![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Pete, I have had to remove your comment in that infobox discussion. HiLo had already commented in that thread, and given the iBan your job is to make sure that this doesn't happen. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Pete, do you think you and HiLo can get along? And do you think that even if, on occasion, you can't get along, that you can limit that not-getting-along to where it won't disrupt threads, discussions, Wikipedia, the known universe? I think HiLo is willing to give that a shot. Also, I'm having a beer with some tequila, which I am sure most Australians can appreciate. Cheers, Drmies ( talk) 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Your old friend 1955Dewayne is adding a mountain of crap about wind energy to this BLP, and I was wondering if you might use your skills for good... The Drover's Wife ( talk) 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've done a dummy spit ( or two). Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thanks for helping me get the facts right on Meilin Miranda's page, from Dragix ( talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Please note Tony Abbott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL Timeshift ( talk) 03:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Remember to leave the 3RR report advice on the user's talkpage. Timeshift ( talk) 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Timeshift ( talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be assuming the worst of Alans1977 on Talk:Abortion and admit to following them around. Please refrain from calling people names like "drunk". Based on your talk page archives, I see that interactions with other users has been an issue in the past, so consider this a warning ( without a template). EvergreenFir ( talk) 03:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I am replying to your comments in the closed RfC. The Statute of Westminster had no effect on the role of the Crown in each dominion. "...it is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not. The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867." (Kerr LJ, 1982) [1]
The Statute ceded the power of Westminster to legislate for the named dominions without their permission. In every subsequent case where a former colony achieved independence, Westminster ceded power to legislate even with permission. Later they ceded power to legislate for Canada (1982), Australia (1986) and New Zealand (1986). The other significant aspect of the Act is that it allowed the dominions to determine the succession of their own monarchs. But that power was never extended to the other Commonwealth realms - their constitutions state that whoever is monarch of the UK is their sovereign, which became evident with the Perth Agreement.
TFD ( talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell. Was this a vote? [2] It's hard to tell from the layout, and you don't really say Reopen or Close. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted at the talk page. You failed to answer. If you are not going to discuss the section, then please don't revert. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 08:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JacksonRiley ( talk) 13:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Pete. This edit was brought to my attention. It seems to be a breach of your interaction ban. I suggest either:
a) It was a deliberate breach or test of the boundaries or
b) It was inadvertent or forgetful
If (a), we will go for a 48 hour block. If (b) I would ask you to be more careful in future and probably remove or strike the offending post, depending if anyone has responded to your comment.
As I've said before, I wouldn't be against removing this IB as I have a lot of respect for your intellect and good intentions. When we last discussed this option I think you were against it though.
What do you say? -- John ( talk) 17:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe WP:ARCA is the place to go. GoodDay ( talk) 21:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Given your previous input you may be interested in this. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Election_links The Tepes ( talk) 06:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I've already informed you, that I'm letting others comment at the discussion-in-queston. You & I 'never have' & 'never will' agree on the status of the Governor General of Australia. Please respect that, as I do :) GoodDay ( talk) 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Pete. Edits like this one go against the agreement regarding Australian sports naming. It is fine for you to challenge the consensus, but you should not try to do it by directly changing articles. Instead, bring your arguments to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and try to persuade others that your changes are necessary first. I see you have made Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Sources, and that may be a good start. But making a list of sources that appear to support your position on the naming matter is only the first step. There would now need to be a proper discussion, ideally involving as many as possible of the editors who participated last time, and that discussion would have to be closed in favour of this change to the consensus, before such edits would be acceptable. Please do not make any further such changes in the absence of such a discussion. -- John ( talk) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've requested a third opinon there, at Wikipedia:3O. Meanwhile, you should reverse your revert at the disputed article, per WP:BRD, as you were Bold in adding, I Reverted & now we're in Discussion mode. GoodDay ( talk) 15:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've also asked for Mies' input, as he has more knowledge on this topic, then I. GoodDay ( talk) 15:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
WHY are you disregarding BRD?? GoodDay ( talk) 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
We went through this three weeks ago, remember? It's right there in the edit summary. You have now reverted twice. I suggest that you keep discussion on the page. Cheers. -- Pete ( talk) 16:10, 1 December 2014 (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
19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Would you be interested in expanding the Wikipedia article on Kylie Maybury?
