![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
Hi there - so this Sydney image dispute has wrought havoc and bashed up editors. And has the potential to do still more damage...particularly when one or the other way is settled. Who are the main players (on either side) who have got the most skin in the game and the most bruised? I don't just mean someone who's lobbed in a comment or two either way but doesn't really care, rather I'm asking about those who have really invested time and ego into it? I'd say it would be you, Hilo, Ashton, Cement4802, Cjhard - have I missed any? My reason for asking...I am thinking about a way to sooth some ego bruises and foster goodwill/respect amongst editors in advance of resolution. And I will pose this question to one on the other side too. :) --Merbabu (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)AussieLegend (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think this is a bad block. I have been trying to stop the drama that has been going on at Talk:Sydney, which is why I raised the matter at WP:ANI in the first place. Regardless, 1 week is an excessive length of time and it appears to have been made to punish me, not to protect Wikipedia. An editor should be able to report editors that have been editing problematically without fear of retribution. The blocking policy clearly says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see § Requesting blocks)" yet this block is clearly to punish me for reporting continued disruption by an editor who was recently blocked. The editor was originally reported a week before any administrator took any action to address the complaint. In particular, the blocking admin took absolutely no action in the complaint. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblock has been granted by Barkeep49 as per his comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This is sadly typical of the dispute. Just when it looks like we might be getting somewhere, everything goes quiet. Cement4802 and Cjhard have both gone MIA and Ashton 29 has been quiet since he was blocked (that block is over). If they don't return soon, in a few months it will all start again.– this is assuming bad faith of editors. Nobody is required to log in to Wikipedia, and if this drama is going to end, we need people to just let things go. If someone doesn't post to a talk page on your preferred timetable, just let it go.
Reverted to revision 954282014 by AussieLegend (talk): Rv per WP:STATUSQUO again. Do I have to file an SPI report as well? (TW)– instead of picking an arbitrary version of the page that you prefer, calling that the "status quo", and continuing this feud by blasting away all of Ashton 29's edits, why not go to the talk page and discuss this? Also, the proper place to make accusations of sock puppetry is SPI. SPI is not something that you should threaten someone with. You either file a report there, or you don't make the accusation.
Ashton 29 is back from his block and hasn't learned a thing.) and bad faith (
Being used to this sort of editing by him...) virtually guarantees that this is going to turn into a huge bickerfest again. Someone needs to stop pouring gasoline on the fire if they want it to go out. AussieLegend complains that Ashton 29 is reverting without discussing, which is the exact same thing he is doing. If they both keep doing this, they should both be blocked. Floquenbeam typically does a month-long block for perpetuating a feud, but that struck me as too harsh for this circumstance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that a block was warranted here, and I'm sure that no one wants AussieLegend to stay blocked for a week. However, rather than my unblocking unilaterally, let's see if we can move forward constructively, by my asking AussieLegend if he'd be willing to modify his approach to these issues if unblocked. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
continuing this feud by blasting away all of Ashton 29's edits- That didn't happen as I stated above. Initially I accidentally removed too much but, in the immediately following edit I restored what I had inadvertently removed.[2] Per WP:3RR, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." so that is all considered as one revert and that revert retained all of his changes except for the montage changes.
why not go to the talk page and discuss this?- again, if you had bothered to read the first report you would have seen that this is pointless as Ashton 29 typically does not discuss. He typicaly just restores his edit and tells the other person to take it to the talk page or just disappears. He did this at Australia,[3][4] He did it at Hobart,[5] and he did it at Newcastle, New South Wales. Opening a discussion with Ashton 29 seems to be pointless anywhere except at Sydney
Also, the proper place to make accusations of sock puppetry is SPI- Ashton 29 is usually non-responsive and, as there had already been discussions at ANI and DRN, another at SPI might be seen as forum-shopping.
Special:Diff/955002355- The title of the ANI is a statement of fact. His first edit after coming off the block was to edit-war at Newcastle, New South Wales. His second was to attack me so clearly, he hadn't learned a thing. In any case User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks didn't work because nobody did anything about that for a week. I even reported the issue with Ashton 29 at the Newcastle article but it was ignored, except by maybe Doug Weller.[8] He at least took action on the personal attack that I reported at the same time.
