Aussieflagfan

Third opinion decline

Please be aware that I have removed your submission at WP:3O. After reviewing the linked Talk page, I note that there has not been a thorough discussion there. Please be aware that there must be significant discussion at the Talk page as a prerequisite for requesting a third opinion. If you feel that further discussion at the Talk page currently will not be productive, I would invite you to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if the other user is willing to enter into any more correspondence though. I've proposed a few different solutions now to no avail.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but 3O won't be able to help you if there isn't a thorough discussion at the Talk page. If all else fails in terms of getting other editors to engage, you may wish to consider an WP:RFC, which would lead to a binding resolution, but that's considered a fairly high-level form of dispute resolution. I would generally recommend other options, but if the other editor won't engage than your hands may be tied. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) has been accepted

Parliament house centenary flag (Australia), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AntanO 02:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) 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/Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed content from Australian Flag Society without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edit summary, "I can't think of anything else if the other editor won't acknowledge the third opinion", gives the appearance that you are disrupting the page to make a point. That is an unacceptable practice on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Weird revert

Why do you want to put the text about the divinity of the flag under the ACT Branch heading? Is the divinity view exclusive to that branch? HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The source was the Australian Christian Broadcasting facebook page. So isn't that an initiative of the ANFA ACT/Australian Flag Society branch? I've seen the other branches proudly make the claim they are secular with no paid staff on their membership forms. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You may know what the connection is between Australian Christian Broadcasting and the ANFA ACT/Australian Flag Society branch, but most of the world doesn't. Want to put it in the article? And if the other branches disagree about that divinity thing, surely that should be in the article. Do you actually realise how confusing all this stuff is? HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not defending the byzantine workings of the Australian National Flag Association to you. They appear to be five different ships sailing in five separate directions. However the about tab on the Australian Christian Broadcasting facebook page even tells the whole thing is an initiative of the Australian Flag Society. So that lot are not hiding their views on this subject anymore. The way things are looking now you and we all might have to confront the fact these might be the biblical end times. And if they are. This is the sort of thing you can get away with when you are on the edge of eternity mate. According to ANFA NSW they are still a secular organisation: https://www.anfa-national.org.au. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to defend anything. I want an encyclopaedia that explains things clearly. Right now, I'm very confused. And I cannot see how the flag and end times have anything to do with one another. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the way the 'Australian National Flag Association' works is a bit complicated. Now I've seen folks ask the flag society on facebook why they do their world war 3 watch and maintain their Australian Christian Broadcasting Facebook page. And they just tell you it's got everything to do with God, Queen and Country. As you probably know the bible commands believers to watch out for signs of the end of days. So the flag society might be doing all that Christian outreach stuff simply due to all the evangelicals in their ranks. And don't forget. The Australian flag is replete with Christian symbolism to begin with. I must admit I like following their Facebook page. It's all very interesting, thought provoking stuff. That's probably why they get all that publicity. Have a good look at all those well funded, space age patriotic organisations in America. There's nothing like that over here in Australia. What exactly did you expect? Some of those ANFA branches are said to be quite active and get a good roll up at meetings. But actually some of them are run out of the secretaries private home and struggle to get a quorum at their AGM too. They don't even have a branch in SA and they never have. I see there even in the blue ribband ANFA NSW branch their current president is doubling up as the secretary. The flag society looks to be doing as well or even a bit better than some branches of the parent organisation.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

In light of your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) and the above discussion, as well as earlier edits, I think that it's very clear that you have a conflict of interest with the Australian Flag Society. As such, you need to follow the below rules. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Aussieflagfan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

It might appear that way but I'd like to know what the conflict of interest is supposed to be. I've only been trying to give wikipedia the benefit of what I know about flags. I've been researching the Australian Flag Society and their parliament house centenary flag simply because I find them to be one of the more interesting developments on the Australian vexillological scene in the last two decades. And I'm going to go on researching them too.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

How about "editing or creating articles about...your...organization..."? HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The only organisation I belong to is my local RSL club. Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems very difficult to believe, given your knowledge. So who ARE the members of the Australian Flag Society? HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well my challenge to you is to nominate what information it is that I have shared that couldn't have been gathered simply from following their facebook page alone which as I say is quite active by the standards of Australian loyalist organisations and their offshoots. There's not a week that goes by they don't offer you something: www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society.