it just involves editing the article and adding/correcting information. I think Americans have gotten to Kylie's article as it talks about Kylie "going to the grocery store" - Isn't that an Americanism not used in Australia? Paul Austin ( talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Regretfully, you won't or can't let go, unconditionally :( GoodDay ( talk) 18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You're very familiar with WP:3RR and WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You've just made your third revert at Governor-General of Australia. Another will obviously put you in breach of 3RR again. You were lucky enough to get away with breaking that rule before. Are you going to gamble on it again? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This unwelcome, not to say impertinent, communication was dropped on my Talk page [3]
I've been watching the ongoing discussion. So far, Skyring hasn't gotten a consensus for what he wants & doesn't want in that article. FWIW, the discussion need not continue & the article would have to be returned to its status-quo (pre-November 11, 2014). Furthermore, any attempts by Skyring from that point on to impliment his changes, would have to be viewed as disruptive & handled accordingly. My point is, Skyring can't do as he wishes at that article 'without' a consensus & therefore, you & Mies need no longer accommadate or argue with him indefinitely. He can't make any changes, just because others no longer want to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have also noted [4]. Qexigator ( talk) 19:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Skyring! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, — DerHexer (Talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I gotta leave the discussion. My temper is reaching boiling point with Mies & that's not good for me. I hope you, him & Qex can work this out :) GoodDay ( talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have responded to your edit. See the assassination article's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.50.151 ( talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You are engaged in a slow revert war with many different editors over the content of Football (word) as can bee seen in the history of the article, to date you have not discussed the changes you are trying to force into the article on the article's talk page ( talk:Football (word)). I suggest that you do as there may be some validity in your position but it may also vary from region to region in Australia, but whatever the "truth" your proposed changes need to be discussed on the talk page as jaw jaw is better than war war.
You are an old hand and have been blocked on several occasions for edit warring, so there is no reason that any more warnings need to be issued, but if you have not read the essay WP:BRD please do so. -- PBS ( talk) 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misogyny Speech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but I think you overestimate Abbott enormously. In my view, Abbott was not a good Opposition Leader at all; he was merely extremely lucky in facing a government that obligingly self-destructed, and was bolstered by an uncritical media. He has never been anything but unpopular, heads a disunited and openly shambolic government, and is clearly and obviously out of touch on several critical issues. I daresay he's determined, but so was Billy McMahon.
Now, I am not going to confidently say I am 100% sure that Abbott will lose the next election. This time in 2009 I would have been far more confident that Rudd would be re-elected than I am now that Abbott will lose, and we all know how that turned out. In general, this bears out my general view that long-term predictions in politics are folly, and especially anything beyond the next term. I am always extremely irritated to see the rash of predictions that ensue right after an election - remember how the Coalition was going to be "out of office for a generation" in 2007 (or, even more idiotically, how the Liberal Party would not survive being out of office federally and in every state)? Or how Labor would take at least three elections to recover from Queensland 2012? Especially with today's more volatile electorate, I just don't see those sorts of predictions as sensible.
Having said that, if I had to guess I would say Howard was probably the last really long-serving PM we'll see. The turnover is that much faster now (not everyone's rival is as self-defeatingly patient as Peter Costello), and Abbott already faces significant discontent on his backbench. Of course if he pulls out a win next year that will fade, but at the moment I still think there's a fair chance he won't make it to the next election as leader. (My inkling is that, if Turnbull ever becomes convinced that he will never lead the Liberal Party, he will quit it; his doing so would, I suspect, severely injure the Liberal Party, but this is just conjecture.) Either way, I think it's fair to say that all the available evidence contradicts the idea that he is "good for another few terms". Frickeg ( talk) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you please let me know why Noel Wauchope was removed from the list of individuals opposing nuclear power in Australia? -- Danimations ( talk) 02:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the person in question is a blogger and opinion writer- the names of two of her websites were mentioned prior to your deletion. -- Danimations ( talk) 05:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I took your advice on board and renamed the sub-section to 'Independent activists and campaigners' which helps narrow the field. It does deserve expansion, but not the extent of hundreds, as you point out. -- Danimations ( talk) 06:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your defense of my Windshuttle additions. I only just saw them. The area needs proper analysis but has become way too political in both directions. I have added something to Talk. Tuntable ( talk) 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Pete, I've replied to your posting on Talk:Sinjar massacre#‘Siege’ is partisan, non-neutral ; perhaps you'd care to check whether I've understood you there correctly. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 12:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Your recent removal of changes to the Greg Hunt page don't seem to be support by Wikipedia. There is no mention of Criticism being deprecated in the BLP page only that it should be included if reliably sourced and presented in a neutral tone. Even as a heading in the article structure, "Criticism", doesn't seem unbalanced when referring to his role. However that can be changed to reflect more balance rather than removing an entire relevant section on a public figure.
