![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Dec 2004 and July 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The material below is temporarily stored here until I can place it on my user page. At that point I will also archive the existing messages and discussion. Please place any communications at the end of this page.
It may seem odd to state that there is a diversity of opinion as to the identity of the Australian head of state, and I can understand why some people have difficulty with this, but the demonstrable fact is that this diversity of opinion exists, and if the Prime Minister himself believes that the Governor-General rather than the Queen is the head of state, then obviously this is something worthy of investigation.
As a Wikipedia editor, my own opinions are irrelevant, except to say that it is my firm opinion that Wikipedia articles should reflect fact rather than opinion.
There are three opinions as to who is the head of state:
A Parliamentary Library Research Brief summarises the two "sole head of state" views in the context of "Who Must Open the Sydney Olympics?" [1]
The Commonwealth Government Directory of March 1997 states that the Governor-General is the head of state on page ix under "Arrangement of entries" [2]
John Howard, Australian Prime Minister 1996-date.
Simon Crean, Federal Opposition Leader 2001-2003, described the Governor-General as the head of state in an interview given during the Peter Hollingworth affair. [3]
Professor Owen E Hughes in Australian Politics, 3rd edition, Macmillan Education, Melbourne 1998, pp170-1
US Department of State Background Note: Australia
The material above is temporarily stored here until I can place it on my user page. At that point I will also archive the existing messages and discussion. Please place any communications at the end of this page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. I note your interest in Australian constitutional issues, and thank you for your approach of asking on the discussion page before editing what has been a rather controversial topic in Government of Australia.
My detailed response to your comments about the head of state issue is on Talk:Government of Australia. I look forward to seeing your further comments.-- Robert Merkel 00:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I apologise if i upset you - Wiki has been through a bad patch of POV pushers from the Left and Right and so people are a little twitchy. I only use my admin powers when requested after gertting involved in the whole German-Polish arguments over Danzig and Silesia articles. PMA 03:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing with me that magnificent picture of Dupont Circle. I've never been to Washington, I just liked the name Dupont Circle so chose it as Wikipedia username. Dupont Circle 08:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
Regarding your message, I have taken a look and don't believe User:Dlatimer broke the three revert rule. The three revert rule applies if there are more than three reverts, and here there were exactly three.
He reverted your change at 23:38, at 23:59, and at 03:07–03:09 (using UTC times). He made two consecutive edits at 03:07 and 03:09, but there were no other users' edits in between. Sometimes users use two or more edits to make a change: you yourself made two edits at 20:37–20:45 and three edits at 23:45–23:52.
Regarding the editing dispute, I don't really have an opinion, I'm not knowledgeable about fine points of constitutional law and historical precedent.
In general, you can report 3RR violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
-- Curps 06:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Archiving: I went control-A, control-X to pick up all the text, then typed [[Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1]] on the blank page, then saved the page. I then opened the new page ( Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1) thus created, and went control-V to dump the old text into the new page, which I then saved. Adam 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Really? Well, then you should state who those people. You did not, hence you got reverted. Incidently, it's highly dubious to say that we are a republic, and I am not part of the ALP, and not really all that supportive of the ARM (though I am currently toeing the status quo). I suggest if you want to argue this point, you provide specific sources for your edits and perhaps edit an Australian republicanism article to clarify this information and then wikilink to that article in your next edit. Until then, don't put it back or I'll lock the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you are doing that keeps breaking /3RR by duplicating large chunks of text, but please avoid doing so! Until you have the problem figured out, after making a change please look at the history and do a "diff" to make sure that the change you actually made was the change you thought you made. (And I hope the same problem isn't happening with any articles you have worked on!) In fact, you might want to do that on all changes anyway - I always do, just to check. Noel (talk) 13:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
Hi, you and your jousting partner have both been blocked for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation on Government of Australia:
Skyring:
Adam Carr:
Please work this out on the talk page before getting into an edit war, or use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to avoid an edit war. We really frown on edit wars. Noel (talk) 03:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is very rare for me to use that kind of language at Wikipedia. I did so in your case not because I disagreed with your views, but because I finally had enough of your conceited, flippant, condescending and generally insufferable attitude. The straw that broke the camel's back was your stupid and insulting "Tibet" answer to a serious question. I won't be treated like that by anybody. You have not succeeded of persuading anyone of your views, so I suggest you go and do something else. (Don't reply to this message because I don't intend continuing to argue with you.) Adam 08:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You should probably be informed that Ed Poor is bringing a request for arbitration against Adam Carr for this comment previously directed at you. It seems likely that you will want to comment on this request, and urge you to do so. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I have left you a note at Talk:Government of Australia and thought I would take the additional step of coming here to talk to you directly. Adam Carr is a very bright person and an excellent contributor here, but I know his temper is often quick. When he was angered by you initially, I was very willing to assume that he was at least partially at fault. Perhaps you knew this about Adam before your conflict with him started....I don't know. Anyway, Michael Snow and I are generally known (when we are known at all in this community) for being extraordinarily patient and compromising on virtually all issues -- we take great care with our words and actions here because it's important to us not to lose our tempers or say something unkind. When you have both of us saying you're going too far, that is a very good indication that you have, in fact, gone too far. I'm not saying this to be proud -- goodness knows I screw things up here on occasion. But you're an editor who I can tell has good things to offer, and you're wasting a lot of good will right now for no apparent reason, playing games with verb tenses. Exhausting Adam's patience happens -- he shouldn't be unkind, and when he is, people here talk to him about it, but if it happens now and then, people won't necessarily assume you're off-base. Exhausting the patience of normally very patient editors is another thing entirely, and you should take it as a red flag -- certainly I can think of many other editors who will. I hope you do also. If you're not clear about what I mean, leave me a note and I'll explain as best I can....but I think you do know what I mean, and I hope you'll do what you can to correct your approach here in the future. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here are a few statements you've made at various points in the debate that illustrate the kind of problem I'm getting at:
None of them were directed at me and I don't take personal offense at them, but I think it clear that this kind of comment is counterproductive. In general, your tone is frequently sarcastic and mocking - when you do this, it may feel like you are scoring points in the debate, but the practical effect is that it creates the impression you have nothing constructive to add, you're just interested in tearing down your opponents. I'm not saying this is true; it's just easy for people to develop that image of you.
