![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 2006 and April 2008.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
First off, I'd like to thank Jimbo, David Gerard and one other editor for their patience and understanding over the past year. It has made the world of difference.
Second, no thanks to those people (including myself) who made things needlessly difficult.
And that's the last time I'll raise the subject. Pete 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like I got it wrong. Not to worry. I'll be back making productive edits in four weeks. And to the the well-meaning soul who reverted my talk page, thanks, but I'm capable of keeping this little bit of Wikipedia clean and tidy all by myself! Pete 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Userpage unprotected as requested. Good luck. -- Doc 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. They have been tagged as public domain (PD), either as PD-self or other PD claim, or equivilant. These unused PD images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, tag them for copying to WP commons {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or if they are no longer needed, they can be nominated for deletion by following the easy three step process at Images and media for deletion. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. -- Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Pete, Many thanks for the message. I know we did clash but I am very glad to see you back on WP. You have a lot to contribute. I must admit the date thing on WP can be irritating. I was glad to help out. I didn't realise how hard it is to let this place go. I'd weaned myself off it a few weeks ago, following a 'one more day not on Wikipedia' principle but last night was back on to check some facts for research and when I saw that people had been asking where I had gone, felt I'd better give some explanation. The fact that I have been battling a rather serious illness for a couple of months didn't help, though thankfully among the range of possible causes of the illness (everything from serious but fixible to life threatening) it seems to have been the former.
Again, thanks for the message. It was appreciated. I'll reply to other people's (I am so touched by the response) perhaps tomorrow. Because of health problems I am supposed to be taking things slowly and spending a lot of time in bed recovering. Hence, that is is why I am on here at 4am GMT!!! lol This time, having checked my emails I'll definitely go to sleep.
And again, I am glad to see you back on WP. I was hoping that what happened before wouldn't discourage you from returning. You have a lot to offer. One tip though: speaking from experience (mine and so many other people I have met here), don't let WP take over your life too much. It is amazing the number of wikiholics out there. I may be a recovering one but I probably will have the odd relapse. Even last night, while doing the research I came across errors and found myself correcting things (my doctor would be furious if he knew that. I'm supposed to be resting totally, not doing Wikipedia stuff!!) WP can be fun, frustrating, challenging, rewarding, annoying, infuriating and passionate. Those of us, and there are a lot of us on here, who are facts wonks, and devour information, forever want to keep adding and correcting. Unfortunately doing that was getting harder, not just physically because of illness but also because I ended up spending so much time fighting vandalism, fixing templates, correcting dates, working on conventions on naming, etc. If I did as much hard work in my paid jobs as I did here I'd be rich. (Or if I charged WP the going academic rate for doing research I'd be very rich!!!)
Best wishes, and take care.
Thom
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Even though we had our problems i hope your return proves a new beginning. PMA 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the orders by "Boeing Business Jet" from my chart comparing orders for Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8? Also, why did you remove the link on the A380 page? user:mnw2000 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you are back. In the spirit of the season I am willing to let bygones be bygones. But if you even once engage in the kind of crap you engaged in the last time you were here, I will immediately start proceedings to have you banned again. I hope I make myself clear. Adam 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is rude and against policy to remove on-topic comments from discussion pages. I suggest not doing it again. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I've made all the necessary corrections. Perhaps something regarding the dialects related to the articles should be mentioned in the pages for people new to Wikipedia. I looked, and I haven't seen anything in those pages. Perhaps I am wrong and just didn't see it, but this small incident could've been prevented had I known. the cheat 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You have just again deleted a dection of text, this time with the misleading minor label, and with the false claim that your action was justified by discussion at the Talk page (that discussion has not yet reached a conclusion or consensus). If you do this again, I shall block you for disruptive editing.
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 09:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet you didn't call it vandalism, but an edit in line with Talk-page discussion? Given that it clearly wasn't either, I decided to take your word for your intentions; now you say that I shouldn't have believed you, because your edit summary was (deliberately?) misleading? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That's 4 reverts by my reckoning. Merbabu 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been removing negative material from a biography of a controversial politician because it is poorly sourced and one statement is patently untrue. See detailed discussion at Talk:Pauline Hanson and WP:BLP Noticeboard. I also note that if this is being treated as an edit war, then the actions of the other parties surely deserve similar sanction.
Decline reason:
Peter, can you please explain why you feel the cited sources are poor sources and what is "patently untrue"? The DNA testing was reported fairly widely in the Australian press and I'm having trouble seeing why you feel this is something other than a content dispute. "Please explain" -- Sarah 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not sure what part of the quote you claim is untrue - or how you would know it is untrue. Its primary source was a major newspaper and was subsequently reported thru other outlets. The veracity of the story (as opposed to the veracity of the test) has not been challenged by any source. Hence, it is a simple content dispute, your claim that it is poorly sourced is untrue.
As for other editors, no other editor has broken three-reverts, at least by my calculations. For myself, i flagged in my edit summary when I was up and let you revert it for your 4th time and I have not touched it since - nor will I, as I have better things to do than count reverts. What's more, when it was pointed out you had had your 4th, you promised to keep reverting [1] while.-- Merbabu 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Pete/Skyring
... I have an email from Inverell Forum stating...
"Dear Peter,
Unfortunately Pauline pulled out last weekend as did Bob Carter.
Regards
XXX"
(Name removed for obvious reasons).
-- PeterMarkSmith 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the google cache for the Inverell Forum - she was listed at some point...
-- PeterMarkSmith 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's relevant, put it on the article talk page so all interested editors can see it. The idea is that we work as a team, not as individuals. -- Pete 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have amended the wording again. Let's see if we can reach a consensus on this on the JH talk page. Face the fact John Howard can loose an election it's not a crime to do so or to point this out. Albatross2147 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Pete: Thank you for your earlier work and your kind words. Building upon your initial work, I have been working on improvements in the article during the night here. I had earlier done considerable work on many of the linked articles I added. It is always nice to know someone appreciates our efforts on WP. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 10:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the edits you made to the dates in this article were unnecessary. If you enter a date in brackets without a comma separating the day from the year, US Wikipedia will show it as March 19, 2007 and UK Wikipedia will show it as 19 March 2007. I learned this from another editor and thought I'd pass the info on to you. SFTVLGUY2 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.
What makes you think anyone would be willing to take advice from someone as arrogant as you? The bottom line is, no matter how you enter the date, if I'm reading it in the US it will show as March 22, 2007 and if I'm reading it elsewhere it will show as 22 March 2007, so your nit-picking is a waste of my valuable time, which is better spent writing new articles, something you might consider doing before I give you any credence. SFTVLGUY2 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted; I never understood why you chose to make it personal; I only got involved because I had higher expectations of the arbcom being able to to do something to move the Aus. government stalemate along. My typing is pretty appalling; I really don't mind if you fix it :) -- Peta 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice your question at Template talk:Birth date and age#Day first option until after I had done more work on these templates. I have now answered your question. I apologize for continuing to work on these templates without answering your question. -- Patleahy 08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the above article and your comments left on my talk page, putting the dates in the format they are shown just shows my personal preference for the dates, and the way all my contributions are written. What do you think is the Australian standard? ..... Todd #661 07:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on
Australia. Thank you.
Alec -(
answering machine)
01:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment. See here. Basically, if you want to address a third party, rather than me, then go have your private discussion elsewhere. Please. -- Pete 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:POFASwan.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 10:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding [2] and [3] (so far?), what do you make of WP:CANVASS? Merbabu 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The above diffs cited by Merabu do not violate WP:CANVASS. This, however, most certainly does and I request that you immediately either remove it or refactor it.-- cj | talk 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why you changed the dates on the Sarah Trimmer page. I thought that dates appeared in the form specified by the user in his/her preferences, so it didn't matter how they were set up in the article. Just curious. I'm not reverting or anything. Awadewit | talk 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As usual you have no respect for the rules of engagement, whether defined by policy or simply decency. And as usual you have taken great care to ensure you have a defence against any accusations of impropriety. I have no doubt you will argue eloquently that your message at Talk:Commonwealth of Nations does not constitute canvassing; that you are not in any way responsible for the consequent escalation of the edit war; that I am an involved editor; etcetera. But I'm not buying it any more. In the interests of maintaining standards of debate in what is already a sordid and petty dispute, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Hesperian 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou Pete, I have taken up your invitation to reflect upon the appropriateness of my behaviour.
Firstly, every time I make a decision whether or not to push the block button or not, I upset someone. I'm on a power trip or I'm gutless. I'm a member of the cabal or I'm a rouge admin. I'm biased towards my friends or I put no value on friendship. I assume bad faith or I let people get away with murder. I'm too heavily involved in the dispute or I don't have enough context. In short, no-one but no-one ever thinks I'm a good egg for long, so I'm glad to have disabused you of that misconception. Fortunately for me, I'm pretty selective about whose opinions of me I value, so my self-respect remains intact.
Secondly, I remain confident that my block was correct, and that it will be endorsed by the community. On Wikipedia, as elsewhere in life, there is clearly appropriate behaviour, blatantly inappropriate behaviour, and a grey area in between. To enable policing of behaviour, we write policies that draw a sharp line through the grey area. Good faith editors such as yourself generally don't get blocked for blatantly inappropriate behaviour - that is the domain of vandals and trolls. No, good faith editors find themselves blocked when they indulge in ethically questionable behaviour in the quest for an edge in a dispute, thus straying into that grey area and just over the line drawn by policy.
I can understand the temptation to run a rule over the current articulation of policy, and debate whether your behaviour was only just on this side of the line, or only just on that side of the line. If you did so, I'm quite sure you would find consensus that your message did indeed constitute inappropriate canvassing, and warranted a block. But personally, I think a better course of action would be to acknowledge to yourself that you shouldn't have been in the grey area in the first place. If you have to "take care to... remain within the spirit and letter of the CANVAS guideline", then you're obviously in that grey area, where at least some of your fellow Wikipedians will perceive your behaviour as improper. If only one in ten Wikipedians perceive that message as canvassing, then still you have discarded the respect, trust and goodwill of 10% of the people you have to edit alongside, in a single message.
Thirdly, I apologise for my opening comments in this section. I reserve the right to hold an unflattering opinion of your conduct in this and other disputes, but it was utterly improper for me to express it in such an offensive way. It probably constituted a personal attack - at the very least it was in that grey area - which is a grossly inappropriate way to begin a message that ends with me blocking you for a policy violation. Perhaps, as you say, I acted hastily, goaded by the intemperate actions of G2bambino. In view of my hypocrisy in personally attacking you while in the act of blocking you, I shall unblock immediately, with my apologies for time served. You should treat this as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on my own part, not as a reassessment of your own behaviour.
Hesperian 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Very well said. However, I think the block was most improper, and if you are going to succeed as an admin, you should be impartial, rather than steering a debate in the direction you want. Even if you don't think that's what you are doing, that's what you are doing.