Note that your reversion of my edit at Gough Whitlam re-introduced a wiki syntax error which prompted my edit. Further, I don't understand why you would want to restore the template {{ Persondata}} which does nothing. I suggest you revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you consider this section part of the so-called "fringe POV" and therefore in your opinion should be removed from WP? Timeshift ( talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice that the merger you done here, is not in accordance with Wikipedia procedure. And the merger notification suggests to merge the other article into Height above sea level. prokaryotes ( talk) 09:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
prokaryotes (
talk)
23:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously Wzl is a hands-on type of fellow) ????-- Wuerzele ( talk) 05:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of formality I need to post a warning here on your talk page, in regard to the following edits at Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations:
Numerous sources have made totally clear that VW was utterly dishonest. Nobody asserts, as you did that they were in any way "completely honest and accurate." You claim that it's not illegal, no law has been broken, yet numerous sources were cited saying it was illegal and laws were broken. You were given specific sections of the legal code showing which laws were broken. You have cited zero sources saying no laws were broken. You accused others of making statements "nobody has actually uttered" even though you were shown many reliable sources who did in fact say it. You have twisted clear statements made in reliable sources in their own voice into "emotive language". You have repeatedly denied that anybody has "said straight out what DB wants Wikipedia to say" even when offered again and again numerous sources which do say it. Your assertion that we "can't link to a reliable source" is demonstrably false, yet you repeatedly make this same assertion. You have made clear that you are in denial about VW's actions. You think because they are a "global brand" that the must not have really done what they formally admitted to and which all reliable sources say they did.
You have presented novel theories of your own about VW and what it is likely to do or not do based on zero sources. The NYT has explained that in fact this is typical of how VW is run, according to experts. “The governance of Volkswagen was a breeding ground for scandal,” said Charles M. Elson, professor of finance and director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “It was an accident waiting to happen.” Your baseless assumption that other companies did the same thing is contradicted by this NYT article. Yes, a degree of emissions rules violations is common, but this elaborate hoax, the deliberate evasion of testing on VW's part is almost unprecedented.
Wikipedia calls what you're doing Tendentious editing. Please cite any source that shares your opinions about this case. You've never once done so; you're making up explanations for these events out of whole cloth and expecting everyone else to edit around those made up explanations. If you had once cited a source which shares your novel ideas, your unique skepticism, then it could be argued that you are working to balance the article, seeking fair middle ground between differentiating points of view. But the second point of view has never been shown to exist outside of your own imagination. Tendentious editing, "carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." You need to stop. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You have continued to engage in posting false statements to push your point of view, failing to cite any sources to support it. Here you made the obviously false statement that the EPA merely did scientific investigation to "reveal" the truth, when you know full well they had to carry out a law-enforcement investigation to force VW to stop evading justice. Here you were presented with no less than 17 citations of reliable sources, and you falsely claimed that the use of "cheat" was mere "headline-writing". These are not merely headlines. You should know that. Please stop making these false statements and instead base your arguments on facts. Your behavior is a form of Disruptive editing. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Multiple users reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: ). Thank you. —
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hijra. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Note that I have mentioned you here. Jus da fax 22:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idolatry. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
...and I believed that finally commonsense had come to that article's intro. Now, I fear it's going to be stuck with that 'odd' looking version, which merely panders to a few Canadians ;) GoodDay ( talk) 03:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Forgive my slight frustrations there. But, having stared at the absurd "Queen of 16..." version for several months, certaintly tried my patience :) GoodDay ( talk) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on getting rid of that strange looking "...16 of 53...", from the intro. PS: If I had done it? I'd of been dragged off to ANI or something worst, by now :) GoodDay ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trưng Sisters. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superpower. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kansas River. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