Also, I'm not arguing that you're the only person at fault. Nor am I trying to single you out for criticism, except in the sense that you're showing a willingness to listen and act on it, which is what makes the effort of discussing the problem worthwhile. -- Michael Snow 07:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How would you suggests I present my cases to Dr. Carr? I do not want conflict but the material is current and valid. Greco-Turkish relations. What do you think? -- Cool Cat My Talk 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You happen to be a history person? -- Cool Cat My Talk 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware of that. But legally and constitutionally the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. It is by virtue of being the representative of the Queen that the drafters of the 1900 Act gave him those powers, not because of whom he is. Australia is a what is sometime called a nominal chief executive system, with the Queen as its nominal chief executive.
3 The three types of head of state are taken from Jim Duffy, 'Ireland', in Republic Advisory Committee, Report, vol. 2, pp. 154 - 5.
Maintaining Our Democracy in Monarchy or Republic
Paper presented to the Australian Institute of International Affairs
Dyason House, 124 Jolimont Toad, East Melbourne on 31 July 1997.
The Hon. Richard E. McGarvie AC
There are three distinct kinds of head of state in modern democracies.1 There is the Chief Executive, found in the United States where the head of state is also head of government and has and exercises extensive, important powers. That head of state should be elected. There is the Nominal Chief Executive, as in Australia, who has and exercises important powers which are not as extensive as those of the US President but which go to the heart of our system of government. The Constitution gives the Governor-General legal discretion to exercise them at choice or, in the case of powers of the Governor-General in Council which must be exercised only on Ministers’ advice, to decline to exercise them at choice. The glue that binds the Governor-General to the democratic process in exercising those powers and gives us responsible government is the basic constitutional convention. That convention binds the Governor-General to exercise the powers as advised by the Ministers of the government elected by the community in elections. A Nominal Chief Executive head of state should not be elected by either Parliament or the electorate. There is also the Non Executive head of state as in Ireland and Sweden who has under the Constitution only a few powers of relatively minor importance. It does not matter much whether the Non Executive head of state is elected or not. Ireland has an elected President. Sweden has a King.
RESPONSIBLE LAWYERS AND THE REPUBLIC DEBATE
Article published in Young Lawyers, June 1997, p.2
FearÉIREANN
(talk)
01:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
When the view on the page was his view the last time we were in contact a few weeks ago. FearÉIREANN
(talk)
02:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You have completely misunderstood what George said. He did not say that there are two heads of state. Look at the words -
An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The governor-general is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia.
Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. That is what everyone keeps telling you. All the Governor-General is is the de facto head of state, in other words he kinda acts like a sort of head of state, not a real one. But he isn't the legal or formal one. That is the Queen alone. And even then the Governor-General's sort of head of stateship isn't comparable to the head of state of Australia at all. It is a sort of quasi-informal working thing inside the Commonwealth, but worthless and counts for nothing outside of it. Being a sort of head of state-type figure inside your own country is meaningless. Douglas Hyde was in a similar situation as President of Ireland between 1938 and 1945. But in reality he was not an actual head of state. And an encyclopaedia cannot carry sort of looks a bit like . . ." definitions. They have to be precise, formal, legal definitions. And George makes it plain who fits that category - The Queen and no-one else. FearÉIREANN
(talk)
02:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Unless another name is attached or they are in bold italics they are things you said. And the quotes are from the archives of the talk page. BTW I never wimp out. FearÉIREANN
(talk)
03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.
