User talk:Skyring/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 2006 and April 2008.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Getting back to work

First off, I'd like to thank Jimbo, David Gerard and one other editor for their patience and understanding over the past year. It has made the world of difference.

Second, no thanks to those people (including myself) who made things needlessly difficult.

And that's the last time I'll raise the subject. Pete 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I got it wrong. Not to worry. I'll be back making productive edits in four weeks. And to the the well-meaning soul who reverted my talk page, thanks, but I'm capable of keeping this little bit of Wikipedia clean and tidy all by myself! Pete 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Userpage unprotected as requested. Good luck. --Doc 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc! Pete 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned public domain images

The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. They have been tagged as public domain (PD), either as PD-self or other PD claim, or equivilant. These unused PD images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, tag them for copying to WP commons {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or if they are no longer needed, they can be nominated for deletion by following the easy three step process at Images and media for deletion. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Image:QVBInt.JPG
• Image:POFASwan.JPG

Thanks for the message

Hey Pete, Many thanks for the message. I know we did clash but I am very glad to see you back on WP. You have a lot to contribute. I must admit the date thing on WP can be irritating. I was glad to help out. I didn't realise how hard it is to let this place go. I'd weaned myself off it a few weeks ago, following a 'one more day not on Wikipedia' principle but last night was back on to check some facts for research and when I saw that people had been asking where I had gone, felt I'd better give some explanation. The fact that I have been battling a rather serious illness for a couple of months didn't help, though thankfully among the range of possible causes of the illness (everything from serious but fixible to life threatening) it seems to have been the former.

Again, thanks for the message. It was appreciated. I'll reply to other people's (I am so touched by the response) perhaps tomorrow. Because of health problems I am supposed to be taking things slowly and spending a lot of time in bed recovering. Hence, that is is why I am on here at 4am GMT!!! lol This time, having checked my emails I'll definitely go to sleep.

And again, I am glad to see you back on WP. I was hoping that what happened before wouldn't discourage you from returning. You have a lot to offer. One tip though: speaking from experience (mine and so many other people I have met here), don't let WP take over your life too much. It is amazing the number of wikiholics out there. I may be a recovering one but I probably will have the odd relapse. Even last night, while doing the research I came across errors and found myself correcting things (my doctor would be furious if he knew that. I'm supposed to be resting totally, not doing Wikipedia stuff!!) WP can be fun, frustrating, challenging, rewarding, annoying, infuriating and passionate. Those of us, and there are a lot of us on here, who are facts wonks, and devour information, forever want to keep adding and correcting. Unfortunately doing that was getting harder, not just physically because of illness but also because I ended up spending so much time fighting vandalism, fixing templates, correcting dates, working on conventions on naming, etc. If I did as much hard work in my paid jobs as I did here I'd be rich. (Or if I charged WP the going academic rate for doing research I'd be very rich!!!)

Best wishes, and take care.

Thom FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi

Even though we had our problems i hope your return proves a new beginning. PMA 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's up to you, really. I certainly haven't gone away from Wikipedia over the past year and we've worked amicably and productively here together over that period. --Pete 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Boeing has orders for 4 new 747-8I?

Why did you remove the orders by "Boeing Business Jet" from my chart comparing orders for Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8? Also, why did you remove the link on the A380 page? user:mnw2000 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Boeing Business Jet is not an airline, as indicated in the edit summary. The reference on the Airbus 380 page was poorly worded and out of character with the surrounding text. There seems to be little encyclopaedic value in the table. If you could give me an idea of your objective? --Pete 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of listing aircraft orders, Boeing Business Jet is considered a purchaser. Leasing companies are also listed even though they purchase aircraft to lease to others. This is the practice of airline manufacturers. The purpose of a comparison chart is to show information in context. For example, many aircraft show the statistics (width, number of seats, etc. in relationship to similar aircraft.) Since these two aircraft are the only two new super jumbo aircraft, a comparison chart is most informative. user:mnw2000 05:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I take your point on BBJ. Nevertheless, it is a stretch to regard the 747-8 as anything other than another model of the 747, and comparing it to the A380 is of very dubious encyclopaedic relevance. Why don't you write an article on Airbus vs Boeing, include this table (and others), and we can clean out all the guff about comparisons and competitors from the aircraft articles. By and large this sort of material only serves to attract POV pushers who are keen to advance the merits of their preferred manufacturer and denigrate the other, with varying degrees of subtleness. --Pete 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You

I see you are back. In the spirit of the season I am willing to let bygones be bygones. But if you even once engage in the kind of crap you engaged in the last time you were here, I will immediately start proceedings to have you banned again. I hope I make myself clear. Adam 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome, Adam. I've managed to work productively with you (and Jtdirl and others) on a couple of things over the past year, so I can't see any reason why we shouldn't continue to do so. May I suggest that you take it easy, not stress out over trivia, let things wash over you and let others share the load. It's a team effort. --Pete 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized modifications to Talk:Airbus A380

It is rude and against policy to remove on-topic comments from discussion pages. I suggest not doing it again. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One editor asked, "Is there any information available concerning the shipment of parts through the Polet Air An-124s?". This is a pertinent question, considering the various methods of delivery of the larger assemblies of the A380. To which BillCJ replied, "I've heard acquiring parts won't be a problem once there is a good number of A380s in service. There'll be plenty of spare parts available on any runway, ths sides of the runway, and on approaches to the airports.". This is not on-topic. It is nonsense, and in no way assists the article or any meaningful discussion. I am surprised that an editor of your standing took it seriously. However, I have kept the comment on the talk page. --Pete 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Concerns

Ok, so I've made all the necessary corrections. Perhaps something regarding the dialects related to the articles should be mentioned in the pages for people new to Wikipedia. I looked, and I haven't seen anything in those pages. Perhaps I am wrong and just didn't see it, but this small incident could've been prevented had I known. the cheat 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

You have just again deleted a dection of text, this time with the misleading minor label, and with the false claim that your action was justified by discussion at the Talk page (that discussion has not yet reached a conclusion or consensus). If you do this again, I shall block you for disruptive editing.

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mel! Suggest that you fully review the history before jumping into battle half-clad, posturing. I typically mark reversions of vandalism as minor, and this little piece of twaddle hs been repeatedly removed by several editors in several differet forms, most recently as a quotation. --Pete 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It can in no sense be regarded as vandalism reversion, as the discussion at Talk page demonstrates (and the fact that you appealed to discussion there indicates that you realised this). This is clearly a content dispute, and the minor tag is inappropriate. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not project thoughts into my head that were never there. I marked it as minor because I regarded it as vandalism reversion. --Pete 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet you didn't call it vandalism, but an edit in line with Talk-page discussion? Given that it clearly wasn't either, I decided to take your word for your intentions; now you say that I shouldn't have believed you, because your edit summary was (deliberately?) misleading? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not waste my time with your suppositions as to my thought processes. You are wrong, simple as that. --Pete 15:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's 4 reverts by my reckoning. Merbabu 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep on reinserting poorly-sourced rubbish into a biography of a living person, and I'll keep on removing it. I suggest that it is better to leave material out of an article when it has been challenged under WP:BLP until a clear consensus emerges that we can use it. --Pete 12:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3RR violation on Pauline Hanson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by replying here on your talk page, by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} .

Heimstern Läufer 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skyring (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been removing negative material from a biography of a controversial politician because it is poorly sourced and one statement is patently untrue. See detailed discussion at Talk:Pauline Hanson and WP:BLP Noticeboard. I also note that if this is being treated as an edit war, then the actions of the other parties surely deserve similar sanction.

Decline reason:

Peter, can you please explain why you feel the cited sources are poor sources and what is "patently untrue"? The DNA testing was reported fairly widely in the Australian press and I'm having trouble seeing why you feel this is something other than a content dispute. "Please explain" -- Sarah 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks, Sarah. It's in the links I provided, and I'm sorry that you didn't work through them in detail. There's only one source - any other media mentions stem from the original print story. We don't have corroborating versions of the same event, we only have one story which is an obvious media set-up. However, even if you regard the story as honest factual reporting, it doesn't state what is being claimed in the Pauline Hanson article. Our article says, 'a DNA test reported that Hanson has some Middle Eastern ancestry, which she attributed to "rape and pillage",'. However, Ms Hanson did not attribute the result to "rape and pillage", because the print article does not state this, instead saying, 'When told of the results, the former fish and chip shop owner appeared flustered, making references to "rape and pillage" in ancient times'. For Wikipedia to state this implication as solid fact is to engage in original research. For biographies of living people we have to be very careful of what we say, and close enough is not good enough. We have to be accurate in every detail. --Pete 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request & misrepresentations

I'm not sure what part of the quote you claim is untrue - or how you would know it is untrue. Its primary source was a major newspaper and was subsequently reported thru other outlets. The veracity of the story (as opposed to the veracity of the test) has not been challenged by any source. Hence, it is a simple content dispute, your claim that it is poorly sourced is untrue.

As for other editors, no other editor has broken three-reverts, at least by my calculations. For myself, i flagged in my edit summary when I was up and let you revert it for your 4th time and I have not touched it since - nor will I, as I have better things to do than count reverts. What's more, when it was pointed out you had had your 4th, you promised to keep reverting [1] while.--Merbabu 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think at best that's being a little rich to all of a sudden accuse people of making false claims. Where exactly has someone made a false claim and then secondly been found out? The truth is, all of sudden you are suddenly happy with "reported that" rather than "attributed" - that's all. You could have done that ages ago yourself, instead of simply removing the whole quote. Now for the first time you are commenting on the way it is written, not the quote (at least that's what i see). As much as your accusations stink I am happy to let it go (without an 'apology' or retraction - lol), and I'm sure the others feel that way. If you want it take it further, take it to some third party and I will follow. Otherwise, start assuming good faith, i know I don't have to give you link to that one. As I said, happy to drop it here, you can even remove it from your talk page.Merbabu 11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inverell Forum

Pete/Skyring

... I have an email from Inverell Forum stating...

"Dear Peter,

Unfortunately Pauline pulled out last weekend as did Bob Carter.

Regards

XXX"

(Name removed for obvious reasons).

--PeterMarkSmith 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the google cache for the Inverell Forum - she was listed at some point...

[http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:1jY4B06Rm8gJ:www.australiafirst.net/2007/news200702inverell.htm+www.inverellforum.org+Speakers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=sg ]

--PeterMarkSmith 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's relevant, put it on the article talk page so all interested editors can see it. The idea is that we work as a team, not as individuals. --Pete 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

I have amended the wording again. Let's see if we can reach a consensus on this on the JH talk page. Face the fact John Howard can loose an election it's not a crime to do so or to point this out. Albatross2147 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A matter of historical fact, to be sure. I have no problems with that. What is against the spirit of Wikipedia is your editorialising. --Pete 01:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete you're in no position to cast aspersions however due to your riding shotgun I feel that we have got to a suitable wording with clear citations which both of us should be comfortable with. Believe me I agree with your attitude and I know I wear my heart on my sleeve. You will note it was never a true revert war merely a steady revision. BTW dDo you want to have a go at developing a collaboration on John Carrick who really should have an article? Cheers Albatross2147 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My bent is towards correcting errors and fixing vndalism, rather than creating great slabs of text or new articles. The Saint John's Church, Richmond, Virginia article is a rarity. --Pete 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You say What is against the spirit of Wikipedia is your editorialising.. Are we to take this as a non-core statement by you given your misrepresentation of Rudd's attendance at "the Dinner". You can't be a guest of honour unless you know you are and there is no evidence of Rudd knowing he was going to be. Albatross2147 02:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"You can't be a guest of honour unless you know you are". See This Is Your Life. --Pete 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

St. John's

Pete: Thank you for your earlier work and your kind words. Building upon your initial work, I have been working on improvements in the article during the night here. I had earlier done considerable work on many of the linked articles I added. It is always nice to know someone appreciates our efforts on WP. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 10:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

84 Charing Cross Road

FYI, the edits you made to the dates in this article were unnecessary. If you enter a date in brackets without a comma separating the day from the year, US Wikipedia will show it as March 19, 2007 and UK Wikipedia will show it as 19 March 2007. I learned this from another editor and thought I'd pass the info on to you. SFTVLGUY2 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You are talking about date preferences, which most of our readers don't use. May I direct you to the Manual of Style? --Pete 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking abour your changing a date from December 7 to 7 December for no logical reason, since entered either way it reads the same. What I explained to you in my initial message is exactly what is stated in Manual of Style, so I'm not sure why you directed me to it. SFTVLGUY2 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could be so very kind as to actually read it, maybe that would help.

