User talk:Skyring/Archive 5

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)

I really don't think it's fair that they can't comment in the same thread as long as they aren't addressing each other... Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You may think whatever you like, but there's an interaction ban in place. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Geez, Drmies, talk about precious. I don't complain when he edits the same articles and discussions after I do. That's the way the WP:IBAN wording reads. No interaction, but both allowed to edit the same things. We've both been active on Australian political articles for years. Is it really going to be a matter of who jumps into a !vote first so as to mark off their territory and exclude the other's opinion from the general debate? --Pete (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Again I agree with Pete. A stopped watch is still right twice a day :D Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It was either this or a topic ban, I think this is the better outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, you're giving me the impression that you aren't following what's going on. You've done this a few times now. Perhaps it would help if you read the contributions of others? --Pete (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My comment was referring to closing the AN thread (and subsequent clarification to you) in which I made the IBAN quite a bit more strict, my only other chose was to impose a TBAN. I decided that there wasn't enough of a consensus for the TBAN but based on the comments of other admins at the time that was not their impression so a TBAN might have been the other outcome. My opinion is that this is the better outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeees, but how does this relate to the political discussion, precisely? --Pete (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That instead of not being allowed to make any edit (etc) related to Australia and football or interact with HiLo there is just a stricter interpretation of the IBAN. My thinking was that it's better just not to be allowed to interact (etc) than not be able to edit a topic in which you are very active. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want any interaction. What I find puzzling is that I make a contribution to a discussion without mentioning the other guy or responding in any way and he thinks it's about him. Geez, but I've been editing Australian political articles for nine and a half years now, I'm entitled to an opinion on information in infoboxes. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to an opinion, I suppose--I do believe that the UN has written such a clause about infoboxes into the human rights charter. You are not allowed, though, to violate the conditions of your iBan. It's really quite simple and why Callanecc and I have to argue this point is not clear to me. What I was kind of hoping for is a simple "geez sorry it won't happen again thanks for not blocking me". For which, by the way, you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one to get a sense of deja vu from this? Pete, you have been warned before about trying to get around the edges of your iban. It seems that you seem to keep getting caught out like this then you say something like "I didn't think what I did this time was an infringement". Sorry, heard that story too many times before. If HiLo48 has been active on a talk page you would be best advised to stay away. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but you got yourself into this and although I know it takes two to tango, it seems that you're the one that keeps getting into these situations. Maybe that might tell you something, you're not stupid, I'm sure you can work it out. It seems to me that you're damned lucky not to have been blocked this time, make the most of your opportunity to continue to edit Wikipedia and stay away from HiLo48. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. If I were trying to stir up the other guy and "get around the iban", you might be right. The reality is that it never entered my consideration. I added my opinion to a specific question on presentation of information. So I thought it a bit precious of HiLo to make a fuss. It's not about him. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• You're right on the last point. Now, let's move on, and let's hope that I don't have to revisit this issue again. Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 22:26, 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)

Thanks, Drmies! I'm addressing that position even as we speak. As for mixing tequila and beer, I look forward to your upcoming edits. :) --Pete (talk) 23:08, 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)

Please note Tony Abbott (edit | 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)

Thanks for the headsup. You didn't have to do that, and I appreciate the advice. --Pete (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL Timeshift (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's open mike night at the Wikipedia comedy club. Thanks for your applause. I got a million of 'em. --Pete (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember to leave the 3RR report advice on the user's talkpage. Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Twinkle apparently can do all the legwork for reporting, but I couldn't puzzle out how. Fuck, I must be retarded. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A valid point, though looking at the discussion is a bit more edifying than edit summaries. --Pete (talk) 04:11, 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 will also note your lack of AFG is in violation of the ARBCOM ruling for Abortion as well as the WP:1RR restriction on the page. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 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)

Thanks, TFD! I find your interpretation to be at odds with mine. The question of who advised the monarch is the crucial one, and it changed from the British ministers to the dominion prime ministers. The SoW gave force to the decision of the 1927 Imperial Conference. I don't know if you are trying to score points or something, but you need to do better than the above to convince me that the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs meant nothing about independence. It certainly meant something to Australians. --Pete (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That the King should appoint the governor-general on the advice of the Dominion prime minister was a reasonable interpretation of the Balfour Declaration 1926 that "it is the right of the Government of each Dominion to advise the Crown in all matters relating to its own affairs." Note that Isaacs was appointed before the enactment of the 1931 statute. And the Act did not apply to Australia until it passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Unlike countries that became independent after the Second World War, it is difficult to determine a specific date of independence. One could even argue that Australia was independent by 1919 when it entered the League of Nations.