Being used to this sort of editing by him...- Again, this is not bad faith. It's an ongoing issue with this editor which is why I reported him at ANI.
virtually guarantees that this is going to turn into a huge bickerfest again. Someone needs- If a bickerfest starts at ANI, it's up to admins to do something about it and not wait a week before sticking their heads into a discussion (my apologies to the admins who are actually doing something. I don't include you!) that is already out of control. After posting the initial report I was set upon almost immediately by an editor who I had notified as a courtesy. It was at this point somebody should have stepped in and said "This is not the place for fighting".
AussieLegend complains that Ashton 29 is reverting without discussing, which is the exact same thing he is doing- Again, if you had bothered to read the first report and followed the diffs you would have realised that discussion with Ashton 29 is virtually impossible. He's happy to discuss with people who support his POV but if you oppose him in any way, he either says nothing or attacks. This is not just my opinion. Others support it. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad and Barkeep49: why is this editor still blocked? This is the most overt contravention of WP:PUNISH that I've seen in a long while (and I'm coming up to my 15th anniversary here). The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: - Did you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks. What you linked to was a retaliatory report. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: - The only reason that there is nothing on the Newcastle talk page is that after I invited Ashton 29 to discuss his proposed image he was blocked. Then, when he came off his block he immediately edit-warred. It's up to the person wishing to change the content to gain consensus and when the person you invite to a discussion doesn't want to discuss, there's no point talking to yourself. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I always say at ANI that ultimately one of you needs to be the better editor, stop the silliness and initiate the discussion. It might as well be you. "You" here is always plural, in other words, I'm speaking to everyone involved.
Arguments over who should start discussion are IMO extremely lame. Why spend your time arguing over who should do it, when you could spend that time doing it? It's hardly uncommon I see someone complaining about something at ANI and I visit the talk page and find it empty because both sides are apparently waiting for the other to initiate discussion. At best there was some minor discussion on editor talk pages but no one bothered to try a proper discussion on the article talk page which would also probably be more likely to result in third party participation. (And of course, most of the time if there was discussion on editor talk pages there was also a lot of behavioural or personal stuff thrown in.) Whenever I see such silliness, I'm always reminded of the childish "they started it" type lines [9] [10].I'd further note that in this case, AFAICT, you have provided no explanation for why the older image of the church is better than what Ashton29 changed it to even via edit summary. And this is ultimately what you're saying by reverting to that image. You seem to agree with Ashton29 about the choice of what to depict, you just disagree which particular depiction. (You've provided via edit summary an explanation for why you feel your proposed change is better than Ashton29's proposed change, but that's a separate issue.)
The thing with WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD is it's one thing to talk about who should initiate discussion in an ideal scenario, it's another to go around demanding that the status quo stays without explaining why the status quo is better than the the proposed change before the person wanting the change explains why they feel their proposal is better than the status quo. There are obvious exceptions like cases where the proposed change is so bad that it's silly to discuss it. (So I'm not saying everytime you revert an editor you need to go to the article talk page and explain why. Far from it.) But in more borderline cases where you feel the change is clearly not an improvement but can sort of see why an editor may feel it is, starting a short one-line explanation for why the status quo is better goes a long way when there appears to be a good faith and genuine dispute. Especially if an edit war has arisen. And even more so in a case like this where as I said, it's fairly subjective and frankly random.
In other words, while I would agree that once they were reverted Ashton29 should have started a discussion without reverting you, since they didn't do that, the ball was in your court. While I know I tend to write long posts, it seems to be you could have easily written 2 or 3 sentences explanation why you felt Ashton29's proposed change was bad enough as to require reversion to the status quo again. Yet from what I see, instead of doing that you just spent your time going to their talk page etc demanding they start the discussion and then going to ANI.