Here is the relevant section:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

If this is unclear, then please raise it on the discussion page and perhaps the wording can be altered for you. --Pete 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering Petula Clark is British, has homes in Geneva, Paris, London, and Miami Beach, and entertains worldwide, I find it difficult to understand how "the topic itself concerns a specific country"!!! Furthermore, even if the situation applied, the above statement says, "editors may choose to use the date format used in that country," it doesn't say they must. SFTVLGUY2 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So, using your own logic, you'd have no trouble at all if U.S. entertainers with a global reach had their significant dates changed to International Dating format? U.S. citizen, U.S. spelling, U.S. dates. British citizen. British spelling, British dates. Sounds good to me. I suggest that you follow the link given in WP:DATE for guidance, and consider WP:DICK as the community's advice to you. --Pete 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think anyone would be willing to take advice from someone as arrogant as you? The bottom line is, no matter how you enter the date, if I'm reading it in the US it will show as March 22, 2007 and if I'm reading it elsewhere it will show as 22 March 2007, so your nit-picking is a waste of my valuable time, which is better spent writing new articles, something you might consider doing before I give you any credence. SFTVLGUY2 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I think that you have been poorly advised on date formats and how they work. I suggest that you read the long discussion on the talk page for WP:DATE and you may gain some understanding of how the system works. If you need help, just ask someone. As for wasting your valuable time, obviously you consider the subject important enough to engage your attention, despite your assurances to me that it is trivial. If you really care about date formats, then please educate yourself on the long policy discussions. If not, then choose something else to do, as per your own excellent advice. --Pete 16:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Apology accepted; I never understood why you chose to make it personal; I only got involved because I had higher expectations of the arbcom being able to to do something to move the Aus. government stalemate along. My typing is pretty appalling; I really don't mind if you fix it :) --Peta 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that I was being ganged up on and my reaction should be to give as good as I got, considering that several admins were providing the example. It seemed entirely plausible to me that Jtdirl, once he had discovered my address, should share it with others privately (as well as publicly on his talk page), and when a woman immediately turned up acting very oddly outside my house, I connected the dots. Wrongly, as it turns out. I was extremely disappointed that the ArbCom didn't do a better job of understanding the situation. When they apparently condoned the bullying behaviour, I figured that Wikipedia was a place where "do as I say, not do as I do" applied, and I could attack my tormenters in the way they had attacked me.

As for your spelling, that's something (like date formats but more so) that has me hitting the edit button. I like fixing little errors, and Lord knows that you provided a steady supply. As did jtdirl: his work is usually excellent, but there was one period where he must have been short of sleep or something, and I latched onto those - with delight.

Anyway, that's all in the past, and I don't have much time for editing nowadays. What bugs me about Wikipedia is the way that good articles get distorted by cranks. Political biographies, for example, are being nibbled away at, with supporters of one side adding negative material and quietly removing anything positive. Or the other side doing the reverse. The way things are set up, it needs eternal vigilance to keep a good article good. While it's all very well to have a watchlist, who has the time to keep tabs on everything?. --Pete 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Template birth date and age

I didn't notice your question at Template talk:Birth date and age#Day first option until after I had done more work on these templates. I have now answered your question. I apologize for continuing to work on these templates without answering your question. -- Patleahy 08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition

In regards to the above article and your comments left on my talk page, putting the dates in the format they are shown just shows my personal preference for the dates, and the way all my contributions are written. What do you think is the Australian standard?.....Todd^#661 07:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at WP:DATE and follow the links for lists of the formats used in various nations, which are the standard formats used by Wikipedia. Our own personal preferences are irrelevant. Again, I ask you to convert the dates in this article to the correct format, in the interest of improving the overall quality of Wikipedia, which is, after all, an international project. --Pete 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Australia. Thank you. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 01:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF applies to give the benefit of the doubt. Looking at your history of edits along the same theme, there is no doubt at all, and I believe that I have called the situation accurately. --Pete 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who is edit warring, I was trying to provide a compromise. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that I discussed my edits up front. --Pete 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are not reverts also edits? Merbabu 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments

On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment. See here. Basically, if you want to address a third party, rather than me, then go have your private discussion elsewhere. Please. --Pete 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you were referring to my comments, they were about your edits and for your attention, even if my grammar had suggested a third person - I know you know this. But, it was clear you had seen the comments so I wasn't to concerned about reinstating them. And I don't mind you removing this. Merbabu 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments and removed them as being impolite and not requiring a response. The actions of Alec mcc in repeatedly warning and threatening me for removing comments - which I have a perfect right to do - are of more concern. --Pete 00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are perfectly entitled to remove content from your talk page (see my talk page banner for example), and that is indeed why i didn't reinstate them. As for removal being good practise in all cases, well, that is another issue. As for my comments being 'impolite', well, your chosen tact of debate at Talk:Australia, suggest to me that notions of politeness are proving highly subjective. Merbabu 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:POFASwan.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:POFASwan.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 10:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Regarding [2] and [3] (so far?), what do you make of WP:CANVASS? Merbabu 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the policy and acted in compliance with it. If you have a specific complaint, please be so very kind as to point it out precisely, with reference to the policy. --Pete 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could first help me on how WP:CON (the exact bit) allows you to push your minority view for the status quo. Consensus for removal is larger than keep, although your canvassing of agreeable editors might change that for as long as I chose not to resort to the same poor form. Merbabu 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The exact bit is the first para, which I have already quoted on Talk:Australia. As you have been hovering over my edits, I am astounded that you have not already noted this, but I shall quote it again:

Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

The information remained on the template for several months until Alec mcc removed it, sparking an ongoing edit war. You don't seem to accept that controversial edits should gain prior approval, and so far I can see no consensus to do so on the talk page. Consensus isn't a matter of counting noses - read the policy again, please. --Pete 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please stop explaining consensus, 'professionalism' and collaboration. I believe our actions speak a lot louder than our ability to copy'n'paste'n'intepret policy - I've also already voiced my well-founded opinion on your track record. Can we move on? Merbabu 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are unable or unwilling to address the point on contentious edits, then kindly stop bothering me. --Pete 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above diffs cited by Merabu do not violate WP:CANVASS. This, however, most certainly does and I request that you immediately either remove it or refactor it.--cj | talk 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm - well, OK. Not understood, but definitely accepted. Although I may not have felt inclined to complain had Skyring 'recruited' those of an opinion different to his own. Merbabu 05:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, CJ, how on earth do you see my post to Talk:Commonwealth of Nations as violating WP:CANVASS? For one thing, as a post to an article discussion page, it doesn't even count as canvassing. But leaving that aside, it's a neutral post to a community of editors who have an interest in all article pages relating to Commonwealth members, of which Australia is one. I believe that there is a relevant Wikiproject somewhere, but I couldn't find it. And even if I accepted your view, what changes would you have me make? Be reasonable, please! --Pete 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Trimmer

I was wondering why you changed the dates on the Sarah Trimmer page. I thought that dates appeared in the form specified by the user in his/her preferences, so it didn't matter how they were set up in the article. Just curious. I'm not reverting or anything. Awadewit | talk 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia's users are not editors with accounts and date preferences, so it's best to put dates in the correct format for that article, as per the Manual of Style. --Pete 03:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize there was a "correct" format for articles. Are all dates supposed to be in the day/month/year style? I couldn't quite tell from the MOS. I thought that the date styles just had to be consistent, which is what I did. I must have missed something. Awadewit | talk 05:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As usual you have no respect for the rules of engagement, whether defined by policy or simply decency. And as usual you have taken great care to ensure you have a defence against any accusations of impropriety. I have no doubt you will argue eloquently that your message at Talk:Commonwealth of Nations does not constitute canvassing; that you are not in any way responsible for the consequent escalation of the edit war; that I am an involved editor; etcetera. But I'm not buying it any more. In the interests of maintaining standards of debate in what is already a sordid and petty dispute, you have been blocked for 48 hours. Hesperian 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your action appears to be motivated by something other than impartial observance of established procedures. I took good care to limit my messages to those editors with an interest, to remain neutral, and to remain within the spirit and letter of the WP:CANVASS guideline. I also deeply resent your initial comments above.

I will accept that you acted hastily, possibly goaded by the intemperate actions of User:G2bambino, and may well wish to reflect on the appropriateness of your behaviour here. I had you marked down as a good egg, with an eye to practicality and fairness, but really, you have gone too far. --Pete 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Pete, I have taken up your invitation to reflect upon the appropriateness of my behaviour.

Firstly, every time I make a decision whether or not to push the block button or not, I upset someone. I'm on a power trip or I'm gutless. I'm a member of the cabal or I'm a rouge admin. I'm biased towards my friends or I put no value on friendship. I assume bad faith or I let people get away with murder. I'm too heavily involved in the dispute or I don't have enough context. In short, no-one but no-one ever thinks I'm a good egg for long, so I'm glad to have disabused you of that misconception. Fortunately for me, I'm pretty selective about whose opinions of me I value, so my self-respect remains intact.

Secondly, I remain confident that my block was correct, and that it will be endorsed by the community. On Wikipedia, as elsewhere in life, there is clearly appropriate behaviour, blatantly inappropriate behaviour, and a grey area in between. To enable policing of behaviour, we write policies that draw a sharp line through the grey area. Good faith editors such as yourself generally don't get blocked for blatantly inappropriate behaviour - that is the domain of vandals and trolls. No, good faith editors find themselves blocked when they indulge in ethically questionable behaviour in the quest for an edge in a dispute, thus straying into that grey area and just over the line drawn by policy.

I can understand the temptation to run a rule over the current articulation of policy, and debate whether your behaviour was only just on this side of the line, or only just on that side of the line. If you did so, I'm quite sure you would find consensus that your message did indeed constitute inappropriate canvassing, and warranted a block. But personally, I think a better course of action would be to acknowledge to yourself that you shouldn't have been in the grey area in the first place. If you have to "take care to... remain within the spirit and letter of the CANVAS guideline", then you're obviously in that grey area, where at least some of your fellow Wikipedians will perceive your behaviour as improper. If only one in ten Wikipedians perceive that message as canvassing, then still you have discarded the respect, trust and goodwill of 10% of the people you have to edit alongside, in a single message.

Thirdly, I apologise for my opening comments in this section. I reserve the right to hold an unflattering opinion of your conduct in this and other disputes, but it was utterly improper for me to express it in such an offensive way. It probably constituted a personal attack - at the very least it was in that grey area - which is a grossly inappropriate way to begin a message that ends with me blocking you for a policy violation. Perhaps, as you say, I acted hastily, goaded by the intemperate actions of G2bambino. In view of my hypocrisy in personally attacking you while in the act of blocking you, I shall unblock immediately, with my apologies for time served. You should treat this as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on my own part, not as a reassessment of your own behaviour.

Hesperian 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Very well said. However, I think the block was most improper, and if you are going to succeed as an admin, you should be impartial, rather than steering a debate in the direction you want. Even if you don't think that's what you are doing, that's what you are doing.

I didn't see any "grey area". I made sure I operated within the spirit and letter of the guidelines, not because I wanted to kid anyone, but because I wanted to do the right thing.

As I mentioned earlier, one of my concerns is consistency and uniformity with other similar articles. You rail against "Edit warriors from afar", as if somehow only Australian editors should edit the Australia article, and when I seek input from those who edit articles concerning the wider British Commonwealth, you block me, you block anyone who responds to my call, you state that I have acted against policy and you do your best to negate, with untruths and threats, my request for more voices in the discussion.

My concerns about the way good articles are nibbled away are firmly held. I have seen too many excellent editors give up and leave the project, exhausted at the effort of continually defending and repairing articles against the subtle attacks of POV pushers. This is not to say that articles should remain forever unchanged, forever stagnant, as others in this debate state and restate. But nor do I want to see good consistent work thrown away and replaced with a lashed-up affair, as so often happens after a few edit warriors have twisted a paragraph this way and that.

