User talk:Skyring/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

United Kingdom

Welcome to the den of confusion. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute

You need to take a break from that article, Pete. From where I sit, you're starting to come across as its owner. PS- This is just some advice, which you're free to ignore. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your repeated opinion, which has not been expressed by any of the many other contributors to the article. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the greater disconnect between Australians & Elizabeth II, compared to Canadians & Elizabeth II. We've only got the Atlantic Ocean seperating us from Buck Palace, where's you guys are seperated by the Pacific Ocean, the Americas & the Atlantic Ocean (about half a world away, from Buck Palace). GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix up

I'm not certain why, but when you responded to Mies in the "Where did the republic go?" section, at 9:45 today - it duplicated the section 'minus' the following posts. Anyways, I've fixed'em up. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP Australian Politics in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Australian Politics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the Canberra WikiMeetup on 20 November 2011

Hi! We're having a Canberra Wikimeetup on 20 November 2011 at Siren Bar in Gunghalin from 2pm to 4pm. It's most just a chance to chat with other local Wikipedians, get a chance to go a different sort of bar (which is reasonably kid friendly, serves real food, and has non-alcholic options), and, if you're interested, learning more about what Wikimedia Australia and local GLAM projects are happening. We'd love to see you and any Wikipedia/Wikimedia/wiki loving friends you have there. --LauraHale (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with Qantas. ;) And will do. :D --LauraHale (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rfc/U stuff

Howdy. I think ya should inform Mies that you linked to Mediation, as he was involved. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is your behaviour, not Mies's. Fair warning. Now that I've reached a period of stability in my life, with no career moves, house moves or international travel on the horizon, I'll pursue that matter of head of state consistency outlined in the mediation case as the way forward. --Pete (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Re "Getup" page and reference to non-neutral and biased sources

Yes, it may well be that claims about Getup membership could be viewed as misleading, but the tone of that section of the page is clearly prejudicial in nature, I would say.

And again, the nature of the sources referenced is the most dubious thing about that section. As Nick-D said when he banned "Brandonfarris", the person responsible for posting that section, and the "Labor party front" section, and the "Spam" section, use of dubiously sourced negative material from people like Andrew Bolt isn't appropriate.

All of this material is clearly and intentionally negative, and it is part of the overall and transparently obvious agenda pursued by "Brandonfarris" around Wikipedia, as stated by Nick-D a little while ago on this person's talk page.

Sam 3982 (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, I have now posted to that effect, along with other information, in detail, within the "Talk" section on the Getup page.

Given that Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting in a balanced impartial manner, avoiding advocacy, as is stated on the "Five Pillars" page, the majority of these three sections is not in keeping with that standard. Sam 3982 (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In List of things named for Queen Elizabeth II, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Queen Elizabeth High School, Queen Elizabeth Park and Coronation Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we leave it at that?

Bias is better declared. There is nothing on wikipedia to say that people who are biased cannot edit wikipedia. What matters is making sure the bias does not extend to article edits. I don't want to fill up Rudd talk page any further. Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: User junk

uim not forcing hiom to read anything, hes free to delete it. i was REPLYING to a statement where there was context lest it getl lost. see the colon.(Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).

Nomination of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Youreallycan 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comment

I've removed this comment as in my opinion it broke the guidelines at WP:TPO. It was clearly going to be disruptive in effect and could not possibly have been an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Please leave PotW's talk page alone. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Shall do, but looking at Andy's history on the internet, if this is really the same person, he seems capable of causing a huge amount of damage to Wikipedia. As indeed he is doing with his crusade against a well-loved media personality. Without his involvement, this would never have become the drama it has, and Jim's article would be just part of Wikipedia's long tail of marginally useful information. --Pete (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Informal Mediation

