![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() |
Merry Christmas |
Merry Christmas and wishing you a happy new year! Surturz ( talk) 08:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
WHY did you just revert my Afd? GoodDay ( talk) 00:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Your revert warring indicates that you might not be familiar with the Wikipedia editing process. Please have a read of WP:BRD to understand the cycle.
As you are desiring to change wording that has been stable in the article since 9 March 2011 (the status quo) and your attempt to change it was challenged, the onus is upon you to leave the status quo alone until a consensus to change it has been reached. Please use the article talk page to outline your proposal and supporting argument and discuss with other editors.
You may want to also keep in mind the dispute resolution process.
Thanks. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Seventeen years as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. His views on the "reserve powers of the Crown" must carry more weight than yours or mine. But you see them as irrelevant. You are unable to respond. Why is that?There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion. [2]
Where are "the reserve powers of the Crown" (or their usage) prescribed by the Constitution? The term does not appear in the document and we must therefore turn to other sources. Barwick says that they do not exist. There is no room for any such notion, as he puts it. The "notable example of their use" was the exercise by Sir John Kerr of the power in s64 to appoint ministers. Was that the use of a "reserve power of the Crown"? Clearly, if your interpretation of Barwick is correct, our article wording cannot be, and I invite you to correct it to your satisfaction. -- Pete ( talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)The governor-general may use the reserve powers of the Crown as prescribed by the constitution, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.
Just a warning: You are at your WP:3RR limit at Governor-General of Australia. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring at Governor-General of Australia. Please use the {{ unblock}} template if you wish to request an unblock. Bbb23 ( talk) 03:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Australian head of state dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an
edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
talk page to work toward making a version that represents
consensus among editors. See
BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant
noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
page protection.
Moxy ( talk) 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Pete, it is not for me to join the discussion, but may I ask you about The (Oz) Constitution allows the Queen to use power by defining the situations in which it may be exercised. The Governor-General can hardly appoint himself, sign the Queen's name to legislation after referring it to her, nor disallow legislation already assented to by himself - or herself in the current instance. Those are functions which must be performed by the Queen, the Constitution was drafted with these exceptions to the specifics of Section 61 in mind, and the circumstances were explicitly defined. To my mind, that results in the Queen being ultimately head of state, but GG acting as head of state (like a regent) for most day to day practical purposes (including those concerning UN and other diplomatic protocol), and also in a crisis. Isn't that how it is? And if so, in an article words and phrases that depart from that are to be avoided so far as any commentator can? Qexigator ( talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Oz constitution as you describe it seems as peculiar as UK's, which everyone knows is riddled with more anomalies than have ever been accounted, and is even now generating another by purporting to proceed with the repeal of part of the Union with England Act pased by the parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland, and most of the few who know about it would prefer to leave forgotten [4] and one can see why. Certainly let Oz debate and settle such questions its own way without others presuming to know better. The UK looks set for yet more fumbling at the next demise, which will probably result in the other realms making the decisive difference, as before in the 20c. That's the Windsor way. Qexigator ( talk) 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Menugate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menugate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Slac speak up! 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Good morning Pete. Since you are heel bent to stifle any discussion of the POV issues on File:BoatArrivals.gif I have issued an RFC. Please do not continue revert warring and deleting content on that article. Djapa Owen ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw this marked in respect of an edit you made "TharkunColl...(That was your 3rd revert. No one disputes that Southern Ireland was a dominion.) That particular editor doesn't even know that (i) " Southern Ireland" was never a dominion, nevermind a realm; and (ii) that the list was one of former realms - not former dominions. But either way, having integrity on Wikipedia doesn't matter. They will try to ban you if they can. Be careful. Don't get caught by that. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Royal Navy may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
N2e ( talk) 04:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Pete, I gather there is not a lot of WikiLove between you and that other editor. Are your comments going to help? If not, then I'd advise to drop it. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Skyring, Stalwart111 has given you Foster's Lager, for "all that sh*t over at ANI"! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else Foster's Lager! Enjoy! Hey, you and I obviously disagree on a bunch of stuff by way of form and function but I appreciate the fact that we managed to have a generally civil and constructive discussion about it. Given the mentions of Australian vernacular and "pub language", I thought this might be an appropriate WikiLove message. We might not always agree but at least we can agree that the beer afterward should be cold, right? Stalwart 111 04:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |
There is no rule that says things must stay up while notability is being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatpedro ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The wikipedia shooting-brake entry starts with "Shooting-brake, shooting brake or shooting break..." which maybe speaks for itself. The reason I prefer "Break" in the context of a French car (ie the Peugeot 504) is simply that "Break" is the word Peugeot use. Otherwise, I have no reason to favo(u)r one version of the spelling over another.