By golly, I've finally figured it out ; -- GoodDay ( talk) 12:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African American. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monsanto legal cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PCB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denali. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 18 October 2015 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Pete, I have had to remove your comment in that infobox discussion. HiLo had already commented in that thread, and given the iBan your job is to make sure that this doesn't happen. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Pete, do you think you and HiLo can get along? And do you think that even if, on occasion, you can't get along, that you can limit that not-getting-along to where it won't disrupt threads, discussions, Wikipedia, the known universe? I think HiLo is willing to give that a shot. Also, I'm having a beer with some tequila, which I am sure most Australians can appreciate. Cheers, Drmies ( talk) 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Your old friend 1955Dewayne is adding a mountain of crap about wind energy to this BLP, and I was wondering if you might use your skills for good... The Drover's Wife ( talk) 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've done a dummy spit ( or two). Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thanks for helping me get the facts right on Meilin Miranda's page, from Dragix ( talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Please note Tony Abbott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL Timeshift ( talk) 03:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Remember to leave the 3RR report advice on the user's talkpage. Timeshift ( talk) 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Timeshift ( talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be assuming the worst of Alans1977 on Talk:Abortion and admit to following them around. Please refrain from calling people names like "drunk". Based on your talk page archives, I see that interactions with other users has been an issue in the past, so consider this a warning ( without a template). EvergreenFir ( talk) 03:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I am replying to your comments in the closed RfC. The Statute of Westminster had no effect on the role of the Crown in each dominion. "...it is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not. The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867." (Kerr LJ, 1982) [1]
The Statute ceded the power of Westminster to legislate for the named dominions without their permission. In every subsequent case where a former colony achieved independence, Westminster ceded power to legislate even with permission. Later they ceded power to legislate for Canada (1982), Australia (1986) and New Zealand (1986). The other significant aspect of the Act is that it allowed the dominions to determine the succession of their own monarchs. But that power was never extended to the other Commonwealth realms - their constitutions state that whoever is monarch of the UK is their sovereign, which became evident with the Perth Agreement.
TFD ( talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell. Was this a vote? [2] It's hard to tell from the layout, and you don't really say Reopen or Close. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted at the talk page. You failed to answer. If you are not going to discuss the section, then please don't revert. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 08:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JacksonRiley ( talk) 13:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Pete. This edit was brought to my attention. It seems to be a breach of your interaction ban. I suggest either:
a) It was a deliberate breach or test of the boundaries or
b) It was inadvertent or forgetful
If (a), we will go for a 48 hour block. If (b) I would ask you to be more careful in future and probably remove or strike the offending post, depending if anyone has responded to your comment.
As I've said before, I wouldn't be against removing this IB as I have a lot of respect for your intellect and good intentions. When we last discussed this option I think you were against it though.
What do you say? -- John ( talk) 17:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe WP:ARCA is the place to go. GoodDay ( talk) 21:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Given your previous input you may be interested in this. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Election_links The Tepes ( talk) 06:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I've already informed you, that I'm letting others comment at the discussion-in-queston. You & I 'never have' & 'never will' agree on the status of the Governor General of Australia. Please respect that, as I do :) GoodDay ( talk) 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Pete. Edits like this one go against the agreement regarding Australian sports naming. It is fine for you to challenge the consensus, but you should not try to do it by directly changing articles. Instead, bring your arguments to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and try to persuade others that your changes are necessary first. I see you have made Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Sources, and that may be a good start. But making a list of sources that appear to support your position on the naming matter is only the first step. There would now need to be a proper discussion, ideally involving as many as possible of the editors who participated last time, and that discussion would have to be closed in favour of this change to the consensus, before such edits would be acceptable. Please do not make any further such changes in the absence of such a discussion. -- John ( talk) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've requested a third opinon there, at Wikipedia:3O. Meanwhile, you should reverse your revert at the disputed article, per WP:BRD, as you were Bold in adding, I Reverted & now we're in Discussion mode. GoodDay ( talk) 15:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've also asked for Mies' input, as he has more knowledge on this topic, then I. GoodDay ( talk) 15:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
WHY are you disregarding BRD?? GoodDay ( talk) 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
We went through this three weeks ago, remember? It's right there in the edit summary. You have now reverted twice. I suggest that you keep discussion on the page. Cheers. -- Pete ( talk) 16:10, 1 December 2014 (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
19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Would you be interested in expanding the Wikipedia article on Kylie Maybury?