Your request for Informal Mediation (MedCab) has been accepted by User:Ronk01. Please give an opening statement in the indicated section on the case page. (Located here) Ronk01 talk 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Hi Pete, just a note to say that your post today on deletion review was a very nice one, and that in general you've been extremely kind and thoughtful in your approach. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Skyring. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Pete... do you really want to go with a Jews in WW2 comparison? Really?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is that this is bigger than one person. It's not Jim Hawkins - or any other random person complaining about their biography here - it's a huge problem and we aren't addressing it with due gravity. If it takes a bit of hyperbole to get the point across, then good. --Pete (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not good. I'd think that you especially would be wanting to deescalate all of this. The very thing that you were complaining about and that I was replying to is caused by this sort of over the top rhetoric being slung around at everyone. Unless you actually want to be ignored.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Do you think that the problem is just one or two or a handful of people? I don't think I'm over the top. I think that BLP has the potential to sink Wikipedia as we know it. Jim Hawkins is just one example of the kind of crap that gets slung into biographies and not noticed or fixed unless someone complains. It isn't hard to find other examples of editors either being very sloppy about research or deliberately slanting their work to the extent that it's obnoxious. --Pete (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You're well entitled to your opinion, but this is ample evidence for me that you've lost perspective over this whole issue. Good luck with your crusade.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pete (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Animal sexual behavior

If you'd like, I would gladly explain to you the science behind flatworm penis-dueling and the proven correlation between male testicle size and female promiscuity. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you can. But if you edit Wikipedia, it should have a reliable source! --Pete (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about flatworm penises and monkey balls, don't edit that material on Wikipedia. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WTF?

Repeating the heading you used on my Talk page....

I sometimes quite deliberately go over the top with my language. It makes other editors notice at least some of the words I use.

Last night you were completely ignoring almost everything I said politely, as well as ignoring many principles of good faith editing on Wikipedia.

You were not discussing. You were not seeking consensus. You were telling us what you thought on the Talk page, then changing the article. That's not discussion. Nor is it seeking consensus.

It made no difference how I responded using nice language. You still behaved badly. So I tried firmer language. That made no difference either.

I now believe that you are incapable of editing rationally on matters relating to Craig Thomson. Yours is the behaviour of one of those willing to try anything to eliminate the Labor government.

You should not be using Wikipedia for that purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are quite wrong in your opinions expressed above, but i do thank you for sharing them. I read what you had to say and I pointed out, at the time, exactly why you were wrong. I haven't checked the CT articles yet - I've had a long and tiring day - but you just weren't taking in what I was saying. You weren't responding to the points I was making. Why not? I can't see inside your head, but it seemed to me that you were growing more and more frustrated, not following the excellent guidelines laid down in WP:CIVIL, and not doing anything much to improve the article. My guess - after some hours - was that you were distracted by something else, possibly a football game, and weren't giving the issue your full attention. If that is the case, I understand, and forgive you. Please don't rationalise incivility - you may think it draws attention, and you are right, but it gives the wrong impression. And it serves as a poor example for other editors, if they see an experienced editor bully another.

As for eliminating the Labor government, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey scare the crap out of me. Hockey, I strongly suspect, would be in the running for world's worst treasurer if he ever got the job, and a lot of Abbott's policy statements appear to be poorly thought out, to be charitable. I also strongly disagree with some of his religion-based views on the role of women and his opposition to marriage equality.

That doesn't mean I think Gillard is doing a good job - I don't. What it means is that I keep my mind open, and I don't regard politics as a football match where the side you are rooting for are saints and the other team demons. I regard few politicians as worthy representatives, and it may surprise you to learn that I rank Bob Brown very highly indeed. I may disagree with many of his policies, but he says what he means, means what he says, and doesn't try to mislead the people. He's someone you can trust.

Unlike other politicians I could name. I see it as a useful function of Wikipedia to tell the truth, present the facts, present the opinions and let the readers find their own way through good sources and information presented in a useful fashion. It's not a political game, and I would prefer that you do not view me as a player.

The guts of my political philosophy is that I've lived through governments of different flavours, at different levels, and while some were worse than others, in general they manage to keep things running, keep the people fed and housed and healthy and educated, and realistically the criticisms we level at them are relatively minor. Even the increasing corrupt government in Queensland in the Seventies and Eighties was still providing free health and education to a high standard. I don't accept the view that any political party is beyond criticism or praise. They are all mixed bags.

The Craig Thomson affair, according to the leading political journalists, many of whom I know and respect, is important because it could conceivably lead to a change in government. It also is yet another example of poor political judgement by Gillard, which will probably prove to bee more decisive than anything Thomson does or has done to him. Personally, I think Abbott should have had a quiet word to Gillard a while back and promise not to run a candidate in a Dobell by-election if Thomson could be persuaded to resign. But of course that didn't happen, and every week there's some fresh information surfaces to keep the thing going. Yesterday it was the revelation that the ALP paid Thomson a quarter of a million dollars to give to Fairfax to settle the defamation case that he was pretending had gone the other way.