But none of this has any bearing on the separateness of the Crown of the UK and that of Australia, even if in the past some scholars argued it did. The Australian Crown was created in 1901. At that point it was possible for the Queen in Right of Australia to enter into contracts as a person distinct from the Queen in Right of the UK. So one would pay taxes to the Treasurer of Australia, not the UK Treasury. Similarly each municipal corporation in Australia is a separate person.

Anyway, that is current legal opinion, and was affirmed by the House of Lords.

TFD (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am well aware of the timing of events. The SoW gave legal effect to the BD. That it was not adopted as Australian law until later makes no difference. The monarch was no longer advised on Australian - or Canadian or New Zealand - affairs by the British Government. That was the reality, as the appointment of Isaacs demonstrated. At that point the British Empire changed significantly. That's how I see it. And that's why I see it as inappropriate to view the Commonwealth realms as "the UK and others". You may throw red herrings and strawmen around as much as you wish, but I shall remove anything of that nature from this page. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 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)

@Lightbreather: - this is a !vote - my two comments after that (but earlier in the thread) were just comments. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:57, 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)

My apologies, I see that you did say something. Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:57, 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)

Neither a nor b. This is an article I've been working on for years. I have a good knowledge of the subject, especially the "coup" which remains Australia's greatest constitutional crisis. With Whitlam's death I've kept up my input, with specific attention to improving the article. As for HiLo, I just don't care. So long as he leaves me alone, that's fine with me. I didn't edit the talk page to stir him up. If he feels aggrieved, he's reading more into it than was put in. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry then, so it's (c). I see you have been editing this since 2004 and HiLo since 2010 so you have a good point. I apologise for troubling you. --John (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's fine. On looking into the thing, you were asked to have a word and you have done so with your usual admirable grace and efficiency. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's far too generous, in my opinion, but thank you anyway. --John (talk) 18:23, 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

There's been a long discussion there for over a week now, following on from discussions on other pages. It is clear that there is no consensus. --Pete (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey bud. Maybe it's best you hold off from making those changes. Best try to get a consensus for them first. PS: Remember, I had to learn that lesson the hard way, in 2012 & 2013 :) GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 4#Another RfC on naming and that you were unable to take part in that discussion. Neither of these is sufficient reason to change the consensus though. To do so we would need to have another discussion similar to that one, framed by somebody neutral, and closed by somebody neutral. At that point the sort of edits you were making would become ok. Until then they are not. --John (talk) 07:46, 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)

WHY do you do this? Why can't you respect Wikipedia:BRD? You were Bold, I Reverted & then we Discuss. Honestly, your abuse of the revert button over the years, is getting annoying & apparently I'm not the only one who's frustrated by it. This disruptive stubborn approach by you, is only gonna lead you eventually to another block or worst, someday. I only hope for your sake, others will be lenient at that time. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we did that three weeks ago. What's changed? Other editors are now involved and that's always good. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Though I get steamed by your reverting habits, remember that I'm one of the calmer editors. Others may not be as forgiving. We've both suffered in the past, for our stubborn behaviour. I don't want to see you ending up there again, ok. So in future, abide BRD. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Nothing's changed in three weeks except that you got a spurt of energy or something. OK. Fine. --Pete (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting until the end of November, for a third opinion. In the meantime, I had forgotten that you breached BRD. The reason why I didn't reverse your revert then, was because I didn't need to have you running off & reporting me for edit-warring, even though you were in the wrong. You see, I'm on probation & can't afford to get into a major-dispute with anyone. The probation gives you an advantage over me, but so be it. Now (for the last time), in future respect BRD in your dealings. Hopefully, this time you'll heed my advice. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: I know your need to have the last word, so here's hoping you'll reform some. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 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?

Murder of 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)

I've reverted the posts-in-question, at both Qex's & Mies' talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I think we're making useful progress. For myself, now that I've got a reasonable understanding on the limited extent of "the executive power" in s61, a lot more things are falling into place for me. It's only taken ten years, there's hope for us all!