I don't think any of this is important enough to get into a p**sing contest over, but I felt this irresistible urge to share what was in my mind.
Happy day Charles01 ( talk) 16:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That was a foolish mistake, Skyring: while it is entirely possible that your change to the heading was made in some good faith, it was foolish to get involved even with a minor edit in one of HiLo's conversations and you're pushing against the boundaries of even this admin's patience. Please let this not happen again. Stay out of that conversation and any others started or participated in by HiLo. Drmies ( talk) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
my personal interpretation of the IBAN policy, which you may or may not wish to apply to your situation
|
---|
|
Hello Skyring,
Here's to let you know I'm writing to you on the discussion page at the SES article about your last edits. - Roberthall7 ( talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have requested that action be taken regarding a violation of an interaction ban, see here. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk)
15:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thanks, Drmies! As noted above, I disagree, and I trust you will not take it amiss if I appeal. Herewith my official unblock request, which will trigger an investigation by another admin. I have a friend in Melbourne, an award-winning journalist who is clever, amazingly well-read and very good at his job. Incredible attention to detail, which makes him an excellent sub-editor. He is a darling, charming, generous man, and I love him dearly. Unfortunately he is also paranoid, well out on the spectrum, and possessed of that mindset which makes him see all of his thoughts as divine, pure and eternally correct. In his own mind, he is never wrong. This has caused him immense grief over the years, and he has rarely held a job for more than a few months. The combination of his traits makes him view those who disagree with him as having some evil agenda. He cannot in himself be wrong, so others must be lying, pursuing a vendetta, have ulterior motives, be part of a conspiracy, whatever. If they cannot see the truth of his views they must therefore be wilfully aggravating him. That becomes rather tiresome, but in my mind he atones for it by having a big heart. He's not trying to cause unrest, it's just the way he is made. I understand him, and I forgive him everything. But this isn't about my friend, nor anyone else displaying such traits of paranoia or self-perceived infallibility. It is about my own personal journey. As a Victorian myself, schooled in Williamstown, worked on Lonsdale, raised a family on the Mornington Peninsula, "soccer" is the name I naturally use for the roundball football sport. I supported the retention of the name Soccer in Australia when the matter came up for discussion on the talk page of that article. I have occasionally contributed to general discussion there, but not as much as some, because, as a quick read will indicate, the "discussion" is so endlessly abrasive, with personal attacks, allegations of incompetence, excursions to ANI and so on. It is a prime example of the way Wikipedia discussion should NOT be conducted. Recently I began examining my own views on the subject. Rather than relying on my own childhood opinions on the name of the sport, just what was available in the way of reliable sources? I was startled to discover that the situation had changed in recent years, and commenced a discussion here. Please read. I'd prefer not to see the latest initiative descend into the usual personal attacks. I'd really love to see some admin supervision of discussion there, handing out blocks for bad behaviour, ensuring that talk remains focussed and civil. Which is why I commented on a post at ANI, seeking a wider examination of the problem. I'm well aware of the restrictions of an interaction ban, but the wording says, "…the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other…". Which I did. Well, that was my belief, but others saw it differently, and that's a little frustrating. If the wording of the iban restrictions says one thing, but it's interpreted differentially or one-sidedly by different editors to mean something else, then where does that leave good faith? I'm not out to upset or attack any one person. But just how do I express my views on this subject, as permitted by the "allowed to edit the same pages or discussions" wording, when any honest comment is seized upon as a deliberate, cold-blooded and sneaky attempt to subvert the iban? I see that as an attempt to shut down my longstanding involvement in an issue of particular interest to me. The discussion here is what I have been using for guidance. Thanks for the consideration. I have no intention of interaction or involvement with the other party to the iban. Or upsetting any other editor, really. That's not what Wikipedia is about, and if I have inadvertently done so, I apologise. I direct readers to the text on my user page as an indication of my philosophy. Pete ( talk) 9:43 pm, 2 January 2014, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
That seems a very long and verbose explanation for the fact that you testing the limits of your IBAN. Congratulations, you have now established a limit. If that wasn't what you intended to say then I encourage you to greater brevity and clarity in future. For the moment your request is declined. Spartaz Humbug! 00:10, 5 January 2014 (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.