Your position seems to be that presenting the facts on this affair, presenting the criticism, presenting the opinions, providing the sources is something that should not be done because, because why, precisely? Because you don't want your side of the football match to lose? Is that it? You want to hurl abuse at every editor who wants to provide information in accordance with established wikiprocedure and wikipolicies? Because you don't like what they have to say? That's the message I'm getting from you. --Pete (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My position is that you are either a rude or incompetent editor, who does not understand what "Discussion" means. Writing something on the article's Talk page, then changing the article in line with what you've just written, without awaiting responses and seeking consensus, is bad manners and disruptive. HiLo48 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think when a subject has been up for discussion on a place like WP:RSN for a day, following the removal from the article by a disinterested editor citing unreliable sources, that's sufficient discussion time. Could you do me the courtesy of following the links I provide in response to your comments? If you don't read my responses to your direct questions, it seems a little inconsistent for you to accuse me of ignoring the points you raise. --Pete (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to it. Up until now I've been too busy repairing the damage to the article caused by your rude and impatient editing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair‎

Watch yourself re: WP:3RR. Recall you don't have to have more than three reverts in 24 hours to be admonished for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. I don't need to be doing Wikipedia when the wife's onto me to get my tax return done. Seriously, I figure there's enough eyes on the thing now that the anon editor will start to think about how things are done around here. When a number of people are telling him the same thing, I trust he'll listen. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Your latest edit has an improperly formatted ref and the Sept 1 date doesn't make sense. Please edit carefully as this article is now generating a lot of heat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Normally I would have looked at the result to check, but my wife called me for dinner and I was perforce required to leave immediately! --Pete (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Craig Thomson affair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Thomson affair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Craig_Thomson_affair#Number_4_branch_finances.3F

Talk:Craig_Thomson_affair#Number_4_branch_finances.3F

I am not seeing any WP:Consensus support - or any support at all - for your disputed desired addition - so I have reverted it - please do not replace it without some support from other editors - thanks - Youreallycan 05:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly the same kind of behaviour I raised concerns over at the top of this page? Changing the article before any consensus at all has been reached. Will you accept the polite advice being offered here? Or will you ignore it as you did before and only stop when someone uses a rude word or two? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Let's get some more eyes on it, then. --Pete (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

hI - You appear to be edit warring without Wp:consensus disputed content into an article containing content related to a living person - Wp:blp - as per one of wikipedia's main guidelines - WP:Policy and guidelines - please stop WP:Edit warring as your editing privileges can and will be removed - as you are well aware - please take this as a WP:3RR warning - thanks - Youreallycan 06:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I've called at WikiProject Australian politics‎ for more editors to have a look at it, and we'll see how that goes. We can continue on to an RfC, if that doesn't work out. I'm confident we can find some accurate wording that is supported by consensus. In the meantime, you may wish to read the source yourself. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at article, you may be blocked from editing. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is already a topic at AN/I and my edits are consistent with policy. I refer you to WP:INDENT. Again. --Pete (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning - stop your harassment

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to article, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. additional text Despite numerous requests to stop, you have moved my edit again here, and after being warned, you undid my edit here. I have restored my edit to where I placed it. Do not move my edits again. One21dot216dot (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking at this exchange, it seems you've understood the problem. Heaven forbid I should be a nitpicker, but I do like discussion pages to reflect the flow of discussion accurately. It can get pretty choppy when editors, especially new editors, unaware of our talk page format guidelines, place their contributions in the wrong spot. You are more than welcome to contribute, you just need a bit of time to pick it all up, and though it might seem that someone is out to get you, if you understand the guidelines it all makes sense. Wikipedians are a right bunch of kindy kids sometimes, and it helps to have clear rules, otherwise it's red cordial chaos! Now that you know how discussion page formatting works, I'll go and tidy it up. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning - stop the personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See additional text: This is unacceptable. Please stop. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. No problem. You want to tidy up CTA? Otherwise i'll do it when i have time. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply

No prob. Have to admit that my attention was grabbed by the only brick outhouse line in the article :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that surprised me, too! But there it is in the NPS site. Wish I'd checked it out, maybe given it my blessing! Chandler's a lovely little town, full of old Rt 66 structures. Must see if I can add a few more. I've got photos of the beautifully restored old gas station in the middle of town. --Pete (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Level 3 Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing. There is no WP:OUTING as no names etc were brough on-Wiki. Do not delete my edits again. One21dot216dot (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of harassment, I've removed your WP:OUTING material on ANI. Such material may be removed immediately by any editor. Let's give an admin a chance to look it over, okay? --Pete (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Craig Thomson (politician)