I didn't see any "grey area". I made sure I operated within the spirit and letter of the guidelines, not because I wanted to kid anyone, but because I wanted to do the right thing.
As I mentioned earlier, one of my concerns is consistency and uniformity with other similar articles. You rail against "Edit warriors from afar", as if somehow only Australian editors should edit the Australia article, and when I seek input from those who edit articles concerning the wider British Commonwealth, you block me, you block anyone who responds to my call, you state that I have acted against policy and you do your best to negate, with untruths and threats, my request for more voices in the discussion.
My concerns about the way good articles are nibbled away are firmly held. I have seen too many excellent editors give up and leave the project, exhausted at the effort of continually defending and repairing articles against the subtle attacks of POV pushers. This is not to say that articles should remain forever unchanged, forever stagnant, as others in this debate state and restate. But nor do I want to see good consistent work thrown away and replaced with a lashed-up affair, as so often happens after a few edit warriors have twisted a paragraph this way and that.
I see my reasons for wanting the royal anthem to remain alongside the national anthem in the template (in a secondary position, to be sure) as quite valid, and I note that many other editors have expressed similar views. So why, when I argue forthrightly and resolutely for my preference, am I attacked so unfairly? -- Pete 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.
Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you.
Andrew_pmk |
Talk
01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this page as it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please don't recreate material such as this on Wikipedia. If you have concerns over another editors behaviour, there are several avenues available to you - Mediation, Dispute Resolution, a Request for Comment or an Arbitartion Request. Best Wishes. Nick 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've got my Talk page on your watchlist, but I've made a suggestion there of a way this conflict can at least be dealt with temporarily. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete - saw your comments on the Paul Keating talk page. Is the Bryan Westwood painting here or is that another one - I found this on Flickr; and I was asked to source the actual painting - I couldn't, though I did find that Westwood painted Keating, and that the portrait now hangs in Parliament House in Canberra. The copyright trolls have decided to delete all remnants of this picture, and it's not good enough even to illustrate the article as something that was done to commemorate Keating's prime ministership (I was accused of making it a sham attempt at finding a non-free likeness!) If the painting won the Archibald Prize that might be enough to justify a fair use claim on the Keating page. Do you know where I could get any more information on this? JRG 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Pete, I'm not your janitor. If you won't correct your own errors, I'll simply revert again. I have kindly pointed out previously, e.g., while you changed Baden-Powell House that changing specific details such as dates should be done with accuracy. If you ignore that, I'll treat you work as vandalism. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
In asking this question I am assuming you've read many of the thousands of books in your abebooks catalogue, and would therefore be able to help me out!
I'm about to buy "Noble Six Hundred; the Story of the Empire Air Training Scheme with Special Reference to the 674 Australians Who Trained in Southern Rhodesia" from a seller in Adelaide (Canberra is too far a drive) and am wondering if you can recall any details on the book, and would be able to tell me if it's a worthwhile purchase.
Of course, I'm imposing and asking these things, but any help would be welcome!
Cheers, Michael talk 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that it is misguided for them to plonk any mention of it to the very bottom of the article. There are facts I don't particularly like either, but I don't try and hide them on wikipedia articles. I might give discussion on it a go, but I'm not holding my breath! Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete. I am trying to understand what you would like to change about {{ Birth date and age}} and simular templates. Is your only problem that the day first option is not the default or do you see a bigger problem? I know you would prefer that the template take a wikidate as a single parameter however this is very difficult if even possible to implement is a template. -- Patleahy ( talk) 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the articles you mentioned at Template talk:Birth date and age#Flagging arbitration proceedings. These changes were not made as part of the removal of the Euro templates. Two of them were changed before the Euro template was deleted. [5] [6] [7] -- Patleahy ( talk) 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete, on reflection I apologise for my anger even though I have already self-reverted it. I don't know the whole story about Carr's departure. However if you were a major contributor to his leaving then I would stand by my words. Cheerio, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
a) Prime Minister pages discuss what happened regarding their government during their time in power. b) Howard established the enquiry and refused calls for a royal commission. Timeshift 05:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Talk:John Howard. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a
consensus among editors.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Cheers,
Alec
✉﹌
۞
02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
John Howard. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a
consensus among editors. You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war
Lester2 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
See above, brother. --
Pete
02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Skyring/Pete. As you know, there is a Request for Comment on the John Howard talk page. I wish to invite you to leave a comment there. Hope to see you there. Thanks, Lester2 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the editing of political articles in Wikipedia, and the John Howard article, I wonder if you have any close associations (past or present) with political parties or conflicts of interest WP:COI that you'd like to declare? Thanks, Lester2 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Funny you mentioned that, I was having those exact same thoughts last night. I think I will fill out a "Checkuser" request. Could you have a look when it's done. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser results pending more disscussion and evidence to be presented to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Please go and add a comment to Lesters case there. Cheers. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Check user results are in. You and Prester John were mistaken. An apology to me and User:Lester2 for the libelous inferences you made would demonstrate good faith. -- Bren 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A libelous inference, eh? I make no apologies. I voiced my legitimate suspicions. Any inferences made were obviously yours. -- Pete 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in
John Howard. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. The
three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Shot info
06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I ask you to stop removing or breaking existing references from the John Howard article. It is disruptive behaviour that I'll be reporting. Lester2 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
-- Lester2 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Defenders of the wiki need no sleep........ Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You've made the same disputed edit twice in succession ( here & here) without explaining the edit on the article talkpage as requested. Please justify your edits, avoid disruptive editing and avoid 3RR. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
I'll soon be adding a couple of paragraphs into the John Howard article, which details the motion that Bob Hawke introduced into parliament in 1988, about race and immigration. I'm rewording it, using conservative commentator Paul Kelly's writings as a source. There are many prominent commentaries which cite the divisions within the Liberal Party over Asian immigration as the reason for Howard's downfall as leader at that time. These include commentators from both left and right. I chose to work with Kelly's text as a base, because his conservative credentials would satisfy other editors who may take exception to commentators from the left. I think you will agree it is written in a way that is not an "attack piece". If you have any problems with the wording, I trust you will discuss on the talk page, rather than use the revert button (which according to Wikipedia texts is to be used only in cases of blatant vandalism.) Thanks, Lester2 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop edit waring on John Howard. The issue is currently the subject of an ANi report. Some people may possibly face punitive actions for edit waring. You don't want to get caught up in this. My advice is to stop edit waring and use the talk page instead.-- Lester 04:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I see you recently moved List of Airbus A380 capable airports here. The rationale you provided was that all B747 handling airports can handle A380 aswell. I'm quite intrigued by this, and would like to ask a question. [ :) ] Would Manchester Airport, in the UK, (which handles 6 B747 vists daily) be able to handle such loads? If you have time to answer this unbelievable question by me, you can reply on my talk page. Regards, Rudget Editor Review 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | Next: 15 January 2021: 5:30pm @ Jamison Club (Canberra Southern Cross Club), corner Catchpole St & Bowman St, Macquarie ACT
|
Graeme Bartlett 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Murder in Montparnasse.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
When dates are correctly wikilinked, they are displayed in the user's preferred format. So there's no need to change them, as you did in Isaac Newton. For example, 1 January, 2007 and January 1, 2007 display the same although they're coded differently ... richi 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll spare you the warning template, but I do believe you know much, much better than to conduct a huge deletion spree on an article, as soon as it leaves protection, and mark your edits "Minor": "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text ... When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." Using minor edits to make major changes as part of a content dispute could be seen as manipulative if not outright disruptive editing. Please don't do it. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I understand your preference for d/m/y, but in the case of the RL infoboxes the format is set otherwise and gives an 'age' as result. By removing that part of the template you are also removing the age. I've brought the subject up at WP:RL to see if the template can be changed. Until then, it'd be great if you can leave the info-boxes as they are to make future updating easier (something may just need to be switched in the template for all I know). If the template was showing 15/4/80 as a date, I would understand your immediate concern, but as it is a difference between 15 April and April 15, it is hardly causing great confusion in the meantime. ~ Florrie • talk • 01:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Skyring_reported_by_User:Lester_.28Result:_.29 Sarah 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:SamThaiday.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Skyring(Pete), I request that you don't discuss me on the publicly viewable article discussion pages. These are not the best places to discuss what another editor has done, as they are viewable by everyone. You may find it interesting to read the pages of Wikipedia:Civility for guidance. Thank you, and kind regards, Lester 02:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aerial logo 02.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not move talk pages of articles without moving the articles. In this case the article is protected from moves, and that is for a reason. Please discuss the name on the talk page, don't continue to move pages disruptively like that. Mr. Z-man 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Normally your daily bias is much more subtle than that. Timeshift 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Pete. I saw your comments on the date and age template.
I've never bothered with setting date preferences, because I can read 25 December 2001 just as easily as December 25, 2001. I used to work with a computer programmer from England who insisted the former was "the only correct way" to show a date.