I'm just very well informed about the subject of Australian flags. In fact I'm just the sort of person wikipedia is looking for. Some of these vexillology related articles are now hum dingers compared to the state I found them in.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I'm concerned the "fan" part of your username too often overrides the knowledge part. Our goal is objectivity, not hype about how great the flag is and how we should all love it. HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you claim to care about wikipedia why stand in the way of someone who only wants to bring these start class articles up to date? Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No. That's not your only goal. It's clear that your goals also include convincing others that a national love of the flag is important. And it's that obvious perspective of yours that Wikipedia's policies on neutrality prohibit. I quote - "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view". Do have a think about that. HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to cite some examples from wikipedia where I ever attempted to do this. I've spend a lot of time finding verifiable references. I've tried to be encyclopedic and NPOV. And I'm not worried about wikipedia giving the flag society or their parliament house centenary flag a free kick. Things like that advertise themselves anyway mate. Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I really can't be bothered trawling through all your work at this stage, but one example I do recall was describing a flag as "iconic". That's marketing slang. It's not non-neutral. Now, don't tell us that's what the source said. It may have, but we don't. HiLo48 (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing they clearly don't have any trouble with is getting publicity. It doesn't depend on wikipedia. Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that in Australian terms it is iconic. And like it or not the last time it was displayed on Flag Day the headline actually was "Iconic flag to tour Warwick" https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/iconic-flag-to-tour-warwick/3215346/ so it was a direct quote. That newspaper article is what actually prompted my interest in doing something for wikipedia about it. What if the plan is to continue the tour around Australia? It might end up being the best known Australian flag in history. So it was already past time it was mentioned on the Flag of Australia article. But I'm happy to propose a dedicated article on the subject again another day. Somehow I don't think we've heard the last of the flag society or their parliament house centenary flag. Let's just see where it's all at in five years time. You can't be more agreeable than that. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As I have mentioned elsewhere, regional newspapers in particular get a lot of their content from press releases thrust at them by those seeking publicity. (I have done it myself - on completely different, non-encyclopaedic matters.) That's where I suspect the word "iconic" in their article came from. Speculation like "It might end up being the best known Australian flag in history" has no place in Wikipedia. It seems you are particularly excited about this flag. That's fine, but you must not let it influence your editing here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If the issue is notability then let's face it. If you type the headline "Iconic flag to tour Warwick" into google you'll see that story was only syndicated all over the countryside. Of course the newspapers and TV stations are going to bite on their Flag Day media releases. For this reason. What is it that those other flag organisations have got that can possibly compete with the parliament house centenary flag? So if the newsdesk has several Flag Day media releases the flag society ends up winning out every time you see. They've got a virtual monopoly on Flag Day publicity and good luck to them. As you can see from the assorted news links ANFA QLD apparently even borrowed it from the flag society for a couple of years. According to the flag society facebook page other community groups in Queensland have also requested it. It appears to have a life all of it's own now. This is what I'm saying. The tradition of the parliament house centenary flag is going to go on and on. If now is not the time for a dedicated article on the subject it's only going to be some other day. Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you seem more excited about competition between flag supporters than anything else. Maybe you need to write an article on that. Have you noticed how little interest you are getting from other Wikipedia editors? HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit is a clear violation of the terms set out in the above warning. You will be reported if this continues. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no conflict of interest. There's not one thing I have contributed to wikipedia that's not already out there. Please advise where can I lodge a complaint about this. You're the person who hasn't acted on the outcome of the third opinion regarding the Australian Flag Society article. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of stuff "out there" that simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with that statement. However Dr Elizabeth Kwan even mentioned the Australian Flag Society in her 2005 Flag and Nation - the seminal work on the Australian flag - in a section entitled "Flag organisations in Australia". They've only turned the parliament house centenary flag into a national treasure. The federal government looks set to adopt their idea for a US-style flag pledge in schools. And here you are still debating whether they even exist? The thing is that guy they have as their spokesperson has earned a following. And having seen everything the Australian Flag Society has ever had to offer let me tell you why. It's because he's got well above average ability as a vexillologist. Good eye for quality and detail. I'm just trying to write up a bit of factual history here about something I happen to know a great deal about. The first 22 years of the tradition of Australian National Flag Day has already been. The first 17 years of the tradition of the parliament house centenary flag - that's already been and not without being noticed. So I'm just trying to bring wikipedia up to date. Get with it man. If you haven't personally sighted any of these sources why are you even here? Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is Dr Elizabeth Kwan? You write as if everyone knows and everyone cares. Most don't. There is no hope of "a US-style flag pledge in schools" ever happening where I am in Victoria. I certainly don't want it. The world does not need compulsory patriotism. What you also just wrote about the spokesperson sounds more interesting to me. These multifarious, faceless societies mean little. Name the people and what they are doing. Including the fights. That's the real story. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, information on dispute resolution is available here. Can I just add that your choice of username isn't assisting your argument in any way, and perhaps to cool off from potential conflict, maybe try editing a different category of articles before somebody dare accuse you of being a single purpose account. You're arguing with experienced editors who have seen this potential SPA/COI stuff many times before and they're trying to steer you away from potential issues should they be proven right. I hope this helps. Spread your wings, Wikipedia is a big place. It often helps. -- Longhair\^talk 08:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support that recommendation from User:Longhair. Get out and about in Wikipedia and see how it actually works. Look at and maybe edit some other articles. Perhaps the place(s) you live, businesses, national parks, history, music, dogs, cats, wars.... Look at the editing histories and the Talk pages of those other articles. Read some more policies. Spread your wings. It will make you a better editor. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As soon as I spruce up some of these vexillology related articles it is entirely possible I was going to. But this isn't really encouraging me though. If you get around some moderator in a third opinion they start accusing you of having a conflict of interest seems to me the way wikipedia works. Due to this obstruction wikipedia now has an Australian National Flag Day article that doesn't even mention the centenary year celebrations. How about that? Some of you folks don't seem to have wikipedia's best interests at heart to me. If you haven't sighted any of these sources then why are you even here? Aussieflagfan (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems it's time to draw your attention to another one of Wikipedia's policies - Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The suggestion about looking elsewhere isn't for later. It's for now. I truly think it would improve your editing on flag related articles. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry. But I'm only here to help. Some of these articles I'm looking at really do need to be shown some love by folks who know about that sort of things though.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Australia