You appear to be WP:Edit warring to keep content on the talkpage that is of no benefit to the article - and is soapboxing of a petition link opposing the living subject of the article - please self revert. - Youreallycan 09:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Did you actually check? --09:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that you had redacted it - so please ignore my post above - apologies - Youreallycan 17:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning

You claim all sorts of crap about people trying to bias or censor the HSU article, when in fact you are by far the most biased editor there. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't report on every comment made by politicians about a given scandal. Wikipedia is not a book publisher, so our explanation needs to be succinct and cover only the most important details. And, most importantly, Wikipedia is not a platform for you to try to foment the overthrow of a government. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could point out which of the many mainstream sources I have somehow misinterpreted, that would be helpful. --Pete (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, you seriously need to back off editing this article and run your proposed changes by the talk page first and wait for input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's do that. The affairs is a public scandal, it's got police, government and media investigations going, and if there were some positive aspects to the affair, we could add those in. Bit hard to find any balancing material, though. --Pete (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chandler Armory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WPA

Health Services Union expenses affair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Williamson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Story about Craig Thomson-related articles in the Fairfax media today which names you

In case you haven't seen it: Union scandal leaks into a trial by Wikipedia Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

LOLOL! "father of a poorly paid HSU member".... don't forget WP:COI! :D Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! "My intention is to tell the story, for the benefit of readers who come seeking information..." Yeah right. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of Australia

Skyring, you're a cool cat, but you do have an obession with the Australian monarch/head of of state stuff. I'll be watching that article's discussion as it progresses. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's one of those topics where people think they know the facts, but when they look a little closer, they find they are wrong. I like to point people in the right direction. Covering Clause 2, in this instance. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignore GD, he's an Ass; banned from several areas on the project and should stick to 'reducing white spaces' or whatever else 'gnomes' do. Give him a wide berth or he'll bog you down in endless 'hamsterwheel' arguments, only to pack up and leave in a huff once he's been proved wrong. He's got form for such behaviour. Feel free to remove this post once read. 81.154.110.25 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know GoodDay, and I would not write him off so. We are all human beings together, growing and following our own journeys. Who knows what lessons we learn on the way? I've got a long way to go yet. As do we all. --Pete (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

MY speculation! LOL

You're one of the biggest speculators on Wikipedia, with all your theories about Gillard. Your erratic behaviour on Gillard and union threads is leading those newbies astray. You're a far bigger problem than I am. Piss off! HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

All my theories about Gillard? Kindly be so good as to outline one such "theory" and provide a diff. Can you do that for me, please? --Pete (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Military Date Proposal

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Skyring. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:HiLo48. --Surturz (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let's hope cooler heads prevail. You must have the patience of a saint, btw, to cop all that abuse and keep smiling! :-) --Surturz (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your edit on my talk page

Hi Pete,

A week ago you wrote to tell me off for being churlish in the face of "... a mix of regular editors of all political views pretty much uniformly opposed to your proposed additions..."

Is that still your view? ;)

Anyway, I am convinced that the press agent for a Prime Minister with such a low rating in the opinion polls is guaranteed to have one or more people making sure that nothing appears on Wikipedia to make matters worse. I think that once you and Surturz et al give up in the face of the abuse and the obfuscation, Gillard's wikipedia entry will look rather like Gillard wants it to look. If you don't believe me, I invite you to carefully examine the history of Quentin Bryce's article.

Good luck and thanks for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia honest. Freebird15 (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean about Wikipedia articles looking like press releases, and Labor politicians do pretty well, it seems. Rudd got dumped by his own party, he was so bad, but you wouldn't know why from reading his article here.

Thanks for your contributions, and I'm glad you've put some time and thought into Wikipedia and the ways of doing things here. Making bold changes is usually a recipe for trouble for a new editor, which is why I spoke up. It is often irritating to see an article where the wording had been thoroughly debated and agreed upon changed radically by someone coming in fresh, for example.

Reponding in kind to some of the more aggressive and aggravating editors is also a route to ruin. They will have a network of allies built up, who will support them if reported. Best to keep cool, look through the various wikipolicies, and do your best to be part of the community.

