If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
 | WLRoss is trying to take a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in the near future. Most likely, however, WLRoss will not be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway. |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Howson (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bastard ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WLRoss. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is First Colonial Slave.The discussion is about the topic Anthony Johnson (colonist). Thank you. -- Scoobydunk ( talk) 17:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- @ Scoobydunk:, @ WLRoss:: I chuckled when I saw this. During our limited time (three years) at First Colonial High School, we all considered ourselves slaves. Dr. Hoo ( talk) 07:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WLRoss. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is John Casor and John Punch.The discussion is about the topic Anthony Johnson (colonist). Thank you. -- Scoobydunk ( talk) 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
How can you use your POV to somehow determine my comments are POV on the Flag Debate page and not come across as a hypocrite? That's ridiculous. I can just as easily claim that many of the 'Pro Change Flag' points are entirely POV too, but I leave them in because it's an 'open debate'. Why don't you make yourself useful and delete those too then? This is a genuine question here?
ALSO...John Key said he MAY HOLD A REFERENDUM. It doesn't mean they're changing the flag! The fact that the Australian and New Zealand flags are similar AT PRESENT is a different matter to any possible future events, the point you deleted merely supported the fact of why they are similar at present and explains the historical reasoning as to why they're similar, a counter-point to the argument of saying they're "too similar" at present, it was a point to provide people with a basis of knowledge and reasoning to use to make their own decision on the similarities of the two flags. How can you not understand this, and then have the nerve to then say it's a POV? Honestly this is ridiculous and you're showing bias and poor judgement / logic if you seriously think the statement you deleted is a POV since it's 100% FACT!!! IF you deleted that then you MUST delete many of the points on the other side of the argument too please. I hope you're busy doing that now?
- The current version is the result of consensus after considerable discussion. You can't add arguments just because they make sense to you, they must be supported by references showing that the arguments have been used in the debate. Instead of edit warring, use the talk page to make your case. Wayne ( talk) 06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wayne, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Wayne, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020 |
More info here. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi WL Ross
Happy to discuss any of the issues you have with Myall Creek.
One small point to begin with, Bruce Elder is predominately a travel journalist. trying to hide this fact appears to be an attempt to beef up his "credentials" to give his point of view more weight.
There are several factual errors in this article that you seem determined to maintain.
Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.169.159 ( talk) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello WLRoss,
On Talk:Middle East Research Institute you say, "Al-Sebai is right and the Quran is clear on the subject. Muslims may only kill non-muslims if they are fighters. It is Allahs responsibility to punish them for being non-muslims if they are peaceful."
I am new to this issue and do not know how to find that. Can you give me verse numbers where the Qur'an addresses these issues? Also, I have read that later verses can nullify/modify earlier verses but that the Qur'an is not organized chronologically, so if the verses on this issue differ in chronologically do you know the order?
If this seems to be asking too much, do you know where the issue is discussed elsewhere? I'll check back here occasionally since I see you may be taking a break. Many thanks. — Blanchette ( talk) 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It has been a long time since I last read the Quran. Surah (chapter) 2 deals a lot with disbelievers. Mostly how Allah will punish them. It also mentions believers fighting disbelievers such as 2:190: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities and 2:193: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers which supports what Al-Sebai said about not fighting "civilians." However, 2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you has been interpreted as permiting the targeting of civilians if your enemy had targeted your civilians first. Tolerance is contradictory, mostly the Quran exhorts believers to have nothing to do with disbelievers and these, 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion and 109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. seem to support that other religions will be tolerated if they don't interfere with believers. You need to remember that the Quran is very open to interpretation as Imams are not schooled in religion as are Christian clergy so tend to have various personal interpretations. Imams are usually appointed based on scholarship but sometimes simple acceptance by a congregation is sufficient. The Islamic doctrine called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" [1] means that in cases where verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. Unfortunately, the surahs of the Quran are not arranged in chronological order. Of the 114 Surahs of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that do not have verses affected by abrogation and as they are not removed from the Quran, only Imams understand which verses are cancelled as they know the chronological order whereas laymen don't because they are not dated. I hope this helps. Wayne ( talk) 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick question for Tea Party movement
WLRoss,
I just was wondering as to why you made the reversion of the edit I made on the Tea Party movement article, and I was curious if I could get an explanation. The comments made in that section were from Paul Krugman's editorial piece in the NYT, called "The Conscience of a Liberal", and he is very notably anti-Tea Party and generally anti-conservative in his writings. The other quote, made by Nancy Pelosi, who is in the leadership for the Tea Party's opposing faction in the House, seems to represent an opinion as well. I think presenting highly opinionated quotes from Krugman and Pelosi without any rebuttal from the other side of the aisle violates NPOV policy, and is far from encyclopedic. Could you provide evidence of the "consensus" you made reference to in the reversion as well? I have heard very little consensus regarding this myself, and I believe that we should at least present equally both views instead of one side's opinions.