Anyway, Wikipedia lets you keep the default or set a preference such as
The template is set up to permit the user to express their preference. Also, I think you will find programmers at Wikipedia (like me) generally are responsive to user requests. What do you have in mind? -- Uncle Ed 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. I've again listed the John Howard family Copra interests for the Mediation Committee, with the aim of finding consensus among the participants of the recent talk page discussion on the subject. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard to indicate whether or not you wish to participate. Thanks, Lester 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:TakeYourChoice.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I replied on my talk page as well...but anyway, I think that at the time I made that edit, I wasn't aware of the autoformat function in wikipedia. So, that may be why the date part looks a bit odd. During the GA review I tried to fix all of the dates, and I think they're mostly correct, but another set of eyes is always useful :) Lazulilasher ( talk) 18:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to discuss the changes you made to David Hicks on the discussion page. Some of your fellow editors see "without valid charge by the US gov under suspicion of involvement" as well documented fact. Why do you think it better presented not included in lead? SmithBlue ( talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete, you asked and answered about the "US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid?" You were very close, a yes rather than a no and you'da been on the money - thats exactly what we have. We have the US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid : "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." As the commissions were not lawful then everthing they did that required legal authority also becomes unlawful. This includes the charges against Hicks. SmithBlue ( talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I am quite sure you know exactly what I mean. Quit pussyfooting around. There were two sets of charges, and your wording doesn't explain the situation exactly. -- Pete ( talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete, just making it clear that nothing you have written to date adequately responds to my request for diffs supporting your claim, "I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history".Hoping you can supply them and save other editors time. SmithBlue ( talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. I ask you to reconsider the Copra RfM. Take another look at the list of participants, there are now a lot of people who have agreed to participate. Some will be putting the case for inclusion of the information, and others will no doubt be arguing for the information to be omitted. I don't know which way it will go, and I haven't participated in an RfM before, but I assume that a decision will be made one way or the other, and whatever decision the group arrives at will become the consensus. Of course, it's your choice whether you want to be part of that or not. The intention of the RfM is for the group to settle on a consensus as an alternative to the previous edit warring. If a consensus is reached, then in future I assume it will be very difficult for any individual (you, me or anyone else) to go in and revert the article away from whatever consensus was reached. My point is, that it is more likely that any individual will influence the outcome of the article by participating in the RfM than by abstaining. I'm just guessing here, but there was a very large number of people invited to the RfM from way back (at the request of 'Gnangarra'), many have responded though some haven't responded, but I'm guessing that the mediation Chair, 'WjBscribe', will proceed with the RfM, even if not all those listed parties show an interest in participating. You may as well be a part of it, where you can put forward your case about what should be done with that information, and be a part of what the group decides, rather than sit on the outside. Lester 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | |
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnan garra 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Just out of curiosity, is there any particluar reason for going to several articles and reversing the order of day and month inside one wikilinked date? (eg diff [12]) It has no effect on the article (as the date should always display what your date settings calibrated to), and it doesn't seem an effective use of time and resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you changing the date/age template in the infobox? This is the recommended method for use in Template:Infobox Musical artist#born and its output is in international date format. There is no reason for you to chenge it especially with the rationale you are using. -- WebHamster 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Alan Parsons, did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
WebHamster
13:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't thank me, I'm convinced you enjoy these date-generated blues, Pete! It'd be so much easier to use/explain df=yes in the first date revert, yet... you don't. :) Cheers, • Florrie• leave a note• 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 6 hours for edit warring at Alan Parsons. While your edits did not technically violate the 3RR, reverting three times inside 20 minutes when aware of the rule is sufficiently disruptive to justify a block. Please feel free to continue editing when your block expires, but please consider discussing issues rather than blandly reverting. Stifle ( talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have had to revert several edits this morning where you have replaced valid British 'birth date', 'death date and age' templates by American-style date formats. In none of these edits did you give any edit summary; and you described all edits as Minor. Please consider this as a warning. If you continue in this way, you will be blocked for vandalism. Ian Cairns ( talk) 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
Joshua Reynolds, you will be
blocked from editing.
Ian Cairns (
talk)
11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ian Cairns ( talk) 11:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been tidying up English biographical articles, replacing dates in American Dating format (month-day-year) with dates in International Dating format (day-month-year), as used in England. This is in accordance with the Manual of Style. Ian Cairns has incorrectly accused me of doing the reverse (see discussion and example above), reversed my valid edits and warned me for vandalism. And then blocked me. This looks like a blatant abuse of administrator powers to win an edit war where he was clearly in the wrong, and I would like a careful pair of eyes on his hasty actions. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline - already unblocked by the blocking admin. — -- lucasbfr talk 12:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Turning to Joshua Reynolds an English painter, we see that a template has been used, but it has been forced to output the dates in American Dating format, by using the "mf=y" flag. This is incorrect for the article. As for the template, see my comments here. Clearly I am in the right here, and Cairn's accusations of vandalism are way out of line. -- Pete ( talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that your recent revert of David Hicks does not adequately express all significant points of view. Please discuss in new talk section Talk:David_Hicks#Hicks.27_notability Wm ( talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you haven't responded to my latest comment on the proposed opening par for David Hicks, although you have commented elsewhere on the page. I would really like to get your proposal for moving forward on this disagreement. This is currently blocking any progress on this article and as you are aware, several editors find the current opening deficient. Could you please advise what compromise you propose that incorporates all the significant points of view as discussed in the talk page? Thanks. Wm ( talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Very droll, you said: Seems to me you want to use the man to carry an ideological message. cygnis insignis 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ??????? -- Pete ( talk) 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
<Darth Vader voice> "The force is slow with this one" </Darth Vader voice> Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Wm, Skyring. Is a 3 revert warning from one, and a counter vandalism comment from the other really going to help? [13] Rise above it. You both need to work together on it – we all do. Notions of the all important consensus are illusive enough without such games. (comment made on both your pages) Thanks fellas. -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring at David Hicks. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires, but take time to consider consensus (which need not be what you think or what the article was a few months ago, but rather is what most editors want now) before making reverts. Stifle ( talk) 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block appears unjust, given that I have consistently tried to find a consensus on the wording of the lead paragraph (see diffs 1-11 below) on the discussion page. I have likewise consistently pointed out my reasons for reverting the various edits made by Lester and his POV companions (see diffs 12-21 below). Neither is a complete list. I wonder whether this block is the result of a complaint without proper investigation by the blocking admin. I note Lester claiming here that I revert "countless edits without discussion", and that I "did not initiate any discussion about any reversions". This is untrue, and given that Lester must have read the discussion page which contains dozens of edits by me in the past two weeks where I give specific reasons for reverting some changes, I say that it must be knowingly false, because he has responded to several of my comments. I ask the reviewing admin to look at some of the diffs listed below to check that I have acted to find a wording consensus on Lester's controversial edits, and have consistently supported discussion rather than edit-warring.
Decline reason:
given explanation of block admin below, I am satisfied that this block is justified. Please stop reverting talk page discussions and stop reverting the work of others when the block expires. — Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have contacted the blocking administrator to seek his input on the above unblock request. I am awaiting his response. Please be patient. Thank you. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|It appears that
Jayron32 in reviewing this block has mistaken the comments of
User:Lester above for those of the blocking admin
Stifle, who has not commented further. I have sent a wiki mail to Jayron32 (copy below), but after several hours, no response. I have put a lot of effort into sponsoring discussion of Lester's controversial and non-consensual edits, as I have shown above, with diffs, and it is irritating to be misrepresented by Lester, and have his untrue comments misunderstood by Jayron32. I note comments by Jayron32 and others indicating the block was unfair
here. Could I ask an admin with more careful eyes to review this block, please?}}
Copy of message to Jayron32: Wikipedia e-mail
User:Stifle blocked me for edit-warring on David Hicks. I requested unblocking, and you stated "I have contacted the blocking administrator to seek his input on the above unblock request. I am awaiting his response." [35]
The next diff on my talk page is User:Lester, who is not an admin, and whose complaints about me are untrue (as I demonstrated in my unblock request), and presumably knowingly so given his participation in discussion. [36]
The next (and at the moment, last) diff is you declining to unblock, saying "given explanation of block admin below, I am satisfied that this block is justified."
My question is, what was the blocking admin's explanation, and where is it? Is it possible that you have mistaken Lester's contribution for that of the blocking admin? As I point out, with diffs, I have put a lot of effort into trying to come up with acceptable wording for this article's lead and to find a consensus.
At the very least, this whole thing looks like a distinct lack of transparency. I will review contributions by all parties, but I see no reason for User:Stifle to suddenly take it into his or her head to block me, so there must have been some initial complaint, which is not reflected on his talk page. Nor can I see any onwiki explanation by the blocking admin, the input you were said that you were seeking.
Can I ask you to either point to Stifle's explanation, or post a copy of his explanation to you, please?
Yours, Peter
Comment on reposting: I have reviewed contributions and talk pages of involved parties, and can find no onwiki complaint to Stifle, nor any response by Stifle to Jayron32's request for an explanation of his actions. -- Pete ( talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason why you're imposing a none British formats for dates on a UK related article counter to wiki policy. I did give a reason why I reverted your changes. Justin talk 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to
Hyperdrive (TV series). Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.
Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you.
Talk
Islander
12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:GreenwayNote.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Skyring. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skyring, where you may want to participate. -- Wm ( talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, as a contributor to David Hicks:Talk:SMH Afganistan allegations, you might be interested to know that I have put in a request for mediation by the Mediation Cabal on matters discussed there. SmithBlue ( talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Skyring, I was planning to see if I can be of any help to you guys in coming to a consensus on the article on Hicks. I noticed you haven't edited for over two weeks now. When do you plan on being back fully again? You can comment here, on my talkpage, or on the Hicks article talkpage (or anywhere else for that matter, but you're fairly sure I'll notice it on the aforementioned places). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of a third party making the false accusation of canvassing for support, I'd like to point out that any accusation of bias on my behalf and us sharing completely opposing views is likely to be at best simplistic, if not wrong. Take the David Hicks article for example - we shared some common thoughts on that (and some opposing ones too). kind regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Really, sincerely, I think you have a case of mistaken identity on your hands. There are only two places your path has crossed mine (and I only know you as Pete/SkyRing - if you have other aliases, or 'socks', then that's your business) and that's on the John Howard and David Hicks pages (and of course, the rfc related to that). You can see my entire editing history - its all kosher. Its just me, and the things I'm interested in editing. For the sake of your sanity, I suggest you think again before wasting a lot of your time on this pointless exercise. I have absolutely nothing to hide - you and everyone can see everything I've done (and yes, I do log in from a variety of places, but isn't that the point of being web-based?). Please, take a deep breath, and have a good day. Eyedubya ( talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! If you don't mind, please drop by Lester's talk page and check out this comment I added. If you have any input I'd be happy to hear. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, *most* political events fit that exact description. I do not see any reason why it should not be there, and the debate over its inclusion or exclusion has frankly stymied all development on the article. Orderinchaos 05:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, re: the continuing debate over the Obama quote in John Howard. I think you and I should stop replying to the other editors' comments. We've all made our positions clear, and the argument is cluttering the talk page. We are just giving the others opportunity to voice their prejudices. What do you think? -- Surturz ( talk) 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Put the Obama thing in proper context without inflating its significance, and I've got no objection. - good on you Pete. This is far from what your original position was. Timeshift ( talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Lester, I'm not agreeing to this, for reasons stated in the RfM. However, if you can withdraw the case and submit a fresh one with only two names as the parties involved, everything the same, then I'll agree to mediation. I'd much rather find ways of working with you than in seeing the situation continue to distintegrate. If some of my guesses about you are correct, then you must be experiencing considerable frustration. I don't want to see useful articles deteriorate into POV, but neither do I want to cause you undue anguish. -- Pete ( talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies Skyring. I have recently learned how to use this template {{birth date and age|1955|6|8}} in infoboxes. It is nice because it gives the persons age and it updates itself on their birthday without anyone having to go back and change it. The template, as is, uses the US way of showing the date by putting the month first. I was using it in a number of British actors infoboxes and then I discovered that there was a way to keep the day before the month by adding in df=y at the end thus {{birth date and age|1955|6|8|df=y}}. I went back and changed most of the entries that I had made but I missed the one that you found. I have changed it now. Again my apologies and thank you for bringing it to my attention so that I could fix my error. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I take exception to your justification for changing the date ranges for reruns of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood ( difference). WP:DATE does not mandate the linked format you have imposed. On the contrary, it seems to discourage it.
The relevant sections are:
Date ranges are preferably given with minimal repetition (5–7 January 1979; September 21–29, 2002), using an unspaced en dash. If the autoformatting function is used, the opening and closing dates of the range must be given in full (see Autoformatting and linking) and be separated by a spaced en dash.
Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes: ... links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31); ...
The first sentence seems to imply that the preferred format is 5-7 January 1979, not January 5- January 7, 1979. The rest of the quoted material offers the option of using the autoformatting, but it clearly does not require it.
Cstaffa ( talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at the technique for date autoformatting, here, to see the correct method. In this way logged-in users can have the dates displayed to suit their own preferences. By removing the autoformatting links, you are denying other users this facility. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Transparency | ||
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring(Pete). I notice you have reverted edits on the Howard article recently. I thought we had all moved away from that kind of mode of editing. Reverts subvert the wishes of the editing community as a whole. It's better to allow the editing community to decide whether content stays or goes. Content disputes need to go through the dispute resolution process. In regard to the particular sentence about public figures who considered Howard's Iraq policy as contravening international laws against war crimes, I've got no idea if the issue gets put to the community to decide whether it would live or die. It could go either way. But then we just have to accept the community decision. The concept is that by letting the community decide, the audience of Wikipedia readers gets the type of encyclopaedia that they want (or deserve). My opinion is that reverting will only lead to trouble. If edit wars break out, then it will only lead to penalties or sanctions against those who partake.-- Lester 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR at John Howard. I do not find that the disputed material is a violation of WP:BLP, so its removal is not exempt from 3RR. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"More irony. Look, in a couple of years I'll be into my seventh decade. Calling me childish isn't quite the insult you probably intended." Maybe if you didn't act like a twelve year old, I wouldn't call you childish, Childish is as childish does, regardless of age. I have defended you in the past, what a mistake that was. Childish was exactly what I intended. No regards, Mattinbgn\ talk 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You were subject to an arbcom decision relating to harassing other editors. Remedies included:
I believe you have harassed me and made personal attacks characterising me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. Nobody else seems to be interested in enforcing the policy of WP:NPA.
You have accused me of edit warring and justified your breach of WP:3RR as justified. I continue to maintain it was not justified. I continue to be disappointed that there are those who think I was wrong to report you and that your block was unwarranted. I do not apologise for reporting you - your actions were in clear breach of the policy.
Sockpuppetry: While you dismiss your actions as being justified with the comment: This account was created for the purpose of preparing an important submission in private, without the usual stalkers hovering over my contribution list diving in for half-baked comments. It also allows me to work within mediawiki rather than Word or something else that would reformat everything. Looking at WP:SOCK, I note that the list of legitimate exceptions is not exhaustive. You are well aware that sockpuppetry is against wikipedia guidelines and your protest that the legitimate use of sockpuppets is not exhaustive is not acceptable to me, but maybe to others. I am surprised at your indulgence in sockpuppets given you have been previously blocked and had your ban extended for sockpuppetry. [37] Disposable socks are all very well but the policy is quite clear There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny - this indicates two things - one the list of legitimate exceptions is seen as limited (contrary to your statement) and avoiding scrutiny which was your purpose is not a proper use. I have tagged the two socks you created thereby adding them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Skyring . I have also blocked them. I left them in place until you lodged your RfC to give you the benefit of the doubt and not to inflame the situation.
Note you referred to detective work. It is hardly convoluted [38]. I was actually appalled when I saw a link to User:Skyring/Sandbox as i was unaware of any recent editing there and thought you had been storing up an attack on me for some time.
It would seem however that you have general community support for your actions. As a result, this is it for me on this project for the time being - my wikibreak will continue. Congratulations -- Matilda talk 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Skyring,
I assume the autoblock worked.
Two comments, since I got slightly involved.
1. I don't think the accounts violated policy, but I meant what I said on the ANI thread; I think it would have been wiser not to have created them, due to your past issues. 2. I'm not formally warning anyone, including you, because it seems like all sides are getting pretty impolite. But I've reviewed a few threads now, from the last few days, and I will give you my uninvolved opinion that you're giving rather worse than your getting. Please tone down the "idiocy", "drama queen", and "despicable" type comments.
-- barneca ( talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_watchlist_a_discussion_at_Talk:John_Howard. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
John Howard. 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. , structures within the Australian embasssy arent a BLP issue please stop reverting.
Gnan
garra
10:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) It's not a matter of standing guard over an article. I'm all for rewriting the JH article to improve it as a piece of writing and a useful resource. What I will not tolerate is the insertion of polemic into an article, whether it's some right ring nut trying to make Martin Bryant out as an innocent stooge or some left-wing zealot convinced John Howard is a war criminal. These views have a place in our encyclopaedia, but not in mainstream articles masquerading as mainstream views. -- Pete ( talk) 09:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey I thought I'd let you know that Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette is currently under the spotlight. If you would like to chat with the editors realtime, check out Wikipedia:IRC tutorial. We would be glad to have you on with us! :) Cheers! —— nix eagle 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to the RfC you raised at Talk:John_Howard#Reply_to_RfC_by_Matilda . I would appreciate if you read the response. Thank you. -- Matilda talk 00:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Matilda talk 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to you, expect quick responses to anything you write there for the next hour or so as spotlight is monitoring both the article and the talk page and can see any edits there instantly. —— nix eagle 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! I don't think I knew you were on here. I have fun here, mainly in my museum world. Good timing re: me at ANI. I post there when I break things, othewise I'm a bad admin wrt assisting there. Book looks wonderful, want to bring it in October? Would love to catch up, living in Manhattan now so it's easier. The BC meet-ups here have died, if they were ever active but I'll send an e-mail to the group and see if anyone is around. Or did you mean wiki locals? Those I've met :) I can see if anyone is available for a mid-week get together. At the least, you get me on my own turf. I forget what was going on last time you were through this way -- I may not have been here. I've got itchy feet -- it's a year ago now that I was in Melbourne for a wedding (via what I called Qantas' kangaroo hop and it wasn't intentional: HPN-ORD-LAX=AKL-MEL-ADL-BNE-LAX-ORD-HPN) and have been in the US since then. Can I send PMs? I don't know if I can due to the new BC changes -- that was why I posted to your Facebook wall re: the museum show. Will copy this to your talk since I'm not sure if you're watching me. Glad to hear from you! TravellingCari 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for "uncivil remarks and editing style" by User:VirtualSteve. I requested that he take his finger off the admin tools, count to ten, then ask for an uninvolved admin to look into the matter. I am making the request that I think VirtualSteve should have made. I made a mistake, an honest mistake in editing my talk page when pressed for time, and I was stung by VirtualSteve's repeated assumption that I'd done it deliberately. I'll accept that he says he didn't mean his comments as a personal attack, but that's the way I read it at the time. In this spirit, I've re-examined my comment about User:Docku. While I don't buy into VirtualSteve's assertion that I was attacking Docku's right to edit - we all have the right to play the bagpipes, but most of us shouldn't - I do accept that Docku regarded it as a personal attack. I have made an apology below, and shall repeat it on his talk page when my block ends. Although no diffs show it, I've been taking my own advice a lot recently - counting to ten before acting, or reconsidering and discarding a hasty retort.
Decline reason:
Questioning a fellow editor's competence and implying that they should stop contributing is the nadir of civility. You cannot expect your actions to not have consequences. east718 // talk // email // 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I hereby make a public apology to User:Docku for this comment. I sincerely regret the genuine hurt and pain it caused to you, and I shall do my best to refrain from making similar comments in future. -- Pete ( talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, there is no consensus for that, and never has been. If a couple of editors have agreed to Date War, do tell me where, so I can oppose it: the intention is that articles strongly related to some English-speaking country may be switched - but the South Ossetia mess is not California, nor Warwickshire; as best I can tell, it is even written in American in those few points where usage differs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot ( talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
re: "and I'd appreciate that my careful work on this article be restored. Including unlinking dates, please."
Please do not assume
ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
Bazj (
talk)
11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete—Try to funnel your frustration into a dart board, or perhaps this lovely thing, designed for getting out of your system all the annoying people you've had to endure today. May I remind you that Anderson has already been blocked six times for edit-warring, the lastest only three weeks ago. Let me know if there's trouble; it's outrageous the date warring he's indulging in now. I've noticed that his contrarian behaviour comes in waves, and it looks as though we're all about to endure another right now. Tony (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MOSNUM. ( sdsds - talk) 10:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
How come OSX doesn't get pinged for 3rrr? Or is he some sort of god? (male pronoun used since few females are that pathetic) Greg Locock ( talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I removed the whole point, since Anderson had buggered it up and put his own comments there—quite inappropriate. I don't care if it goes back in the meantime, as long as without his personal comments and in a way that makes some kind of sense. Tony (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete—what happens, under your proposal, with India? Indians use both formats, and I have trouble when I audit an article that is half and half. Tony (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What format did India use before the arrival of the British? Tony (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in good faith I've reshaped your Option D. The addition is based on our brief exchange about India. Tell me if the wording doesn't reflect your intentions. link Tony (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to AGF in most of your postings at WP:MOSNUM, and have even taken some of your views into serious consideration concerning how I have perceived things in the past. But once again, I find myself being swayed back to my original way of thinking because of your seeming disregard for the American view on an English Wikipedia. For some reason, my mind interprets your most recent comments in the context of ten English speaking nations, with a combined population of, lets say one million people, discounting a single English speaking nation of 10 million people, solely based on the fact that 10 is more than one. I can not agree with this notion. Neither can I accept that one nation, solely based on it's population, should impose it's views on all of the others. I agree with your statements that Wikipedia is an international effort. That is why there are Russian, Spanish, Chinese, etc. wiki's devoted to those non-English speaking nations. But we are discussing English Wikipedia. There are, perhaps, 4 or 5 nations that can be viewed as English speaking nations, and Americans should not be lessened in their views because they are outnumbered 4:1 by the number of countries who speak English, yet not outnumbered by the overall population, of all English speaking countries. As to how many peoples from the international community view English Wikipedia, I would point you to http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and hope that in the future, you would try to take these statistics into view when trying to appeal to the widest possible inclusion of the viewership of this Wikipedia.-- «JavierMC»| Talk 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The warning is only mentioned in WP:ERA, not in the section on international date formats. I didn't realize it applied beyond that until you pointed out the ArbCom ruling to me. I wasn't aware of a ruling from three years ago on this issue. Won't happen again. User:2008Olympian chitchat seemywork 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I missed you :-) -- Matilda talk 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BluePolesBigPicture.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) -- Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There was extensive discussion on both issues, we kept one and not the other. Cease your WP:POINT making. This. Will. Stay. Have a lovely day! :D Timeshift ( talk) 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), you have a Macbook Air? Even before Vista, you were editing Wikipedia using a Windows Box (I know these things!). I read somewhere that IBM is creating a version of their Lotus Symphony word processor for the iPhone, which will be free. I don't have an iPhone, but maybe in a future generation. Or maybe a Linux phone :) Lester 11:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 2006 and April 2008.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
First off, I'd like to thank Jimbo, David Gerard and one other editor for their patience and understanding over the past year. It has made the world of difference.