If instead you had started a discussion, and Ashton29 had continued to edit war without joining the discussion, or a maybe had commented on it but despite the lack of consensus continued to revert to their version, then we would have decent evidence you tried to resolve the dispute as someone claimed; and generally you'd come across as clearly the better editor. Likewise, if you were always the one who initiates discussion because Ashton29 always refuses to, and you brought evidence of this to ANI, this would IMO be a troubling pattern that would likely need to be dealt with. But instead all we have is two editor waiting for the other side to initiate discussion and in the mean time reverting each other. Given the circumstances including Ashton29 also spending their time complaining about you on some other editors talk page, you do come across a bit better in this dispute, but not by much. Yet as I said it could have easily been so different.
Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I always say at ANI that ultimately one of you needs to be the better editor, stop the silliness and initiate the discussion.- I don't disagree with that but there's little point attempting discussion with an editor like Ashton 29 who doesn't want to discuss unless it's trying to convince everyone that he is right and a montage of his preferred images goes in the Sydney infobox. Had I opened a discussion on the Newcastle talk page I would have been talking to nobody. That's based on experience. In any case, the problem isn't just Newcastle, it's an attitude problem. Ashton 29 has been editing disruptively and attacking other editors (not just me) for years. Straight off his block that's what he did with both edits. Have you actually read my original post in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks? It's all there.
you have provided no explanation for why the older image of the church is better than what Ashton29 changed it to even via edit summary. And this is ultimately what you're saying by reverting to that image.- That's not correct at all. I simply reverted to the status quo since there was clearly no agreement on what photo of Nobbys Head to use and I stated that in the edit summary.[11]
You've provided via edit summary an explanation for why you feel your proposed change is better than Ashton29's proposed change, but that's a separate issue- No, that's the actual issue.
while I would agree that once they were reverted Ashton29 should have started a discussion without reverting you, since they didn't do that, the ball was in your court- As I've indicated, starting a discussion with Ashton 29 is generally pointless because you end up talking to nobody. At Australia it was decided not to use an image proposed by Ashton 29. Five years later he decided to sneak the image into the article anyway.
While I know I tend to write long posts,- There's nothing wrong with that. It's far better to be thorough. There have been billion dollar errors caused by people not providing enough content.
But instead all we have is two editor waiting for the other side to initiate discussion- I'm not waiting because I know that Ashton 29 won't bother. Sadly, I've been across the table from Ashton 29 for far too many years, as has HiLo48. By all means, ask his opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Your note was a bit excessive. In the Argentina and Chile articles, I was not changing a settled version: I was reversing changes made to the long settled versions. The Argentine and Chilean claims in Antarctica are fantasy claims, so they have not been shown on the maps, though frequently a nationalist-minded editor changes the maps to put them in and has to be reverted. The last time someone did that he pointed to the Australia and New Zealand articles, so those were caught up in the revert. Personally I fully accept Australia's rights over the AAT and New Zealand's over the Ross Dependency, though they are not part of the country itself and so need not be shown on the maps. Hogweard (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thank you for your help.
Trying hard to work my way correctly around Wiki and all help is appreciated. If you have any further advice for me, please let me know. TamTango (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
Sorry about what happened a few days ago, it’s just that JDB555 continues to bother me. Anyways, I would like you to check on the 101 Dalmatians: The Series page when the show is on Disney+. I want to make the page look more Encyclopedic than ever, with the summaries now following WP:TVPLOT (because of possible WP:COPYVIO), the series going by the Disney+ episode order when it releases (if goes by iTunes order, it needs to as WP:CRISTAL applies. And when the second season gets released, the need to have credits listed like the first season did (director, writer and storyboarder). BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for helping me edit better. I am new to wikipedia and thus I don't know how to edit properly. Harshit00111 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Legend! You saved my bacon there! 😁
I couldn't work out WTH was going on. I reduced the image size from 500px to 300px, and suddenly, it wouldn't appear! Tried revert, no good, fiddled with syntax, still no good. So apparently the image was deleted just then? Had my doubts the image the editor placed on that page, and others, was his.