My proposed policy position is this:
Rather than go through with this poll I have made a formal request for arbitration on the issue, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and comment.-- nixie 11:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Peter,
As I'm sure you know already, there is considerable discussion going on about your activity re Australian constitutional arrangements. I know very little about that, save what I've read on the page histories since the discussion caught my attention a short while ago. This concerns me, as up until now I only knew of you from crossing your path on entirely unrelated pages (cleaning up some of that paranoid Port Arthur stuff, and the like) and (in my vague sort of way) had marked you down in the back of my mind as a productive and helpful sort of contributor, a god guy to have around the place. I'm not going to enter into the constitutional pages fray (or at least I have no present intention of doing so), and my message has to do with that only indirectly.
I've been around this place long enough to be a pretty decent judge of the likely course of events, and the way I read the comments that are flying around (not yours, those of other people), there seems to be no doubt that some action will be taken quite soon now. The question is what action? The two front-running alternatives are (a) ban your account for as long as it takes to stop you making changes to the constitutional articles - forever if need be, or (b) make it a formal policy that any changes you make of that nature are not subject to the 3R rule - i.e., that they can and will be reverted instantly and without question.
I'm not going to try to "pick a winner" here, not between those two options - but it's London to a brick that one or the other will go through: the mood around the place is heavily in favour of administrative action. I don't like either of these options much. The second at least leaves you free to edit on other topics, which is in its favour, but also introduces a precedent that might have nasty consequences further down the track in other contexts. (For the 'pedia, I mean. Thin edge of the wedge stuff.)
Anyway, the reason I'm putting this note here is to suggest that you propose a solution. If you can put forward a proposal which would (a) head off administratve action and (b) leave you free to participate here in other areas, that would be a very good thing. Essentially, it would need to assure people like Adam that they won't have to worry about reverting your "Queen of Australia" edits anymore. There is no third option, not that I can see. Given the weight of opinion against your views, I can't imagine the AC settling for any sort of compromise.
Sure, I know that you don't agree with Adam's view, but in practical terms, it is a non-issue. The reality is that even if you are 100% right and Adam is 100% wrong, you are never going to prevail here, not on this issue. Trust me on this: I've been around the 'pedia a long time now, and there is no doubt at all of which way the wind is blowing.
It seems to me that your choices are either (a) to continue as at present, which one way or another will result in your changes being reverted and your not being able to edit at all, or (b) agree voluntarily to avoid the constitition-related pages, in which case you will (presumably) remain free to contribute in many other areas. This, in my view, would be a good thing.
I hasten to add that this is not any sort of ultimatum. I'm writing purely as a concerned bystander, not in any official capacity whatsoever. I like your edits (save the constitutional ones, which I have not read, at least not to remember) and hope that you can find some sort of accommodation with the powers that be. If not, well, see you round.
Best regards,
Tony ( Tannin 12:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence. I also removed some anon's vandalism from here - seems someone doesn't like you. Ambi 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you enjoyed your trip to Washington, D.C. As a local resident and architecture fan, I'm particularly fond of the NBM. I hope you get the opportunity to return soon, maybe in the spring to see the cherry blossoms when it's not so cold. -- Polynova 03:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
As per advice received, your actions have been reported to the Arbitration Committee and a request is being made for your sanctioning over your behaviour. FearÉIREANN
(talk) 06:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that I am to be deprived of any opportunity to read your views on this topic. I have seen a couple of web-sites which appear to be arguing that there is a constitutional flaw which prevents HM from now exercising any authority, and that in consequence both the Governor-Generals-designate and the various Administrations have been de jure ultra vires, no matter what de facto authority they have exercised. I do not know 9and will now never learn, if you are on this line or another.
One of the commentators higher up the page argues that HM being Head of State means Australia is automatuically a monarchy. I am almost certain that there is at least one republic within the Commonwealth whichr etains her as Head of State, but not as monarch. After all, Victoria R was Empress of India, without (as I understand it) being Queen, thus allowing local kingdoms to continue to exist under her benificent reign.
My best wishes to you --
Simon Cursitor 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Poll There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll
Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.
Yeah, I like it too ;-).
And as a side hoby I'm trying to learn the highest peaks of many nations for pubquiz-purposes. Though Australia is somewhat disputed, I believe. Mt. Kosciusko is the standard answer, but then you have teritories like this, and I think one can even argue for Mt McClintock. Oh, well. Shanes 30 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the skyring case →Raul654 June 30, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the mailing list. Here is a short explanation I wrote for another's talk page that may address some of your issues.