I suggest that you read the edit hstory at Flag of Australia. As was indicated here, articles are not supposed to be image farms. Multiple examples of how the flag has been flown at different events do not provide any encyclopaedic content. HiLo48 has suggested on the article's talk page that you pause in your attention to Australian flag related articles, and look at the rest of Wikipedia, to see what is normal and acceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a flag fansite and your contributions to the article, and Australian Red Ensign, have largely been disruptive. Your experiences with Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) should have given you some idea of what we expect from, and what does and doesn't make a good article. Please also note that this issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Flag of Australia. Please, by all means join the discussion there and ask questions if you need guidance. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You really need to start discussing your edits before you make them. Several people have edited the article today and comments about your edits have generally been negaitive. Please familiarise yourself with MOS:IMAGE, and WP:IG. --AussieLegend (✉)

I think you'll find that I have been making contributions to non flag related articles. In relation to the "Australian flag at war" section. Whilst a lot of these images are contained in the assorted links for anyone who may wish to branch off and do some more in depth research. Is there any reason why there can't be at least some of them in the article proper? As you can see by the number of citations this subject has been of intense interest historically and right up to the present day. It's going to be one of the central attractive points of the whole Flag of Australia article. As a matter of fact as an expert on this subject I'd have to say that it's amazing it's taken until 2018 for Wikipedia to give it the full treatment it deserves. I see there that nobody has yet complained about the images I uploaded to "The Australian red ensign at war" section of the Australian red ensign article.