it just involves editing the article and adding/correcting information. I think Americans have gotten to Kylie's article as it talks about Kylie "going to the grocery store" - Isn't that an Americanism not used in Australia? Paul Austin ( talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Regretfully, you won't or can't let go, unconditionally :( GoodDay ( talk) 18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You're very familiar with WP:3RR and WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You've just made your third revert at Governor-General of Australia. Another will obviously put you in breach of 3RR again. You were lucky enough to get away with breaking that rule before. Are you going to gamble on it again? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This unwelcome, not to say impertinent, communication was dropped on my Talk page [3]
I've been watching the ongoing discussion. So far, Skyring hasn't gotten a consensus for what he wants & doesn't want in that article. FWIW, the discussion need not continue & the article would have to be returned to its status-quo (pre-November 11, 2014). Furthermore, any attempts by Skyring from that point on to impliment his changes, would have to be viewed as disruptive & handled accordingly. My point is, Skyring can't do as he wishes at that article 'without' a consensus & therefore, you & Mies need no longer accommadate or argue with him indefinitely. He can't make any changes, just because others no longer want to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have also noted [4]. Qexigator ( talk) 19:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Skyring! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, — DerHexer (Talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I gotta leave the discussion. My temper is reaching boiling point with Mies & that's not good for me. I hope you, him & Qex can work this out :) GoodDay ( talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have responded to your edit. See the assassination article's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.50.151 ( talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You are engaged in a slow revert war with many different editors over the content of Football (word) as can bee seen in the history of the article, to date you have not discussed the changes you are trying to force into the article on the article's talk page ( talk:Football (word)). I suggest that you do as there may be some validity in your position but it may also vary from region to region in Australia, but whatever the "truth" your proposed changes need to be discussed on the talk page as jaw jaw is better than war war.
You are an old hand and have been blocked on several occasions for edit warring, so there is no reason that any more warnings need to be issued, but if you have not read the essay WP:BRD please do so. -- PBS ( talk) 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misogyny Speech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but I think you overestimate Abbott enormously. In my view, Abbott was not a good Opposition Leader at all; he was merely extremely lucky in facing a government that obligingly self-destructed, and was bolstered by an uncritical media. He has never been anything but unpopular, heads a disunited and openly shambolic government, and is clearly and obviously out of touch on several critical issues. I daresay he's determined, but so was Billy McMahon.
Now, I am not going to confidently say I am 100% sure that Abbott will lose the next election. This time in 2009 I would have been far more confident that Rudd would be re-elected than I am now that Abbott will lose, and we all know how that turned out. In general, this bears out my general view that long-term predictions in politics are folly, and especially anything beyond the next term. I am always extremely irritated to see the rash of predictions that ensue right after an election - remember how the Coalition was going to be "out of office for a generation" in 2007 (or, even more idiotically, how the Liberal Party would not survive being out of office federally and in every state)? Or how Labor would take at least three elections to recover from Queensland 2012? Especially with today's more volatile electorate, I just don't see those sorts of predictions as sensible.
Having said that, if I had to guess I would say Howard was probably the last really long-serving PM we'll see. The turnover is that much faster now (not everyone's rival is as self-defeatingly patient as Peter Costello), and Abbott already faces significant discontent on his backbench. Of course if he pulls out a win next year that will fade, but at the moment I still think there's a fair chance he won't make it to the next election as leader. (My inkling is that, if Turnbull ever becomes convinced that he will never lead the Liberal Party, he will quit it; his doing so would, I suspect, severely injure the Liberal Party, but this is just conjecture.) Either way, I think it's fair to say that all the available evidence contradicts the idea that he is "good for another few terms". Frickeg ( talk) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you please let me know why Noel Wauchope was removed from the list of individuals opposing nuclear power in Australia? -- Danimations ( talk) 02:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the person in question is a blogger and opinion writer- the names of two of her websites were mentioned prior to your deletion. -- Danimations ( talk) 05:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I took your advice on board and renamed the sub-section to 'Independent activists and campaigners' which helps narrow the field. It does deserve expansion, but not the extent of hundreds, as you point out. -- Danimations ( talk) 06:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your defense of my Windshuttle additions. I only just saw them. The area needs proper analysis but has become way too political in both directions. I have added something to Talk. Tuntable ( talk) 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Pete, I've replied to your posting on Talk:Sinjar massacre#‘Siege’ is partisan, non-neutral ; perhaps you'd care to check whether I've understood you there correctly. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 12:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Your recent removal of changes to the Greg Hunt page don't seem to be support by Wikipedia. There is no mention of Criticism being deprecated in the BLP page only that it should be included if reliably sourced and presented in a neutral tone. Even as a heading in the article structure, "Criticism", doesn't seem unbalanced when referring to his role. However that can be changed to reflect more balance rather than removing an entire relevant section on a public figure.
