User talk:Gnangarra/archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives


   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work in 2013 with Freopedia and Toodyay![edit]

Merry Christmas!
Keep up the good work in 2014 on the WMAU committee! Kerry (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Kerry merry christmas to you too Gnangarra 14:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

facts supported by evidence
Thank you for contributions to quality articles on Western Australian topics, such as Banksia epica, for images around Perth, for welcoming new users and the brilliant modesty of your user page, for promoting actual names and facts supported by evidence, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (27 September 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 702nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

The ongoing harassment and personal attacks by some of these users as well as misuse of process such as BRD purely to push an agenda has really been frustrating me in the last few days to the point where I'm thinking I may as well abandon once again --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

taking a break never hurts, its such a long running dispute... as I said I'll frame an rfc after the 26th Gnangarra 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand where you're coming from[edit]

With full disclosure, this is why I've failed to maintain my user space despite being on Wikipedia on and off for more than 8 years. People who abuse process purely to promote an agenda really do annoy me and it brings the whole concept of Wikipedia into disrepute. I'm about over it and would be willing to take a holiday if it wasn't considered a one up for those on the other side of the fence. I am about as stubborn as a mule when it comes to actually standing my ground sometimes when dealing with people who are clearly causing issues, but that is sometimes not a good thing --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Butterly House[edit]

Could I get a few more references and a little expansion of the article. I believe I can pass it then. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will work on expanding it Gnangarra
wow some wonderful people have got in there already Gnangarra 04:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Graham (writer)[edit]

Please put a reasonable time-limit on the full protection of Duncan Graham (writer). With limited exceptions such as Office- or Arbcom-imposed or -sanctioned situations, "indefinite full protection" is a bad thing, frequently worse than the problem it solves.

Please reduce the terms of the full protection to something like 1-2 years, or less if possible. Consider putting and "update after" or similar template that will expire shortly before the full protection to remind the community to re-add at least semi-protection when the full protections expires.

If a "PC2-protection" proposal that would allow this article to be put under PC2 protection passes, consider immediately downgrading the protection to PC2 as soon as such a proposal passes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Butterly House[edit]

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Victoria Hotel (Toodyay)[edit]

--Allen3 talk 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnangarra. I am trying to get in touch with you regarding one of your photographs. What is the best way to reach you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.194.63 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC) leave a message here or you can email me at gnangarra at gmail dot com ... Gnangarra 09:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Newcastle-Bolgart Railway[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Historic buildings[edit]

I just started a discussion at WP:AWNB about standardising the formats we use for historic buildings articles around the country, and with the work you've done in the area, I'd love your thoughts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes d'Outrein[edit]

Recognize the photo? :-] You might find more on him..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see, thanks for the letting me know. Gnangarra 11:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

prods[edit]

it is sometimes useful to see who will defend an article. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G5 will save others a whole lot of wasted time, Gnangarra 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Gaol Museum, Possible copyright problem[edit]

Do you know who would be able to resolve Talk:Newcastle Gaol Museum#Possible copyright problem? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naming of Toodyay, Western Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inquirer (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) 08:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

undeletion request[edit]

Hi Gnangarra, would you be a dear and restore Human Top (Bruce Bravelle) into my userspace? I'd like to see if I can make a go of the subject. Thanks, Herostratus (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Henry Leeder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palace Hotel (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) 08:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Graham (writer)[edit]

Do you think the protection on Duncan Graham (writer) can be dropped yet? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • protected because of BLP issues, other than time why do you think it should be unprotected Gnangarra 01:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • considering the issues that arose from the clearly biased editing previously, I wonder why the protect has to be lifted.. satusuro 03:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • General consensus on Wikipedia is that regular articles shouldn't be fully protected forever. Is there any timespan after which you'd be okay with unprotecting? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be happy to unprotect the article if someone wants to actively work on improving the article, so can you please explain for what reason other than time you want the article unprotected? Gnangarra 04:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • He doesn't have to; the onus is on you, so either unprotect the article or explain why it shouldn't be. The article should be unprotected because it's a Wikipedia article and absent evidence of some problem, which there is not, the expectation is that editors can edit it. Herostratus (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • the reason is WP:BLP issues, that policy that protects living people from attacks... set it to requiring pending changes... Gnangarra 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • also the creator of deliberate wilful defamatory comments at that article admitted to doing so... hopefully either not editing any longer or gone silent on the subject satusuro 01:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail[edit]