The LaRouche-related editor(s) has worn out the patience of many fine contributors. Though Carr's explanation that edits are worthy of reversion simply because they are made by a LaRouche-related editor may seem arbitrary or excessively broad, it is not. At the time of the second ArbCom case against him, I personally reviewed User:Herschelkrustofsky's contributions carefully, cross checking them against LaRouche sites and others. Virtually every single one of the hundreds of edits that he made served to promote one or another of LaRouche's theories. Some were so obscure and innocuous-seeming that if I hadn't been studying the material the connection would not have been apparent. Many edits were clearly composed of cut-and-paste plagiarism or copyright violations. That is why we are not approaching LaRouche-related editors with good faith. LaRouche has earned the bad faith of Wikipedia. - Willmcw 03:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to get into any LaRouche war. I don't understand it and I don't want to and it seems to be handled adequately by existing procedures and those who understand what's going on.
Logically there is a big difference between reverting POV edits and reverting all edits by a particular author. Adam was either very stupid or very stressed to say he'd be reverting all edits made by particular editors. That's not the wikiway.
And Adam's not stupid.
Adam and I have had our differences, but it pains me to see any editor become stressed by what should be a pleasant and constructive community enterprise. It was a cry for attention and I am very concerned to see that he chose to put up a photograph of someone who is dead, apparently through LaRouche activities. It doesn't take much to read the subtext.
On a wider point, there is something seriously wrong with Wikipedia if editors are driven to such lengths. Pete 04:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
That made you take a look!
The previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
I would like to take this opportunity to apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for any distress or pain caused by my actions in recent months. In particular, I would like to single out User:jtdirl and User:Petaholmes, whom I am sure were especially upset by my actions.
It was wrong of me, I am very sorry for this, and I shall not bring up any points of difference between us again. Pete 01:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The object is to write an encyclopaedia, right? Perhaps someone can tell me how replacing a good photograph with a poor one improves the quality. I'd like an explanation for this diff. Which is the better photograph to illustrate the Australian War Memorial article?
I've deleted what used to be here because I think it has served its purpose and I'd rather not stir up ill feelings. I lack the ability to archive stuff, so if anyone is really interested, they'll have to wade through diffs or look at previous versions. Thanks for the input. -- Pete 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Peter.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{ GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Much as I'd like to forget all that stuff and start afresh, there's one thing that niggles away at me. I've made a genuine apology and I've been good for the past five months. A model Wikipedian, I'd like to think.
I honestly acknowledge my bad behaviour, but I don't think anyone would say that it was entirely one-sided, and much as I would like to, I am going to find it very hard to trust those who tormented me, and have not acknowledged this.
In particular, I had nothing to do with User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU despite the accusations of this anon whose IP address comes from the far side of the world to me.
Now, I'm not going to make a fuss over this, because I did so before and found that nobody, from Jimbo on down, gave two hoots, but on a personal note, I simply cannot bring myself to think fondly of someone who would do this and not own up. -- Pete 10:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In a few days time, the 1 year ban imposed upon me by the ArbCom expires. However, this ban has since been extended until the end of October, due to some very bad behaviour on my part. I have made a public apology to the two most visible targets of my unhappiness, and a blanket apology to everyone else who was upset and inconvenienced. Since then, I have done my best to keep my wikinose clean and study up on Wikipedia's ways of doing things.
I would like to return to editing Wikipedia in a constructive and co-operative manner, and I humbly request Jimbo, the ArbCom, the corps of administrators and Wikipedians in general to forgive the extensions to my ban and allow me to return as a full member of the community on the original expiry date.
I recognise that the extensions to my ban were justified under Wikipedia's procedures for behaviour that was unacceptable. I sincerely regret that behaviour and promise that it will not recur. Pete 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 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) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
--.../ Nemo ( talk • Contributions) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 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) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 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) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 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) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 07:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You have the wrong date and Wiki syntax for his death date and age. I tried to fix it but I am too unfamiliar with the syntax to do it. His date of death was 31 October 1860, and his age at death was 85. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did to Tim Berners-Lee. If you feel that material is legitimate, then please include a reliable, verifiable source for it in the text per WP:V and WP:CS. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt at a dialogue, but it doesn't change Wikipedia policy: It is not my job to source the material that you insist on adding to an article. It's yours. Whether you use a biography or the same source multiple times, yes, every bit of information needs to be sourced. If the information is "good information" and has a source, then you are more than capable of adding it yourself. This does not "satisfy me". It "satisfies" WP:Burden. If you insist that not everything be sourced, then this may lead to a slippery slope in which anyone may use that argument in order to justify including any ol' information that isn't cited. WP:V is in place because it provides an objective criteria to prevent such things. If it can be "easily sourced", then why not have each editor who adds such info be the one to source it? Isn't that fair? Nightscream ( talk) 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Please try to not go down this road. People just get upset about it and it's not a consensus driven approach that we should strive for. Nsaa ( talk) 23:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your Statement. I have read each of them, and encourage you to give rebuttals where you feel it to be necessary. I would now ask that you propose a solution on the talk page for review by all participants in hopes of developing consensus on a compromise. This message has been delivered to all participants Ronk01 talk 15:19, 1 March 2011 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Dec 2004 and July 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The material below is temporarily stored here until I can place it on my user page. At that point I will also archive the existing messages and discussion. Please place any communications at the end of this page.