Note that your reversion of my edit at Gough Whitlam re-introduced a wiki syntax error which prompted my edit. Further, I don't understand why you would want to restore the template {{ Persondata}} which does nothing. I suggest you revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you consider this section part of the so-called "fringe POV" and therefore in your opinion should be removed from WP? Timeshift ( talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice that the merger you done here, is not in accordance with Wikipedia procedure. And the merger notification suggests to merge the other article into Height above sea level. prokaryotes ( talk) 09:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
prokaryotes (
talk)
23:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously Wzl is a hands-on type of fellow) ????-- Wuerzele ( talk) 05:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 15:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of formality I need to post a warning here on your talk page, in regard to the following edits at Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations:
Numerous sources have made totally clear that VW was utterly dishonest. Nobody asserts, as you did that they were in any way "completely honest and accurate." You claim that it's not illegal, no law has been broken, yet numerous sources were cited saying it was illegal and laws were broken. You were given specific sections of the legal code showing which laws were broken. You have cited zero sources saying no laws were broken. You accused others of making statements "nobody has actually uttered" even though you were shown many reliable sources who did in fact say it. You have twisted clear statements made in reliable sources in their own voice into "emotive language". You have repeatedly denied that anybody has "said straight out what DB wants Wikipedia to say" even when offered again and again numerous sources which do say it. Your assertion that we "can't link to a reliable source" is demonstrably false, yet you repeatedly make this same assertion. You have made clear that you are in denial about VW's actions. You think because they are a "global brand" that the must not have really done what they formally admitted to and which all reliable sources say they did.
You have presented novel theories of your own about VW and what it is likely to do or not do based on zero sources. The NYT has explained that in fact this is typical of how VW is run, according to experts. “The governance of Volkswagen was a breeding ground for scandal,” said Charles M. Elson, professor of finance and director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “It was an accident waiting to happen.” Your baseless assumption that other companies did the same thing is contradicted by this NYT article. Yes, a degree of emissions rules violations is common, but this elaborate hoax, the deliberate evasion of testing on VW's part is almost unprecedented.
Wikipedia calls what you're doing Tendentious editing. Please cite any source that shares your opinions about this case. You've never once done so; you're making up explanations for these events out of whole cloth and expecting everyone else to edit around those made up explanations. If you had once cited a source which shares your novel ideas, your unique skepticism, then it could be argued that you are working to balance the article, seeking fair middle ground between differentiating points of view. But the second point of view has never been shown to exist outside of your own imagination. Tendentious editing, "carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." You need to stop. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You have continued to engage in posting false statements to push your point of view, failing to cite any sources to support it. Here you made the obviously false statement that the EPA merely did scientific investigation to "reveal" the truth, when you know full well they had to carry out a law-enforcement investigation to force VW to stop evading justice. Here you were presented with no less than 17 citations of reliable sources, and you falsely claimed that the use of "cheat" was mere "headline-writing". These are not merely headlines. You should know that. Please stop making these false statements and instead base your arguments on facts. Your behavior is a form of Disruptive editing. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Multiple users reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: ). Thank you. —
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hijra. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Note that I have mentioned you here. Jus da fax 22:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idolatry. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
...and I believed that finally commonsense had come to that article's intro. Now, I fear it's going to be stuck with that 'odd' looking version, which merely panders to a few Canadians ;) GoodDay ( talk) 03:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Forgive my slight frustrations there. But, having stared at the absurd "Queen of 16..." version for several months, certaintly tried my patience :) GoodDay ( talk) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on getting rid of that strange looking "...16 of 53...", from the intro. PS: If I had done it? I'd of been dragged off to ANI or something worst, by now :) GoodDay ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trưng Sisters. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superpower. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kansas River. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
By golly, I've finally figured it out ; -- GoodDay ( talk) 12:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African American. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monsanto legal cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PCB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denali. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)