I see my reasons for wanting the royal anthem to remain alongside the national anthem in the template (in a secondary position, to be sure) as quite valid, and I note that many other editors have expressed similar views. So why, when I argue forthrightly and resolutely for my preference, am I attacked so unfairly? --Pete 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Please don't change the format of dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. Andrew_pmk | Talk 01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-meaning advice, Andrew. I change dating format to conform with WP:DATE. Most WP users aren't editors and therefore don't have date preferences set. If you have any specific points, please let me know. --Pete 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring/Wikistalking

I've deleted this page as it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please don't recreate material such as this on Wikipedia. If you have concerns over another editors behaviour, there are several avenues available to you - Mediation, Dispute Resolution, a Request for Comment or an Arbitartion Request. Best Wishes. Nick 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll thank you to restore it, please. I checked the policy on subpages before commencing it. I don't want to make this matter official just yet, because I'm hoping that Alec's attitude might change, but I do want to get the facts down while it is all fresh in my mind, in case he continues his behaviour. I've put an hour of careful work into this - please don't waste my effort. --Pete 00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your conflict with Alec

I'm not sure if you've got my Talk page on your watchlist, but I've made a suggestion there of a way this conflict can at least be dealt with temporarily. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The problem seems to be that when I make a good faith edit, Alec jumps in and begins a revert war. I'll take that as a trigger to give you a yell. Looks like both of us regard you as someone with a calm and reasonable eye. --Pete 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for making a personal attack against you, it was wrong and in the heat of the moment. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 04:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Pete 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Keating

Hi Pete - saw your comments on the Paul Keating talk page. Is the Bryan Westwood painting here or is that another one - I found this on Flickr; and I was asked to source the actual painting - I couldn't, though I did find that Westwood painted Keating, and that the portrait now hangs in Parliament House in Canberra. The copyright trolls have decided to delete all remnants of this picture, and it's not good enough even to illustrate the article as something that was done to commemorate Keating's prime ministership (I was accused of making it a sham attempt at finding a non-free likeness!) If the painting won the Archibald Prize that might be enough to justify a fair use claim on the Keating page. Do you know where I could get any more information on this? JRG 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a link via the Archibald Prize article, and it gets you here. This portrait currently hangs in Old Parliament House, and it is stunning. I reckon the Archibald goes to some crap portraits nowadays, but this was a worthy winner. --Pete 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Baden Powell (mathematician)

Hey, Pete, I'm not your janitor. If you won't correct your own errors, I'll simply revert again. I have kindly pointed out previously, e.g., while you changed Baden-Powell House that changing specific details such as dates should be done with accuracy. If you ignore that, I'll treat you work as vandalism. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

If I don't spot my own errors, I can hardly fix 'em. If you spot them, then you may fix them. Your own peculiar dating system leaves most readers (i.e. those who aren't registered editors) with a mess of numbers throughout text in biographical articles. I suggest, once again, that you follow the Manual of Style guidelines. --Pete 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're a beginning editor, perhaps I can help you with suggesting that you use the history of a page you have edited, and then do a comparison of all your edits in one go. Then you can see in the left column the correct information, and in the right column what you have made of it. Colours indicate what you have changed. Using such a simple mechanism allows an editor to easily whether you have made any mistakes. Success with correcting Baden Powell (mathematician): I see you're still working on it. That's good. I'm pretty sure you can get enough checks built in so that people afterwards will appreciate your article improvements too. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

It's a grey old day here in Canberra, cold and raining, and your efforts to bring a smile to my face are much appreciated! Many thanks! --Pete 22:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bleak night here in The Netherlands too. Summer is on the calendar, but autumn is out there. I'm glad you appreciate my comments. You've just two corrections to go (hint: Robert and Agnes). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

Book

In asking this question I am assuming you've read many of the thousands of books in your abebooks catalogue, and would therefore be able to help me out!

I'm about to buy "Noble Six Hundred; the Story of the Empire Air Training Scheme with Special Reference to the 674 Australians Who Trained in Southern Rhodesia" from a seller in Adelaide (Canberra is too far a drive) and am wondering if you can recall any details on the book, and would be able to tell me if it's a worthwhile purchase.

Of course, I'm imposing and asking these things, but any help would be welcome!

Cheers, Michael ^talk 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's basically a brief outline of the scheme, potted histories of each of the monthly intakes, and biographical sketches (about a page each), of most of the six hundred odd (including the author). A few photographs at the front and rear. Of course, it depends on what your interests are as to how worthwhile it is for you, but it's a well-produced example of niche market "labour of love" ex-service history. I can scan and post cover and sample pages if you wish. --Pete 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Royal Anthem

I absolutely agree that it is misguided for them to plonk any mention of it to the very bottom of the article. There are facts I don't particularly like either, but I don't try and hide them on wikipedia articles. I might give discussion on it a go, but I'm not holding my breath! Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My rather aggressive push on this got nowhere. Alec however would seem to have an agenda on this. In reply to my statement of position on the subject he has written on my talk page, "It is great that you have strong feelings on the monarchy in Australia...". What I think I articulated was that the Queen of Australia is the Head of State and until she is removed from that position, a move I support, the RA should be played. My strong feelings are for stating the facts and not hiding the things we do not want to see (or hear). Take it up again if you like but there were many who were against it and I was the only one pushing the line or reincorporation. As I have said before, "history is written by the winners and so is Wikipedia." --CloudSurfer 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I got the impression that there were only a handful who wanted to remove the RA and that all in favour of keeping it didn't participate in the vote. Alec's POV shouldn't be given anyh more weight than it deserves. We're writing an encyclopaedia, not shading reality to reflect personal political opinions. Australia has a Royal Anthem, like Canada and other Commonwealth members, and trying to hide or obscure that fact doesn't change reality. --Pete 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The only half-decent counter-argument I have seen so far is that the United States doesn't have its Presidential Anthem on its infobox. Though I think that's fairly easy to derail. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hail to the Chief has no legislative foundation as an anthem, unlike GSTQ. --Pete 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That was easy! And, of course, GStQ used to actually be Australia's National Anthem, whereas now it has status as its Royal Anthem. What's the way forward from here? Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need to clarify the situation at [4]. Obviously some nation articles have a royal anthem, and these are shown in the infobox in different ways. We should aim for uniformity of presentation, and what qualifies for inclusion. A basis in legislation or the constitution, or national gazettal, I think. There may be several types of alternative anthem, such as royal anthem, presidential anthem, maybe even military or youth anthems. --Pete 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Using {{Birth date and age}} internationally

Hi Pete. I am trying to understand what you would like to change about {{Birth date and age}} and simular templates. Is your only problem that the day first option is not the default or do you see a bigger problem? I know you would prefer that the template take a wikidate as a single parameter however this is very difficult if even possible to implement is a template. -- Patleahy (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally the input should be a wikidate with output in the same format. This would be the easiest and most transparent option for editors. I can't see that this would be impossible to implement. However the major problem is that there is a default output. If it outputs American Dating, it's going to be the wrong format for articles that use International Dating. If it outputs International Dating, it's going to be the wrong format for articles that use American Dating. You can set a flag to indicate a non-default format, but of course this is not going to be used by the average editor. It is unfair to say "Well, we Americans (or we British) like the way it is, everyone else can take an extra step to get what they want.", nor is it adequate to say, "Just RTFM - we technoheads understand it just fine." --Pete 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this can be implemented using a wikidate propose an implementation. I love to learn how to do it. If we assume that a wikidate is not possible is what you are proposing getting rid of the default and having all editors explicitly specify the default output, perhaps df=yes for the date first option and mf=yes for the month first option. That way everyone knows the option exists. -- Patleahy (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not being a LAMP programmer, I'll leave implementation to someone else. I'm an MCSD. Having all editors specify an output style is even worse. If wikidate input is impossible, then have two (or more) templates, say (American birth date and age) and (International birth date and age). --Pete 03:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you consider the benefit of two templates over one template with two flags? -- Patleahy (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ease of use for more editors. The situation is one where a single template with a default output is unsatisfactory. Using wikidates as input would solve the problem, because the input determines the output in a transparent and user-friendly fashion. --Pete 05:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the articles you mentioned at Template talk:Birth date and age#Flagging arbitration proceedings. These changes were not made as part of the removal of the Euro templates. Two of them were changed before the Euro template was deleted. [5] [6] [7] -- Patleahy (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I can find any number of further examples by looking at my watchlist, and there are undoubtedly further examples that are not on my watchlist.

I'm not convinced that two different templates is easer for editors than one with two flags.

Since you feel strongly I suggest you file a Deletion review to explain why the Euro templates should be undeleted. You should also propose renaming the other templates at the Contested proposals section of Requested moves. I think that’s a better approach than filing an ArbCom proceeding. -- Patleahy (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that someone rewrite the template to use wikidates, actually. However, I'll take your advice on board. --Pete 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia

Hi Pete, on reflection I apologise for my anger even though I have already self-reverted it. I don't know the whole story about Carr's departure. However if you were a major contributor to his leaving then I would stand by my words. Cheerio, Alec ✉_{﹌ }^۞ 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly had a role in adding to Adam's stress level, by giving as good as I got from him. But if you look at his contributions, you'll see that our interaction for the past eighteen months was minimal. What you will see there, especially towards the end, is a growing frustration that good articles and good editing were being drowned out by crap and campaigns by people pushing ideological barrows. I wouldn't describe your contributions as crap, but you are certainly twisting things to suit your own political views. I suggest that you accept that in politics you can't win every battle, and that if you write something in hot rage, you should go and make a cup of tea before hitting the "send" button. Also, think about feeding the trolls. I don't respond to everything I'd like to because a lot of things are designed solely to get a heated response, and it serves very little common good by maintaining private feuds. --Pete

Howard

a) Prime Minister pages discuss what happened regarding their government during their time in power. b) Howard established the enquiry and refused calls for a royal commission. Timeshift 05:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Using those criteria we could turn Howard's biographical article into a multi-gigabyte monster full of trivia. Give me a real reason to include the AWB thing. --Pete 05:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:John Howard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. [8] [9] [10] [11] Cheers, Alec ✉_{﹌ }^۞ 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Cool down, mate. I added a response, Peter Ballard added another in a different section and then you came along and tried to wedge your post in ahead of mine. I merely restored the original order, and I'll thank you to be civil about it. I suggest that you sit down, have a cup of tea, and return to your labours calm and refreshed. Stress and tension is what does for WP editors. --Pete 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a crap Pete, it was an edit conflict as it took a while to write the response because I was distracted by other things, I just get pissed by your constant combination of wikilawyering, kettle and uncivility (ie ‘labours calm’). These things individually don't worry me in the slightest, but I know that once you're given an inch you take a mile. Alec ✉_{﹌ }^۞ 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do try not to get pissed. If you have a short fuse, best not to let it get the better of you. Do what I do, and laugh at the antics of your opponent. In the end, it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. --Pete 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Howard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war Lester2 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC) See above, brother. --Pete 02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation: John Howard, Request for Comment

Hi Skyring/Pete. As you know, there is a Request for Comment on the John Howard talk page. I wish to invite you to leave a comment there. Hope to see you there. Thanks, Lester2 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

Regarding the editing of political articles in Wikipedia, and the John Howard article, I wonder if you have any close associations (past or present) with political parties or conflicts of interest WP:COI that you'd like to declare? Thanks, Lester2 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

None that I wish to declare. However, to forestall your leap of logic, I am not and have never been a member of the Liberal or National parties. Your turn. --Pete 02:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a member of any political party. I don't particularly like any of them! Peter Ballard has declared his on his userpage. I think that's the appropriate thing to do. I thought you may want to do the same Lester2 11:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Rat smell

Funny you mentioned that, I was having those exact same thoughts last night. I think I will fill out a "Checkuser" request. Could you have a look when it's done. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've run enough sockpuppet accounts in my time to recognise the signs. There's always a few mistakes made by the puppeteer, especially to begin with. I note that with the high external visibility this article has gotten, it is of course on the cards that we will get a rash of new contributors, but generally the newbies show enough newbieness that they are easily recognised, at least until they get into the swing of doing things and start flinging wikilinks and sigs around. The fact that Lester2 keeps logging out of his account and then forgetting he has done this and making anon posts is also an indicator. He didn't do it when he first began posting - why start now? --Pete 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

checkuser request completed. Feel free to add information directly to the case. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 18:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results pending more disscussion and evidence to be presented to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Please go and add a comment to Lesters case there. Cheers. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Check user results are in. You and Prester John were mistaken. An apology to me and User:Lester2 for the libelous inferences you made would demonstrate good faith. --Bren 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A libelous inference, eh? I make no apologies. I voiced my legitimate suspicions. Any inferences made were obviously yours. --Pete 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was a legitimate suspicion, especially on the political pages but at present there doesn't seem to be any real evidence, other than a gut feeling. If you think there is evidence later, the case can be reopened, but it's best to present specific diffs as evidence, not general observations. Sarah 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sept 2007

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in John Howard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Shot info 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Removing references from John Howard article is vandalism

I ask you to stop removing or breaking existing references from the John Howard article. It is disruptive behaviour that I'll be reporting.Lester2 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I suggest you go check out what constitutes vandalism. Funny man. --Pete 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Skyring. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

--Lester2 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sleep

Defenders of the wiki need no sleep........ Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. But cabbies keep odd hours. --Pete 18:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Children Overboard Affair

You've made the same disputed edit twice in succession (here & here) without explaining the edit on the article talkpage as requested. Please justify your edits, avoid disruptive editing and avoid 3RR. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the facts, I'm actually rewriting this diff which you made without gaining consensus, one of several hotly-contested edits you made, resulting in you later being blocked for edit-warring. I trust that you have learnt your lesson. --Pete 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Skyring/Pete. I believe you are mistaken on both counts. At no stage was I blocked for edit warring on Children Overboard Affair. There is nothing on the talkpage for that article evidencing your claim that my edits were hotly contested. The Children Overboard Affair had previously been protected, after I requested it and User:Mastcell agreed, due to User:Prester John performing disruptive edits. Please focus on the issue at hand, seek consensus for your changes and avoid removing contextual detail from articles. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am correct. A glance at your block log shows you were blocked for edit-warring. And you did not gain consensus for your edit, which I have now belatedly noticed and corrected, also resuming the discussion on this subject. --Pete 03:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. My block does not show any blocks for editwarring on Children Overboard Affair. Stop the ad hominem and debate content already. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You camn scarcely deny that you were blocked for edit-warring. And kindly do not presume to tell me that I am incorrect when I describe my actions. I know what's in my mind when I make edits. You can only guess. No more of this trolling, please. --Pete 04:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Skyring. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