Second, no thanks to those people (including myself) who made things needlessly difficult.
And that's the last time I'll raise the subject. Pete 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like I got it wrong. Not to worry. I'll be back making productive edits in four weeks. And to the the well-meaning soul who reverted my talk page, thanks, but I'm capable of keeping this little bit of Wikipedia clean and tidy all by myself! Pete 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Userpage unprotected as requested. Good luck. -- Doc 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. They have been tagged as public domain (PD), either as PD-self or other PD claim, or equivilant. These unused PD images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, tag them for copying to WP commons {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or if they are no longer needed, they can be nominated for deletion by following the easy three step process at Images and media for deletion. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. -- Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Pete, Many thanks for the message. I know we did clash but I am very glad to see you back on WP. You have a lot to contribute. I must admit the date thing on WP can be irritating. I was glad to help out. I didn't realise how hard it is to let this place go. I'd weaned myself off it a few weeks ago, following a 'one more day not on Wikipedia' principle but last night was back on to check some facts for research and when I saw that people had been asking where I had gone, felt I'd better give some explanation. The fact that I have been battling a rather serious illness for a couple of months didn't help, though thankfully among the range of possible causes of the illness (everything from serious but fixible to life threatening) it seems to have been the former.
Again, thanks for the message. It was appreciated. I'll reply to other people's (I am so touched by the response) perhaps tomorrow. Because of health problems I am supposed to be taking things slowly and spending a lot of time in bed recovering. Hence, that is is why I am on here at 4am GMT!!! lol This time, having checked my emails I'll definitely go to sleep.
And again, I am glad to see you back on WP. I was hoping that what happened before wouldn't discourage you from returning. You have a lot to offer. One tip though: speaking from experience (mine and so many other people I have met here), don't let WP take over your life too much. It is amazing the number of wikiholics out there. I may be a recovering one but I probably will have the odd relapse. Even last night, while doing the research I came across errors and found myself correcting things (my doctor would be furious if he knew that. I'm supposed to be resting totally, not doing Wikipedia stuff!!) WP can be fun, frustrating, challenging, rewarding, annoying, infuriating and passionate. Those of us, and there are a lot of us on here, who are facts wonks, and devour information, forever want to keep adding and correcting. Unfortunately doing that was getting harder, not just physically because of illness but also because I ended up spending so much time fighting vandalism, fixing templates, correcting dates, working on conventions on naming, etc. If I did as much hard work in my paid jobs as I did here I'd be rich. (Or if I charged WP the going academic rate for doing research I'd be very rich!!!)
Best wishes, and take care.
Thom
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Even though we had our problems i hope your return proves a new beginning. PMA 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the orders by "Boeing Business Jet" from my chart comparing orders for Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8? Also, why did you remove the link on the A380 page? user:mnw2000 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you are back. In the spirit of the season I am willing to let bygones be bygones. But if you even once engage in the kind of crap you engaged in the last time you were here, I will immediately start proceedings to have you banned again. I hope I make myself clear. Adam 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is rude and against policy to remove on-topic comments from discussion pages. I suggest not doing it again. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I've made all the necessary corrections. Perhaps something regarding the dialects related to the articles should be mentioned in the pages for people new to Wikipedia. I looked, and I haven't seen anything in those pages. Perhaps I am wrong and just didn't see it, but this small incident could've been prevented had I known. the cheat 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You have just again deleted a dection of text, this time with the misleading minor label, and with the false claim that your action was justified by discussion at the Talk page (that discussion has not yet reached a conclusion or consensus). If you do this again, I shall block you for disruptive editing.
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 09:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet you didn't call it vandalism, but an edit in line with Talk-page discussion? Given that it clearly wasn't either, I decided to take your word for your intentions; now you say that I shouldn't have believed you, because your edit summary was (deliberately?) misleading? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That's 4 reverts by my reckoning. Merbabu 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been removing negative material from a biography of a controversial politician because it is poorly sourced and one statement is patently untrue. See detailed discussion at Talk:Pauline Hanson and WP:BLP Noticeboard. I also note that if this is being treated as an edit war, then the actions of the other parties surely deserve similar sanction.
Decline reason:
Peter, can you please explain why you feel the cited sources are poor sources and what is "patently untrue"? The DNA testing was reported fairly widely in the Australian press and I'm having trouble seeing why you feel this is something other than a content dispute. "Please explain" -- Sarah 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not sure what part of the quote you claim is untrue - or how you would know it is untrue. Its primary source was a major newspaper and was subsequently reported thru other outlets. The veracity of the story (as opposed to the veracity of the test) has not been challenged by any source. Hence, it is a simple content dispute, your claim that it is poorly sourced is untrue.
As for other editors, no other editor has broken three-reverts, at least by my calculations. For myself, i flagged in my edit summary when I was up and let you revert it for your 4th time and I have not touched it since - nor will I, as I have better things to do than count reverts. What's more, when it was pointed out you had had your 4th, you promised to keep reverting [1] while.-- Merbabu 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Pete/Skyring
... I have an email from Inverell Forum stating...
"Dear Peter,
Unfortunately Pauline pulled out last weekend as did Bob Carter.
Regards
XXX"
(Name removed for obvious reasons).
-- PeterMarkSmith 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the google cache for the Inverell Forum - she was listed at some point...
-- PeterMarkSmith 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's relevant, put it on the article talk page so all interested editors can see it. The idea is that we work as a team, not as individuals. -- Pete 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have amended the wording again. Let's see if we can reach a consensus on this on the JH talk page. Face the fact John Howard can loose an election it's not a crime to do so or to point this out. Albatross2147 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Pete: Thank you for your earlier work and your kind words. Building upon your initial work, I have been working on improvements in the article during the night here. I had earlier done considerable work on many of the linked articles I added. It is always nice to know someone appreciates our efforts on WP. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 10:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the edits you made to the dates in this article were unnecessary. If you enter a date in brackets without a comma separating the day from the year, US Wikipedia will show it as March 19, 2007 and UK Wikipedia will show it as 19 March 2007. I learned this from another editor and thought I'd pass the info on to you. SFTVLGUY2 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.
What makes you think anyone would be willing to take advice from someone as arrogant as you? The bottom line is, no matter how you enter the date, if I'm reading it in the US it will show as March 22, 2007 and if I'm reading it elsewhere it will show as 22 March 2007, so your nit-picking is a waste of my valuable time, which is better spent writing new articles, something you might consider doing before I give you any credence. SFTVLGUY2 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted; I never understood why you chose to make it personal; I only got involved because I had higher expectations of the arbcom being able to to do something to move the Aus. government stalemate along. My typing is pretty appalling; I really don't mind if you fix it :) -- Peta 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice your question at Template talk:Birth date and age#Day first option until after I had done more work on these templates. I have now answered your question. I apologize for continuing to work on these templates without answering your question. -- Patleahy 08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the above article and your comments left on my talk page, putting the dates in the format they are shown just shows my personal preference for the dates, and the way all my contributions are written. What do you think is the Australian standard? ..... Todd #661 07:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on
Australia. Thank you.
Alec -(
answering machine)
01:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment. See here. Basically, if you want to address a third party, rather than me, then go have your private discussion elsewhere. Please. -- Pete 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:POFASwan.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 10:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding [2] and [3] (so far?), what do you make of WP:CANVASS? Merbabu 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The above diffs cited by Merabu do not violate WP:CANVASS. This, however, most certainly does and I request that you immediately either remove it or refactor it.-- cj | talk 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why you changed the dates on the Sarah Trimmer page. I thought that dates appeared in the form specified by the user in his/her preferences, so it didn't matter how they were set up in the article. Just curious. I'm not reverting or anything. Awadewit | talk 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As usual you have no respect for the rules of engagement, whether defined by policy or simply decency. And as usual you have taken great care to ensure you have a defence against any accusations of impropriety. I have no doubt you will argue eloquently that your message at Talk:Commonwealth of Nations does not constitute canvassing; that you are not in any way responsible for the consequent escalation of the edit war; that I am an involved editor; etcetera. But I'm not buying it any more. In the interests of maintaining standards of debate in what is already a sordid and petty dispute, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Hesperian 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou Pete, I have taken up your invitation to reflect upon the appropriateness of my behaviour.
Firstly, every time I make a decision whether or not to push the block button or not, I upset someone. I'm on a power trip or I'm gutless. I'm a member of the cabal or I'm a rouge admin. I'm biased towards my friends or I put no value on friendship. I assume bad faith or I let people get away with murder. I'm too heavily involved in the dispute or I don't have enough context. In short, no-one but no-one ever thinks I'm a good egg for long, so I'm glad to have disabused you of that misconception. Fortunately for me, I'm pretty selective about whose opinions of me I value, so my self-respect remains intact.
Secondly, I remain confident that my block was correct, and that it will be endorsed by the community. On Wikipedia, as elsewhere in life, there is clearly appropriate behaviour, blatantly inappropriate behaviour, and a grey area in between. To enable policing of behaviour, we write policies that draw a sharp line through the grey area. Good faith editors such as yourself generally don't get blocked for blatantly inappropriate behaviour - that is the domain of vandals and trolls. No, good faith editors find themselves blocked when they indulge in ethically questionable behaviour in the quest for an edge in a dispute, thus straying into that grey area and just over the line drawn by policy.
I can understand the temptation to run a rule over the current articulation of policy, and debate whether your behaviour was only just on this side of the line, or only just on that side of the line. If you did so, I'm quite sure you would find consensus that your message did indeed constitute inappropriate canvassing, and warranted a block. But personally, I think a better course of action would be to acknowledge to yourself that you shouldn't have been in the grey area in the first place. If you have to "take care to... remain within the spirit and letter of the CANVAS guideline", then you're obviously in that grey area, where at least some of your fellow Wikipedians will perceive your behaviour as improper. If only one in ten Wikipedians perceive that message as canvassing, then still you have discarded the respect, trust and goodwill of 10% of the people you have to edit alongside, in a single message.
Thirdly, I apologise for my opening comments in this section. I reserve the right to hold an unflattering opinion of your conduct in this and other disputes, but it was utterly improper for me to express it in such an offensive way. It probably constituted a personal attack - at the very least it was in that grey area - which is a grossly inappropriate way to begin a message that ends with me blocking you for a policy violation. Perhaps, as you say, I acted hastily, goaded by the intemperate actions of G2bambino. In view of my hypocrisy in personally attacking you while in the act of blocking you, I shall unblock immediately, with my apologies for time served. You should treat this as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on my own part, not as a reassessment of your own behaviour.
Hesperian 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Very well said. However, I think the block was most improper, and if you are going to succeed as an admin, you should be impartial, rather than steering a debate in the direction you want. Even if you don't think that's what you are doing, that's what you are doing.