Moondyne (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Toodyay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inquirer (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) 08:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest to you?[edit]

FYI, I've done a dummy spit (or two). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdfpdf: your first dummy spit is okish as your being forthright and honest in the future ahead depending on options, recognising that the user does have potential to be a productive contributor. You have even used your own experience as an editor in rough and tumble of Australian political articles as guide.. Your second dummy spit is a little more problematic I wouldnt encourage you to repeat such a comment would even suggest a null edit so you could leave a more reflective summary in hindsight correcting your stance about flying F's really isnt correct as everyone can an opinion but its consensus that drives changes, not personal opinions. Gnangarra 14:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replied, but it seems to have disappeared. I'll try to remember/recreate my "Pearls of Wisdom" at a later time when they do, indeed, fall into that category. (Sorry.) Pdfpdf (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Andreas11213[edit]

Help :( Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

was all over by the time got here, 1 month block and topic 1R restriction post block has been applied Gnangarra 00:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism[edit]

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Port Fairy line[edit]

The article was called the Warrnambool line for ages (and referred to throughout the article as such), but as you correctly guessed, was rewritten to refer to the non-existent "Port Fairy line" when someone decided to distinguish the current passenger service from the physical line and give them separate articles.

I really don't care what happens to the separate articles; I'm happy to merge if you think that's a good idea (or not), but the point is that both the passenger service and the physical line end at basically the same place and have done for decades.

Would you support the move if it was associated with a merge request on the V-Line service? It's not a high-traffic RM and I'm concerned that your oppose might lead to its failure, and you don't strike me as being all that in favour of keeping the physical line at "Port Fairy". The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's baaaaack...[edit]

The Human Top (Bruce Bravelle), that is. You deleted him (quite properly) in 2008, but how can a person who can spin at 250 miles per hour (400 km/h) stay deleted? Not easily! Userfied, rewritten, and republished on this day, IMO clearly not speedy-eligible but still marginal on the merits, so just informing you of this event. I think we have so many worse-ref'd articles that I'm OK with this one now, but you or others may differ. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

probably better then if you dont post notices about it being restored if its survival is base on a "we have worse" articles argument. Just realise that even featured Pokemon articles have been deleted in the past so a character that appeared only twice in the 1940's is based solely on questionable references probably would do well to not be spoken about too loudly Gnangarra 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well whoa, I don't care if it's deleted or not. I mean I hate to lose a days's work but that's OK if it's for the good of the Wikipedia. If it shouldn't exist it shouldn't, if it should it should, and fine. By all means AfD it you like and let the chips fall where they may; probably 50-50 chance I guess. It's not eligible for speedy as recreated material though (too different, and probably too long ago too). Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Highway images[edit]

Hi Gnangarra, the licensing of two images you uploaded has been raised as a potential issue at G.N.Hwy's GA review. Could you please comment at Talk:Great Northern Highway/GA1? Thanks - Evad37 [talk] 00:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The specific question is "should they have OTRS for licencing if Gnangarra wasn't the author?" - Evad37 [talk] 13:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
just remove them to pass GA, i'll address an otrs ticket but it wont be with the time period of ga review Gnangarra 15:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Franklin[edit]

Per this, I have on occasion considered creating an article on this guy, just to see how much confusion I can create =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

will have to make that page a disambiguation page apparently in Queensland its a very popular name for potentially notable people Gnangarra 05:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Henry Strahan[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the hostage situation?[edit]

Hey do you have any ideas how to get photos of this? Know any journalists or shooters who could donate photos? I find nothing on FlickrVictor Grigas (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a little too far away for me to get there its like going from LA to NY. I have contacted some people I know in the Sydney area they all are saying the same they have been told to stay away and that police have asked that no one posts photos from the area as this could be supplying information to perpetrators. There may be some photos after the event showing up but for now anyone with photos isnt making them available and given the tight control on images I suspect those that have some wont be giving them away for free yet. Gnangarra 04:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage bloopers[edit]

I thought you might appreciate these:

  • As 2 females wearing Lindt aprons were shown running from the cafe, the Ch7 newsperson proclaimed "they appear to be customers".
  • Tonight another Ch7 newsreader said "the building is now bathed in darkness". --AussieLegend (✉) 13:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thats what happens when reporters are stressed into providing new information every two minutes. Gnangarra 13:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Haron[edit]

I fully appreciate the need for caution re BLP, but given widespread reporting of current events, why has Sheikh Haron been reverted and locked? The reversions also affect other good formatting points in the lead and the end of the article ends abruptly without a full stop, BTW. —sroc 💬 14:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took it back to the last stable version prior to the event being reported, full protection because its been a battlefield since on balance until this over full is appropriate if you want to edit it use the edit protect template. Gnangarra 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better online sources have been added to the other article. Could you add them to this article and restore my last edits with those sources? —sroc 💬 14:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think full protection is overkill? I don't even think there has been enough disruptive activity to warrant semi-protection. - Kollision (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP, explain on article talk page Gnangarra 14:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's dead, so BLP doesn't apply anymore. Remove full protection immediately.--92.251.2.106 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think full protection was at all justified on the article. Looking through the recent edits, the only vandalism was from IPs, and anything that could be considered a BLP violation was initially added by IPs. Semi-protection looks like it would have sufficed, so there was no reason to use full protection. Calathan (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message on my talk page[edit]

Right. I have attempted to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The reverting editor did not address anything I said. I have asked him over and over what his objection is to my edit and he has not presented an even vaguely coherent argument. He keeps reverting my edits, even when I alter them to try to accommodate what he wants, without ever engaging in discussion. Additionally, he made well over 3 reverts on the page in question a few days ago, within a 24 hour period.

I have also asked at the teahouse some questions about these matters, what the policies mean and so on, and these questions have not been answered. All I got was one person saying vaguely that they'd look into it, but they did not answer any of my questions.

I am getting quite frustrated here. An edit I made was reverted with no reason provided except that it was unnecessary (and even that claim wasn't backed up) when according to the guidelines edits are not supposed to be reverted merely for being unnecessary. I have made several arguments for my edit on the talk page and made requests for arguments against it. These have all been ignored. I have asked questions at the teahouse and these questions have been ignored. And now i am being issued warnings. This is getting ridiculous and I would appreciate some assistance.Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise your frustration hence asking you to revert your edits(which you havent done, yet). I have said your message on the talk page is only going to inflame the situation by provoking an edit war, which doesnt facilitate a favourable environment to discuss anyones concerns. I also pointed put that you have sort assistance and have been asked for clarification as to the issues yet you havent responded. When a dispute arises its common place to allow 7 days then ask for an uninvolvd admin to decide consensus. Please reverse you edit, answer the questions being asked of you on the article talk page and the matter will be resolved. Gnangarra 08:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Answer what questions? What needs to be clarified?Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nahnah has asked for an explanation of the issue on the article talk page. The purpose of such a question is to get clarity on the subject, the issue and what is the barrier(s) to resolution. Gnangarra 08:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um...the issues can be seen by reading the talk page and the edit history. What else is there to say?Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have invited people in to assess what is going on and to help resolve the issue. If you expect people to take time out to help, you can give them the courtesy of summing what the issues and where you see the barriers to s resolution, rather than dismissing their request as they may have already read the talk page and still dont understand why you think there remains an issue. My understanding of the issue is that you dont think the Government in the ACT should be referred to as a Labor government, I google that term and found Katy Gallagher will be returned as ACT Chief Minister after balance-of-power Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury agreed to support Labor to form government for the next four years. source - http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/gallagher-returned-as-chief-minister-as-rattenbury-chooses-labor-20121102-28onc.html my understand would be to refer a Labor Government in the ACT as the sources support this, therefore what Drovers Wife and Timeshift are saying makes sense to me Gnangarra 08:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you want me to summarise it from my point of view? That wasn't clear. It sounded like you wanted me to just repeat what had been said on the page.
I made an edit to the article noting that the ACT government is a minority government with a non-labor member. Timeshift reverted it saying the ACT has almost always had minority governments. I asked timeshift multiple times how on earth that was a reason not to mention it in an encyclopedia. Timeshift did not respond. Another editor, the drover's wife, said that minority status is irrelevant to the article. I heeded that, and rephrased the edit to not mention minority status. Timeshift reverted again, giving no reason. I asked him on the talk page for an argument against the change. He didn't respond. The drover's wife has at least replied to some of my talk page comments but she hasn't addressed most of my points. She said composition of cabinet was irrelevant to an article about premiers. I responded that the section was about governments not premiers but it could be reworded to focus only on premiers. She didn't address those points, merely saying vaguely that my argument was "a bit of a stretch". I asked why it was a stretch and provided further reasons for my position. She didn't respond. Separately, she said vaguely that she was "completely lost with claims as to why SA is not a labor government". I explained that I was not objecting to calling it a labor government, merely adding a clarification that it has non labor members, and I asked her how this was irrelevant. She didn't respond.
As to the issues, they are as follows:
(1) wikipedia guidelines say edits should not be reverted merely for being unecessary yet user timeshift has done exactly that
(2) The same user has repeatedly reverted me but has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page or explain what the problem is with the edits.
(3) My proposed edit is nothing more than a note that the SA and ACT governments have non-Labor members of cabinet. Despite me asking over and over, neither timeshift nor the drover's wife has provided an argument against this edit. I have presented multiple arguments myself and most of what I have said has not been addressed.
Does all this make sense?Colonial Overlord (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion might best be continued as part of the dispute resolution at Talk:Premiers of the Australian states. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Copying over to Talk:Premiers of the Australian states, will continue the discussion there Gnangarra 13:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry etc etc[edit]