Regards, 220 of Borg 14:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
|image_alt=300px
when he restored the images so clearly he didn't bother. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)wouldn't Sydney comprise 100% of Sydney ... not been further to figure, but is the Geo of Syd perhaps 35% of Sydney central, or is Sydney 35% of the Geo of Sydney (not likely) ... I dunno, I saw the detail and straight away thought the grammar makes it an odd detail. Dave Rave (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
BHG always has to have the last word. A sad, petty case really. Sorry to read here of your personal losses (COVID?). Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your revert at Grafton, New South Wales: Please note that Template:Infobox Australian place adds a short description, so adding another one explicitly is unnecessary and will in fact in some circumstances display both (which are identical in this case). I suggest to remove it again. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Inspired by parameter. — YoungForever(talk) 18:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Why are you removing the list of episodes and link to Japan. SpectresWrath (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey AL, I don't know if you're looking for a challenge/imposition on my part, but the cast section at Ssshhhh...Koi Hai is a bit of a nightmare. I guess this is a series where regular cast members could play multiple characters? Currently it's a slash-farm, which is common for Indian TV articles. Usually though, we're talking about an actor who is playing a character, their reincarnation, an impostor of that character, or someone else entirely. Very confusing. Anyway, I'm not sure if the answer is sub-bullets as below...
...but otherwise hoping you have some ideas to help improve the article. I recently flagged those sections for improvement, but the flags were removed. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello AussieLegand. I'd like to advise you that there are many news articles that support my claims. Would you please revert the edit you made and add back my last edit of the page. I'll list some sources bellow.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-30/vehicle-overturns-as-occupants-try-to-evade-police/5228976
As you can see from these news articles, South Tamworth has a very high crime rate. I do have more sources if you are interested.
An article that you have been involved in editing—City of Swan Hill—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jonathan O'Donnell (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think there’s a problem putting the seasons beside a network look at the American TV Series they have seasons. like one premiered on an american tv network for season 1–4 for example and then goes to season 5 for Netflix. So I don’t see the problem here it’s channel to channel. Also why put HDTV first before 1080i. the resolution goes first before HDTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.178.127.42 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I've also notified EdJohnston about this, but this user, User:Evelynkwapong539 who has had issues with edit warring and a rude personality is reverting edits that I personally believe were fine over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters (examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967797426 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967703448, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=960608238, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959726277 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967899282, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&diff=prev&oldid=967899282 They've had similar issues related to the show before, and After finally leaving a message on the page's talk page, I left my reason why to how I am wanting to improve my page myself, but I wish not to engage further because I do not want to edit war. I just want Evelyn to realize it is ok to let other users edit the page they created. My intention is to not cause trouble for this user, only to help them realize they need a better attitude. Thank you for reading Noelephant (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Are the categories discussions normally like that? Deus et lex (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello AussieLegend2! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey! I saw your edits to Census in Australia and thought I'd drop you a note. Census is capitalised when you're talking about the formal Census of Population and Housing; you can see this everywhere on the ABS' Census website. A lowecase "census" is when you're talking about a general survey. For example:
I did a census of lecture times for my subjects
The Census showed that most Australians have non-Australian ancestry
Since we're referencing Census as in the Census of Population and Housing, we follow it as a proper noun. ItsPugle (please use ((ping|ItsPugle))
on reply) 08:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
"capitalization is primarily needed for proper [noun]"and
"Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized". In the Census in Australia article, it's talking pretty exclusively about the Census of Population and Housing (CPH) - the "2016 Census" is the CPH process that occurred in 2016 etc. And when you're talking about the Census, it's pretty unambiguously talking about the CPH. If you're talking about a census though, then lowercase would be correct since a census is a common noun, but the article is talking about the CPH not general censuses. Same thing with "Census Test". This capitalisation is shown all throughout the ABS website (see the sources I've referenced), and other Australian government websites: NSW Government websites (NSW Health), Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Evidence), and even in official Parliament papers (Evidence). And with "white", I'm used to APA Style, which only changed to use lowercase w a few months ago (same with a in "black") - my bad. ItsPugle (please use
((ping|ItsPugle))
on reply) 10:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
This capitalisation is shown all throughout the ABS website- Again, Wikpedia is not the ABS and we have our own style guide. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
...reduced the topics covered in population censuses [surveys held that assessed population but wasn't the CPH] and introduced a public topic submission scheme for the 1981 and 1986 Censuses [the actual CPHs].ItsPugle (please use
((ping|ItsPugle))