I didn't see any "grey area". I made sure I operated within the spirit and letter of the guidelines, not because I wanted to kid anyone, but because I wanted to do the right thing.
As I mentioned earlier, one of my concerns is consistency and uniformity with other similar articles. You rail against "Edit warriors from afar", as if somehow only Australian editors should edit the Australia article, and when I seek input from those who edit articles concerning the wider British Commonwealth, you block me, you block anyone who responds to my call, you state that I have acted against policy and you do your best to negate, with untruths and threats, my request for more voices in the discussion.
My concerns about the way good articles are nibbled away are firmly held. I have seen too many excellent editors give up and leave the project, exhausted at the effort of continually defending and repairing articles against the subtle attacks of POV pushers. This is not to say that articles should remain forever unchanged, forever stagnant, as others in this debate state and restate. But nor do I want to see good consistent work thrown away and replaced with a lashed-up affair, as so often happens after a few edit warriors have twisted a paragraph this way and that.
I see my reasons for wanting the royal anthem to remain alongside the national anthem in the template (in a secondary position, to be sure) as quite valid, and I note that many other editors have expressed similar views. So why, when I argue forthrightly and resolutely for my preference, am I attacked so unfairly? -- Pete 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.
Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you.
Andrew_pmk |
Talk
01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this page as it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please don't recreate material such as this on Wikipedia. If you have concerns over another editors behaviour, there are several avenues available to you - Mediation, Dispute Resolution, a Request for Comment or an Arbitartion Request. Best Wishes. Nick 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've got my Talk page on your watchlist, but I've made a suggestion there of a way this conflict can at least be dealt with temporarily. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete - saw your comments on the Paul Keating talk page. Is the Bryan Westwood painting here or is that another one - I found this on Flickr; and I was asked to source the actual painting - I couldn't, though I did find that Westwood painted Keating, and that the portrait now hangs in Parliament House in Canberra. The copyright trolls have decided to delete all remnants of this picture, and it's not good enough even to illustrate the article as something that was done to commemorate Keating's prime ministership (I was accused of making it a sham attempt at finding a non-free likeness!) If the painting won the Archibald Prize that might be enough to justify a fair use claim on the Keating page. Do you know where I could get any more information on this? JRG 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Pete, I'm not your janitor. If you won't correct your own errors, I'll simply revert again. I have kindly pointed out previously, e.g., while you changed Baden-Powell House that changing specific details such as dates should be done with accuracy. If you ignore that, I'll treat you work as vandalism. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
In asking this question I am assuming you've read many of the thousands of books in your abebooks catalogue, and would therefore be able to help me out!
I'm about to buy "Noble Six Hundred; the Story of the Empire Air Training Scheme with Special Reference to the 674 Australians Who Trained in Southern Rhodesia" from a seller in Adelaide (Canberra is too far a drive) and am wondering if you can recall any details on the book, and would be able to tell me if it's a worthwhile purchase.
Of course, I'm imposing and asking these things, but any help would be welcome!
Cheers, Michael talk 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that it is misguided for them to plonk any mention of it to the very bottom of the article. There are facts I don't particularly like either, but I don't try and hide them on wikipedia articles. I might give discussion on it a go, but I'm not holding my breath! Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete. I am trying to understand what you would like to change about {{ Birth date and age}} and simular templates. Is your only problem that the day first option is not the default or do you see a bigger problem? I know you would prefer that the template take a wikidate as a single parameter however this is very difficult if even possible to implement is a template. -- Patleahy ( talk) 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the articles you mentioned at Template talk:Birth date and age#Flagging arbitration proceedings. These changes were not made as part of the removal of the Euro templates. Two of them were changed before the Euro template was deleted. [5] [6] [7] -- Patleahy ( talk) 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete, on reflection I apologise for my anger even though I have already self-reverted it. I don't know the whole story about Carr's departure. However if you were a major contributor to his leaving then I would stand by my words. Cheerio, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
a) Prime Minister pages discuss what happened regarding their government during their time in power. b) Howard established the enquiry and refused calls for a royal commission. Timeshift 05:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Talk:John Howard. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a
consensus among editors.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Cheers,
Alec
✉﹌
۞
02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
John Howard. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a
consensus among editors. You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war
Lester2 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
See above, brother. --
Pete
02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Skyring/Pete. As you know, there is a Request for Comment on the John Howard talk page. I wish to invite you to leave a comment there. Hope to see you there. Thanks, Lester2 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the editing of political articles in Wikipedia, and the John Howard article, I wonder if you have any close associations (past or present) with political parties or conflicts of interest WP:COI that you'd like to declare? Thanks, Lester2 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Funny you mentioned that, I was having those exact same thoughts last night. I think I will fill out a "Checkuser" request. Could you have a look when it's done. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser results pending more disscussion and evidence to be presented to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Please go and add a comment to Lesters case there. Cheers. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Check user results are in. You and Prester John were mistaken. An apology to me and User:Lester2 for the libelous inferences you made would demonstrate good faith. -- Bren 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A libelous inference, eh? I make no apologies. I voiced my legitimate suspicions. Any inferences made were obviously yours. -- Pete 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in
John Howard. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. The
three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Shot info
06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I ask you to stop removing or breaking existing references from the John Howard article. It is disruptive behaviour that I'll be reporting. Lester2 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
-- Lester2 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Defenders of the wiki need no sleep........ Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You've made the same disputed edit twice in succession ( here & here) without explaining the edit on the article talkpage as requested. Please justify your edits, avoid disruptive editing and avoid 3RR. -- Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
I'll soon be adding a couple of paragraphs into the John Howard article, which details the motion that Bob Hawke introduced into parliament in 1988, about race and immigration. I'm rewording it, using conservative commentator Paul Kelly's writings as a source. There are many prominent commentaries which cite the divisions within the Liberal Party over Asian immigration as the reason for Howard's downfall as leader at that time. These include commentators from both left and right. I chose to work with Kelly's text as a base, because his conservative credentials would satisfy other editors who may take exception to commentators from the left. I think you will agree it is written in a way that is not an "attack piece". If you have any problems with the wording, I trust you will discuss on the talk page, rather than use the revert button (which according to Wikipedia texts is to be used only in cases of blatant vandalism.) Thanks, Lester2 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop edit waring on John Howard. The issue is currently the subject of an ANi report. Some people may possibly face punitive actions for edit waring. You don't want to get caught up in this. My advice is to stop edit waring and use the talk page instead.-- Lester 04:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I see you recently moved List of Airbus A380 capable airports here. The rationale you provided was that all B747 handling airports can handle A380 aswell. I'm quite intrigued by this, and would like to ask a question. [ :) ] Would Manchester Airport, in the UK, (which handles 6 B747 vists daily) be able to handle such loads? If you have time to answer this unbelievable question by me, you can reply on my talk page. Regards, Rudget Editor Review 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | Next: 15 January 2021: 5:30pm @ Jamison Club (Canberra Southern Cross Club), corner Catchpole St & Bowman St, Macquarie ACT
|
Graeme Bartlett 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Murder in Montparnasse.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
When dates are correctly wikilinked, they are displayed in the user's preferred format. So there's no need to change them, as you did in Isaac Newton. For example, 1 January, 2007 and January 1, 2007 display the same although they're coded differently ... richi 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll spare you the warning template, but I do believe you know much, much better than to conduct a huge deletion spree on an article, as soon as it leaves protection, and mark your edits "Minor": "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text ... When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." Using minor edits to make major changes as part of a content dispute could be seen as manipulative if not outright disruptive editing. Please don't do it. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I understand your preference for d/m/y, but in the case of the RL infoboxes the format is set otherwise and gives an 'age' as result. By removing that part of the template you are also removing the age. I've brought the subject up at WP:RL to see if the template can be changed. Until then, it'd be great if you can leave the info-boxes as they are to make future updating easier (something may just need to be switched in the template for all I know). If the template was showing 15/4/80 as a date, I would understand your immediate concern, but as it is a difference between 15 April and April 15, it is hardly causing great confusion in the meantime. ~ Florrie • talk • 01:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Skyring_reported_by_User:Lester_.28Result:_.29 Sarah 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:SamThaiday.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Skyring(Pete), I request that you don't discuss me on the publicly viewable article discussion pages. These are not the best places to discuss what another editor has done, as they are viewable by everyone. You may find it interesting to read the pages of Wikipedia:Civility for guidance. Thank you, and kind regards, Lester 02:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aerial logo 02.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not move talk pages of articles without moving the articles. In this case the article is protected from moves, and that is for a reason. Please discuss the name on the talk page, don't continue to move pages disruptively like that. Mr. Z-man 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Normally your daily bias is much more subtle than that. Timeshift 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Pete. I saw your comments on the date and age template.
I've never bothered with setting date preferences, because I can read 25 December 2001 just as easily as December 25, 2001. I used to work with a computer programmer from England who insisted the former was "the only correct way" to show a date.