However, I've been taken to AN/I twice now on grounds of absolute hypocrisy, blatant embellishment, and one sided nonsense... I'm more than a little wound up. As a general course of events, anyone who has been dragged through all this nonsense from beginning to end would be. Purely as a discussion of my position, it has been absolute crap... -- Orestes1984 ( talk) 19:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Please strike your talk page comments on Soccer in Australia; you are currently interaction banned from HiLo48 [ [5], they are a long standing editor there, and your only prior edit to the page in last 5 years / 500 edits [6] was to revert one of there edits. NE Ent 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Drmies (
talk)
00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Pete, no doubt you have seen the closing of the ANI thread. The warning is clear: attempts to lawyer around the IBAN will be followed by lengthy blocks. No specific measure was agreed upon regarding Soccer in Australia and soccer/football articles in general; however, NE Ent, Bbb23, Johnuniq, Lukeno94, Nick Thorne, Jusdafax, Bishonen, Blackmane, and Stalwart111 all agreed, in varying measures of strength, that your edits to that and other soccer articles were disruptive and/or baiting, and many if not all of those editors supported a topic ban for you from those articles. Orestes1984 was not for it but seemed somewhat in the middle, and Penwhale was the only one against it, as far as I can tell. In hindsight, and now that I add it all up, I think Callanecc could have easily decided to enact such a topic ban, whether specific or general, but they closed it and we just have to accept that, for now.
Given that pretty broad support for the idea that a. your edits there were disruptive, baiting, and/or an attempt to circumvent the IBAN since they were in an area that HiLo has frequented for a long, long time (and you haven't) and b. that you really should have been banned from that area, I am going to assume there is consensus that any admin will have broad discretion to block you if your presence there is deemed a violation of your IBAN with HiLo. There's a couple of admins in that list, and perhaps any edits that are deemed violations should be reported to them, just in case anyone has doubts about my impartiality in this matter. It is still my hope that at some point the two of you can come to terms, but until that time you are both (and HiLo48 is hereby also notified) on a short leash when it comes to the IBAN. I hope that statement is really redundant since it's not new, but what I hope to make abundantly clear is that you are strongly suggested to stay away from the topic area. That is all. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
An infobox which is intrinsically ludicrous benefits no one at all. Your "warning" is of not a hell of a lot of value -- especially since I recall a few times where I defended you at the drama boards. Do you really want a two hundred line infobox just to show how evil those damn labourites are? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It really shouldn't be like this but I have to mind my Ps & Qs, if you'd like to talk about anything else feel free to visit my talk page some time -- Orestes1984 ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Pete, and thanks for your contributions at the Australia sports naming debate. As has been pointed out by User:Drmies, your interaction ban as discussed here prevents you from taking part in the discussion. I will take no action for your participation thus far (though another admin may, if they feel you have knowingly breached your ban), nor will I remove your contributions. But I would ask you not to edit there again, pending a successful appeal or clarification of your ban. This may be made at WP:AN/I. As you have mentioned, Arbcom would be another possible avenue. I am sorry as it does feel counter-intuitive in a way to restrict a good faith participant from the process, but it's impossible for me to read the topic ban any other way. -- John ( talk) 07:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just clarifying a bit more based the discussion on Drmies's talk page. Another way for me to have said the last sentence in my closure statement would be "that the IBAN extends to any issue which one party is already involved with". As HiLo is already involved in the naming issue you aren't permitted to be involved in it. Hope that clarifies a bit more. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That you might the sort of a candidate for looking at Troy Buswell and Colin Barnett articles - as they are both very close to worthy of NPOV needs reviewing tags - and as they as BLP and LP - your name was raised in suggestion. Cheers. satusuro 08:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Something I just came across which may be of interest. Go to this page and search down in para [121] for '17 Use of cameras etc.' Cheers, Bjenks ( talk) 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Pete. As we discussed a few weeks ago your interaction ban precludes you getting involved in a debate in which HiLo is already taking part. However per the wording of