As opposed to being a disruptive presence I put it to you that on the contrary I'm just the man Wikipedia was looking for.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"I think you'll find that I have been making contributions to non flag related articles." Hardly. I see three non-flag related edits, on two articles, out of 443 edits in total, in your entire edit history. No, you really need to get out more. See the big wide "Wikipedia" world. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been made well aware about the rules in relation to single use accounts. I think one thing worth considering here is that there's only so many hours in the day and only so many of them that I can devote to being a wikipedian. And I estimate that I've been good enough to devote about 72 hours of my time to wikipedia so far. I think I've got a lot to offer in relation to many history related articles in particular and I hope to keep editing an increasingly wider range of articles as time goes by. Aussieflagfan (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? The idea of looking and working on other articles is so that you become a better editor BEFORE you do all your work on Australian flag articles. There is no rush to tackle that particular set of articles. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry to disappoint you, but by the various editors coming to this talk page, I think that you show little sign of actually understanding what it is to be a member of the community -and what WP:NOT and WP:ABOUT might indicate... your understanding of wikipedia, and your responses to the various editors who come here show you should take very careful reading of WP:AGF. Also to actually take close consideration of what happens when WP:SPA and WP:OWN tags when they might appear on your page.. A good gauge of your experience here would be to consider something other than flags, and get a hang of what happens outside the zone of comfort and flags... enjoy. JarrahTree 14:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Well now I have taken to starting up threads on the talk pages and trying to engage folks entirely constructively. Maybe I was a bit snide once or twice. But the problem is that some of these sources I'm bringing to the attention of the community are a bit shocking and jarring at first until the realisation finally sets in that they are all 100% verifiable. The problem with Australian vexillology and Australian military vexillology in particular is that because of the Australian flag debate what you have is a whole heap of people out there with only a shallow, partisan interest in the subject who don't really know what they are talking about. Take the sub contention about what colour the Australian flags were at the opening of old parliament house. Elizabeth Kwan in her 2006 seminal work Flag and Nation published a lithograph by an unknown artist that shows something completely different to the commissioned portrait. Since then there's been a few other new evidences to enter the loop too. And yet a lot of the community are hearing all about this from me first over ten years after the scholarly consensus that the Australian flags were all red ensigns started to change as it has become clear there were both red and blue ensigns there that day. Now I understand it might come as an initial shock to the system for some but gee wizz we all had to get with it one day. Aussieflagfan (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've even seen that lithograph I mention posted on facebook and folks reacting with anger saying it has to be altered or a pure fraud. Just has to be. And yet any time they like these suspicious minds can make an appointment to view it where it is held at the Mitchell Library in Sydney and has been for a long time before what colour the flags it depicts actually were in real life became an issue. This is what we who would like to see wikipedia remain on the cutting edge are up against. But I know we should all just stay calm and be civil. Aussieflagfan (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. It appears to me that you are arguing with someone, but it's not clear who, and it isn't anyone here, nor is it clear what you are fighting over. Just work on creating excellent encyclopaedic content. Have a read of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It explains that it not our job to win battles here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Flag of Australia into Australian Red Ensign. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that for future reference thanks. Aussieflagfan (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Flag of Australia, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. your comments on the talk page of the article have indicate an intent to ignore consensus, and disrupt wikipedia neither which will be tolerated Gnangarra 14:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. There's now the realisation on my part that I should probably make these proposals for change on the talk pages in the first instance. But I've still heard a lot of complaints about that Flag of Australia page over the years. And having taken all that onboard and made some changes I can't see what anyone could complain about now. You'd really have to say that on balance I've been good and brought it right up to date in several respects. Maybe there could still be a few more images here and there to improve the visitor experience. I'm just trying to think about it from the perspective of someone who is completely uninitiated in relation to the subject. Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

get a handle on WP:NOTGALLERY for that one. JarrahTree 00:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Aussieflagfan - Regarding all those "complaints about that Flag of Australia page over the years", could you please suggest to the complainers that they do their own editing? HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As easy as wikipedia makes it for folks to get involved reading umpteen magazine articles over the years that say something different to what's in the article doesn't mean they cut them out and kept them to use them as citations though. Luckily I have. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

dispute

Hi I was made aware of the discussion you raised at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard I think it would be good for you to act in good faith and stop editing the article and restore it to the version before you made the complaint. At the moment it appears as if you have acted to stifle others so you can get your way. Gnangarra 06:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that we generally follow a process call the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" when there are disputes. When an edit is reverted in good faith, it's not appropriate to restore disputed content to the article as you have done a few times now. Instead the disputed edits are discussed on the article's talk page and while this is happening, the article, or section of the article, is left in the state it was before the disputed edits were made. i.e. the status quo remains. Editors should not be editing the section until there is consensus to make appropriate edits or to exclude the edits. For now you should be continuing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page but please, leave the article itself alone. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand and have now referred it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I see there are two images in the debate section which itself has its own page. And the Australian flag at war is one of the most argued about sub contentions within that debate which was even front page news in Australia back when Paul Keating and Alexander Downer were there. So I would have thought some imagery there would not be out of the question. How many and what of though? Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss content of an article is the Talk page of an article, not here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You've certainly referred it to DRN but there are errors in your referral and you haven't followed the instructions there. One in bold is immediately obvious. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