It may seem odd to state that there is a diversity of opinion as to the identity of the Australian head of state, and I can understand why some people have difficulty with this, but the demonstrable fact is that this diversity of opinion exists, and if the Prime Minister himself believes that the Governor-General rather than the Queen is the head of state, then obviously this is something worthy of investigation.
As a Wikipedia editor, my own opinions are irrelevant, except to say that it is my firm opinion that Wikipedia articles should reflect fact rather than opinion.
There are three opinions as to who is the head of state:
A Parliamentary Library Research Brief summarises the two "sole head of state" views in the context of "Who Must Open the Sydney Olympics?" [1]
The Commonwealth Government Directory of March 1997 states that the Governor-General is the head of state on page ix under "Arrangement of entries" [2]
John Howard, Australian Prime Minister 1996-date.
Simon Crean, Federal Opposition Leader 2001-2003, described the Governor-General as the head of state in an interview given during the Peter Hollingworth affair. [3]
Professor Owen E Hughes in Australian Politics, 3rd edition, Macmillan Education, Melbourne 1998, pp170-1
US Department of State Background Note: Australia
The material above is temporarily stored here until I can place it on my user page. At that point I will also archive the existing messages and discussion. Please place any communications at the end of this page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. I note your interest in Australian constitutional issues, and thank you for your approach of asking on the discussion page before editing what has been a rather controversial topic in Government of Australia.
My detailed response to your comments about the head of state issue is on Talk:Government of Australia. I look forward to seeing your further comments.-- Robert Merkel 00:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I apologise if i upset you - Wiki has been through a bad patch of POV pushers from the Left and Right and so people are a little twitchy. I only use my admin powers when requested after gertting involved in the whole German-Polish arguments over Danzig and Silesia articles. PMA 03:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing with me that magnificent picture of Dupont Circle. I've never been to Washington, I just liked the name Dupont Circle so chose it as Wikipedia username. Dupont Circle 08:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
Regarding your message, I have taken a look and don't believe User:Dlatimer broke the three revert rule. The three revert rule applies if there are more than three reverts, and here there were exactly three.
He reverted your change at 23:38, at 23:59, and at 03:07–03:09 (using UTC times). He made two consecutive edits at 03:07 and 03:09, but there were no other users' edits in between. Sometimes users use two or more edits to make a change: you yourself made two edits at 20:37–20:45 and three edits at 23:45–23:52.
Regarding the editing dispute, I don't really have an opinion, I'm not knowledgeable about fine points of constitutional law and historical precedent.
In general, you can report 3RR violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
-- Curps 06:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Archiving: I went control-A, control-X to pick up all the text, then typed [[Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1]] on the blank page, then saved the page. I then opened the new page ( Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1) thus created, and went control-V to dump the old text into the new page, which I then saved. Adam 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Really? Well, then you should state who those people. You did not, hence you got reverted. Incidently, it's highly dubious to say that we are a republic, and I am not part of the ALP, and not really all that supportive of the ARM (though I am currently toeing the status quo). I suggest if you want to argue this point, you provide specific sources for your edits and perhaps edit an Australian republicanism article to clarify this information and then wikilink to that article in your next edit. Until then, don't put it back or I'll lock the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you are doing that keeps breaking /3RR by duplicating large chunks of text, but please avoid doing so! Until you have the problem figured out, after making a change please look at the history and do a "diff" to make sure that the change you actually made was the change you thought you made. (And I hope the same problem isn't happening with any articles you have worked on!) In fact, you might want to do that on all changes anyway - I always do, just to check. Noel (talk) 13:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
Hi, you and your jousting partner have both been blocked for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation on Government of Australia:
Skyring:
Adam Carr:
Please work this out on the talk page before getting into an edit war, or use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to avoid an edit war. We really frown on edit wars. Noel (talk) 03:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is very rare for me to use that kind of language at Wikipedia. I did so in your case not because I disagreed with your views, but because I finally had enough of your conceited, flippant, condescending and generally insufferable attitude. The straw that broke the camel's back was your stupid and insulting "Tibet" answer to a serious question. I won't be treated like that by anybody. You have not succeeded of persuading anyone of your views, so I suggest you go and do something else. (Don't reply to this message because I don't intend continuing to argue with you.) Adam 08:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You should probably be informed that Ed Poor is bringing a request for arbitration against Adam Carr for this comment previously directed at you. It seems likely that you will want to comment on this request, and urge you to do so. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I have left you a note at Talk:Government of Australia and thought I would take the additional step of coming here to talk to you directly. Adam Carr is a very bright person and an excellent contributor here, but I know his temper is often quick. When he was angered by you initially, I was very willing to assume that he was at least partially at fault. Perhaps you knew this about Adam before your conflict with him started....I don't know. Anyway, Michael Snow and I are generally known (when we are known at all in this community) for being extraordinarily patient and compromising on virtually all issues -- we take great care with our words and actions here because it's important to us not to lose our tempers or say something unkind. When you have both of us saying you're going too far, that is a very good indication that you have, in fact, gone too far. I'm not saying this to be proud -- goodness knows I screw things up here on occasion. But you're an editor who I can tell has good things to offer, and you're wasting a lot of good will right now for no apparent reason, playing games with verb tenses. Exhausting Adam's patience happens -- he shouldn't be unkind, and when he is, people here talk to him about it, but if it happens now and then, people won't necessarily assume you're off-base. Exhausting the patience of normally very patient editors is another thing entirely, and you should take it as a red flag -- certainly I can think of many other editors who will. I hope you do also. If you're not clear about what I mean, leave me a note and I'll explain as best I can....but I think you do know what I mean, and I hope you'll do what you can to correct your approach here in the future. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here are a few statements you've made at various points in the debate that illustrate the kind of problem I'm getting at:
None of them were directed at me and I don't take personal offense at them, but I think it clear that this kind of comment is counterproductive. In general, your tone is frequently sarcastic and mocking - when you do this, it may feel like you are scoring points in the debate, but the practical effect is that it creates the impression you have nothing constructive to add, you're just interested in tearing down your opponents. I'm not saying this is true; it's just easy for people to develop that image of you.
Also, I'm not arguing that you're the only person at fault. Nor am I trying to single you out for criticism, except in the sense that you're showing a willingness to listen and act on it, which is what makes the effort of discussing the problem worthwhile. -- Michael Snow 07:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How would you suggests I present my cases to Dr. Carr? I do not want conflict but the material is current and valid. Greco-Turkish relations. What do you think? -- Cool Cat My Talk 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You happen to be a history person? -- Cool Cat My Talk 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware of that. But legally and constitutionally the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. It is by virtue of being the representative of the Queen that the drafters of the 1900 Act gave him those powers, not because of whom he is. Australia is a what is sometime called a nominal chief executive system, with the Queen as its nominal chief executive.
3 The three types of head of state are taken from Jim Duffy, 'Ireland', in Republic Advisory Committee, Report, vol. 2, pp. 154 - 5.
Maintaining Our Democracy in Monarchy or Republic
Paper presented to the Australian Institute of International Affairs
Dyason House, 124 Jolimont Toad, East Melbourne on 31 July 1997.
The Hon. Richard E. McGarvie AC
There are three distinct kinds of head of state in modern democracies.1 There is the Chief Executive, found in the United States where the head of state is also head of government and has and exercises extensive, important powers. That head of state should be elected. There is the Nominal Chief Executive, as in Australia, who has and exercises important powers which are not as extensive as those of the US President but which go to the heart of our system of government. The Constitution gives the Governor-General legal discretion to exercise them at choice or, in the case of powers of the Governor-General in Council which must be exercised only on Ministers’ advice, to decline to exercise them at choice. The glue that binds the Governor-General to the democratic process in exercising those powers and gives us responsible government is the basic constitutional convention. That convention binds the Governor-General to exercise the powers as advised by the Ministers of the government elected by the community in elections. A Nominal Chief Executive head of state should not be elected by either Parliament or the electorate. There is also the Non Executive head of state as in Ireland and Sweden who has under the Constitution only a few powers of relatively minor importance. It does not matter much whether the Non Executive head of state is elected or not. Ireland has an elected President. Sweden has a King.
RESPONSIBLE LAWYERS AND THE REPUBLIC DEBATE
Article published in Young Lawyers, June 1997, p.2
FearÉIREANN
(talk)
01:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
When the view on the page was his view the last time we were in contact a few weeks ago. FearÉIREANN
(talk)
02:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You have completely misunderstood what George said. He did not say that there are two heads of state. Look at the words -
An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The governor-general is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia.
Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. That is what everyone keeps telling you. All the Governor-General is is the de facto head of state, in other words he kinda acts like a sort of head of state, not a real one. But he isn't the legal or formal one. That is the Queen alone. And even then the Governor-General's sort of head of stateship isn't comparable to the head of state of Australia at all. It is a sort of quasi-informal working thing inside the Commonwealth, but worthless and counts for nothing outside of it. Being a sort of head of state-type figure inside your own country is meaningless. Douglas Hyde was in a similar situation as President of Ireland between 1938 and 1945. But in reality he was not an actual head of state. And an encyclopaedia cannot carry sort of looks a bit like . . ." definitions. They have to be precise, formal, legal definitions. And George makes it plain who fits that category - The Queen and no-one else. FearÉIREANN
(talk)
02:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Unless another name is attached or they are in bold italics they are things you said. And the quotes are from the archives of the talk page. BTW I never wimp out. FearÉIREANN
(talk)
03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.