I'm not about to give up. I have other things in my life besides Wikipedia, but I enjoy unwrapping propaganda and scraping off whitewash and cleaning off the mud pastured around by editors whose idea of a good time is to cheer on a political party or a doctrine or a dogma as if it were a sporting match and their team can do no wrong and the opposing side are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.

Thanks for your comments. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your latest sickly essay at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

How on earth do you expect me take any notice of what you say there, when you so consistently ignore what I say about your political comments and speculation? That's completely unacceptable. You haven't changed. Yet you're telling me how to behave? Such a rule breaker telling ME how to behave is simply laughable. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I read your contributions, especially those in response to mine, very carefully. If I do not respond to rudeness, or incitement or anything else, that does not mean I am ignoring you. If I do not respond to a comment that I have heard several times before, it is because I know that you will respond to my response and we may add another iteration to the total. Wikiquette Assistance is not the forum for political discourse. It is the forum for examining the civility or otherwise of Wikipedia editors. I commend to you the thoughts and comments of your fellow editors. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem. You don't understand my behaviour, and I don't understand yours. That comment just seems very cryptic to me. Never mind. Life goes on. Good luck HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Badruddin Haqqani

I have no qualms adding it back. But i jsust read the source and there are some concerns. Ive mentioned them on the talk pageLihaas (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi Pete, I know you supported me in the discussion surrounding the Australian Greens being left-wing. Could you possibly support me now and Strongly Oppose the proposed Topic Ban on Australian Politics for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_actions I would be really grateful. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner. Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fucking holes in fucking discussions

YOU have put a hole in the discussion. That's the problem. My post now refers to something YOU have deleted. I'm trying to make your post look better.

And I don't really care what a Lib Lackey's post looks like. His comment was stupid anyway.

But leave it the way it is. Make the whole thing look stupid.

Your mind really is very odd. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement#General_discussion

One of the main techniques that one is advised to use in response to personal attacks is to ignore them. Regardless of whether one chooses to report a personal attack or whether to report it, bringing it up repeated or out of context is not a good way to deal with it. It is likely to cause more trouble, and likely to lead others to believe you where looking for more trouble.

Regarding discussions of how Wikipedia should deal with civility, editors are perfectly capable of looking into other editors past behavior on their own. If I see an editor dead set against rules against or punishments for incivility (or the opposite), I can choose to look at their talk page and get my own idea of their motivations. At best you could have suggested that readers of the discussion do that for all comments, rather than singling someone out. Hyacinth (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It was the timing which struck me. Posting such an offensive message and then posting to the Civility discussion struck me as an odd thing to do and worth highlighting. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

Pete/Skryring - From my interpretation of your comments at Talk:Commonwealth realm, you disagree with User:Japinderum's stance that the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. Yet, you seemed to approve of his proposal to list the Realm of New Zealand as a Commonwealth realm. Could you please clarify your posititon? Japinderum is using your comments to justify his change to the table of Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article comes with the first sentence. Clearly the "Realm of New Zealand" is not a sovereign state in the same way as (say) Canada. --Pete (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull

Be easy with the 'revert' button, as you've already made 3 within 24hrs :) GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A polite request

Please look at User talk:HiLo48#An important message to Pete/Skyring. I've asked you before, but this should make it even clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We're still going to be working on the same articles. Could you stay polite and civil to me and others in all communications, please? I don't mind if you have a different opinion. In fact I welcome diversity. But polite discourse helps us all. --Pete (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't be baited by your repeated lack of attention to what I post, but I completely disagree. I have pointed out elsewhere that until I opened what you would no doubt describe as the impolite thread on the Turnbull Talk page, you wouldn't discuss the matter at all. And then you did.