John Howard & Hawke race motion

I'll soon be adding a couple of paragraphs into the John Howard article, which details the motion that Bob Hawke introduced into parliament in 1988, about race and immigration. I'm rewording it, using conservative commentator Paul Kelly's writings as a source. There are many prominent commentaries which cite the divisions within the Liberal Party over Asian immigration as the reason for Howard's downfall as leader at that time. These include commentators from both left and right. I chose to work with Kelly's text as a base, because his conservative credentials would satisfy other editors who may take exception to commentators from the left. I think you will agree it is written in a way that is not an "attack piece". If you have any problems with the wording, I trust you will discuss on the talk page, rather than use the revert button (which according to Wikipedia texts is to be used only in cases of blatant vandalism.) Thanks, Lester2 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on John Howard

Please stop edit waring on John Howard. The issue is currently the subject of an ANi report. Some people may possibly face punitive actions for edit waring. You don't want to get caught up in this. My advice is to stop edit waring and use the talk page instead.--Lester 04:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you reverted John Howard a second time. My advice is to undo your own revert. Then read the ANi report. A lot of admins are watching, and I don't want to see you get caught up in this. It's not a good idea to engage in this edit war.--Lester 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"A lot of admins are watching" really. It would appear that they aren't. Otherwise there would have been action sooner. I suggest that you stop gaming the AN/I. Shot info 04:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll stand up for myself with the wikigods, such as they are, and I don't need you to warn me about them, thank you very much, Lester. My well-meaning advice to you is to talk things over on the discussion page before making edits you know are going to be disruptive. --Pete 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s

Hello! I see you recently moved List of Airbus A380 capable airports here. The rationale you provided was that all B747 handling airports can handle A380 aswell. I'm quite intrigued by this, and would like to ask a question. [ :) ] Would Manchester Airport, in the UK, (which handles 6 B747 vists daily) be able to handle such loads? If you have time to answer this unbelievable question by me, you can reply on my talk page. Regards, Rudget _{Editor Review} 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think Manchester Airport couldn't handle A380s? --Pete 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that international, compared with those listed! :) Rudget _{Contributions} 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If it can physically handle a B747, it can handle an A380. None of the early customers are proposing to put more than 500 passengers into an A380 - that's about the same as a jumbo. --Pete 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

invite

Graeme Bartlett 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Murder in Montparnasse.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Murder in Montparnasse.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to change date formats

When dates are correctly wikilinked, they are displayed in the user's preferred format. So there's no need to change them, as you did in Isaac Newton. For example, 1 January, 2007 and January 1, 2007 display the same although they're coded differently ... richi 14:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I never tire of pointing out, that is only the case for those who have accounts. The vast majority of Wikipedia users are readers, who see the date in its raw and often inappropriate form. --Pete 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Darn, you're right of course. Very sorry for being a smart-ass ... richi 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Marking edits minor @ Children Overboard Affair

I'll spare you the warning template, but I do believe you know much, much better than to conduct a huge deletion spree on an article, as soon as it leaves protection, and mark your edits "Minor": "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text ... When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." Using minor edits to make major changes as part of a content dispute could be seen as manipulative if not outright disruptive editing. Please don't do it. <eleland/talkedits> 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

<shrug>Reverting the revert of an IPsock is no big deal. I clicked on the "Undo" link. If you want to consider that as "a huge deletion spree" and expect me to be impressed, well, you have failed. Or perhaps you honestly think that I laboured over the article for hours, typoing in slabs of text to replace the bits I cut out, and then had the gall to label it minor? --Pete 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Date format in info-box

Hi - I understand your preference for d/m/y, but in the case of the RL infoboxes the format is set otherwise and gives an 'age' as result. By removing that part of the template you are also removing the age. I've brought the subject up at WP:RL to see if the template can be changed. Until then, it'd be great if you can leave the info-boxes as they are to make future updating easier (something may just need to be switched in the template for all I know). If the template was showing 15/4/80 as a date, I would understand your immediate concern, but as it is a difference between 15 April and April 15, it is hardly causing great confusion in the meantime. ~ Florrie • talk • 01:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I know we talked about this before, but could you please explain to me why you favor changing {{birth date and age|1980|4|15}} to [[15 April]] [[1980]] instead of changing it to {{birth date and age|1980|4|15 | df = yes }} as discussed above. The df version would have the result you desire, a day first default, without losing the benefits of using the template. Thanks, PatLeahy (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the template defaults to American Dating format, yet it is not given an appropriate name. Expecting users to add "df=y" to get the correct format is a big ask. As we have just seen. --Pete 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you know the flag exists why don't you add in the 'df' with an explanation in the edit summary? Making date format changes like you do without any explanation in the edit summary is just causing unnecessary reverts and explanations. -- PatLeahy (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Skyring_reported_by_User:Lester_.28Result:_.29 Sarah 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SamThaiday.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SamThaiday.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal discussions on article talk pages

Dear Skyring(Pete), I request that you don't discuss me on the publicly viewable article discussion pages. These are not the best places to discuss what another editor has done, as they are viewable by everyone. You may find it interesting to read the pages of Wikipedia:Civility for guidance. Thank you, and kind regards, Lester 02:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lester, if your behaviour on WP wasn't a problem, I wouldn't talk about it. --Pete 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aerial logo 02.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Aerial logo 02.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Please do not move talk pages of articles without moving the articles. In this case the article is protected from moves, and that is for a reason. Please discuss the name on the talk page, don't continue to move pages disruptively like that. Mr.Z-man 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Thought I was moving the article back to its previous name. My blue. Looks like it will be well-deserved history soon, anyway. Good riddance. --Pete 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd images - eh?

Normally your daily bias is much more subtle than that. Timeshift 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Per my revert. Support/vote against images, fine, thats good you're taking part in the poll for which I say thankyou. BUT - discuss Rudd's earwax in the earwax discussion. Not in the polling table for which photo is preferred, and none of them have any earwax related issues. Timeshift 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Date Formats

Hi, Pete. I saw your comments on the date and age template.

I've never bothered with setting date preferences, because I can read 25 December 2001 just as easily as December 25, 2001. I used to work with a computer programmer from England who insisted the former was "the only correct way" to show a date.

Anyway, Wikipedia lets you keep the default or set a preference such as

• 16:12, January 15, 2001
• 16:12, 15 January 2001

The template is set up to permit the user to express their preference. Also, I think you will find programmers at Wikipedia (like me) generally are responsive to user requests. What do you have in mind? --Uncle Ed 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bugger. Long thoughtful response eaten by internet. Will repeat when I stop crying. --Pete 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Request for Mediation on the same issue

Hello Skyring. I've again listed the John Howard family Copra interests for the Mediation Committee, with the aim of finding consensus among the participants of the recent talk page discussion on the subject. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard to indicate whether or not you wish to participate. Thanks, Lester 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this several times. The arguments on each side are familiar. You've tried to insert this material without consensus twice now, and I'm getting bloody sick of your behaviour. --Pete (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TakeYourChoice.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:TakeYourChoice.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton

Hey, I replied on my talk page as well...but anyway, I think that at the time I made that edit, I wasn't aware of the autoformat function in wikipedia. So, that may be why the date part looks a bit odd. During the GA review I tried to fix all of the dates, and I think they're mostly correct, but another set of eyes is always useful :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks

Please feel free to discuss the changes you made to David Hicks on the discussion page. Some of your fellow editors see "without valid charge by the US gov under suspicion of involvement" as well documented fact. Why do you think it better presented not included in lead? SmithBlue (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's POV. Even if supported by legal opinion, it's still POV. Only if the charges are or were dismissed by a competent court can we call them invalid. You've got the US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid? No? Well, don't presume to force your opinion on our readers, please. --Pete (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, you asked and answered about the "US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid?" You were very close, a yes rather than a no and you'da been on the money - thats exactly what we have. We have the US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid : "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." As the commissions were not lawful then everthing they did that required legal authority also becomes unlawful. This includes the charges against Hicks. SmithBlue (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I am quite sure you know exactly what I mean. Quit pussyfooting around. There were two sets of charges, and your wording doesn't explain the situation exactly. --Pete (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You first talked of POV and opinions - I showed you that it was the USSC opinion; which was exactly what you requested. If that wasn't what you were after then "No I dont know exactly what you mean" - Don't expect me to be a mind reader - you talked about USSC and POV and Opinions - that is what I addressed - hopefully now you are saying my wording is not exact - to which I say "improve it". SmithBlue (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, just making it clear that nothing you have written to date adequately responds to my request for diffs supporting your claim, "I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history".Hoping you can supply them and save other editors time. SmithBlue (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about a considerable period here. I thought that this was clear. I'm thinking you like arguing for argument's sake, and your debating style bears a fair resemblance to that of Clarence Day's famous father. Could you please try to focus on the wording? If we keep our eyes on finding a compromise, we might get somewhere. I'm not averse to changing the lead, but not to the extent that it slants the article and is misleading. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Copra RfM

Hello Skyring. I ask you to reconsider the Copra RfM. Take another look at the list of participants, there are now a lot of people who have agreed to participate. Some will be putting the case for inclusion of the information, and others will no doubt be arguing for the information to be omitted. I don't know which way it will go, and I haven't participated in an RfM before, but I assume that a decision will be made one way or the other, and whatever decision the group arrives at will become the consensus. Of course, it's your choice whether you want to be part of that or not. The intention of the RfM is for the group to settle on a consensus as an alternative to the previous edit warring. If a consensus is reached, then in future I assume it will be very difficult for any individual (you, me or anyone else) to go in and revert the article away from whatever consensus was reached. My point is, that it is more likely that any individual will influence the outcome of the article by participating in the RfM than by abstaining. I'm just guessing here, but there was a very large number of people invited to the RfM from way back (at the request of 'Gnangarra'), many have responded though some haven't responded, but I'm guessing that the mediation Chair, 'WjBscribe', will proceed with the RfM, even if not all those listed parties show an interest in participating. You may as well be a part of it, where you can put forward your case about what should be done with that information, and be a part of what the group decides, rather than sit on the outside. Lester 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read up on WP:RfM. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Skying. I'm not sure which part of WP:RfM you are referring me to. I'm not saying a binding resolution is formed. However, a large number of editors will likely agree to an outcome, whichever outcome that may be. It's a way to avoid a long running edit war. and a standard way Wikipedia deals with contentious information. Your the last editor, from the list who recently discussed it, who hasn't yet agreed to take part. Lester 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a comment from the Chair, as to what advantages there are for attending mediation, in case you may feel you lose advantage by attending. I posted a message underneath your message on the RfM discussion page here: RfM: How long does this go on?. I hope the Chair may be able to list the advantages of joining Vs abstaining. Lester 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I left another message for you on the RfM board. It's to ask you if there is anything you still find unfair about this RfM process, now the invited parties has benn expanded (at the request of you & Gnangarra), and there are now numerous admins on board. Hope you join the community there. I'd like to end the reverting of that Copra information, and getting everyone together to discuss what should be done with it is the best way. Lester 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Date changes

Just out of curiosity, is there any particluar reason for going to several articles and reversing the order of day and month inside one wikilinked date? (eg diff [12]) It has no effect on the article (as the date should always display what your date settings calibrated to), and it doesn't seem an effective use of time and resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn (talk • contribs) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Parsons

Why are you changing the date/age template in the infobox? This is the recommended method for use in Template:Infobox Musical artist#born and its output is in international date format. There is no reason for you to chenge it especially with the rationale you are using. --WebHamster 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Quit being stupid, change your date preferences in your "my preferences" that's why you're seeing the wrong dates. Save yourself work and breaking things in the process. --WebHamster 13:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alan Parsons, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WebHamster 13:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blues

Don't thank me, I'm convinced you enjoy these date-generated blues, Pete! It'd be so much easier to use/explain df=yes in the first date revert, yet... you don't. :) Cheers, •Florrie•leave a note• 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you are very perceptive! Bottom line is that I'm not going to use that template while it retains a default. --Pete (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to see it's not about a parameter for you, it's a principle. I notice there's been no response so far at the template discussion page to your message. No point in making a martyr of yourself over this if no-one is paying attention, Pete. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Skyring#Date_Formats above. --Pete (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked for 6 hours for edit warring at Alan Parsons. While your edits did not technically violate the 3RR, reverting three times inside 20 minutes when aware of the rule is sufficiently disruptive to justify a block. Please feel free to continue editing when your block expires, but please consider discussing issues rather than blandly reverting. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Date formats and an admin

I have had to revert several edits this morning where you have replaced valid British 'birth date', 'death date and age' templates by American-style date formats. In none of these edits did you give any edit summary; and you described all edits as Minor. Please consider this as a warning. If you continue in this way, you will be blocked for vandalism. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at one of your edits, I think you are confused! --Pete (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You have removed my test4 template above. If you continue to remove birth date and death date and age templates, you will be blocked. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Joshua Reynolds, you will be blocked from editing. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Ian Cairns (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skyring (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been tidying up English biographical articles, replacing dates in American Dating format (month-day-year) with dates in International Dating format (day-month-year), as used in England. This is in accordance with the Manual of Style. Ian Cairns has incorrectly accused me of doing the reverse (see discussion and example above), reversed my valid edits and warned me for vandalism. And then blocked me. This looks like a blatant abuse of administrator powers to win an edit war where he was clearly in the wrong, and I would like a careful pair of eyes on his hasty actions. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - already unblocked by the blocking admin. — -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Example of date edits