My proposed policy position is this:
Rather than go through with this poll I have made a formal request for arbitration on the issue, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and comment.-- nixie 11:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Peter,
As I'm sure you know already, there is considerable discussion going on about your activity re Australian constitutional arrangements. I know very little about that, save what I've read on the page histories since the discussion caught my attention a short while ago. This concerns me, as up until now I only knew of you from crossing your path on entirely unrelated pages (cleaning up some of that paranoid Port Arthur stuff, and the like) and (in my vague sort of way) had marked you down in the back of my mind as a productive and helpful sort of contributor, a god guy to have around the place. I'm not going to enter into the constitutional pages fray (or at least I have no present intention of doing so), and my message has to do with that only indirectly.
I've been around this place long enough to be a pretty decent judge of the likely course of events, and the way I read the comments that are flying around (not yours, those of other people), there seems to be no doubt that some action will be taken quite soon now. The question is what action? The two front-running alternatives are (a) ban your account for as long as it takes to stop you making changes to the constitutional articles - forever if need be, or (b) make it a formal policy that any changes you make of that nature are not subject to the 3R rule - i.e., that they can and will be reverted instantly and without question.
I'm not going to try to "pick a winner" here, not between those two options - but it's London to a brick that one or the other will go through: the mood around the place is heavily in favour of administrative action. I don't like either of these options much. The second at least leaves you free to edit on other topics, which is in its favour, but also introduces a precedent that might have nasty consequences further down the track in other contexts. (For the 'pedia, I mean. Thin edge of the wedge stuff.)
Anyway, the reason I'm putting this note here is to suggest that you propose a solution. If you can put forward a proposal which would (a) head off administratve action and (b) leave you free to participate here in other areas, that would be a very good thing. Essentially, it would need to assure people like Adam that they won't have to worry about reverting your "Queen of Australia" edits anymore. There is no third option, not that I can see. Given the weight of opinion against your views, I can't imagine the AC settling for any sort of compromise.
Sure, I know that you don't agree with Adam's view, but in practical terms, it is a non-issue. The reality is that even if you are 100% right and Adam is 100% wrong, you are never going to prevail here, not on this issue. Trust me on this: I've been around the 'pedia a long time now, and there is no doubt at all of which way the wind is blowing.
It seems to me that your choices are either (a) to continue as at present, which one way or another will result in your changes being reverted and your not being able to edit at all, or (b) agree voluntarily to avoid the constitition-related pages, in which case you will (presumably) remain free to contribute in many other areas. This, in my view, would be a good thing.
I hasten to add that this is not any sort of ultimatum. I'm writing purely as a concerned bystander, not in any official capacity whatsoever. I like your edits (save the constitutional ones, which I have not read, at least not to remember) and hope that you can find some sort of accommodation with the powers that be. If not, well, see you round.
Best regards,
Tony ( Tannin 12:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence. I also removed some anon's vandalism from here - seems someone doesn't like you. Ambi 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you enjoyed your trip to Washington, D.C. As a local resident and architecture fan, I'm particularly fond of the NBM. I hope you get the opportunity to return soon, maybe in the spring to see the cherry blossoms when it's not so cold. -- Polynova 03:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
As per advice received, your actions have been reported to the Arbitration Committee and a request is being made for your sanctioning over your behaviour. FearÉIREANN
(talk) 06:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that I am to be deprived of any opportunity to read your views on this topic. I have seen a couple of web-sites which appear to be arguing that there is a constitutional flaw which prevents HM from now exercising any authority, and that in consequence both the Governor-Generals-designate and the various Administrations have been de jure ultra vires, no matter what de facto authority they have exercised. I do not know 9and will now never learn, if you are on this line or another.
One of the commentators higher up the page argues that HM being Head of State means Australia is automatuically a monarchy. I am almost certain that there is at least one republic within the Commonwealth whichr etains her as Head of State, but not as monarch. After all, Victoria R was Empress of India, without (as I understand it) being Queen, thus allowing local kingdoms to continue to exist under her benificent reign.
My best wishes to you --
Simon Cursitor 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Poll There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll
Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.
Yeah, I like it too ;-).
And as a side hoby I'm trying to learn the highest peaks of many nations for pubquiz-purposes. Though Australia is somewhat disputed, I believe. Mt. Kosciusko is the standard answer, but then you have teritories like this, and I think one can even argue for Mt McClintock. Oh, well. Shanes 30 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the skyring case →Raul654 June 30, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the mailing list. Here is a short explanation I wrote for another's talk page that may address some of your issues.