COI declaration

I thought I should declare that I am a member of the FIAV affiliated Flag Society of Australia. Since it is an organisation dedicated to the study of vexillology in an entirely academic sort of way and not a political lobby group and I haven't used any of their sources I didn't see it being an issue. I haven't had any correspondence with them for a long time and as their journal is available at all the state libraries I will gladly resign my membership if that's what is necessary in order that I may keep contributing to flag related articles Wikipedia.Aussieflagfan (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am more concerned that not long ago you told us that the only organisation you were a member of was your local RSL. Sounds like you were lying. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I remember being asked about if I was involved with the other Flag Society. I only thought to mention it just now because of all these questions you get asked when you want to start a new article. Now speaking of that this article which I think would be a good idea on "Flags of the Australian Defence Force". The last three words are presently in lower case. How does one change that to upper case? Aussieflagfan (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss content of an article is on the article's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

What is FIAV, and the Flag Society of Australia? Is the latter related to anything Wikipedia has an article on? Australian Flag Society maybe? HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There's two flag societies in Australia. The one I am with is the Flag Society of Australia and is affiliated with the FIAV. They're all about the study of flags in a pure sense and have no Wikipedia article that I know of. The other one is the Australian Flag Society. They've delved into vexillological research too but are unaffiliated with the FIAV and it seems to me are mainly a bunch of Christian fundamentalists on about God, Queen and Country and really just waiting for the rapture. Aussieflagfan (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Now would you care to clarify your comment at 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC) in the section head "Conflict of interest". It says "The only organisation I belong to is my local RSL club." Are you telling us the truth yet? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the financial year has only just ended hasn't it? So my membership had lapsed and was up for renewal at the time. But I'd happily cash it in at this point if required because as a military vexillologist I'm a little bit disappointed with the FSA. They've done precisely nothing to preserve and add to the body of knowledge there. Becoming a Wikipedian looks like a more attractive option when it comes to that. It's all about promoting new Australian flags with them which I'm not that fussed about. I have thought to myself over the years it does seem like an awful lot of money to stay subscribed when you can go to the state library and read their journal there for free. I'm not the only FSA member who feels this way. Aussieflagfan (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I was having a few long, dark nights of the soul about renewing it last year too. 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Given your declaration, and nature of the flag dispute externally to Wikipedia it is clear that you should no longer edit any articles or content related to the Australian flag. Also all edits you have previous made to the topic should now be reverted. Gnangarra 14:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I would want to dispute that. For not only have my contributions been encyclopedic and extremely well referenced. After drwaing your asttention to this matter I have this day decided to email the FSA resigning my membership. And the reason for that is simply because they have done virtually nothing in the way of military vexillology to maintain my interest supporting the organisation. So they have no published sources from their journal that I could possibly use to edit these articles in any event which would be the only issue. Wouldn't you have to demonstrate some sort of actual bias on my part first? Some of these contributions I have made to the articles I have edited wouldn't be very helpful to either side of these Australian flag contentions. But those are the facts. Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If the only bias related issue to date is that I once described the Australian National Flag Association as a loyal society then that's not much. Because I was just going off the definition provided by the wikipedia article on loyalism itself. So whilst I had an arguable case I was happy to let that one edit be reverted. I submit that I was just the man wikipedia was looking for to bring the Flag of Australia up to date. Previously it didn't even mention the Australian moon flag. You surely can't be serious about wanting it to go back to the way it was before? Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

<edit conflict>The high use of military images, is a clear demonstration that the edits you are making are for the purpose of pushing an external agenda in relation to Flag debate. I have just asked you to do this, additionally others have asked you to edit in other areas, your language is very clearly with the intent to promote. Again given you have acknowledged a very clear bias/coi I recommend that you refrain from editing content about the Australian flag and related subjects, should you see something that needs fixing please use Template:Request edit for changes to be made by a 3rd party edit. Gnangarra 14:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What agenda would that be? You're allowed to have a legitimate interest in military vexillology in a pure sense. I see there that there is an article on Flags of the United States Armed Forces. So the solution I have proposed is that I and whoever else wants to contribute prepare an article on Flags of the Australian Defence Force along the same lines. So there you could have such images and there would not necessarily be the same undue weight concerns. Until someone raises a more substantial objection to me being a wikipedian I say that I be allowed to continue my work. I estimate that I have given fully 72 hours of my time to wikipedia so far. Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I was actually going to go to some expense of my own to arrange some high quality artwork of all the rank flags and so forth and give the copyright to wikipedia. Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And if every flag related article that had some input from folks who are or had at one time been involved with organisations affiliated with the International Federation of Vexillological Associations carried a tag saying someone close to the subject had been a major contributor then I can tell you that would be an enormous number of tags. As long as you use independent sources what's the issue? They're just the people Wikipedia is looking for. Aussieflagfan (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've actually seen flag related articles before with a tag saying they need attention "from an expert on the subject". And what sort of people would wikipedia be soliciting help from there? The procedure that should be followed when someone declares they are or have been involved in the sort of organisation that the FSA is is that you advise them about the need to use independent sources then you wait to see how they conduct themselves. Aussieflagfan (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