And now, because you have just again proven your inability to communicate effectively, I promise to never again try here. I cannot promise no naughty words if you misbehave again elsewhere on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I have made a complaint against User:HiLo48 at ANI, and you are mentioned in the complaint, which is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:HiLo48 --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We've been through this before. Nothing happens. Civility enforcement on Wikipedia is very chancey. --Pete (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(shrug) It's the only process we've got. Hopefully he sees reason, otherwise RfC/U next I guess :-( --Surturz (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the AN/I "went nowhere". I suppose we could raise an RfC/U as suggested. Or maybe wait to see if he "reoffends"...? --Surturz (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An RFC/U was the suggestion of several, and I don't like to disregard good advice in what amounts to a Wikipedia court. Otherwise it merely encourages more in the way of poor behaviour. I'm happy to support you in this. I've been glancing at the procedure and there looks like a lot of solid advice on how to put a case --Pete (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the AN/I as it was clear no admin was going to block. In my view there is neverthelesss definitely a problem and rather than further visits to AN/I I would advise the RFC/U route. However can I ask you Pete to please honour HiLo's request to stay off their talk page? If you need to discuss articles with them you can do so on the relevant talk pages. To go back to the user talk page would be seen as baiting; posts don't have to be foul mouthed to be disruptive. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. If he asked me previously, I'd forgotten about it. I'd like to proceed in a way that leaves everybody happy that fairness, courtesy and due procedure are observed. But this sort of thing cannot continue. The intense discussion about civility enforcement seems to be agreed on that. --Pete (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Hi mate, The Labor guys are doing a real number on Kathy Jackson over on her wiki page, specifically stuff from Independent Australia which is a blog written by a ex-Labor candidate. Though she may or may not be involved in this mess the sort of accusations that are being made seem to be just are covering Craig Thomson. I've tried editing the article to remove the offending info and pointing the HSU affair stuff back to the main HSU Affairs article but unfortunately, surprise surprise, it's entered edit war territory.

Wondering if you can help out as I am a newbie when it comes to using all the functions of wikipedia. Thanks. You can see the edits that I have made which seems reasonable compared to how locked down the CT pages are. Crocodile2009 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No answers

I don't know why they feel they can get away with it .. http://conservativeweasel.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/when-wiki-editors-abuse.html If I can help, and if you want me to delete it .. DDB (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. HiLo's behaviour, regardless of political opinion, goes well beyond the bounds of what is expected of a Wikipedia editor. I'm putting together a page of evidence to show that this is a long-standing issue and he has gotten away with it for too long. If he cannot see in his own heart that this is unacceptable, then he needs to be steered in a better direction by the wider community. --Pete (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hi - As you have not replaced the NOINDEX template - I have requested Admin assistance here - thanks - Youreallycan 20:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replacing the the NOINDEX template- diff Youreallycan 21:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries! As ever, getting more eyes on a problem helps. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Guantanamo detention camp

You have deleted the same text 4 times within a few hours. The last time while a discussion was clearly ongoing on the talk page. Your edit war is useless and does not help us to build an encyclopedia. Al these claims can be easily verified with simple google searches as i have explained on the talk page. What is your edit war about? Please try to fix things instead of time wasting deletion of information you might not like. I invite you to work with me. Thank you. NinaDownstreet (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Possibly you do not share the same sleep cycle as I do. It is now four in the morning, and I apologise for any delay in addressing your concerns.

1. WP:BLP allows for unsourced content to be removed immediately by any editor. This can be done once, thrice, a hundred times in the face of someone determined to add unsourced biographical material.
2. I see different material being deleted. The first instance was of material sourced from an unreliable source, namely a private blog.
3. You inserted material supposedly supported by cites to The Sydney Morning Herald. Your Bold move was Reverted - with reasons given - and you should Discuss the situation. Instead you chose to repeatedly reinsert it.

Your account has few edits on it. Perhaps you would be so good as to indicate how long and how many edits make up your own personal participation in Wikipedia? But, regardless of that, if you do not understand Wikipedia policy, it is always best to seek assistance. There are many who are glad to help. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Australian and Climate change

You are not allowing and misinterpreting articles that do not suit your political agenda. Two studies of articles and editorials have found the Australian is OVERWHELMINGLY biased to those who either dismiss the scientific consensus or deny the need for action. The opposition to the policy is a lesser theme (they mostly oppose any labor policy - and supported an ETS until it became a point of difference between the major parties). You are not allowing these to go on the site. I see you do similar partisan 'work' on other sites. I have reported your activities to wikipedia. I hope they give you the boot so you can go and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.5.254 (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What 'partisan' outlook am I supposed to support, precisely? I'm interested in untwisting spin and keeping articles in line with wikipolicy, and I can see how that would grate with some editors. I think if we keep civil, keep true to established procedures, keep working at serving reliable information to our readers, we're doing fine. Regardless of political opinion. I commend the Five Pillars to you. --Pete (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

I see you are revert warring again. I remind you once more of WP:BRD; if your Bold change is Reverted, the onus is on you to engage in Discussion until a consensus for your change is established. It is BRD, not BRRRRRRR... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I used the phrasing you yourself suggested. I honestly can't see what the problem is. One thing I have noticed is that whenever your responses on talk become cryptic and you are unwilling to answer direct questions, it means that you have lost the point but do not wish to concede it. Honestly, if the "Realm of New Zealand" is not a Realm, as you seem to be saying, then what on earth is it? It's not a duck. I'd appreciate your forthright thoughts on this point which has been engaging the discussion on the talk page for some time. Everybody seems to be of a mind on it bar you. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't respond to what doesn't matter or what addresses something other than what I said.