• I change birth and death dates for Charles Burney (English music historian) from American to International format
• Ian Cairns returns the article to American Dating
• I restore the article to the correct dating format

Turning to Joshua Reynolds an English painter, we see that a template has been used, but it has been forced to output the dates in American Dating format, by using the "mf=y" flag. This is incorrect for the article. As for the template, see my comments here. Clearly I am in the right here, and Cairn's accusations of vandalism are way out of line. --Pete (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm agreeing with Pete here. This block is way out of line, because it's out of process and following a content dispute that the administrator himself was involved in - and the dispute itself was of relatively little value and a case of mistaken intentions anyway! DEVS EX MACINA _pray 11:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for including me in this discussion. It is possible to adjust the birth date and death date and age formats without replacing them with linked dates. It is possible to add edit summaries. It is possible to make these more than minor edits. I apologise if I was involved with the reversion and blocking. It was dealt in a short period as a single issue. If you check my user page, you'll see that I have no truck with American English on British articles. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Florrie has now corrected the date format templates for European usage on Joshua Reynolds. NB: It was not necessary to replace the templates to do this, simply to adjust the parameters. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An edit summary is superfluous for such an edit - it is obvious that one date format has been swapped for another, and in the case of a noted English painter such as Joshua Reynolds, I am astonished that anyone would think that changing American Dating format to day-month-year was either controversial or vandalism. --Pete (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are racing ahead with your own agenda. I have never argued with replacing American by British formats - it was the method you chose to do so. You deleted perfectly good templates in order to hard code your desired solution. You should have adjusted the existing usage of birth and death templates, as User:Florrie did so successfully on Joshua Reynolds. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Following criticism of my previous block and the process by Deus ex Machina above, which I take to heart, I have unblocked Skyring. This does not imply that I am happy with Skyring / Pete's removal of birth and death templates. He should be adjusting them, not deleting them. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hicks' notability

I propose that your recent revert of David Hicks does not adequately express all significant points of view. Please discuss in new talk section Talk:David_Hicks#Hicks.27_notability Wm (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening par proposed wording

Hi. I notice that you haven't responded to my latest comment on the proposed opening par for David Hicks, although you have commented elsewhere on the page. I would really like to get your proposal for moving forward on this disagreement. This is currently blocking any progress on this article and as you are aware, several editors find the current opening deficient. Could you please advise what compromise you propose that incorporates all the significant points of view as discussed in the talk page? Thanks. Wm (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't responded to the points I raised, instead repeating your views, which I already know. Please don't waste my time in this fashion. --Pete (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make personal accusations about "time wasting". I could easily return the accusation however it is not appropriate, not helpful, and not in the spirit of Assume good faith. I am trying my best to negotiate with you an acceptable text instead of editing the article in the normal way, just as you requested. Could you please go back to the opening par discussion and continue the discussion until we find an acceptable way forward? By all means, if there is a substantial point that you have raised that you feel that I have not addressed, you should indicate that there. Any suggestions for moving forward would be appreciated. Thanks. Wm (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't read and understand what I say, as you have demonstrated twice over, then you are wasting my time. I have raised my objections on the discussion page and instead of addressing them, you make personal attacks. I feel disinclined to take you seriously after such a display. --Pete (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be aware that this sort of thing is not acceptable. cygnis insignis 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. It is a very common practice. --Pete (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Very droll, you said: Seems to me you want to use the man to carry an ideological message. cygnis insignis 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ??????? --Pete (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

!

<Darth Vader voice> "The force is slow with this one" </Darth Vader voice> Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, now…

Wm, Skyring. Is a 3 revert warning from one, and a counter vandalism comment from the other really going to help? [13] Rise above it. You both need to work together on it – we all do. Notions of the all important consensus are illusive enough without such games. (comment made on both your pages) Thanks fellas. --Merbabu (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I get innocent amusement out of needling noodles, and you want to chastise me for it? sigh. Don't expect any immediate response out of me - I've got a twelve hour shift beginning now, and I'll be wanting sleep after that. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gawd, no credit for my scrupulously equitable chastising?

No probs re delay, it always works out better if there are decent spans of time between contributions. Often, what can look ridiculous to me one evening looks perfectly acceptable the next day. Hopefully (delusionally?) others will take the opportunity to relax and think about ways forward, rather than short-term position entrenchment. --Merbabu (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Block notice David Hicks

You have been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring at David Hicks. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires, but take time to consider consensus (which need not be what you think or what the article was a few months ago, but rather is what most editors want now) before making reverts. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skyring (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block appears unjust, given that I have consistently tried to find a consensus on the wording of the lead paragraph (see diffs 1-11 below) on the discussion page. I have likewise consistently pointed out my reasons for reverting the various edits made by Lester and his POV companions (see diffs 12-21 below). Neither is a complete list. I wonder whether this block is the result of a complaint without proper investigation by the blocking admin. I note Lester claiming here that I revert "countless edits without discussion", and that I "did not initiate any discussion about any reversions". This is untrue, and given that Lester must have read the discussion page which contains dozens of edits by me in the past two weeks where I give specific reasons for reverting some changes, I say that it must be knowingly false, because he has responded to several of my comments. I ask the reviewing admin to look at some of the diffs listed below to check that I have acted to find a wording consensus on Lester's controversial edits, and have consistently supported discussion rather than edit-warring.

Decline reason:

given explanation of block admin below, I am satisfied that this block is justified. Please stop reverting talk page discussions and stop reverting the work of others when the block expires. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1. "I'll restore it to the last consensual version and we can discuss the wording here and find a good way of saying it."[14]
2. "Please do not edit war over this - gain consensus before changing it back to a contentious wording."[15]
3. "I'm keen to find some wording which will satisfy all parties as to accuracy and fairness."[16]
4. "Comments? Proposals?"[17]
5. "I'm happy to find a different wording that we can all live with..."[18]
6. "...if you like we can tweak the wording..."[19]
7. "I'd like to see a version that everyone is happy with, but through discussion rather than edit-warring."[20]
8. "The fact that I decline to endorse unsatisfactory and unbalanced edits does not mean I withdraw from discussion on improving the article."[21]
9. "Read what I write, address my concerns, we'll get along perfectly fine, maybe find some way to make the article better."[22]
10. "I look forward to seeing your proposals."[23]
11. Lester's edit are provocative given previous history. I don't revert reasonable, substantial, useful edits. [24]
12. One of many comments on the "without valid charge" wording.[25]
13. Reason for supporting "involvement with terrorism" wording.[26]
14. Another.[27]
15. Reason for "sufficient weight".[28]
16. Keep lead concise.[29]
17. Sufficient detail in third para of lead.[30]
18. No need to use "allegedly". We have a valid legal source.[31]
19. Proposed wordings do not show balance.[32]
20. Notable for involvement with terrorism.[33]
21. We have vaild sources.[34]

Re: Unblock request

I have contacted the blocking administrator to seek his input on the above unblock request. I am awaiting his response. Please be patient. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comments above, I don't deny Skyring has used the discussion page, but not to discuss or to justify his use of the revert function. If you look at the history of the discussion page, as Skyring suggests, you'll see he even edit wars on the discussion page. When I created a subject heading pleading for edit waring to stop, he even kept deleting that. This is no isolated event. Skyring's style of continuously reverting others work, without justification, spans across many articles and other editors. It follows a pattern that he gets blocked, then tries to get himself unblocked (as you can see from his block log). You won't find Skyring initiating a discussion at the time of any of his reverts to say "I reverted this article because...". Usually he leaves a comment in the edit summary that does not explain the revert, and has no relevance to the revert he just did. The block of 31 hours is a mild block, considering Skyring's continual reverting behaviour. The block is just, will allow Skyring to consider his actions for a day, and hopefully he will return to the article with a calmer style, without hanging over the revert button all the time. Regards, Lester 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lester, you aren't being honest, as I have demonstrated in diffs above. Please refrain from further comment here. --Pete (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|It appears that Jayron32 in reviewing this block has mistaken the comments of User:Lester above for those of the blocking admin Stifle, who has not commented further. I have sent a wiki mail to Jayron32 (copy below), but after several hours, no response. I have put a lot of effort into sponsoring discussion of Lester's controversial and non-consensual edits, as I have shown above, with diffs, and it is irritating to be misrepresented by Lester, and have his untrue comments misunderstood by Jayron32. I note comments by Jayron32 and others indicating the block was unfair here. Could I ask an admin with more careful eyes to review this block, please?}}

Copy of message to Jayron32: Wikipedia e-mail

User:Stifle blocked me for edit-warring on David Hicks. I requested unblocking, and you stated "I have contacted the blocking administrator to seek his input on the above unblock request. I am awaiting his response."[35]

The next diff on my talk page is User:Lester, who is not an admin, and whose complaints about me are untrue (as I demonstrated in my unblock request), and presumably knowingly so given his participation in discussion.[36]

The next (and at the moment, last) diff is you declining to unblock, saying "given explanation of block admin below, I am satisfied that this block is justified."

My question is, what was the blocking admin's explanation, and where is it? Is it possible that you have mistaken Lester's contribution for that of the blocking admin? As I point out, with diffs, I have put a lot of effort into trying to come up with acceptable wording for this article's lead and to find a consensus.

At the very least, this whole thing looks like a distinct lack of transparency. I will review contributions by all parties, but I see no reason for User:Stifle to suddenly take it into his or her head to block me, so there must have been some initial complaint, which is not reflected on his talk page. Nor can I see any onwiki explanation by the blocking admin, the input you were said that you were seeking.

Can I ask you to either point to Stifle's explanation, or post a copy of his explanation to you, please?

Yours, Peter

Comment on reposting: I have reviewed contributions and talk pages of involved parties, and can find no onwiki complaint to Stifle, nor any response by Stifle to Jayron32's request for an explanation of his actions. --Pete (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War

Any particular reason why you're imposing a none British formats for dates on a UK related article counter to wiki policy. I did give a reason why I reverted your changes. Justin talk 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad sorry. Justin talk 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Hyperdrive (TV series). Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. _TalkIslander 12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In plain and simple English: Don't needlessly change between [[February 11]] and [[11 February]] - they're both the same. The double square brackets around the date mean that the date is formatted in the format specified by the user in their options, so I'll see it as '11 February', whilst someone in America may see it as 'February 11'. _TalkIslander 12:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the snarky comments, but I'm actually well aware of the difference between the two formats - all I'm saying is that you should not needlessly change between the two formats when they are enclosed in square brackets - it's pointless, as well as clogging up the recent changes list. I suggest that if you have nothing to say in response that is civil, you don't bother replying ;). _TalkIslander 12:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GreenwayNote.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:GreenwayNote.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Skyring)

Hello, Skyring. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skyring, where you may want to participate. -- Wm (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

David Hicks: SMH Afganistan allegations

Hi, as a contributor to David Hicks:Talk:SMH Afganistan allegations, you might be interested to know that I have put in a request for mediation by the Mediation Cabal on matters discussed there. SmithBlue (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks

Hi, Skyring, I was planning to see if I can be of any help to you guys in coming to a consensus on the article on Hicks. I noticed you haven't edited for over two weeks now. When do you plan on being back fully again? You can comment here, on my talkpage, or on the Hicks article talkpage (or anywhere else for that matter, but you're fairly sure I'll notice it on the aforementioned places). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

John Howard, David Hicks

At the risk of a third party making the false accusation of canvassing for support, I'd like to point out that any accusation of bias on my behalf and us sharing completely opposing views is likely to be at best simplistic, if not wrong. Take the David Hicks article for example - we shared some common thoughts on that (and some opposing ones too). kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Never thought it for a moment. You seem a reasonable person, as opposed to some of set opinions, so I'm puzzled as to why you think this bit of colour reporting is significant or encyclopaedic. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I disagree with your appraisal of this issue, but as a "reasonable person" (wink), will give it further thought over the next few days. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who thinks this rubbish belongs in an encyclopaedia article about John Howard. If you aren't just playing the giddy galoot or maybe trying to annoy me, perhaps you'd be able to explain just why you personally think it belongs in the article? You're quite happy to edit war over it, so you must have some strong feelings. --Pete (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks / Wikistalking

I haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Really, sincerely, I think you have a case of mistaken identity on your hands. There are only two places your path has crossed mine (and I only know you as Pete/SkyRing - if you have other aliases, or 'socks', then that's your business) and that's on the John Howard and David Hicks pages (and of course, the rfc related to that). You can see my entire editing history - its all kosher. Its just me, and the things I'm interested in editing. For the sake of your sanity, I suggest you think again before wasting a lot of your time on this pointless exercise. I have absolutely nothing to hide - you and everyone can see everything I've done (and yes, I do log in from a variety of places, but isn't that the point of being web-based?). Please, take a deep breath, and have a good day. Eyedubya (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey there! If you don't mind, please drop by Lester's talk page and check out this comment I added. If you have any input I'd be happy to hear. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. While you're right, the article should not become purely a forum for the hatred of John Howard, there should be criticism allowed. Only what the press says, though, and it should be worded neutrally, of course. I think that the recent example should be allowed into the article, but more on that in the talk page. Now, if you don't have any objections, could we include that sentence in the article? While I realize you think it is trivial, you have to have a strong argument that is backed at least by policy; otherwise, you can't really veto everyone. It isn't a personal thing, but maybe this way we can have further progress. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-inclusion

Frankly, *most* political events fit that exact description. I do not see any reason why it should not be there, and the debate over its inclusion or exclusion has frankly stymied all development on the article. Orderinchaos 05:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Abandon the argument

Hi there, re: the continuing debate over the Obama quote in John Howard. I think you and I should stop replying to the other editors' comments. We've all made our positions clear, and the argument is cluttering the talk page. We are just giving the others opportunity to voice their prejudices. What do you think? --Surturz (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We can move on. Your suggestion about shrinking down the leadership question seems like a good project. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's best to ignore the obvious trolling...not that I seem to be able to resist either. Some admin support would be nice, but those informed are also involved. O well, the creaky mass of Wikipedia is heading for a big ol BLP problem, so may as well leave the hacks to enjoy themselves. Shot info (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: John Howard

Hello Skyring. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama

Put the Obama thing in proper context without inflating its significance, and I've got no objection. - good on you Pete. This is far from what your original position was. Timeshift (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RfM

Lester, I'm not agreeing to this, for reasons stated in the RfM. However, if you can withdraw the case and submit a fresh one with only two names as the parties involved, everything the same, then I'll agree to mediation. I'd much rather find ways of working with you than in seeing the situation continue to distintegrate. If some of my guesses about you are correct, then you must be experiencing considerable frustration. I don't want to see useful articles deteriorate into POV, but neither do I want to cause you undue anguish. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Skyring. While it would be much easier to work with 2 people, there are many players in this (on both sides of the fence), and everyone will want a say in how it goes. The RfM allows everyone a say. I know that when the groups are overly large, the Mediator will sometimes ask for everyone on each side to choose a representative to argue for that side. But that would be up to the mediator. I think we need to include everyone in the current dispute, though maybe the Mediator will agree not to include those from a year ago who are no longer interested. But if I re-submit it on my own accord, with most of the names left out, it may cause more frustration for other editors. I definitely think that everyone involved in the recent edit war should be part of the mediation, or else the situation will just continue. Regards, Lester 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Skyring. I appreciate your change of heart on the content issues. I agree there may be other issues in the Aus-US alliance worth adding to the article. But this is not just you and me. There have been numerous editors involved in the edit war. I made a comment on the JH discussion page that I think we need to move past the edit war before the atmosphere is conducive for looking at new content, though a few editors disagreed with me there. The other issue is that the decision about how the Obama issue gets included should really involve the other editors at the RfC, as even if you agree with content I add, they may not. They are all stakeholders, and some are very passionate on both sides. I note that user:Surturz's attempts to reword the US Relations section didn't receive a warm reaction from the other editors. Regards, Lester 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Skying, I see you have reiterated your decision to abstain from mediation, which of course you are free to do. As you know, I believed that mediation would have been the best way for everyone to resolve the Obama content issue. It would have been the easy way to solve it. The community would have made a decision about what gets done with the Obama content, and we probably would have all agreed not to edit war over that. Some have suggested on the RfM talk page that this is about a personal issue between me and you. From my point of view, I have no personal issues with you. The issues are about content (which we disagree on, but that doesn't make it a personal issue), and the ways we go about resolving content disputes. It saddens me that the RfM seems to have failed. Some of the admins on the RfM talk page have suggested it go to Arbcom. To me, the RfM would have been a preferable way to go. I thought it was in all our interests to solve it with community input at the RfM. Anyway, I have absolutely nothing against you personally, and wish you all the best. Lester 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

dating

My apologies Skyring. I have recently learned how to use this template {{birth date and age|1955|6|8}} in infoboxes. It is nice because it gives the persons age and it updates itself on their birthday without anyone having to go back and change it. The template, as is, uses the US way of showing the date by putting the month first. I was using it in a number of British actors infoboxes and then I discovered that there was a way to keep the day before the month by adding in df=y at the end thus {{birth date and age|1955|6|8|df=y}}. I went back and changed most of the entries that I had made but I missed the one that you found. I have changed it now. Again my apologies and thank you for bringing it to my attention so that I could fix my error. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Date Ranges

I take exception to your justification for changing the date ranges for reruns of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (difference). WP:DATE does not mandate the linked format you have imposed. On the contrary, it seems to discourage it.

The relevant sections are:

Date ranges are preferably given with minimal repetition (5–7 January 1979; September 21–29, 2002), using an unspaced en dash. If the autoformatting function is used, the opening and closing dates of the range must be given in full (see Autoformatting and linking) and be separated by a spaced en dash.

Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes: ... links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31); ...

The first sentence seems to imply that the preferred format is 5-7 January 1979, not January 5-January 7, 1979. The rest of the quoted material offers the option of using the autoformatting, but it clearly does not require it.

Cstaffa (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You make a good point. I've raised it here for discussion. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your edits to Charge of the Light Brigade

Please have a look at the technique for date autoformatting, here, to see the correct method. In this way logged-in users can have the dates displayed to suit their own preferences. By removing the autoformatting links, you are denying other users this facility. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Political reverts

Hello Skyring(Pete). I notice you have reverted edits on the Howard article recently. I thought we had all moved away from that kind of mode of editing. Reverts subvert the wishes of the editing community as a whole. It's better to allow the editing community to decide whether content stays or goes. Content disputes need to go through the dispute resolution process. In regard to the particular sentence about public figures who considered Howard's Iraq policy as contravening international laws against war crimes, I've got no idea if the issue gets put to the community to decide whether it would live or die. It could go either way. But then we just have to accept the community decision. The concept is that by letting the community decide, the audience of Wikipedia readers gets the type of encyclopaedia that they want (or deserve). My opinion is that reverting will only lead to trouble. If edit wars break out, then it will only lead to penalties or sanctions against those who partake.--Lester 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lester! Takes two to edit-war. How come you didn't send the same message to the other side? Notably Matilda. Perhaps because they support your POV? You've spent most of your career here edit-warring over trivia and it's hard to take your advice when you don't follow it yourself. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• You know perfectly well the 3RR rule and you have broken it. As an involved editor I will not block you but have reported you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Skyring reported by User:Matilda (Result: ) --Matilda ^talk 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC).
  • Please check the number of reverts I did - I don't need a warning - I know and abide by the rules --Matilda ^talk 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! It would help if you checked the discussion on Lester's warnings. Look at the timing of his message above. In any case, I'm removing contentious BLP material, as per discussion, and as per WP:BLPN. Let's stick to the established process, hey? Do you have a particular urgent need to label someone a war criminal? --Pete (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have no need to label anybody a war criminal (urgently or otherwise) - others brought the topic up on the talk page, I thought it fair enough to be included in the article with a reference - note I did not wikilink to war crimes as a topic. As it is the article is unbalanced with a lack of explanation of his poor polling results or any specifics about criticisms. We have moved much material to the Howard Government article because that is where it properly goes but there is still much editorial work to bring both articles up to a proper standard with balanced and informed content supported by references.
  Not sure what the relevance is of the timing of Lester's warning to you - it was before your 3rd reversion. Don't know why he wrote to Gnangarra - doesn't make sense in the light of Gnangarra's edits on the page which incidentally did not consist of removing the material. I can't comment as to why Lester didn't warn me except that perhaps he knew he didn't need to - I have NEVER breached 3RR. --Matilda ^talk 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't work out whether you are an idiot or whether you think I am. Just don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. Or anyone else, for that matter. If you genuinely can't understand what's going on, then ask. --Pete (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will confess to genuinely can't understand what's going on, then ask - please explain --Matilda ^talk 02:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyring(Pete), My advice is, use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process to let the community decide what happens to the content. Regards, --Lester 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny. That's just what I've been saying. I've got a twelve hour night shift to finish before I have any time to respond properly. --Pete (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• unindent It is now several days since Skyring accused me of misbehaviour and threatened me with an RfC in several places. I have voluntarily put myself on a wikibreak in response to this RfC notification from 21:19, 30 July . What counts as "soon" and what counts as an empty threat which is actually a personal attack complaining of misbehaviour : 3RR noticeboard 20:25, 30 July 2008 , BLP noticeboard 20:17, 30 July 2008 , suggesting he "would take it further" at User talk:Gnangarra 07:16, 30 July preceded by calling me behaviour "despicable and bring into question his sic judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator" at WP:3RRN (as well as other places) and he had previously called me in effect an enemy of Howard ... His response was to suggest that I in turn had personally attacked him.
  I do not believe I have engaged in personal attack, I had commented on his contributions by reporting him to 3RR for breaking the 3RR rule - he was blocked by another admin after declining to self-revert and in fact performing the same reversion again (of another editor's insertion of the material). I had commented on 3RRN that his own behaviour was the cause of his block and he should not blame others for it. I assumed Wikipedia:Silence and consensus on the part of other editors who were editing the same page and talk page at the same time as the edit warring was occurring - they have since indicated that my assumption was not correct. Others have also suggested I goaded Skyring into a 3RR breach deliberately - I deny this accusation.
  I am extremely disappointed at the ongoing community support of an editor who has personally attacked me and also of the lack of assumption of good faith from many editors of my actions. I will be posting this message in each of the places where Skyring has stated he will be lodging an RfC a well as his talk page - I have several times indicated that I think it is inappropriate to continue the same debate in several places but my request has fallen on deaf ears. --Matilda ^talk 00:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Skyring(Pete), if you choose to put another editor's behaviour under the microscope of an RfC that's up to you. However, I believe it is inappropriate for comments about other editors' behaviour to be appearing all over the place on various discussion and noticeboards. If you're not going to launch an RfC, I think it would be best to inform the other party that it's not happening, as ongoing comments that an RfC will happen soon may cause unnecessarily prolonged stress to other editors.--Lester 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR at John Howard. I do not find that the disputed material is a violation of WP:BLP, so its removal is not exempt from 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think for the record this block is unfortunate, but it would be drama to contest a block that only has 3 hours to run. Orderinchaos 12:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

comment

"More irony. Look, in a couple of years I'll be into my seventh decade. Calling me childish isn't quite the insult you probably intended." Maybe if you didn't act like a twelve year old, I wouldn't call you childish, Childish is as childish does, regardless of age. I have defended you in the past, what a mistake that was. Childish was exactly what I intended. No regards, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it amusing that you'd mount a personal attack whilst calling for an end to them. The combined irony and hypocrisy made me laugh. Whilst I suppose any human enterprise is a social network, that's not the main purpose of Wikipedia. I would hope that you would defend (or oppose) my arguments on their merits according to wikipolicy, not because you thought I was a pal or not. --Pete (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and other breaches of wikipedia policies and guidelines in relation to behaviour

You were subject to an arbcom decision relating to harassing other editors. Remedies included:

• User:Skyring is placed under a one-year personal attack parole. Should any administrator consider one of his edits a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.
• User:Skyring is admonished to be more civil and to cease attempts to provoke other contributors. (note no time limit applies)

I believe you have harassed me and made personal attacks characterising me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. Nobody else seems to be interested in enforcing the policy of WP:NPA.

You have accused me of edit warring and justified your breach of WP:3RR as justified. I continue to maintain it was not justified. I continue to be disappointed that there are those who think I was wrong to report you and that your block was unwarranted. I do not apologise for reporting you - your actions were in clear breach of the policy.

Sockpuppetry: While you dismiss your actions as being justified with the comment: This account was created for the purpose of preparing an important submission in private, without the usual stalkers hovering over my contribution list diving in for half-baked comments. It also allows me to work within mediawiki rather than Word or something else that would reformat everything. Looking at WP:SOCK, I note that the list of legitimate exceptions is not exhaustive. You are well aware that sockpuppetry is against wikipedia guidelines and your protest that the legitimate use of sockpuppets is not exhaustive is not acceptable to me, but maybe to others. I am surprised at your indulgence in sockpuppets given you have been previously blocked and had your ban extended for sockpuppetry. [37] Disposable socks are all very well but the policy is quite clear There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny - this indicates two things - one the list of legitimate exceptions is seen as limited (contrary to your statement) and avoiding scrutiny which was your purpose is not a proper use. I have tagged the two socks you created thereby adding them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Skyring . I have also blocked them. I left them in place until you lodged your RfC to give you the benefit of the doubt and not to inflame the situation.

Note you referred to detective work. It is hardly convoluted [38]. I was actually appalled when I saw a link to User:Skyring/Sandbox as i was unaware of any recent editing there and thought you had been storing up an attack on me for some time.