The LaRouche-related editor(s) has worn out the patience of many fine contributors. Though Carr's explanation that edits are worthy of reversion simply because they are made by a LaRouche-related editor may seem arbitrary or excessively broad, it is not. At the time of the second ArbCom case against him, I personally reviewed User:Herschelkrustofsky's contributions carefully, cross checking them against LaRouche sites and others. Virtually every single one of the hundreds of edits that he made served to promote one or another of LaRouche's theories. Some were so obscure and innocuous-seeming that if I hadn't been studying the material the connection would not have been apparent. Many edits were clearly composed of cut-and-paste plagiarism or copyright violations. That is why we are not approaching LaRouche-related editors with good faith. LaRouche has earned the bad faith of Wikipedia. - Willmcw 03:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to get into any LaRouche war. I don't understand it and I don't want to and it seems to be handled adequately by existing procedures and those who understand what's going on.
Logically there is a big difference between reverting POV edits and reverting all edits by a particular author. Adam was either very stupid or very stressed to say he'd be reverting all edits made by particular editors. That's not the wikiway.
And Adam's not stupid.
Adam and I have had our differences, but it pains me to see any editor become stressed by what should be a pleasant and constructive community enterprise. It was a cry for attention and I am very concerned to see that he chose to put up a photograph of someone who is dead, apparently through LaRouche activities. It doesn't take much to read the subtext.
On a wider point, there is something seriously wrong with Wikipedia if editors are driven to such lengths. Pete 04:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
That made you take a look!
The previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
I would like to take this opportunity to apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for any distress or pain caused by my actions in recent months. In particular, I would like to single out User:jtdirl and User:Petaholmes, whom I am sure were especially upset by my actions.
It was wrong of me, I am very sorry for this, and I shall not bring up any points of difference between us again. Pete 01:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The object is to write an encyclopaedia, right? Perhaps someone can tell me how replacing a good photograph with a poor one improves the quality. I'd like an explanation for this diff. Which is the better photograph to illustrate the Australian War Memorial article?
I've deleted what used to be here because I think it has served its purpose and I'd rather not stir up ill feelings. I lack the ability to archive stuff, so if anyone is really interested, they'll have to wade through diffs or look at previous versions. Thanks for the input. -- Pete 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Peter.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{ GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Much as I'd like to forget all that stuff and start afresh, there's one thing that niggles away at me. I've made a genuine apology and I've been good for the past five months. A model Wikipedian, I'd like to think.
I honestly acknowledge my bad behaviour, but I don't think anyone would say that it was entirely one-sided, and much as I would like to, I am going to find it very hard to trust those who tormented me, and have not acknowledged this.
In particular, I had nothing to do with User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU despite the accusations of this anon whose IP address comes from the far side of the world to me.
Now, I'm not going to make a fuss over this, because I did so before and found that nobody, from Jimbo on down, gave two hoots, but on a personal note, I simply cannot bring myself to think fondly of someone who would do this and not own up. -- Pete 10:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In a few days time, the 1 year ban imposed upon me by the ArbCom expires. However, this ban has since been extended until the end of October, due to some very bad behaviour on my part. I have made a public apology to the two most visible targets of my unhappiness, and a blanket apology to everyone else who was upset and inconvenienced. Since then, I have done my best to keep my wikinose clean and study up on Wikipedia's ways of doing things.
I would like to return to editing Wikipedia in a constructive and co-operative manner, and I humbly request Jimbo, the ArbCom, the corps of administrators and Wikipedians in general to forgive the extensions to my ban and allow me to return as a full member of the community on the original expiry date.
I recognise that the extensions to my ban were justified under Wikipedia's procedures for behaviour that was unacceptable. I sincerely regret that behaviour and promise that it will not recur. Pete 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 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) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
--.../ Nemo ( talk • Contributions) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 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) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 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) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 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) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 07:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You have the wrong date and Wiki syntax for his death date and age. I tried to fix it but I am too unfamiliar with the syntax to do it. His date of death was 31 October 1860, and his age at death was 85. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did to Tim Berners-Lee. If you feel that material is legitimate, then please include a reliable, verifiable source for it in the text per WP:V and WP:CS. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt at a dialogue, but it doesn't change Wikipedia policy: It is not my job to source the material that you insist on adding to an article. It's yours. Whether you use a biography or the same source multiple times, yes, every bit of information needs to be sourced. If the information is "good information" and has a source, then you are more than capable of adding it yourself. This does not "satisfy me". It "satisfies" WP:Burden. If you insist that not everything be sourced, then this may lead to a slippery slope in which anyone may use that argument in order to justify including any ol' information that isn't cited. WP:V is in place because it provides an objective criteria to prevent such things. If it can be "easily sourced", then why not have each editor who adds such info be the one to source it? Isn't that fair? Nightscream ( talk) 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Please try to not go down this road. People just get upset about it and it's not a consensus driven approach that we should strive for. Nsaa ( talk) 23:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your Statement. I have read each of them, and encourage you to give rebuttals where you feel it to be necessary. I would now ask that you propose a solution on the talk page for review by all participants in hopes of developing consensus on a compromise. This message has been delivered to all participants Ronk01 talk 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)