Along those lines, what does it matter what the Realm of New Zealand is, other than whether it is a Commonwealth realm or not? It has already been explained at length at the talk page how New Zealand is and the Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm (note: New Zealand and the Realm of New Zealand are not the same thing). Please read through it before making any further contributions either there or in the article itself. The key matter is there is not a single source stating the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. If you can find a source that says otherwise, please feel free to provide it and we'll see how it works with those that state the Realm of New Zealand is not a country and those that say New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm.

This is the last I'll be saying about this matter at this location; I do not want to have muliple conversations on the same subject ongoing in different locations. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, you seem to be pretty adamant that the RNZ is a CR here. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Your recent post to WP:AN was a violation of WP:CANVASS which is probably why it got removed (but not by me). 134.241.58.251 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My post there was as per the directions given at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, in my understanding. --Pete (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U

I was meaning to drop you a line saying I'd done about as much as I wanted to on HiLo's RfC/U. I'm glad you published it. Editing the RfC/U was bad for the soul. --Surturz (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I try to keep affection, rather than hatred, in my heart. What guided me here was a famous case settled early last century: Donoghue_v._Stevenson#Lord_Atkin. For the good of the entire community, HiLo must be encouraged to treat other editors as he would be treated. While some may see such conduct as "refreshingly direct", I note that nowhere in wikipolicy is such behaviour encouraged or held up as an example for new editors. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

your revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/HiLo48&diff=524666896&oldid=524666350

I wish you had not done this - I npoved the header and you had no need to revert to your attacking style header - "anti-Christian comment" - can you link to the specific diff - Youreallycan 17:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you. The specific comment was first in the list, and identifying it as "anti-Christian" helps the reader and is an accurate description. However, I feel that the subsequent discussion, especially the points made by Kim Dent-Brown, for whom I am feeling a lot of sympathy, need to be considered in context. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please post the specific "anti-Christian comment" here for me - I can't see it in your diff - thanks - Youreallycan 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the problem now. I've gone one diff back: [1]. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo RfC

Hello Pete, I didn't intend this comment to be aggressive or bullying, but Jusdafax seems to think it might have been seen that way. I don't think I've ever been accused of being bullying in my life, either on WP or in the real world so it caught me up short that someone saw me that way. I thought we were just having a robust, civil disagreement but if I strayed over the line and you did experience my comment as bullying then I sincerely apologise. As I said that was never my intention. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Set your mind at ease. I did not take it that way. I thought the "bully" comment was aimed at me, and I might take heed of your advice to drop the thing. I'm just very dubious about any prospect of HiLo48 improving his attitude towards editors he disagrees with, given his recent comments. The matter seems straightforward to me - without acceptance, there can be no change. --Pete (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. Despite our disagreements on how to handle this do be assured that if I see HiLo violating his vow of civility, I'll be first in the queue to block him if necessary. I agree HiLo is not going to change his attitude - but if he has changed his behaviour that will be enough for me. We shall see. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter Baker (British politician)

I see that you commented earlier on the talk page of Peter Baker (British politician), I have tidied the article up and added some refs but User:Surrey74 keeps changing the article back, appreciate if you have any time to comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy to assist. The editor obviously has some good inside material - and I really like that spiffing photograph! - but his focus seems to be a little off what an encyclopedic article should be. I've been giving him a good deal of slack rather than edit-warring, and given the subject's marginal notability (or perhaps notoriety) it probably doesn't hurt too much if standards aren't quite up to scratch. I suspect only a handful of people have even looked at the article. If Surrey74 turns his hand to other material, he's going to need to lift his game, but he'll also get more help from other editors encountered. On that note, thanks for pitching in. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood,, I suspect the user has some connection with the subject, thanks for helping. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)