User talk:Aubernas

Extant pages I created:

And in Māori...

Trump

Hey! I just wanted to give you a heads up that, regrettably, I had to revert your addition of the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit to the Trump page. There was a huge discussion of how to present that lawsuit quite recently. One thing that emerged from that discussion was an agreement that it should not be included until there's consensus as to how it should be included. ... And by "one thing" I mean "the only thing", because oh boy did it take its time to ultimately go nowhere. We'll probably do an RFC on it after the current RFC is over (best not to overload the talk page with two RFCs at the same time).--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I should have checked. Aubernas (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of June and July 2023 Conservative Party by-elections for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article June and July 2023 Conservative Party by-elections 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/June and July 2023 Conservative Party by-elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Czello ^(music) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Middle Eastern Americans

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Middle Eastern Americans, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merle and the Maori claim

Hi. A heads up that Ive reverted your edit on Merle Oberon's alleged Maori ancestry - in the lead. There is some discussion on the talk page regarding this and particularly regarding her biographers take on her origins.(Higham and Moseley's book can be read at the Internet Archive). Their claim is still mentioned under "Parentage." Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Coffee

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Coffee, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct dating of citations

Hi there. Just looking on Christopher Luxon's Wikipedia page and notice an edit you made here. You referenced a URL but had the date as 2023-07-04. This should've been the date that the article was written which was 2023-03-13. You got the access date correct though. It is important this is accurate. See WP:CS. Thank you. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Coffee

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Coffee, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Money

Thanks for your edit to John Money. Just to clarify, New Zealand American is a standard term used to refer to Americans of New Zealand origin. Money lived in Baltimore for the vast majority of his life, spoke with an American accent and he used American English in his works. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troy (film)

Hi, that source you put in isnt suited as its highly opinionated, see WP:COUNTERPUNCH --FMSky (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Topia Rameka

The article Topia Rameka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Topia Rameka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Topia Rameka 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/Topia Rameka until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 20:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've refused to engage in any talk-page discussions, or provide any reasonable explanation on why my proposed subsection shouldn't be published. You claim there to be no consensus yet fail to provide any opinion or evidence. You've also ignored the polite message I left for you on your talk page, inviting you to discuss my contribution.

It's actually a bit pathetic, mate. Aubernas (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Völkner incident

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Völkner incident, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert statements before current citations to sources which are not actually supported by those sources

Please see the discussion at Talk:Robin Williams. Coolcaesar (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roger Moore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Warren.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indie rock

Hi, I've seen your recent edits to indie rock and just want to make sure you know that two of the sources you have used do not backup the information your edit claimed they do. This Audioculture article does not make a single use of the phrase "indie rock" or "indie", it uses "independent" a few times but only in reference to record labels, not the indie rock genre. Because of this, it can't be cited as a source to backup that the Dunedin sound was the beginning of indie rock, because it doesn't mention indie rock. Similarly the Masterclass source only mentions indie rock once, but makes no reference to Dunedin beginning indie rock, it just says that the scene was made up of indie rock and alternative bands. On Wikipedia we are supposed to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES, so we can't include any of our own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH that isn't included in reliable sources. Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Lange, August 1989.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:David Lange, August 1989.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Schwede 66 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Aubernas. Thank you for your work on 1993 New Zealand electoral reform referendum. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACT party edits

I'm getting worried. I have revered/fixed up your edits around 6 times now. Mainly on Christopher Luxon's page. You have made multiple edits with poorly sourced references that just don't support what you're adding. Your edit to ACT that states ACT as "Right-wing populism", but the reference added mentions "In the past, though, the party has resorted to populist law-and-order and anti-welfare policies" and "ACT supporters’ values are largely diametrically opposed to those upheld by Green supporters, as might be expected of a libertarian party that stands for individualism and deregulation." AKA. It has had past populist ideologies, but in the present it is a libertatian party. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, there's no reason to be worried :) The quote from that source I used to support the "right-wing populist" claim was the following -

As ACT leader since 2014, Seymour has steered the party back towards free-market liberalism. But there is still an element of right-wing populist thinking among ACT’s supporters.

ACT has numerous populist policies. Its advocation against Māori seats, affirmative action, and co-governance is blatantly from a populist perspective. "Since 2021, Seymour has been a vocal opponent of co-governance initiatives."

I understand your frustration, but we need to find a source that adequately shows how ACT is a populist party. They've changed dramatically in the last two or three years, as their support base has grown.

Also, I'm not the first person to add "right-wing populism" to ACT's page. Here it was in May, using the same source I did

I'm not aware of the editor who did this. Aubernas (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

right-wing populist thinking among ACT’s supporters. Not act itself. The source says that the party is a libertarian party. Do you have a reference to "ACT has numerous populist policies. Its advocation against Māori seats, affirmative action, and co-governance is blatantly from a populist perspective." This is your own research otherwise. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 1993 New Zealand general election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1993 New Zealand general election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Two times today you have readded content I have removed with explanation and you have readded it without any explanation. Here and here. Any reason? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwiz1338, can you please give diffs for when you removed that content? Aubernas, if you reinstate content without an edit summary that had previously been removed with a given rationale, most editors would see that as disruptive editing. Schwede 66 07:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hipkins revert was this one. The Luxon one was a major article clean-up. I put Aubernas's edit that added Luxon's political views to the lead of the article to the political views section and his net-worth part into the personal life section, and that was done over quite a lot of edits from me. You can see the difference here in edits but note it does include a couple of other users' edits as well. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a lot of poorly sourced edits on the Luxon page. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've expressed no evidence that any of those sources were "poorly sourced". Aubernas (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Luxon's talk page and you'll see plenty of historic evidence from me. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. This edit by Kiwiz1338 has the following edit summary: Public image: A 6 month old reference can't realistily prove that Hipkins is a more popular PM with a 6 month old poll. Just check Opinion polling for the 2023 New Zealand general election#Preferred prime minister. And you, Aubernas, revert that edit without an edit summary, and you now claim that your actions are just fine? Do I have that right? Schwede 66 23:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. Aubernas (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how that's not disruptive editing. Schwede 66 23:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Aubernas just reverted my edits calling them disruptive edits. I have left a message on the talk page. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, I told this editor (Aubernas) something like a year ago (there is no talk page archive, but the page gets cleansed every now and then) that I would put their talk page onto my watchlist for ongoing and recurring issues. I've since shown little tolerance to their behaviour, with me reverting quite a bit of their editing that sits outside of agreed Wikipedia policy and guidelines. They are editing in an area where I have many of the articles on my watchlist; I only ever react to articles not on my watchlist if an issue gets raised here.

Right now is one of those episodes. I would describe their behaviour as disruptive. Rather than engaging in constructive dialogue, there is continual reverting of edits going on. At this point, I would be inclined to block to stop this disruption but might be considered involved given that I've kept the editor on a short leash. Would you mind having a look, please? Schwede 66 03:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Aubernas

In light of the above, I request you, Aubernas, to voluntarily agree to stop editing the article Christopher Luxon, its talk page, and any related material on other pages, until after election day. If you agree to this and adhere to it, then as far as I am concerned you remain an editor in good standing who had the sense to drop the stick. If you do not agree, I think this discussion should be taken to the administrator's noticeboard.-gadfium 04:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Aubernas (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made peace with Kiwiz1338. Mā te wā. Aubernas (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ngā mihi.-gadfium 17:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blue cheese wontons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blue cheese wontons 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/Blue cheese wontons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— HTGS (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]