Anyway, Wikipedia lets you keep the default or set a preference such as
The template is set up to permit the user to express their preference. Also, I think you will find programmers at Wikipedia (like me) generally are responsive to user requests. What do you have in mind? -- Uncle Ed 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. I've again listed the John Howard family Copra interests for the Mediation Committee, with the aim of finding consensus among the participants of the recent talk page discussion on the subject. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard to indicate whether or not you wish to participate. Thanks, Lester 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:TakeYourChoice.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I replied on my talk page as well...but anyway, I think that at the time I made that edit, I wasn't aware of the autoformat function in wikipedia. So, that may be why the date part looks a bit odd. During the GA review I tried to fix all of the dates, and I think they're mostly correct, but another set of eyes is always useful :) Lazulilasher ( talk) 18:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to discuss the changes you made to David Hicks on the discussion page. Some of your fellow editors see "without valid charge by the US gov under suspicion of involvement" as well documented fact. Why do you think it better presented not included in lead? SmithBlue ( talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete, you asked and answered about the "US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid?" You were very close, a yes rather than a no and you'da been on the money - thats exactly what we have. We have the US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid : "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." As the commissions were not lawful then everthing they did that required legal authority also becomes unlawful. This includes the charges against Hicks. SmithBlue ( talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I am quite sure you know exactly what I mean. Quit pussyfooting around. There were two sets of charges, and your wording doesn't explain the situation exactly. -- Pete ( talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete, just making it clear that nothing you have written to date adequately responds to my request for diffs supporting your claim, "I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history".Hoping you can supply them and save other editors time. SmithBlue ( talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. I ask you to reconsider the Copra RfM. Take another look at the list of participants, there are now a lot of people who have agreed to participate. Some will be putting the case for inclusion of the information, and others will no doubt be arguing for the information to be omitted. I don't know which way it will go, and I haven't participated in an RfM before, but I assume that a decision will be made one way or the other, and whatever decision the group arrives at will become the consensus. Of course, it's your choice whether you want to be part of that or not. The intention of the RfM is for the group to settle on a consensus as an alternative to the previous edit warring. If a consensus is reached, then in future I assume it will be very difficult for any individual (you, me or anyone else) to go in and revert the article away from whatever consensus was reached. My point is, that it is more likely that any individual will influence the outcome of the article by participating in the RfM than by abstaining. I'm just guessing here, but there was a very large number of people invited to the RfM from way back (at the request of 'Gnangarra'), many have responded though some haven't responded, but I'm guessing that the mediation Chair, 'WjBscribe', will proceed with the RfM, even if not all those listed parties show an interest in participating. You may as well be a part of it, where you can put forward your case about what should be done with that information, and be a part of what the group decides, rather than sit on the outside. Lester 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | |
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnan garra 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Just out of curiosity, is there any particluar reason for going to several articles and reversing the order of day and month inside one wikilinked date? (eg diff [12]) It has no effect on the article (as the date should always display what your date settings calibrated to), and it doesn't seem an effective use of time and resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you changing the date/age template in the infobox? This is the recommended method for use in Template:Infobox Musical artist#born and its output is in international date format. There is no reason for you to chenge it especially with the rationale you are using. -- WebHamster 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Alan Parsons, did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
WebHamster
13:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't thank me, I'm convinced you enjoy these date-generated blues, Pete! It'd be so much easier to use/explain df=yes in the first date revert, yet... you don't. :) Cheers, • Florrie• leave a note• 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 6 hours for edit warring at Alan Parsons. While your edits did not technically violate the 3RR, reverting three times inside 20 minutes when aware of the rule is sufficiently disruptive to justify a block. Please feel free to continue editing when your block expires, but please consider discussing issues rather than blandly reverting. Stifle ( talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have had to revert several edits this morning where you have replaced valid British 'birth date', 'death date and age' templates by American-style date formats. In none of these edits did you give any edit summary; and you described all edits as Minor. Please consider this as a warning. If you continue in this way, you will be blocked for vandalism. Ian Cairns ( talk) 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
Joshua Reynolds, you will be
blocked from editing.
Ian Cairns (
talk)
11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ian Cairns ( talk) 11:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been tidying up English biographical articles, replacing dates in American Dating format (month-day-year) with dates in International Dating format (day-month-year), as used in England. This is in accordance with the Manual of Style. Ian Cairns has incorrectly accused me of doing the reverse (see discussion and example above), reversed my valid edits and warned me for vandalism. And then blocked me. This looks like a blatant abuse of administrator powers to win an edit war where he was clearly in the wrong, and I would like a careful pair of eyes on his hasty actions. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline - already unblocked by the blocking admin. — -- lucasbfr talk 12:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Turning to Joshua Reynolds an English painter, we see that a template has been used, but it has been forced to output the dates in American Dating format, by using the "mf=y" flag. This is incorrect for the article. As for the template, see my comments here. Clearly I am in the right here, and Cairn's accusations of vandalism are way out of line. -- Pete ( talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that your recent revert of David Hicks does not adequately express all significant points of view. Please discuss in new talk section Talk:David_Hicks#Hicks.27_notability Wm ( talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you haven't responded to my latest comment on the proposed opening par for David Hicks, although you have commented elsewhere on the page. I would really like to get your proposal for moving forward on this disagreement. This is currently blocking any progress on this article and as you are aware, several editors find the current opening deficient. Could you please advise what compromise you propose that incorporates all the significant points of view as discussed in the talk page? Thanks. Wm ( talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Very droll, you said: Seems to me you want to use the man to carry an ideological message. cygnis insignis 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ??????? -- Pete ( talk) 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
<Darth Vader voice> "The force is slow with this one" </Darth Vader voice> Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Wm, Skyring. Is a 3 revert warning from one, and a counter vandalism comment from the other really going to help? [13] Rise above it. You both need to work together on it – we all do. Notions of the all important consensus are illusive enough without such games. (comment made on both your pages) Thanks fellas. -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring at David Hicks. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires, but take time to consider consensus (which need not be what you think or what the article was a few months ago, but rather is what most editors want now) before making reverts. Stifle ( talk) 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block appears unjust, given that I have consistently tried to find a consensus on the wording of the lead paragraph (see diffs 1-11 below) on the discussion page. I have likewise consistently pointed out my reasons for reverting the various edits made by Lester and his POV companions (see diffs 12-21 below). Neither is a complete list. I wonder whether this block is the result of a complaint without proper investigation by the blocking admin. I note Lester claiming here that I revert "countless edits without discussion", and that I "did not initiate any discussion about any reversions". This is untrue, and given that Lester must have read the discussion page which contains dozens of edits by me in the past two weeks where I give specific reasons for reverting some changes, I say that it must be knowingly false, because he has responded to several of my comments. I ask the reviewing admin to look at some of the diffs listed below to check that I have acted to find a wording consensus on Lester's controversial edits, and have consistently supported discussion rather than edit-warring.
Decline reason:
given explanation of block admin below, I am satisfied that this block is justified. Please stop reverting talk page discussions and stop reverting the work of others when the block expires. — Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have contacted the blocking administrator to seek his input on the above unblock request. I am awaiting his response. Please be patient. Thank you. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|It appears that
Jayron32 in reviewing this block has mistaken the comments of
User:Lester above for those of the blocking admin
Stifle, who has not commented further. I have sent a wiki mail to Jayron32 (copy below), but after several hours, no response. I have put a lot of effort into sponsoring discussion of Lester's controversial and non-consensual edits, as I have shown above, with diffs, and it is irritating to be misrepresented by Lester, and have his untrue comments misunderstood by Jayron32. I note comments by Jayron32 and others indicating the block was unfair
here. Could I ask an admin with more careful eyes to review this block, please?}}
Copy of message to Jayron32: Wikipedia e-mail
User:Stifle blocked me for edit-warring on David Hicks. I requested unblocking, and you stated "I have contacted the blocking administrator to seek his input on the above unblock request. I am awaiting his response." [35]
The next diff on my talk page is User:Lester, who is not an admin, and whose complaints about me are untrue (as I demonstrated in my unblock request), and presumably knowingly so given his participation in discussion. [36]
The next (and at the moment, last) diff is you declining to unblock, saying "given explanation of block admin below, I am satisfied that this block is justified."
My question is, what was the blocking admin's explanation, and where is it? Is it possible that you have mistaken Lester's contribution for that of the blocking admin? As I point out, with diffs, I have put a lot of effort into trying to come up with acceptable wording for this article's lead and to find a consensus.
At the very least, this whole thing looks like a distinct lack of transparency. I will review contributions by all parties, but I see no reason for User:Stifle to suddenly take it into his or her head to block me, so there must have been some initial complaint, which is not reflected on his talk page. Nor can I see any onwiki explanation by the blocking admin, the input you were said that you were seeking.
Can I ask you to either point to Stifle's explanation, or post a copy of his explanation to you, please?
Yours, Peter
Comment on reposting: I have reviewed contributions and talk pages of involved parties, and can find no onwiki complaint to Stifle, nor any response by Stifle to Jayron32's request for an explanation of his actions. -- Pete ( talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason why you're imposing a none British formats for dates on a UK related article counter to wiki policy. I did give a reason why I reverted your changes. Justin talk 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to
Hyperdrive (TV series). Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.
Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you.
Talk
Islander
12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:GreenwayNote.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Skyring. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skyring, where you may want to participate. -- Wm ( talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, as a contributor to David Hicks:Talk:SMH Afganistan allegations, you might be interested to know that I have put in a request for mediation by the Mediation Cabal on matters discussed there. SmithBlue ( talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Skyring, I was planning to see if I can be of any help to you guys in coming to a consensus on the article on Hicks. I noticed you haven't edited for over two weeks now. When do you plan on being back fully again? You can comment here, on my talkpage, or on the Hicks article talkpage (or anywhere else for that matter, but you're fairly sure I'll notice it on the aforementioned places). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of a third party making the false accusation of canvassing for support, I'd like to point out that any accusation of bias on my behalf and us sharing completely opposing views is likely to be at best simplistic, if not wrong. Take the David Hicks article for example - we shared some common thoughts on that (and some opposing ones too). kind regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Really, sincerely, I think you have a case of mistaken identity on your hands. There are only two places your path has crossed mine (and I only know you as Pete/SkyRing - if you have other aliases, or 'socks', then that's your business) and that's on the John Howard and David Hicks pages (and of course, the rfc related to that). You can see my entire editing history - its all kosher. Its just me, and the things I'm interested in editing. For the sake of your sanity, I suggest you think again before wasting a lot of your time on this pointless exercise. I have absolutely nothing to hide - you and everyone can see everything I've done (and yes, I do log in from a variety of places, but isn't that the point of being web-based?). Please, take a deep breath, and have a good day. Eyedubya ( talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! If you don't mind, please drop by Lester's talk page and check out this comment I added. If you have any input I'd be happy to hear. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, *most* political events fit that exact description. I do not see any reason why it should not be there, and the debate over its inclusion or exclusion has frankly stymied all development on the article. Orderinchaos 05:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, re: the continuing debate over the Obama quote in John Howard. I think you and I should stop replying to the other editors' comments. We've all made our positions clear, and the argument is cluttering the talk page. We are just giving the others opportunity to voice their prejudices. What do you think? -- Surturz ( talk) 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Put the Obama thing in proper context without inflating its significance, and I've got no objection. - good on you Pete. This is far from what your original position was. Timeshift ( talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Lester, I'm not agreeing to this, for reasons stated in the RfM. However, if you can withdraw the case and submit a fresh one with only two names as the parties involved, everything the same, then I'll agree to mediation. I'd much rather find ways of working with you than in seeing the situation continue to distintegrate. If some of my guesses about you are correct, then you must be experiencing considerable frustration. I don't want to see useful articles deteriorate into POV, but neither do I want to cause you undue anguish. -- Pete ( talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies Skyring. I have recently learned how to use this template {{birth date and age|1955|6|8}} in infoboxes. It is nice because it gives the persons age and it updates itself on their birthday without anyone having to go back and change it. The template, as is, uses the US way of showing the date by putting the month first. I was using it in a number of British actors infoboxes and then I discovered that there was a way to keep the day before the month by adding in df=y at the end thus {{birth date and age|1955|6|8|df=y}}. I went back and changed most of the entries that I had made but I missed the one that you found. I have changed it now. Again my apologies and thank you for bringing it to my attention so that I could fix my error. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I take exception to your justification for changing the date ranges for reruns of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood ( difference). WP:DATE does not mandate the linked format you have imposed. On the contrary, it seems to discourage it.
The relevant sections are:
Date ranges are preferably given with minimal repetition (5–7 January 1979; September 21–29, 2002), using an unspaced en dash. If the autoformatting function is used, the opening and closing dates of the range must be given in full (see Autoformatting and linking) and be separated by a spaced en dash.
Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes: ... links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31); ...
The first sentence seems to imply that the preferred format is 5-7 January 1979, not January 5- January 7, 1979. The rest of the quoted material offers the option of using the autoformatting, but it clearly does not require it.
Cstaffa ( talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at the technique for date autoformatting, here, to see the correct method. In this way logged-in users can have the dates displayed to suit their own preferences. By removing the autoformatting links, you are denying other users this facility. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Transparency | ||
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Skyring(Pete). I notice you have reverted edits on the Howard article recently. I thought we had all moved away from that kind of mode of editing. Reverts subvert the wishes of the editing community as a whole. It's better to allow the editing community to decide whether content stays or goes. Content disputes need to go through the dispute resolution process. In regard to the particular sentence about public figures who considered Howard's Iraq policy as contravening international laws against war crimes, I've got no idea if the issue gets put to the community to decide whether it would live or die. It could go either way. But then we just have to accept the community decision. The concept is that by letting the community decide, the audience of Wikipedia readers gets the type of encyclopaedia that they want (or deserve). My opinion is that reverting will only lead to trouble. If edit wars break out, then it will only lead to penalties or sanctions against those who partake.-- Lester 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR at John Howard. I do not find that the disputed material is a violation of WP:BLP, so its removal is not exempt from 3RR. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"More irony. Look, in a couple of years I'll be into my seventh decade. Calling me childish isn't quite the insult you probably intended." Maybe if you didn't act like a twelve year old, I wouldn't call you childish, Childish is as childish does, regardless of age. I have defended you in the past, what a mistake that was. Childish was exactly what I intended. No regards, Mattinbgn\ talk 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You were subject to an arbcom decision relating to harassing other editors. Remedies included:
I believe you have harassed me and made personal attacks characterising me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. Nobody else seems to be interested in enforcing the policy of WP:NPA.
You have accused me of edit warring and justified your breach of WP:3RR as justified. I continue to maintain it was not justified. I continue to be disappointed that there are those who think I was wrong to report you and that your block was unwarranted. I do not apologise for reporting you - your actions were in clear breach of the policy.
Sockpuppetry: While you dismiss your actions as being justified with the comment: This account was created for the purpose of preparing an important submission in private, without the usual stalkers hovering over my contribution list diving in for half-baked comments. It also allows me to work within mediawiki rather than Word or something else that would reformat everything. Looking at WP:SOCK, I note that the list of legitimate exceptions is not exhaustive. You are well aware that sockpuppetry is against wikipedia guidelines and your protest that the legitimate use of sockpuppets is not exhaustive is not acceptable to me, but maybe to others. I am surprised at your indulgence in sockpuppets given you have been previously blocked and had your ban extended for sockpuppetry. [37] Disposable socks are all very well but the policy is quite clear There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny - this indicates two things - one the list of legitimate exceptions is seen as limited (contrary to your statement) and avoiding scrutiny which was your purpose is not a proper use. I have tagged the two socks you created thereby adding them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Skyring . I have also blocked them. I left them in place until you lodged your RfC to give you the benefit of the doubt and not to inflame the situation.
Note you referred to detective work. It is hardly convoluted [38]. I was actually appalled when I saw a link to User:Skyring/Sandbox as i was unaware of any recent editing there and thought you had been storing up an attack on me for some time.
It would seem however that you have general community support for your actions. As a result, this is it for me on this project for the time being - my wikibreak will continue. Congratulations -- Matilda talk 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Skyring,
I assume the autoblock worked.
Two comments, since I got slightly involved.
1. I don't think the accounts violated policy, but I meant what I said on the ANI thread; I think it would have been wiser not to have created them, due to your past issues. 2. I'm not formally warning anyone, including you, because it seems like all sides are getting pretty impolite. But I've reviewed a few threads now, from the last few days, and I will give you my uninvolved opinion that you're giving rather worse than your getting. Please tone down the "idiocy", "drama queen", and "despicable" type comments.
-- barneca ( talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_watchlist_a_discussion_at_Talk:John_Howard. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
John Howard. 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. , structures within the Australian embasssy arent a BLP issue please stop reverting.
Gnan
garra
10:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) It's not a matter of standing guard over an article. I'm all for rewriting the JH article to improve it as a piece of writing and a useful resource. What I will not tolerate is the insertion of polemic into an article, whether it's some right ring nut trying to make Martin Bryant out as an innocent stooge or some left-wing zealot convinced John Howard is a war criminal. These views have a place in our encyclopaedia, but not in mainstream articles masquerading as mainstream views. -- Pete ( talk) 09:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey I thought I'd let you know that Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette is currently under the spotlight. If you would like to chat with the editors realtime, check out Wikipedia:IRC tutorial. We would be glad to have you on with us! :) Cheers! —— nix eagle 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to the RfC you raised at Talk:John_Howard#Reply_to_RfC_by_Matilda . I would appreciate if you read the response. Thank you. -- Matilda talk 00:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Matilda talk 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to you, expect quick responses to anything you write there for the next hour or so as spotlight is monitoring both the article and the talk page and can see any edits there instantly. —— nix eagle 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! I don't think I knew you were on here. I have fun here, mainly in my museum world. Good timing re: me at ANI. I post there when I break things, othewise I'm a bad admin wrt assisting there. Book looks wonderful, want to bring it in October? Would love to catch up, living in Manhattan now so it's easier. The BC meet-ups here have died, if they were ever active but I'll send an e-mail to the group and see if anyone is around. Or did you mean wiki locals? Those I've met :) I can see if anyone is available for a mid-week get together. At the least, you get me on my own turf. I forget what was going on last time you were through this way -- I may not have been here. I've got itchy feet -- it's a year ago now that I was in Melbourne for a wedding (via what I called Qantas' kangaroo hop and it wasn't intentional: HPN-ORD-LAX=AKL-MEL-ADL-BNE-LAX-ORD-HPN) and have been in the US since then. Can I send PMs? I don't know if I can due to the new BC changes -- that was why I posted to your Facebook wall re: the museum show. Will copy this to your talk since I'm not sure if you're watching me. Glad to hear from you! TravellingCari 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for "uncivil remarks and editing style" by User:VirtualSteve. I requested that he take his finger off the admin tools, count to ten, then ask for an uninvolved admin to look into the matter. I am making the request that I think VirtualSteve should have made. I made a mistake, an honest mistake in editing my talk page when pressed for time, and I was stung by VirtualSteve's repeated assumption that I'd done it deliberately. I'll accept that he says he didn't mean his comments as a personal attack, but that's the way I read it at the time. In this spirit, I've re-examined my comment about User:Docku. While I don't buy into VirtualSteve's assertion that I was attacking Docku's right to edit - we all have the right to play the bagpipes, but most of us shouldn't - I do accept that Docku regarded it as a personal attack. I have made an apology below, and shall repeat it on his talk page when my block ends. Although no diffs show it, I've been taking my own advice a lot recently - counting to ten before acting, or reconsidering and discarding a hasty retort.
Decline reason:
Questioning a fellow editor's competence and implying that they should stop contributing is the nadir of civility. You cannot expect your actions to not have consequences. east718 // talk // email // 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I hereby make a public apology to User:Docku for this comment. I sincerely regret the genuine hurt and pain it caused to you, and I shall do my best to refrain from making similar comments in future. -- Pete ( talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, there is no consensus for that, and never has been. If a couple of editors have agreed to Date War, do tell me where, so I can oppose it: the intention is that articles strongly related to some English-speaking country may be switched - but the South Ossetia mess is not California, nor Warwickshire; as best I can tell, it is even written in American in those few points where usage differs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot ( talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
re: "and I'd appreciate that my careful work on this article be restored. Including unlinking dates, please."
Please do not assume
ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
Bazj (
talk)
11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete—Try to funnel your frustration into a dart board, or perhaps this lovely thing, designed for getting out of your system all the annoying people you've had to endure today. May I remind you that Anderson has already been blocked six times for edit-warring, the lastest only three weeks ago. Let me know if there's trouble; it's outrageous the date warring he's indulging in now. I've noticed that his contrarian behaviour comes in waves, and it looks as though we're all about to endure another right now. Tony (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MOSNUM. ( sdsds - talk) 10:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
How come OSX doesn't get pinged for 3rrr? Or is he some sort of god? (male pronoun used since few females are that pathetic) Greg Locock ( talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I removed the whole point, since Anderson had buggered it up and put his own comments there—quite inappropriate. I don't care if it goes back in the meantime, as long as without his personal comments and in a way that makes some kind of sense. Tony (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Pete—what happens, under your proposal, with India? Indians use both formats, and I have trouble when I audit an article that is half and half. Tony (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What format did India use before the arrival of the British? Tony (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in good faith I've reshaped your Option D. The addition is based on our brief exchange about India. Tell me if the wording doesn't reflect your intentions. link Tony (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to AGF in most of your postings at WP:MOSNUM, and have even taken some of your views into serious consideration concerning how I have perceived things in the past. But once again, I find myself being swayed back to my original way of thinking because of your seeming disregard for the American view on an English Wikipedia. For some reason, my mind interprets your most recent comments in the context of ten English speaking nations, with a combined population of, lets say one million people, discounting a single English speaking nation of 10 million people, solely based on the fact that 10 is more than one. I can not agree with this notion. Neither can I accept that one nation, solely based on it's population, should impose it's views on all of the others. I agree with your statements that Wikipedia is an international effort. That is why there are Russian, Spanish, Chinese, etc. wiki's devoted to those non-English speaking nations. But we are discussing English Wikipedia. There are, perhaps, 4 or 5 nations that can be viewed as English speaking nations, and Americans should not be lessened in their views because they are outnumbered 4:1 by the number of countries who speak English, yet not outnumbered by the overall population, of all English speaking countries. As to how many peoples from the international community view English Wikipedia, I would point you to http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and hope that in the future, you would try to take these statistics into view when trying to appeal to the widest possible inclusion of the viewership of this Wikipedia.-- «JavierMC»| Talk 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The warning is only mentioned in WP:ERA, not in the section on international date formats. I didn't realize it applied beyond that until you pointed out the ArbCom ruling to me. I wasn't aware of a ruling from three years ago on this issue. Won't happen again. User:2008Olympian chitchat seemywork 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I missed you :-) -- Matilda talk 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BluePolesBigPicture.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) -- Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There was extensive discussion on both issues, we kept one and not the other. Cease your WP:POINT making. This. Will. Stay. Have a lovely day! :D Timeshift ( talk) 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), you have a Macbook Air? Even before Vista, you were editing Wikipedia using a Windows Box (I know these things!). I read somewhere that IBM is creating a version of their Lotus Symphony word processor for the iPhone, which will be free. I don't have an iPhone, but maybe in a future generation. Or maybe a Linux phone :) Lester 11:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)