For all my critics, if you don't agree with my insistence on sources and sticking with wikipolicy, then take it to a wider forum. There's always ways to get more eyes on a topic and help build consensus. If there's a difference of opinion between two well-held views, then NPOV allows us to include both. That's my view. --Pete (talk) 20:35, 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)

Well, I hope so too. Seems silly to have a long caption when all the others pretty much just say who's in the picture! --Pete (talk) 00:01, 28 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)

Thanks, I've responded there. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 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)

Thanks. The edit summaries make the situation quite plain. Using old sources - one of them on The Wayback Machine!!! - is no basis for a description of the contemporary situation, which has changed greatly in the last few years. And has been discussed already at great length on Wikipedia. But, of course we can discuss it some more. --Pete (talk) 19:00, 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)

Fair enough. I guess we'll find out in a year or so! Frickeg (talk) 08:06, 25 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)

Need a reliable source. Something better than a blog. --Pete (talk) 03:18, 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)

If the only source we have for a statement is a blog mention, then it's probably not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If it's a big deal, there will be good secondary sources. And, just quietly, but how inane is a list of individuals opposing nuclear power? That would probably number in the hundreds of BLPs here. If it's just a few you want to include, then they must be especially notable, to be selected for inclusion. Again, there would be no shortage of reliable sources fo you to choose from. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 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)

Well, good on you. I don't particularly care about anything there beyond the sourcing. --Pete (talk) 06:26, 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.

Bladnoch distillery

added a link pointing to David Prior

David Prior (distiller)

added a link pointing to Bladnoch

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.

I know what I'm doing. Please discuss on the talk page. Read WP:BLP closely. WP:UNDUE also applies. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, Michael! I don't know all of wikipedia's underpinnings, but I do try to refrain from messing with them. Maybe persondata does nothing–though I doubt this–but even if so, why is it important to you to pull out some of the basic facts of Whitlam's life?

Sorry about the syntax, but, that's easily fixed. Your edit looked very close to vandallism to me. Perhaps you could discuss your concerns on the article talk page, which is on my watchlist? Any action there, and I'll notice it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand how an edit with the summary "fixed broken wiki syntax & WP:REPEATLINK; -redundant PM succession box; -deprecated {{Persondata}}" – which did exactly that – can be seen as vandalism. If you doubt the claim that {{Persondata}} does nothing, please look at the template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw this here and went and had a look at the edits concerned. I'm with Pete here. The edit looked very much like vandalism. It may have done what you said in the edit summary but it also deleted a block of text without explanation. Had Gough's article been on my watchlist I would probably have reverted as well. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Any edit summary on an Australian political article that begins with "Reverted edit by Timeshift9..." is going to look like vandalism to me. Timeshift is pretty reliable in my eyes, and well, you I don't know. --Pete (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 made an accidental mistake by adding a line break in the middle of a wiki link; I eliminated that line break. After Skyring's blanket revert of my edit, Timshift9 fixed that error again. The text I removed was the null-template {{Persondata}}. My only other changes were removal of wrong final full stops in image captions, which I could not mention in the edit summary because of its length restriction. Is pulling the "Revert" trigger too quickly so hard to admit? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that WP:PERSONDATA had recently been deprecated. From where I stood, it looked like you were reverting the work of a trusted and experienced editor and removing a chunk of valuable biographical data. What vandals write in edit summaries often bears little relation to the reality of their actions and I looked at the substance. Feel free to tidy up the article. --Pete (talk) 20:02, 7 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)

It's bizarre in the way that the JFK conspiracy theories are. No evidence at all, just speculation. In both cases, horrific and notorious crimes, but nobody to blame but some weird loner. surely such evil must have more to it.

In both cases, no. Fifty years since JFK and nobody in what would have been a vast conspiracy has come forward with anything that rings true. It took less time than that for the Enigma thing to come out, and that was guarded by the OSA, at least in the UK. Twenty years since Port Arthur and the grim secret there hasn't leaked either. No hints in political memoirs, no insider chatter, no nothing.

The difference is that the JFK thing is now a huge industry, with entertaining websites, non-peer-reviewed books, films, TV shows and so on. Port Arthur, not so much, and even the Gympie gun-nuts have stopped obsessing. Or if not, they don't bother trying to edit the article, which may be the same thing.

The couple of sentences left in the article don't tell a story. I'm happy to lose them. The fact that the article isn't under constant siege from nutwits trying to set the record straight is probably the best indication that it's a Fringe thing.

