set up another Wikipedia account. I don’t really want to do that, but if it is my only resort then I will do so. Quite frankly, it’s a disgrace what has been happening. Clearly there is a double standard operating here -the block is both unjustified and shameful and that is why I am calling on Wikipedia to launch a full commission of inquiry into the circumstances behind it. In particular I would like to see an investigation into the conduct of the following editors, User:Gadfium, User:Grutness, User: XLerate.
The inquiry would also need to address the following issues/points of concern.
1. The edit war that occurred over at the Liz Taylor article. My improved edit was continually undone for no good reason. The present Liz Taylor edit is not even the original edit, so I find it difficult to comprehend why my edit was undone, other than for reasons of bad intent on the part of the person doing it. My version of the edit is supported my both Encarta World English Dictionary and MacMillan Encyclopedia, so clearly it had some substance to it.
2. The edit war at Kiwi (shoe polish).
I fail to see how the description of William Ramsay as an “Australian-based Scottish-born inventor” is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. What exactly is supposed to be inferred from the phrase “Australian-based”? According to his Wikipedia article he moved to Australia at age 10, and is described as an Australian shoe polish manufacturer. His bother Hugh Ramsay ,also Scottish-born, is described as an Australian artist. Again as with Liz Taylor, my proposed improved edit appears to be trivial, but again it was continually undone for reasons that do not appear to be obvious.
3. Edit war at Australian cuisine.
I again fail to see how the sentence
“ANZAC biscuits and the pavlova are considered by some as Australian national foods, however the oldest recipes for these items are from New Zealand”
and the allegedly supportive references included can be in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Not only is it a contentious and misleading statement, it is also an irrelevant inclusion and a clear example of the use of weasel words. Some obvious questions that follow from such a statement, as suggested at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, are
Who says that? How many is some? What kind of bias might they have? Why is it of any significance?
When I put this to an editor I was told that there was an exception to the rule: for example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats" would not be weasel words. Well, I’m sorry but the words “considered by some” as used is clearly in the territory of weasel words and it is an insult to the intelligence to suggest otherwise.
Other points of dispute involve the
Buzzy Bee and
New Zealand humour articles, which I might elaborate on later.
Ernest the Sheep (
talk)
06:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't follow what you are saying. My edit of Buzzy Bee is non neutral? How is it any less neutral than the following sentence appearing over at pavlova_(food)?
"All currently available research suggests the recipe originated in New Zealand, and as for the Anzac biscuit, the earliest known books containing the recipe were published in New Zealand."
C'mon now, fair's fair, looks like another double standard to me.
My edit at Australian cuisine lacked reliable sources? I don't really know what you mean. The Wikipedia links Pavlova_(food) and ANZAC biscuits served as the sources. If we're going to follow that logic then there are a lot more claims in that article that lack reliable sources.
My proposed edit to Kiwi (shoe polish) is pointy? I don't know that is supposed to mean. Seems like you are clutching at straws here. I hope this is not the result of some sense of solidarity you feel you have to show to certain editors? Look at the edits to Elizabeth Taylor again. In my opinion that edit war was the result of certain other editors personalising the situation. Exactly the same thing occurred at Kiwi (shoe polish). Yet you claim that I am behaving like the classic POV edit-warrior. Rubbish. If another editor were making edits I disagreed with one thing I would not do is jump in on an article of no particular interest to me and undo edits just for the sake of it. Have another look at the Liz Taylor history, I have similar edits there going back a long time. I would like someone else to adjudicate on this matter, what is the process I need to follow for this to happen? Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"Stalking behavior?" Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and more pointedly, WP:Wikistalking, which states "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." You are not being "stalked", which is a volatile and serious accusation. It is extremely common for editors to check the other edits of someone when they are misapplying some policy aspect, such as your contention that the MOS:BIO clearly says that the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead of an article unless it is related to their notability. Thus, after I reverted your edits regarding that to Nicole Kidman and Bob Hope, I checked other recent edits you have made. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
01:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Whether the particular edits which Ernest the Sheep repeatedly reverted were good ones is of very limited relevance. The 1RR meant "one revert", not "one revert unless you are right". If this were an isolated incident I would be very much inclined to take the line "well, this was perhaps a minor slip, and we can give him one last chance". However, it is not an isolated incident, but rather part of an extended pattern. He has already been given "one last chance". He has repeatedly indicated contempt for Wikipedia's methods, including indicating that he sees no reason to accept any restrictions to a greater extent than he is forced to. XLerate is perfectly right in saying "We've heard promises before but it looks like lip service". He has long ago established a sufficient history of disruption to lead to an indefinite block, which was lifted on certain conditions to which he agreed. Giving one last chance on a condition, and then deciding that breaking the condition doesn't matter, is rather meaningless. Incidentally, I am surprised that Ernest the Sheep forgot about the 1RR restriction, considering what a considerable amount of attention was given to it, including Ernest's asking for it to be lifted. What is more, this reversion was not an unconnected edit which just happened to technically breach a restriction imposed for other reasons: it was very much on the same subject as edits which led to the 1RR restriction in the first place. Finally, Ernest the Sheep's original indefinite block was not just a result of edit warring, there were other issues too. Recent edits include this one which continues the old pattern of incivility to other editors, and arrogantly instructing another editor what to do or not do, rather than showing an ability and willingness to work collaboratively. This edit in itself is fairly minor, as was the reversion which, when repeated, was the immediate cause of the present block. However, they are not to be looked at in isolation: they are both continuations of the patterns of disruptive editing which led to previous blocks. I would have declined the unblock request, but since the blocking admin has been asked to comment I have preferred to wait, but to give this detailed explanation of my reason for thinking it should be declined. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I support an unblock and expect that this 1RR restriction should be discarded... or re-applied to the passel of editors that seem to be pushing a New-Zealand-POV. Ernest *is* right here, and the others need to review MOS:BIO. Most interested in seeing what comes of User talk:EyeSerene#Ernest. G'day, Jack Merridew 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back, Ernest; feel free to ping me if you run into further difficulties. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)