WP:IBAN I think it would be ok for you to record your view at the Responses (2) section. I do not want you to get involved in the threaded debate section though, as we previously agreed. Does that make sense? If you do decide to record a response there, can you be especially careful not to comment on other editors in your rationale? --
John (
talk)
12:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked your account for one month due to this violation of your interaction ban with HiLo48. I clarified at the beginning of March that you are not permitted to participate in any discussion in which one party is already involved, you have done this very clearly in this case. In the ANI discussion I closed I stated that the suggested block length is a minimum of one month block as such I have blocked you for one month. See also this discussion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll be using the section below for drafting an appeal to ArbCom. Kindly do not modify it. Cheers. -- Pete ( talk) 21:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Tread carefully and wisely :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:05, 1 May 2014 (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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() |
Merry Christmas |
Merry Christmas and wishing you a happy new year! Surturz ( talk) 08:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
WHY did you just revert my Afd? GoodDay ( talk) 00:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Your revert warring indicates that you might not be familiar with the Wikipedia editing process. Please have a read of WP:BRD to understand the cycle.
As you are desiring to change wording that has been stable in the article since 9 March 2011 (the status quo) and your attempt to change it was challenged, the onus is upon you to leave the status quo alone until a consensus to change it has been reached. Please use the article talk page to outline your proposal and supporting argument and discuss with other editors.
You may want to also keep in mind the dispute resolution process.
Thanks. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Seventeen years as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. His views on the "reserve powers of the Crown" must carry more weight than yours or mine. But you see them as irrelevant. You are unable to respond. Why is that?There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion. [2]
Where are "the reserve powers of the Crown" (or their usage) prescribed by the Constitution? The term does not appear in the document and we must therefore turn to other sources. Barwick says that they do not exist. There is no room for any such notion, as he puts it. The "notable example of their use" was the exercise by Sir John Kerr of the power in s64 to appoint ministers. Was that the use of a "reserve power of the Crown"? Clearly, if your interpretation of Barwick is correct, our article wording cannot be, and I invite you to correct it to your satisfaction. -- Pete ( talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)The governor-general may use the reserve powers of the Crown as prescribed by the constitution, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.
Just a warning: You are at your WP:3RR limit at Governor-General of Australia. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring at Governor-General of Australia. Please use the {{ unblock}} template if you wish to request an unblock. Bbb23 ( talk) 03:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Australian head of state dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an
edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
talk page to work toward making a version that represents
consensus among editors. See
BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant
noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
page protection.