Why the sudden interest? --Pete (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh nothing, just thought of you when I came across that section, as I know you, more than any other editor, have an issue with adding "fringe views" to wikipedia articles, regardless of the number of and quality of sources and the WP's general desire to include as many sourced views as possible. :) Timeshift (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite happy to add the earwax thing in. I think it adds even more colour to an entertaining and quaint character. --Pete (talk) 19:40, 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)

You moved your comment, but not my response. I regarded that as a selfish sort of act, not one in keeping with the spirit of community that we aim for. --Pete (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

skyring, has it occurred to you , that there is a rule not to touch other people's edits? so quite the contrary, I am not selfish, and am keeping with the spirit of community. (and I dont use pluralis maiestatis)

secondly, you are not assuming good faith with some snide remark like this, off the hip. on top of that, you are STILL unwilling to answer my question, what does "hands-on type of fellow" mean, is it friendly, AGF?plse answer the obvious question instead of adding insult to injury and please ping me if you care to reply, thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A hands on fellow because you took action - moving your contribution from where it shouldn't have been to where it should have. My response (and if there had been any others) should have been moved at the same time - obviously they made no sense both in the wrong section and divorced from the original post. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 11 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:

• [5] "cheating - leaving out the legal usage - is most commonly associated in contemporary culture with cheating in exams or cheating on a spouse. The latter doesn't really apply unless someone is really, really close to their Golf, but cheating on a test is also the wrong image. VW didn't falsify the results during the static tests: they were completely honest and accurate."
• [6] " I wouldn't be so tough on VW if I were you - this sort of behaviour is quite likely to be fairly widespread; VW isn't that much an innovator that they lead the pack in any area."
• [7] "For something to be illegal, there's got to be a law being broken. What's the law, in this case? "
• [8] "We can't use logic to source a statement that nobody has actually uttered. Do you have a source, or is that your best shot"
• [9] "Let's stick to policy, please, rather than using emotive language such as that above. "
• [10] "So instead of courts determining illegality, we have headline-writers. And instead of discussion, we have abuse. Right. Can you find me someone who said straight out what DB wants Wikipedia to say?"
• [11] "All the reasoning and synthesis doesn't make up for the lack of someone actually making the statement that DB wants us to make. If we can't link to a reliable source, then we can't claim something. "
• [12] "Come on, we're accusing a global brand of illegal behaviour. We really need a better authority than a journalist's opinion. "

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)

You are wrong in your surmises, Dennis. Please stay off my talkpage with these uncivil accusations. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 00:42, 27 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. Jusdafax 22:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw that. I would have commented on the irony of your two paragraphs, but I don't think that would be appropriate on that page, reserved for more formal processes. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 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)

The unicorn, the lion and all the king's horses could have agreed that, egg-wise, there may be a proverb or axiom about an honest state of mind which can sometimes result in a deficient sense of proportion when it comes to editing certain topics, or taking part in discussion. Qexigator (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that progress is being stalled, by two individuals :( GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but let's proceed via wikiprocess. Identify various candidate versions of the lede, put them to an RfC, and gauge support. I'm seeing a definite desire for a change, but not the details of any particular version. I think it would be wrong to leave the thing as it stands because we can't work out the model most of us want. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarify: Are you & Track, asking me to hold off from opinoning on the proposed versions, until they're listed? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I had fondly imagined that I was merely compiling a list of the various versions which have appeared or been proposed, and that discussion would take place once we had assembled a list complete enough hat nobody felt their preference had been omitted. The difficulties and modifications of attempting to make such a list whilst other editors were expressing their views and holding conversations quickly drained my enthusiasm. I may resume when I have fresh heart, I may go and become a gypsie. Either alternative is equally likely, though the delightful weather here gives the latter an extra sparkle. --Pete (talk) 02:11, 29 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)

That's fine. I often find that if I step away from the keyboard for a bit, my subconscious mind will sort things out and find a better way of saying something than what my conscious mind insists is the first and best way forward. Sleeping on a problem, in particular, is often extremely valuable. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There's something rather bullying about that Track fellow's approach. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I fear we've lost Qex, to the 16 side :( GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Luckily, Qex's contributions are both reasoned and well-researched, and he shows no sign of leaving Wikipedia, so we have his valuable input. He is entitled, as are we all, to hold personal opinions and act on them. For myself, I think that the binary choice we currently have is a poor one, and I prefer Mies' compromise candidate, albeit in need of a little tweaking. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 1 October 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)

IIRC, you kicked the thing off. My part came in trying to get wikiprocess followed. Qex, I think, is the one you should thank. S/he has a fine mind, capable of exploring the subtle details. And all involved worked together to highlight areas of concern. Things I cared nothing about - or didn't notice at all, like that black/white divide - were critical points for others. --Pete (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just when you thought things were finally settled? Now the infobox :( GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 7 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)