Evad37 [talk] is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Look forward to seeing you in the new year; and thank you for looking out for articles I've created, am improving, or are yet to create – 7th Ave bridge photos, organising Fremantle Prison tour, Garratt Road Bridge, etc. - Cheers, Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

um thanks for the warning?[edit]

Sorry, but I looked at the information and it was clearly not in violation of BLP policy, so I reverted it. I had been told that you were supposed to do that. If you think you are right, you are supposed to be bold in fixing it. I don't think that you really needed to threaten me over that. The guy that banned that other guy already threatened me in the edit summary when he reverted me back, and then further threatened me on my talk page. Your threat wasn't really helpful. Threat received!

I have hopefully more correctly placed a question mark over it on the BLP noticeboard, so that some other people can check to see if it really was a BLP violation. In my opinion it wasn't, but it is really all about consensus I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#illridewithyou_-_is_this_really_a_violation_of_the_policy.3F KrampusC (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its was a warning not a threat, you restored information that was removed for BLP issues and for which the editor was sanctioned. I just highlighted that in doing so you are acting as a meatpuppet and could face the same sanctions. I asked you to self revert. Gnangarra 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your sensible comment here [1], which accurately describes the problem with the situation. The problem is that we started with a comment on the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis talk page, then the editor was blocked, then we went to AFD, in that order. As stated elsewhere, the blocking admin, User:Nick-D, has admitted that my reversion was not a BLP violation and was not the reason that he blocked [[User:The Almightey Drill] [2] so I would think that all threats, warnings, etc, against me were unwarranted. I didn't violate BLP at all, and if The Almightey Drill did, it wasn't with that edit. He was quoting, word for word (bar 1 word, which he changed to be something that means the exact same thing = editorialising becoming made it up) a verifiable article. It is a pity that the BLP listing I made was steamrolled by people who were already involved in the dispute and it seems that everyone else coming into it didn't read what was written. But anyway good job on the AFD comment. It showed a bit of common sense there. Please just don't give threats like that when they are unwarranted. It makes me feel bullied. KrampusC (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I "admitted" no such thing: you violated BLP by adding material which was plainly not supported by the source, and are now blatantly quoting me out of context. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@KrampusC:. Yet again it was never a threat it was a warning that you were adding material that had been removed because of a BLP issue, and such actions should never occur without first discussing the issue thoroughly to do so can see you(in this case) receive the same sanctioning that User:The Almightey Drill had already received. A warning is required in such situations, what isnt required was asking you to self revert such a request is only given when one suspects the user wasnt acting with any malice. What I suggest is that rather than perpetuate this line that you learn from it when an issue involves a subject who is living ie WP:BLP that before restoring content you discuss the issue on the talk page. Gnangarra 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnangarra/archive_35&oldid=998896944"