Moxy ( talk) 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Pete, it is not for me to join the discussion, but may I ask you about The (Oz) Constitution allows the Queen to use power by defining the situations in which it may be exercised. The Governor-General can hardly appoint himself, sign the Queen's name to legislation after referring it to her, nor disallow legislation already assented to by himself - or herself in the current instance. Those are functions which must be performed by the Queen, the Constitution was drafted with these exceptions to the specifics of Section 61 in mind, and the circumstances were explicitly defined. To my mind, that results in the Queen being ultimately head of state, but GG acting as head of state (like a regent) for most day to day practical purposes (including those concerning UN and other diplomatic protocol), and also in a crisis. Isn't that how it is? And if so, in an article words and phrases that depart from that are to be avoided so far as any commentator can? Qexigator ( talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Oz constitution as you describe it seems as peculiar as UK's, which everyone knows is riddled with more anomalies than have ever been accounted, and is even now generating another by purporting to proceed with the repeal of part of the Union with England Act pased by the parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland, and most of the few who know about it would prefer to leave forgotten [4] and one can see why. Certainly let Oz debate and settle such questions its own way without others presuming to know better. The UK looks set for yet more fumbling at the next demise, which will probably result in the other realms making the decisive difference, as before in the 20c. That's the Windsor way. Qexigator ( talk) 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Menugate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menugate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Slac speak up! 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Good morning Pete. Since you are heel bent to stifle any discussion of the POV issues on File:BoatArrivals.gif I have issued an RFC. Please do not continue revert warring and deleting content on that article. Djapa Owen ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw this marked in respect of an edit you made "TharkunColl...(That was your 3rd revert. No one disputes that Southern Ireland was a dominion.) That particular editor doesn't even know that (i) " Southern Ireland" was never a dominion, nevermind a realm; and (ii) that the list was one of former realms - not former dominions. But either way, having integrity on Wikipedia doesn't matter. They will try to ban you if they can. Be careful. Don't get caught by that. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Royal Navy may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
N2e ( talk) 04:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Pete, I gather there is not a lot of WikiLove between you and that other editor. Are your comments going to help? If not, then I'd advise to drop it. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Skyring, Stalwart111 has given you Foster's Lager, for "all that sh*t over at ANI"! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else Foster's Lager! Enjoy! Hey, you and I obviously disagree on a bunch of stuff by way of form and function but I appreciate the fact that we managed to have a generally civil and constructive discussion about it. Given the mentions of Australian vernacular and "pub language", I thought this might be an appropriate WikiLove message. We might not always agree but at least we can agree that the beer afterward should be cold, right? Stalwart 111 04:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |
There is no rule that says things must stay up while notability is being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatpedro ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The wikipedia shooting-brake entry starts with "Shooting-brake, shooting brake or shooting break..." which maybe speaks for itself. The reason I prefer "Break" in the context of a French car (ie the Peugeot 504) is simply that "Break" is the word Peugeot use. Otherwise, I have no reason to favo(u)r one version of the spelling over another.
I don't think any of this is important enough to get into a p**sing contest over, but I felt this irresistible urge to share what was in my mind.