It would seem however that you have general community support for your actions. As a result, this is it for me on this project for the time being - my wikibreak will continue. Congratulations --Matilda ^talk 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be such a drama queen. Stick around, defend yourself, and do good work. Please.

As for the socks, I'm surprised you care. I certainly don't care if they are deleted immediately, now that they have served their legitimate purpose. --Pete (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Matilda, in all honesty, you should have taken this to AN/I to have an uninvolved admin act on the information rather than unilaterally act on it yourself. Shot info (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks, socks, personal attacks, etc, etc,

Skyring,

I assume the autoblock worked.

Two comments, since I got slightly involved.

1. I don't think the accounts violated policy, but I meant what I said on the ANI thread; I think it would have been wiser not to have created them, due to your past issues. 2. I'm not formally warning anyone, including you, because it seems like all sides are getting pretty impolite. But I've reviewed a few threads now, from the last few days, and I will give you my uninvolved opinion that you're giving rather worse than your getting. Please tone down the "idiocy", "drama queen", and "despicable" type comments.

--barneca (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your advice. I tend to speak my mind, and it's not always easy for me to resist a troll. Not that Matilda was trolling, but I do wish that she had not been so dogged in inserting and defending contentious material. I might follow Matilda's lead and go do something else for a while. I might bemoan the atmosphere in Australian politics articles, but I also recognise that, like a truck in a traffic jam, I'm part of the problem. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_watchlist_a_discussion_at_Talk:John_Howard. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'd known a bunch of ideological campaigners on some random issue was all it took to resolve the long-term divisions amongst editors on the John Howard page, I'd have brought them in sooner! Orderinchaos 22:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'll be a lot nicer to the regulars now. Even brother Timeshift is preferable to these blow-ins. --Pete (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR at John Howard

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Howard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. , structures within the Australian embasssy arent a BLP issue please stop reverting. Gnangarra 10:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The material is largely unsourced, as noted on the talk page, and therefore a clear BLP violation. If someone wants to add sources for the unsourced material, that's fine, but as it stands it's not good enough. I also think that MickMac's editting on this is disruptive, and in view of recent personal attacks, I'm pushing for a block for cooling-off. --Pete (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

read WP:BLOCK blocks for "cooling off" arent appropriate. Gnangarra 11:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's still a 3RR vio, and I'll hand it over to the admin cadre for action. I'm pissed off that edit-warring has broken out, over something really trivial. Again.--Pete (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked MickMacNee for edit warring, and I'm sorely tempted to block you, too, Peter. The only reason I'm not right now is that he was edit warring against two of you and reverted four times, but another admin might decide that you should be blocked too. I don't see how that material violates BLP so I don't think you were reverting under that protection. Please stop edit warring and use the talk pages to discuss the material. Sarah 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's (largely) unsourced, and so BLP applies. technically speaking. However, I can see your point, and Lester's too. Protecting the article shouldn't have to happen because of a battle over trivia. In this case I really don't care if the material is in or out, but I do care about disruptive editing, and the way things are going Australian political topics are turning into fun and games for trolls, with articles becoming very dubious as useful references. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be a misunderstanding here - BLP isn't really the situation here. That applies when the material either raises questions of character or makes unsustainable or loaded allegations (directly or indirectly) that do not reflect the weight of reliable sources. This may be a statement which is wrong, or it may be a statement which is right but gives an impression to readers which is not supported by the weight of evidence. Essentially it's a form of legal and ethical protection for Wikipedia, so on the first we don't say stuff that can get us sued, and on the second we aren't making original claims that could upset people - if reliable sources clearly say it and would be able to defend it themselves, then there's no problem with inclusion on the BLP front. However, other policies apply and in this case it was simply an undue weight issue in the article's present form. Just in case some other admin turns up and blocks you for misapplying BLP at some future stage or dispute, it's probably best to only use it as a rationale when someone is being defamatory of either the subject or, through the subject's article, another person. Sorry if this was overly wordy. :) Orderinchaos 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

I'm on firm ground here. The material was contentious, as it was part of an ongoing edit war. MMN supplied a reference for the bunker bit, but the rest remained unsourced. That satisfied Jimbo's criteria for immediate and undiscussed removal. All MMN had to do was find a source for the whole of the material and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. You've now provided a source for all of it, so BLP no longer applies. --Pete (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the key word in that quote you've posted above is "controversial". You're really not on firm ground Peter and that's why you were blocked the last time you got into an edit war like this. That part of BLP is meant to be used in very rare circumstances to protect people removing material that is really controversial and inappropriate. It's not an excuse to edit war and if you find that you're reverting that sort of material,you need to report it to ANI ASAP before you reach 3RR so an admin step in. If you can't justify asking for help on ANI then you can't justify reverting under BLP protection. The only time I can imagine that you would be justified violating 3RR in this way is if the material was genuinely controversial like defamatory material. FWIW, I've never seen "BLP" work as a defence to a 3RR report and there was actually discussion on one of the noticeboards very recently about removing that section of the policy because of situations like this where people think it gives them an excuse to edit war on bios over any little sentence that doesn't have a RS citation. I really don't see how this material could have been classed as contentious or controversial and in fact it looks like there is a consensus to restore it to an appropriate section with sources. And I disagree with your statement that it was contentious because it was being edit warred over as that it is rather circular - you were edit warring over it because it was contentious but it was contentious because you were edit warring over it! Honestly, Peter, you were really lucky you weren't blocked this time. When I initially looked at the edits, I mistakenly believed that you had reverted twice and Orderinchaos had reverted twice and it wasn't until after I went back to double check that I realised that you had reverted 3 times. I think in similar circumstances where you've reverted 3 times you could quite expect to be blocked under the edit warring discretion of 3RR. Sarah 17:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe the sentence(s) should be removed from WP:3RR, because I was relying on Jimbo's words. I don't agree with your interpretation, either. Look at what he said on WikiEN-l:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)[39]

And it was being edit warred over before I got involved. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Skyring, you took out information about John Howard in a bunker, and you also deleted its citation to an ABC Four Corners program. Do you truly still believe that Jimbo Wales' comment gives you the go-ahead to delete referenced information? Over the past year I have tried in vein to convince you that rapid deletion of referenced content was inappropriate, and I despair that you continue to do it.--Lester 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has a mass media source doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion in our encyclopaedia. You don't add well-sourced information that you disagree with, for example. MMN supplied a source for the bunker, but the source did not support the rest of the material, and the bunker information wasn't significant enough for it to stand on its own once the unsourced information was removed. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the content about the bunker, you previous comment implies that you accept its factuality, but that you deleted it because you didn't think it was significant enough, which is a different issue to "BLP". I personally believe any fact about John Howard can stand up on its own if it is written well. That's what should have happened. There was enough extra info in the provided reference to complete that task, possibly by adding in some thoughts from Howard about September 11, 2000 events. I've got no issues with deletion of unsourced material from BLPs, and if you spent your time trawling through BLPs on Wikipedia deleting the unsourced material, I would not complain. It's the deleting of referenced material I have issues with. I note that there are Australian admins who have supported your actions in deleting this and other referenced material. My personal opinion is that such admin support is leading you up the wrong alley, and its not in your best interests. I will also voice my thoughts to those admins. --Lester 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the unsourced material under BLP. The bunker item was sourced, but unsupported by anything sourced. Again, just because information is sourced, doesn't mean it deserves to be in an article. Rudd's earwax is a good example. --Pete (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Rudd's earwax is always held up as an example. Both you and I agree that the earwax incident was trivial and uninteresting information. Where we probably disagree is that I believe if the general community wants earwax in their Rudd article, then that is what they will get. The wants of the Wikipedia community as a whole should have priority over our individual tastes. However, I think the earwax information is better not included. --Lester 04:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivial yes. Uninteresting? Hell, no! It was a huge story around the world. My point is that just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. There are policies in place to guide editors. One of the more appropriate here is WP:UNDUE. We can't include every fact about a person's life, and those we choose to include should reflect reality, rather than provide a distorted view. I spoke to a journalist last night who had been to see the Stalin museum in the place where they are currently fighting. The curator told him that Stalin had been a good listener and nice to children. Yeah. But what about the sixty million people he killed? Not mentioned. We've got to get our facts in order and prioritised, and including trivia, or worse, trivia that distorts the message, then we do our readers a dis-service. --Pete (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not doing the readers a service if that is the information they want. I personally don't want earwax in the Rudd article at all, but if the masses of the Wikipedia community are generally in favour of it, then I will accept that (against my own wishes). Now, I'm going to ask you to end your practice of quickly reverting referenced content from Wikipedia. Would you agree to that? The alternative is to put it through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Are you willing to agree to this? --Lester 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of material added to Wikipedia doesn't get quickly removed by me. Or anyone else. I remove material that doesn't belong, isn't appropriate, is vandalism, or goes against wikipolicy. See my comments about WP:UNDUE above. If someone wants to push their minority political views in Wikipedia, then they are going to have to expect opposition. Rather than trying to remove other editors who don't agree with you, why don't you end your practice of inserting controversial material? --Pete (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, I never see the controversy coming. I have been perplexed by your resistance to information about Obama, Copra, Bunkers etc. I didn't foresee that you would consider any of those issues controversial. I guess you want to be the guard over the John Howard article. Regardless of what you think of me, you must realise yourself that your practice of rapid reverting of referenced content is a risky business, in that your block list keeps getting longer by the week. That's a real high-risk strategy for you, in that it keeps getting you into trouble. I hoped that I would be able to convince you to try a different way, but I am now disappointed that I have failed to persuade you.--Lester 05:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not a matter of standing guard over an article. I'm all for rewriting the JH article to improve it as a piece of writing and a useful resource. What I will not tolerate is the insertion of polemic into an article, whether it's some right ring nut trying to make Martin Bryant out as an innocent stooge or some left-wing zealot convinced John Howard is a war criminal. These views have a place in our encyclopaedia, but not in mainstream articles masquerading as mainstream views. --Pete (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPOTLIGHT

Hey I thought I'd let you know that Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette is currently under the spotlight. If you would like to chat with the editors realtime, check out Wikipedia:IRC tutorial. We would be glad to have you on with us! :) Cheers! —— nixeagle 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh of course, you would have to join #wikipedia-spotlight on the irc.freenode.net network. Sorry for leaving that important detail out. —— nixeagle 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MMmm. Not able to IRC ATM. Why are date formats being changed away from the existing International Dating format? --Pete (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, no worries. We haven't gotten around to standardizing the dates yet--however, the International format will be the one used throughout. If you'd like, feel free to join in and help us with formatting the dates, if you're able and have the time. Thanks for noting that. Cheers, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just finished a short shift - ten and a half hours instead of twelve - and I'm off to bed. What a lovely cove this Lafayette chap was, hey? Have fun! --Pete (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested, the talk page of the article has what are our remaining goals before we re-evaluate what its going to take to get the article to GA status. —— nixeagle 23:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your thing on the talk page of the article, you should check my 4 responses to that. For some reason tonight I can't seem to put all my thoughts down in one post. —— nixeagle 23:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to RfC

I have responded to the RfC you raised at Talk:John_Howard#Reply_to_RfC_by_Matilda . I would appreciate if you read the response. Thank you. --Matilda ^talk 00:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The turmoil sparked by your addition speaks for itself. I note that after prolonged discussion your addition has been found by the wider community to be inappropriate and your actions ill-considered. A good admin wouldn't create such an uproar. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

and as noted in my response my addition is allowed under WP:Bold --Matilda ^talk 00:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's a policy problem? --Pete (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you see WP:Bold as a problem, raise it on the policy talk page. I don't see it as a problem. --Matilda ^talk 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So, if WP:BOLD isn't the problem, and your edit caused a massive shitfight, apparently still plopping away, then where do you think the problem lies? --Pete (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I suggested in my response to your RfC:

1. a failure to adhere to Wikipedia:Civility.
2. a failure to adhere to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
3. Conduct issues should be discussed of the talk page with the involved editors
   1. comments about unspecified editors are unhelpful
4. WP:1RR is a possible solution but as there seems no consensus to use it, 3RR is policy and applies
5. When it comes to keeping on topic and getting bogged down in trivia I suggest using sub-pages. We create a sub-page dedicated to the topic being discussed ...

--Matilda ^talk 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention the material itself, which was of a trivial and poorly sourced nature. Inserting this sort of stuff into an article that has been the scene of bitter controversy, and then edit-warring and stoutly defending it against the advice of several more experienced editors might have something to do with the ruckus? Wouldn't it have been better to gain consensus for inclusion of disputed material, especially when WP:BLP concerns had been raised? --Pete (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivial - perhaps but the article is unbalanced in my view and this was only the start of trying to reinsert some balance. Australian Broadcasting Corporation is not usually regarded as a poor source. You did not have consensus that it violated BLP. The edit warring that breached 3RR was your edits. "More experienced" ? But don't worry - another editor will not be trying to edit that article - success?
Your RfC was not about that material alone, it was seeking advice about policy or guidelines to prevent that escalation. I responded in good faith to your RfC and its purpose, ignoring the personal comments as much as possible and trying hard not to make any irrelevant personal comments myself. An RfC of that nature is not about the material. You needed to raise an Request comment on articles, templates, or categories if you wanted to discuss that material. I cannot see what the point of that was since it was being discussed on the talk page and had already been raised at BLPN (with no takers). --Matilda ^talk 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you seriously hold yourself blameless in all this, I can't see any point in continuing this discussion. --Pete (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette

I've replied to you, expect quick responses to anything you write there for the next hour or so as spotlight is monitoring both the article and the talk page and can see any edits there instantly. —— nixeagle 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya!