I will be copying this discussion and placing it in the talk page for the Tea Party article since I do believe that this is an important issue. →Hubbardc →Talk to me!→ 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc
Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Bradshaw rock paintings you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Redtigerxyz --
Redtigerxyz (
talk) 10:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.
This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara ( talk) 06:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Message added 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Redtigerxyz Talk 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
The article
Bradshaw rock paintings you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Bradshaw rock paintings for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Redtigerxyz --
Redtigerxyz (
talk) 10:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for my wikibreak messing you around. I had been appointed as a carer for my disabled brother after my mother was diagnosed with dementia and am now a carer for her as well. On top of this I am doing a course in Archaeology and Indigenous studies at Flinders University so have had little time for Wikipedia. I hope to resume more frequent editing but am unsure of when. Regards. Wayne ( talk) 03:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
A case ( September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have applied your suggested edits. However, you need to add some references. The page is now only semi-protected. Tuntable ( talk) 00:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Background is important to counter the inaccurate claims being made. Wayne ( talk) 03:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, WLRoss. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
WLRoss ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am requesting an IP block exemption as I can not edit due to my IP address matching an IP address used to make edits unconnected to me.
Editing from 2001:8003:A0AC:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been blocked (disabled) by
DeltaQuad
Accept reason:
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. — DoRD ( talk) 15:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery
Hello, WLRoss. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Woggabaliri for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Woggabaliri 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/Woggabaliri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. TheAwesomeHwyh ( talk) 06:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WLRoss. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Adelaide Meetup Next: 6 March 2020 Last: 19 May 2018 |
WikiProject Adelaide Meetup 22 has been hastily arranged, spread the word!
DATE: Friday 6 March 2020
TIME: 5.00–6.30 pm
VENUE: Cafe Amore, 162-170 Pulteney St, Adelaide
Celebrate the long weekend with a meet-up and discuss what you'd like to see in the world of Wikimedia in 2020. Sign-up and RSVP here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide at 22:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You received this message because your user page is in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia. If you do not wish to receive future notifications, please advise Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Adelaide.
The article White noise (slang) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Entire article seems like original research, no sources presented.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 05:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The article White noise (slang) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 00:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of White noise (slang) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White noise (slang) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
"White noise (slang)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
White noise (slang) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#White noise (slang) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Dronebogus (
talk) 11:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
|
| WLRoss is trying to take a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in the near future. Most likely, however, WLRoss will not be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway. |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Howson (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bastard ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WLRoss. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is First Colonial Slave.The discussion is about the topic Anthony Johnson (colonist). Thank you. -- Scoobydunk ( talk) 17:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- @ Scoobydunk:, @ WLRoss:: I chuckled when I saw this. During our limited time (three years) at First Colonial High School, we all considered ourselves slaves. Dr. Hoo ( talk) 07:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WLRoss. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is John Casor and John Punch.The discussion is about the topic Anthony Johnson (colonist). Thank you. -- Scoobydunk ( talk) 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
How can you use your POV to somehow determine my comments are POV on the Flag Debate page and not come across as a hypocrite? That's ridiculous. I can just as easily claim that many of the 'Pro Change Flag' points are entirely POV too, but I leave them in because it's an 'open debate'. Why don't you make yourself useful and delete those too then? This is a genuine question here?
ALSO...John Key said he MAY HOLD A REFERENDUM. It doesn't mean they're changing the flag! The fact that the Australian and New Zealand flags are similar AT PRESENT is a different matter to any possible future events, the point you deleted merely supported the fact of why they are similar at present and explains the historical reasoning as to why they're similar, a counter-point to the argument of saying they're "too similar" at present, it was a point to provide people with a basis of knowledge and reasoning to use to make their own decision on the similarities of the two flags. How can you not understand this, and then have the nerve to then say it's a POV? Honestly this is ridiculous and you're showing bias and poor judgement / logic if you seriously think the statement you deleted is a POV since it's 100% FACT!!! IF you deleted that then you MUST delete many of the points on the other side of the argument too please. I hope you're busy doing that now?
- The current version is the result of consensus after considerable discussion. You can't add arguments just because they make sense to you, they must be supported by references showing that the arguments have been used in the debate. Instead of edit warring, use the talk page to make your case. Wayne ( talk) 06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wayne, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Wayne, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
|
|
Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020 |
More info here. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi WL Ross
Happy to discuss any of the issues you have with Myall Creek.
One small point to begin with, Bruce Elder is predominately a travel journalist. trying to hide this fact appears to be an attempt to beef up his "credentials" to give his point of view more weight.
There are several factual errors in this article that you seem determined to maintain.
Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.169.159 ( talk) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello WLRoss,
On Talk:Middle East Research Institute you say, "Al-Sebai is right and the Quran is clear on the subject. Muslims may only kill non-muslims if they are fighters. It is Allahs responsibility to punish them for being non-muslims if they are peaceful."
I am new to this issue and do not know how to find that. Can you give me verse numbers where the Qur'an addresses these issues? Also, I have read that later verses can nullify/modify earlier verses but that the Qur'an is not organized chronologically, so if the verses on this issue differ in chronologically do you know the order?
If this seems to be asking too much, do you know where the issue is discussed elsewhere? I'll check back here occasionally since I see you may be taking a break. Many thanks. — Blanchette ( talk) 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It has been a long time since I last read the Quran. Surah (chapter) 2 deals a lot with disbelievers. Mostly how Allah will punish them. It also mentions believers fighting disbelievers such as 2:190: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities and 2:193: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers which supports what Al-Sebai said about not fighting "civilians." However, 2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you has been interpreted as permiting the targeting of civilians if your enemy had targeted your civilians first. Tolerance is contradictory, mostly the Quran exhorts believers to have nothing to do with disbelievers and these, 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion and 109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. seem to support that other religions will be tolerated if they don't interfere with believers. You need to remember that the Quran is very open to interpretation as Imams are not schooled in religion as are Christian clergy so tend to have various personal interpretations. Imams are usually appointed based on scholarship but sometimes simple acceptance by a congregation is sufficient. The Islamic doctrine called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" [1] means that in cases where verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. Unfortunately, the surahs of the Quran are not arranged in chronological order. Of the 114 Surahs of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that do not have verses affected by abrogation and as they are not removed from the Quran, only Imams understand which verses are cancelled as they know the chronological order whereas laymen don't because they are not dated. I hope this helps. Wayne ( talk) 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick question for Tea Party movement
WLRoss,
I just was wondering as to why you made the reversion of the edit I made on the Tea Party movement article, and I was curious if I could get an explanation. The comments made in that section were from Paul Krugman's editorial piece in the NYT, called "The Conscience of a Liberal", and he is very notably anti-Tea Party and generally anti-conservative in his writings. The other quote, made by Nancy Pelosi, who is in the leadership for the Tea Party's opposing faction in the House, seems to represent an opinion as well. I think presenting highly opinionated quotes from Krugman and Pelosi without any rebuttal from the other side of the aisle violates NPOV policy, and is far from encyclopedic. Could you provide evidence of the "consensus" you made reference to in the reversion as well? I have heard very little consensus regarding this myself, and I believe that we should at least present equally both views instead of one side's opinions.
I will be copying this discussion and placing it in the talk page for the Tea Party article since I do believe that this is an important issue. →Hubbardc →Talk to me!→ 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc
Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Bradshaw rock paintings you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Redtigerxyz --
Redtigerxyz (
talk) 10:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.
This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara ( talk) 06:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Message added 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Redtigerxyz Talk 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
The article
Bradshaw rock paintings you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Bradshaw rock paintings for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Redtigerxyz --
Redtigerxyz (
talk) 10:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for my wikibreak messing you around. I had been appointed as a carer for my disabled brother after my mother was diagnosed with dementia and am now a carer for her as well. On top of this I am doing a course in Archaeology and Indigenous studies at Flinders University so have had little time for Wikipedia. I hope to resume more frequent editing but am unsure of when. Regards. Wayne ( talk) 03:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
A case ( September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have applied your suggested edits. However, you need to add some references. The page is now only semi-protected. Tuntable ( talk) 00:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Background is important to counter the inaccurate claims being made. Wayne ( talk) 03:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, WLRoss. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
WLRoss ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am requesting an IP block exemption as I can not edit due to my IP address matching an IP address used to make edits unconnected to me.
Editing from 2001:8003:A0AC:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been blocked (disabled) by
DeltaQuad
Accept reason:
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. — DoRD ( talk) 15:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery
Hello, WLRoss. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Woggabaliri for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Woggabaliri 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/Woggabaliri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. TheAwesomeHwyh ( talk) 06:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WLRoss. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Adelaide Meetup Next: 6 March 2020 Last: 19 May 2018 |
WikiProject Adelaide Meetup 22 has been hastily arranged, spread the word!
DATE: Friday 6 March 2020
TIME: 5.00–6.30 pm
VENUE: Cafe Amore, 162-170 Pulteney St, Adelaide
Celebrate the long weekend with a meet-up and discuss what you'd like to see in the world of Wikimedia in 2020. Sign-up and RSVP here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide at 22:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You received this message because your user page is in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia. If you do not wish to receive future notifications, please advise Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Adelaide.
The article White noise (slang) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Entire article seems like original research, no sources presented.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 05:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The article White noise (slang) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 00:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of White noise (slang) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White noise (slang) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
"White noise (slang)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
White noise (slang) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#White noise (slang) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Dronebogus (
talk) 11:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)