Happy day Charles01 ( talk) 16:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That was a foolish mistake, Skyring: while it is entirely possible that your change to the heading was made in some good faith, it was foolish to get involved even with a minor edit in one of HiLo's conversations and you're pushing against the boundaries of even this admin's patience. Please let this not happen again. Stay out of that conversation and any others started or participated in by HiLo. Drmies ( talk) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
my personal interpretation of the IBAN policy, which you may or may not wish to apply to your situation
|
---|
|
Hello Skyring,
Here's to let you know I'm writing to you on the discussion page at the SES article about your last edits. - Roberthall7 ( talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have requested that action be taken regarding a violation of an interaction ban, see here. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk)
15:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Skyring ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thanks, Drmies! As noted above, I disagree, and I trust you will not take it amiss if I appeal. Herewith my official unblock request, which will trigger an investigation by another admin. I have a friend in Melbourne, an award-winning journalist who is clever, amazingly well-read and very good at his job. Incredible attention to detail, which makes him an excellent sub-editor. He is a darling, charming, generous man, and I love him dearly. Unfortunately he is also paranoid, well out on the spectrum, and possessed of that mindset which makes him see all of his thoughts as divine, pure and eternally correct. In his own mind, he is never wrong. This has caused him immense grief over the years, and he has rarely held a job for more than a few months. The combination of his traits makes him view those who disagree with him as having some evil agenda. He cannot in himself be wrong, so others must be lying, pursuing a vendetta, have ulterior motives, be part of a conspiracy, whatever. If they cannot see the truth of his views they must therefore be wilfully aggravating him. That becomes rather tiresome, but in my mind he atones for it by having a big heart. He's not trying to cause unrest, it's just the way he is made. I understand him, and I forgive him everything. But this isn't about my friend, nor anyone else displaying such traits of paranoia or self-perceived infallibility. It is about my own personal journey. As a Victorian myself, schooled in Williamstown, worked on Lonsdale, raised a family on the Mornington Peninsula, "soccer" is the name I naturally use for the roundball football sport. I supported the retention of the name Soccer in Australia when the matter came up for discussion on the talk page of that article. I have occasionally contributed to general discussion there, but not as much as some, because, as a quick read will indicate, the "discussion" is so endlessly abrasive, with personal attacks, allegations of incompetence, excursions to ANI and so on. It is a prime example of the way Wikipedia discussion should NOT be conducted. Recently I began examining my own views on the subject. Rather than relying on my own childhood opinions on the name of the sport, just what was available in the way of reliable sources? I was startled to discover that the situation had changed in recent years, and commenced a discussion here. Please read. I'd prefer not to see the latest initiative descend into the usual personal attacks. I'd really love to see some admin supervision of discussion there, handing out blocks for bad behaviour, ensuring that talk remains focussed and civil. Which is why I commented on a post at ANI, seeking a wider examination of the problem. I'm well aware of the restrictions of an interaction ban, but the wording says, "…the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other…". Which I did. Well, that was my belief, but others saw it differently, and that's a little frustrating. If the wording of the iban restrictions says one thing, but it's interpreted differentially or one-sidedly by different editors to mean something else, then where does that leave good faith? I'm not out to upset or attack any one person. But just how do I express my views on this subject, as permitted by the "allowed to edit the same pages or discussions" wording, when any honest comment is seized upon as a deliberate, cold-blooded and sneaky attempt to subvert the iban? I see that as an attempt to shut down my longstanding involvement in an issue of particular interest to me. The discussion here is what I have been using for guidance. Thanks for the consideration. I have no intention of interaction or involvement with the other party to the iban. Or upsetting any other editor, really. That's not what Wikipedia is about, and if I have inadvertently done so, I apologise. I direct readers to the text on my user page as an indication of my philosophy. Pete ( talk) 9:43 pm, 2 January 2014, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
That seems a very long and verbose explanation for the fact that you testing the limits of your IBAN. Congratulations, you have now established a limit. If that wasn't what you intended to say then I encourage you to greater brevity and clarity in future. For the moment your request is declined. Spartaz Humbug! 00:10, 5 January 2014 (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.
However, I've been taken to AN/I twice now on grounds of absolute hypocrisy, blatant embellishment, and one sided nonsense... I'm more than a little wound up. As a general course of events, anyone who has been dragged through all this nonsense from beginning to end would be. Purely as a discussion of my position, it has been absolute crap... -- Orestes1984 ( talk) 19:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Please strike your talk page comments on Soccer in Australia; you are currently interaction banned from HiLo48 [ [5], they are a long standing editor there, and your only prior edit to the page in last 5 years / 500 edits [6] was to revert one of there edits. NE Ent 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Drmies (
talk)
00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Pete, no doubt you have seen the closing of the ANI thread. The warning is clear: attempts to lawyer around the IBAN will be followed by lengthy blocks. No specific measure was agreed upon regarding Soccer in Australia and soccer/football articles in general; however, NE Ent, Bbb23, Johnuniq, Lukeno94, Nick Thorne, Jusdafax, Bishonen, Blackmane, and Stalwart111 all agreed, in varying measures of strength, that your edits to that and other soccer articles were disruptive and/or baiting, and many if not all of those editors supported a topic ban for you from those articles. Orestes1984 was not for it but seemed somewhat in the middle, and Penwhale was the only one against it, as far as I can tell. In hindsight, and now that I add it all up, I think Callanecc could have easily decided to enact such a topic ban, whether specific or general, but they closed it and we just have to accept that, for now.