SLOW DOWN!!!!!! You are talking to yourself. This page is for conversation, not dissertation. Again, you really need to get away from this topic and see how Talk pages are used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Your contributions here are achieving nothing. And as for the COI, the offence is editing when you have an undisclosed conflict of interest. How you edited is irrelevant. It's like driving when drunk. How you drive is irrelevant. Being drunk is the problem. 23:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

When it comes down to it though what's the dividing line between being close to a subject and being an expert on it? As I say there's tags on some Wikipedia articles saying they need attention from an expert on the subject. Maybe we need to ask a foreigner editor with nothing whatsoever at stake here what they think about this situation? The FSA do profess absolute neutrality in these Australian flag contentions. Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate policy. Have you notice that several people have suggested that you pause on Aussie flag articles, and get out and see the rest of Wikipedia? Do it!

• you need to expand into areas where you dont hold such strong opinions, learn how to write in an objective neutral way about subjects. As for COI tags, yes there too many already normally people who persist get shown the door because we dont have the time to keep up with the issues they cause. Please read WP:SPA hopefully you are falling within the ... experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice)...' aspect of it. Gnangarra 10:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

In addition I have made edits to articles in relation to matters of history and theology. The only strong opinion I have is that wikipedia should come up to date and not reflect a scholarly consensus that in relation to at least one of these Australian flag contentions was at least ten years dead. I think I will ask for a third opinion about whether the COI tag on my own page needs to remain. Even if I hadn't cashed in my FSA membership I say I've got special expertise as opposed to being close to the subject. The FIAV have a yahoo mailing list and I've even seen blokes in there talking about the need to spruce up some of these flag related articles on wikipedia. And some of them have been or are members of organisations like the FSA. I know for a fact that members of the UK Flag Institute knocked up the article on Graham Bartram. If you tagged every flag related article that has major contributions for people in my situation that would be an enormous number of tags. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please point us at those non-flag related edits. A few days ago I found three, on two articles, out of nearly 450 total edits you had made to Wikipedia. Your user name and behaviour really do indicate a single purpose account. This, combined with a refusal to accept advice from more experienced editors, and an arrogance that you are on the right track, are unlikely to lead to a great future here. HiLo48 (talk)

I've been made well aware of rules about single use accounts and as you can see in the last 24 hours I have made a contribution to the article on Isaiah and there will be a lot more non flag related edits forthcoming I promise you. I'm really enjoying being a wikipedian now. Of course I've taken this advice onboard. Actually I see that the tag on the Flag of Australia didn't stand for very long. If anything foreign editors with no stake whatsoever in these Australian related articles tend to see things my way. Aussieflagfan (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a really silly claim to make. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I furthermore note that in relation to the third opinion I called for at the Australian Flag Society talk page the other party has so far failed to act on the outcome. So who has shown respect for Wikipedia and its orderly processes there and who hasn't? I realise that some of these edits I have made involve matters where the scholarly consensus has been overturned in the last decade. But please don't shoot the messenger. I can't help it that the world keeps turning. Aussieflagfan (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I could also point out that the absolute number of edits I have made might only reflect what a laborious undertaking it happened to be. By my reckoning the percentage of non flag related articles to which I have contributed over the number of flag related articles would be at or near 50 per cent. And because I have bought some books that are on the way having seen ample opportunities to bring some of Wikipedia's history and theology related articles up to date that overall percentage should increase. I'm even looking at going to some expense of my own to acquire some artwork for the Flags of the Australian Defence Force page that Wikipedia can have the rights to. So granted it's taken a while to master some of these codes and inline citations and so forth. But on balance you'd really have to say having me here is keeping Wikipedia where it belongs if it wants to have the confidence of the general public. And that's right on the cutting edge. Aussieflagfan (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aussieflagfan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aussieflagfan. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Australian Red Ensign into Flags Act 1953. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)