on reply) 11:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)this article in the Journal of Official Statistics written by researchers from Sweden uses capital C when referring to the 1986 Census- Good on them. Sweden is not Wikipedia and again, I refer you to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:CAPS. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. ItsPugle (please use
((ping|ItsPugle))
on reply) 11:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
((ping|ItsPugle))
on reply) 09:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
mountain of evidenceremains unconvincing. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
((ping|ItsPugle))
on reply) 10:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
you haven't actually provided any sources at all that use lowercase c when referring to the Census of Population and Housing.- And yet again, refer to MOS:CAPS and the discussion. As I stated I'm seeing a lot of WP:IDHT in your arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
((ping|ItsPugle))
on reply) 11:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)the main thing with the perth/west oz conundrums - large number of lead sentences were created before the perth wars, and due to the total lack of interest in maintenance - no one ever systematically removed the sea of blue that redirected... point taken about infor boxes - I suppose the info box wars have abated by now as well... JarrahTree 15:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a feeling these users, User:Evelynkwapong539 and User:Kof4490 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=968004485, might be the same person. I know I've had my disagreements with them in the past, and I just want them to know that it is against the rules to have multiple accounts, but their edit summaries have a very similar tone to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976583210 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959423907
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976377605 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=970247049
I would think they would understand that edit warring is also an issue, I wish them the best but they seriously need to learn to cooperate with other users.
Noelephant(talk) 19:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Oops, while I did intend to roll back your revert of a sock, I did mean to note in edit summary that I agreed with rolling back socks but that actually that particular edit was OK. But i clicked the wrong button and wasn't able to put in an edit summary. --Merbabu (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I see you reverted my addition of Gary Drayton to the cast, saying he isn't credited as an actual cast member. What are you using as the source for the cast? When I go to the Prometheus site it redirects to IMDB for show details. There they have an extensive cast list, including Gary Drayton: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8045594/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
Please let me know. Thanks, Brantzmyers (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm from Germany. Can not good speak English. Can you watsh on here, please. The first episode of season 18 ist under "Home media". Formation error? --J. Bauer (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!!! -- J. Bauer (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact, there are two works with "Suite Life" in the title. Hence, the franchise title of Suite Life. The reason they would be italicized is because "Suite Life," like the films in the Three Colours trilogy, have those as the common name (see Series titles again for clarification). The only reason the name wouldn't be italicized is if the main character were named that (hence why The Avengers franchise would not be italicized).Packer1028 (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I have never been so rudely treated in all of my years of Wikipedia editing. Three Colours is not an exception, because it is a common name of all films, as is Suite Life, hence the reason for it to be italicized. I'm not disputing this with you anymore, not because you're right (because you're not), but because you aren't worth it. Wikipedia is about collaborating to expand knowledge for all, and about respect, not about bullying fellow editors with whom you disagree. It seems the mob is against me on this one, so I'll drop it. Good-day, sir, madam, or non-binary person. Packer1028 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that you're grieving a loss. My sincerest condolences, and apologies for being a bit belligerent above. I felt attacked, but that doesn't justify my tone. Best wishes.Packer1028 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey AL, I want to fix ~100 or so uses of season articles using the series infobox instead of the season. This will very likely result in most of these pages ending of up in the tracking category. Is there a fast way to fix these without manually checking each one? --Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello AussieLegend, I'd appreciate your angle on a dispute taking place over at Melbourne. See the recent edit history from 13 Nov onward. Cheers. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are the one making disruptive edits. The way i created the table was inline with the rest of the seasons (1-17). I was keeping it standard for the show. Your edits puts the table below the info box leaving an unnecessary gap between the heading and the table. The way i edited it has no gap. Makro (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
yup I get a bit interested as to why linked items are: in the info box, at the top of a map, and in the lede sentence - it all seems a bit of over-kill... anyways HNY - trust it is a good one for you ! JarrahTree 08:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
My apologies Sir/Madam that I was not clear in my edit summary. For sure, Infobox image in not unwanted, but since the jpg file no more exists, I wrote unwanted. My apologies Sir/Madam that I was not precise enough in my summary. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%27s_Got_Talent
This article requires a clean up and fix immediately. Someone has made a few edits and changed the wiki-layout and formatting for everything. I do not have the ability to revert this many changes. Please have a look at what happened to the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.102.8 (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Eight years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I am trying to edit and add new content of my boss wikipedia page (User name - Kailash Surendranath) but same day the page is reverting to original page, what is the reason its happening and what I have to do for adding the new content.