Given that pretty broad support for the idea that a. your edits there were disruptive, baiting, and/or an attempt to circumvent the IBAN since they were in an area that HiLo has frequented for a long, long time (and you haven't) and b. that you really should have been banned from that area, I am going to assume there is consensus that any admin will have broad discretion to block you if your presence there is deemed a violation of your IBAN with HiLo. There's a couple of admins in that list, and perhaps any edits that are deemed violations should be reported to them, just in case anyone has doubts about my impartiality in this matter. It is still my hope that at some point the two of you can come to terms, but until that time you are both (and HiLo48 is hereby also notified) on a short leash when it comes to the IBAN. I hope that statement is really redundant since it's not new, but what I hope to make abundantly clear is that you are strongly suggested to stay away from the topic area. That is all. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
An infobox which is intrinsically ludicrous benefits no one at all. Your "warning" is of not a hell of a lot of value -- especially since I recall a few times where I defended you at the drama boards. Do you really want a two hundred line infobox just to show how evil those damn labourites are? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It really shouldn't be like this but I have to mind my Ps & Qs, if you'd like to talk about anything else feel free to visit my talk page some time -- Orestes1984 ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Pete, and thanks for your contributions at the Australia sports naming debate. As has been pointed out by User:Drmies, your interaction ban as discussed here prevents you from taking part in the discussion. I will take no action for your participation thus far (though another admin may, if they feel you have knowingly breached your ban), nor will I remove your contributions. But I would ask you not to edit there again, pending a successful appeal or clarification of your ban. This may be made at WP:AN/I. As you have mentioned, Arbcom would be another possible avenue. I am sorry as it does feel counter-intuitive in a way to restrict a good faith participant from the process, but it's impossible for me to read the topic ban any other way. -- John ( talk) 07:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just clarifying a bit more based the discussion on Drmies's talk page. Another way for me to have said the last sentence in my closure statement would be "that the IBAN extends to any issue which one party is already involved with". As HiLo is already involved in the naming issue you aren't permitted to be involved in it. Hope that clarifies a bit more. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That you might the sort of a candidate for looking at Troy Buswell and Colin Barnett articles - as they are both very close to worthy of NPOV needs reviewing tags - and as they as BLP and LP - your name was raised in suggestion. Cheers. satusuro 08:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Something I just came across which may be of interest. Go to this page and search down in para [121] for '17 Use of cameras etc.' Cheers, Bjenks ( talk) 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Pete. As we discussed a few weeks ago your interaction ban precludes you getting involved in a debate in which HiLo is already taking part. However per the wording of
WP:IBAN I think it would be ok for you to record your view at the Responses (2) section. I do not want you to get involved in the threaded debate section though, as we previously agreed. Does that make sense? If you do decide to record a response there, can you be especially careful not to comment on other editors in your rationale? --
John (
talk)
12:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked your account for one month due to this violation of your interaction ban with HiLo48. I clarified at the beginning of March that you are not permitted to participate in any discussion in which one party is already involved, you have done this very clearly in this case. In the ANI discussion I closed I stated that the suggested block length is a minimum of one month block as such I have blocked you for one month. See also this discussion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll be using the section below for drafting an appeal to ArbCom. Kindly do not modify it. Cheers. -- Pete ( talk) 21:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Tread carefully and wisely :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)