Hey there! I don't think I knew you were on here. I have fun here, mainly in my museum world. Good timing re: me at ANI. I post there when I break things, othewise I'm a bad admin wrt assisting there. Book looks wonderful, want to bring it in October? Would love to catch up, living in Manhattan now so it's easier. The BC meet-ups here have died, if they were ever active but I'll send an e-mail to the group and see if anyone is around. Or did you mean wiki locals? Those I've met :) I can see if anyone is available for a mid-week get together. At the least, you get me on my own turf. I forget what was going on last time you were through this way -- I may not have been here. I've got itchy feet -- it's a year ago now that I was in Melbourne for a wedding (via what I called Qantas' kangaroo hop and it wasn't intentional: HPN-ORD-LAX=AKL-MEL-ADL-BNE-LAX-ORD-HPN) and have been in the US since then. Can I send PMs? I don't know if I can due to the new BC changes -- that was why I posted to your Facebook wall re: the museum show. Will copy this to your talk since I'm not sure if you're watching me. Glad to hear from you! TravellingCari 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about wings but thanks for the offer, I don't use the site that often. I just knew PMs was one of the new changes as there's been an increase of chatter on BookMooch, etc. and some of the other off shoots and book sites because of the changes and an inability to send PMs. I have fun registering and releasing -- I always got far more into BCAUS than I did bOokcrossing in general. July 4th, that's right. I was back from Japan but I still don't think I was in New York. Might have gone to Boston to see family otherwise I'm sure we'd have tried to catch up. Will rassle up some local BC folks once your dates are set. I'm planning my next trip -- a belated birthday since we have a big event right after my birthday and won't be able to take time then. Not sure where I'm going. Going to be a case of eenie meenie miney mo. TravellingCari 03:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing uncivil remarks and editing style with the latest as noted here. I note that other editors and administrators have pointed out to you the error of your continuing this type of behaviour - which is a form of disruptive editing. Please take the time to consider why your continuing to act in this way is inappropriate because it drives away other editors. Please also note that Wikipedia is open to everyone - and it is grossly uncivil to specifically address one editor that they should not be editors in the way that you have.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skyring (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for "uncivil remarks and editing style" by User:VirtualSteve. I requested that he take his finger off the admin tools, count to ten, then ask for an uninvolved admin to look into the matter. I am making the request that I think VirtualSteve should have made. I made a mistake, an honest mistake in editing my talk page when pressed for time, and I was stung by VirtualSteve's repeated assumption that I'd done it deliberately. I'll accept that he says he didn't mean his comments as a personal attack, but that's the way I read it at the time. In this spirit, I've re-examined my comment about User:Docku. While I don't buy into VirtualSteve's assertion that I was attacking Docku's right to edit - we all have the right to play the bagpipes, but most of us shouldn't - I do accept that Docku regarded it as a personal attack. I have made an apology below, and shall repeat it on his talk page when my block ends. Although no diffs show it, I've been taking my own advice a lot recently - counting to ten before acting, or reconsidering and discarding a hasty retort.

Decline reason:

Questioning a fellow editor's competence and implying that they should stop contributing is the nadir of civility. You cannot expect your actions to not have consequences. east718 // talk // email // 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Apology to Docku

I hereby make a public apology to User:Docku for this comment. I sincerely regret the genuine hurt and pain it caused to you, and I shall do my best to refrain from making similar comments in future. --Pete (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As far as I know of you in this short time, I think you dont really intend to personally attack or hurt others. I guess you just have a different way of expressing yourself. (Please forgive me if my analysis is wrong). In any case, I will recommend quicker unblock if my recommendation has any value. Docku^Hi 02:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

International dating

No, there is no consensus for that, and never has been. If a couple of editors have agreed to Date War, do tell me where, so I can oppose it: the intention is that articles strongly related to some English-speaking country may be switched - but the South Ossetia mess is not California, nor Warwickshire; as best I can tell, it is even written in American in those few points where usage differs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Manual of Style, we see the guideline in full:

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
• Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format.

Both Georgia and Russia use day-month-year format. An article on a conflict between them should use this format, and I can see no good reason for you to change all the dates in the article to American Dating format. Looking at the talk page discussion, there is only one voice in support of American dates. You. Consensus is clearly against you. --Pete (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pope Leo XIII

re: "and I'd appreciate that my careful work on this article be restored. Including unlinking dates, please."
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Anderson

Pete—Try to funnel your frustration into a dart board, or perhaps this lovely thing, designed for getting out of your system all the annoying people you've had to endure today. May I remind you that Anderson has already been blocked six times for edit-warring, the lastest only three weeks ago. Let me know if there's trouble; it's outrageous the date warring he's indulging in now. I've noticed that his contrarian behaviour comes in waves, and it looks as though we're all about to endure another right now. Tony (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be misled by the company you're keeping. That was intended to mean English-speaking countries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to discuss your improvements Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Date_warring_on_2008_South_Ossetia_war. For my part, I intend to continue contributing substance, and will change any obtrusive variations from the established style as I notice them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MOSNUM. (sdsds - talk) 10:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That old date format thingo

How come OSX doesn't get pinged for 3rrr? Or is he some sort of god? (male pronoun used since few females are that pathetic)Greg Locock (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually didn't notice. I've placed a warning and links there. Orderinchaos 12:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM removal

Yes, I removed the whole point, since Anderson had buggered it up and put his own comments there—quite inappropriate. I don't care if it goes back in the meantime, as long as without his personal comments and in a way that makes some kind of sense. Tony (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought his comments were inappropriate too, but I figured someone else would remove them. I didn't think you'd remove the text as well! I've restored it, but because Anderson has seized on this as an excuse to have another bite of the cherry, I've also requested page protection. This is something that needs to be settled on the talk page, and it is essential that we get it right, because of the autoformatting deprecation making date formats more visible to editors. --Pete (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

country-related date format

Pete—what happens, under your proposal, with India? Indians use both formats, and I have trouble when I audit an article that is half and half. Tony (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Does that make it like Canada? Lightmouse (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What format did India use before the arrival of the British? Tony (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we make that distinction for any country, even english speaking? Lightmouse (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

tabular poll options

Hi, in good faith I've reshaped your Option D. The addition is based on our brief exchange about India. Tell me if the wording doesn't reflect your intentions. link Tony (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to AGF

I have tried to AGF in most of your postings at WP:MOSNUM, and have even taken some of your views into serious consideration concerning how I have perceived things in the past. But once again, I find myself being swayed back to my original way of thinking because of your seeming disregard for the American view on an English Wikipedia. For some reason, my mind interprets your most recent comments in the context of ten English speaking nations, with a combined population of, lets say one million people, discounting a single English speaking nation of 10 million people, solely based on the fact that 10 is more than one. I can not agree with this notion. Neither can I accept that one nation, solely based on it's population, should impose it's views on all of the others. I agree with your statements that Wikipedia is an international effort. That is why there are Russian, Spanish, Chinese, etc. wiki's devoted to those non-English speaking nations. But we are discussing English Wikipedia. There are, perhaps, 4 or 5 nations that can be viewed as English speaking nations, and Americans should not be lessened in their views because they are outnumbered 4:1 by the number of countries who speak English, yet not outnumbered by the overall population, of all English speaking countries. As to how many peoples from the international community view English Wikipedia, I would point you to http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and hope that in the future, you would try to take these statistics into view when trying to appeal to the widest possible inclusion of the viewership of this Wikipedia.--«JavierMC»|Talk 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just people who live in English-speaking nations who use Wikipedia. English is a global language, and it is commonplace for people to use English as a useful second language, especially when dealing with international institutions such as the Internet. Trying to portray date formats as a solely U.S./British divide doesn't reflect the reality. I don't know why you perceive me as anti-American - I'm a regular traveller to the USA, where I take great pleasure in meeting my American friends and exploring historic places. My writings and travel blogs describe my deep affection for America.[40] --Pete (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DATE

The warning is only mentioned in WP:ERA, not in the section on international date formats. I didn't realize it applied beyond that until you pointed out the ArbCom ruling to me. I wasn't aware of a ruling from three years ago on this issue. Won't happen again. User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I missed you :-) --Matilda ^talk 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! October was spent on a weekend in Charleston,] and I haven't had much free time since returning. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:BluePolesBigPicture.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BluePolesBigPicture.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) --Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Emotional sigh

There was extensive discussion on both issues, we kept one and not the other. Cease your WP:POINT making. This. Will. Stay. Have a lovely day! :D Timeshift (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Howard gaffe regarding Obama doesn't have anything to do with the Rudd phone call. The two issues are not related, and shouldn't be linked.--Lester 00:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's linked them except in terms of editing policy. Are you saying that Wikipedia should treat two well-sourced issues differently because the two individuals belong to different political parties? --Pete (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You interpret it that way because you allow your beliefs to impede in your editing. In reality, both issues were discussed for their individual merits on seperate occasions. Just because something is well-sourced, does not warrant inclusion in an article. Both issues are very seperate in their details and what happened, one happens not to be worthy of inclusion, the other does. You continue to the tie issues in to one another. I suggest that this cease. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It should not be an issue that one gaffe gets included in the JH article, therefore that allows different gaffe to be included in the KR article. That's not how it should be decided. As said above, we should be debating their inclusion or omission as separate issues, not as a means of "gaffe equalisation".--Lester 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It's not a question of trading off on articles. It's a question of having an even-handed approach to ALL similar articles. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And if the exact same situation happened to both, then it should be included in both. But that didn't happen, did it? No. Two completely different situations, both judged on their merits. If Rudd said a victory for the Dems/Obama would be a victory for Al Queda, i'd support inclusion in his article. Try judging an issue on its merits for once, like everyone else has done, instead of saying 'this issue was included here so that issue should be included there, for balance' because it doesn't work like that. Both issues were discussed in length on their merits. One issue was included, another issue wasn't. That's the way wikipedia works. Sorry if you don't like that. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about two different articles. But I think skyring might be more convinced if the effect of your position didn't result in a convenient match with your political views. I think thus it is a bit rich to suggest that you are putting aside your political opinions but skyring isn't. Although I disagree with lester that both should be included, it must be acknowledged that his position has a little but more cred.--Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Timeshift9 has been inconsistent in this area. He opposed the G20 gaffe which had named participants, yet defended a quote from an anonymous journalist quoting unnamed Liberal MPs when it aligned with his political POV. --Surturz (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I found it noteworthy as Bishop's entire political career was/is hanging in the balance, as anonymous Liberal MPs believe she is not performing in her Treasury role. I happen to think that is much more noteworthy than a discussion both the whitehouse and rudd's department dismissed, which has no bearing on anything. And it's bit rich coming from the one who said "The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception". Timeshift (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah! I've won the argument then. You only truck out that 7 month old quote when you're desperate. The Obama quote has no bearing on anything either. --Surturz (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

iPhone

Is there a specific Wikipedia app for the iPhone? I've got both an iPhone and an Air in the cab, and I only use the iPhone as a last resort. Very fiddly to use. --Pete (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - there are a few good readers. I use Wikiamo, and I know there are others but I've only tried the one. As for specific writers, I don't know. I just go through safari. I really should read a book/newspaper when I'm at the beach/cafe/bus instead of fumbling through iPhone's safari. You do know that if you double click of a column of text on a webpage in iPhone it zooms in to fill the page. Particularly good in the compare version pages. Ahh - that change of topic is breath of fresh air. Always happy to talk iPhone. --Merbabu (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm on my second iPhone. Got a hacked original in Kowloon last year and just replaced it with a 3G. Apple has put a good deal of thought into their Safari implementation, but in the end, it's not quite the vehicle. Like watching a widescreen epic on a wristwatch. The elegance of the iPhone convinced me to ditch Microsoft and Vista, returning to my Apple roots with an Air, which I also love. Have you tried Ocarina? --Pete (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DOn't get me wrong, I love almost everything about the iPhone incl. safari. IT's just that I'm clumsy editing WP at the best of times - it's worse on iPhone. Ahhh - an Air. If I got a laptop, then I'd get that - kerching! --Merbabu (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Skyring(Pete), you have a Macbook Air? Even before Vista, you were editing Wikipedia using a Windows Box (I know these things!). I read somewhere that IBM is creating a version of their Lotus Symphony word processor for the iPhone, which will be free. I don't have an iPhone, but maybe in a future generation. Or maybe a Linux phone :) Lester 11:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)