Please help
Thank you Kailash surendranath (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Largest cities of Israel has been nominated for deletion. I noticed you participated in previous similar nomination. The current discussion is at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Right now the mapframe focuses on Atlantic Ocean, presumably because the infobox thinks the coordinate is 0,0. Wikidata has a VALID coordinate, but the infobox seems to be ignoring it. Since the doc for that infobox says coord can be set for the infobox, why don’t you want to do that? Betterkeks (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Just found your May 9 announcement because of the mass page move requests of list of episodes articles. We've been on the same page about this issue but alas haven't been able to convince the crowd. Don't let it get to you too much. I hope your treatments are working as intended. Get well soon. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Just curious to know why are season 21-present needed on the article (mostly in the table, and a notice that the list was split, something that goes in the talk page) specifically about about the first 20 seasons? I don't really understand it. The consensus is also leaning towards moving the main list title to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present), which will then force the readers to read unnecessary fork clutter. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi AussieLegend,
I expanded recently ,,List of Australian flags,, about many new sections and everything has been undone, because of some copyright problem. I have no idea where I did something like that. Maybe i just missed something. Tell me what I should avoid while restoring my edits? Whether one of these things was the problem?
- I needed to use 2 non-free files, so I put links instead. This practice was present in this article previously
- I copied 20 words from another article "The Union Jack was utilised frequently by the Centre Party during its existence, to emphasise their loyalty to the British monarchy"
- some files in the list are blurry, that's why I enlarged them all, also this file - Torres Strait Islander Flag - this flag is not free but legal present in article. Could this have caused a problem?
I'm waiting for help. 213.192.68.53 29 August 2021
Someone's back. Robert K S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AldezD (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you please also look into on user Packer&Tracker edits in Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana whose edits over there is more of like WP:COI 202.41.10.102 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Australian road/cleanup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've no problem with the Des reversion; but perhaps you can help put up the image of Dennis Nilsen somewhere on the page, please? Arrivisto (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am ICBP. Can you please specify what you tried doing here? What did you mean by "infobox fixes"? You actually removed a template parameter. Would be glad if you, please explain the same to me. Regards. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I have created a draft at Draft:Eltham, New South Wales if you're interested. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Nine years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Demonstrates a nice trick for changing a page title to be not what it seems. Would be a way to seamlessly have two (or three) pages appearing to be titled List of The Simpsons episodes when under the surface their real tiles have parenthetical (seasons 1–20) or (season 21–present). Alas, this behavior is only acceptable on one day per year. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This user continues to make episode lists on random shows for absolutely no reason at all, witch I consider WP:DE and a pointless excuse. An example is for the Amphibia (TV series) article, where this man just split the page even though we are discussing about the page split. Here are the collaborations:
If you think there are any episodes lists that are long enough, they can be left alone. If not, they have to be merged back into the articles they were previously in.
Especially with the Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles article, as the show only had 39 half-hour episodes during its run. Additionally, I need the list to go be broadcast order, as it’s violating WP:NOTFANDOM and MOS:TV guidelines. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
AussieLegend,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
Abishe (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello AussieLegend! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox television/cleanup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox television film/Cleanup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#Population of cities Moxy- 19:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Category:The West Wing redirected episode articles has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Top Gear people has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 13:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I personally only saw your name in my watchlist when I first started editing seriously in around 2020, so unfortunately I don't know too much about you. I'm sure you'll be missed, considering the amount of edits that you do have to your name. If you return, please feel free to remove yourself from the WP:Missing Wikipedians list. Cheers, Fork99 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Extreme Engineering, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Engineering until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)