Talk:Skyring/Archive0508

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Skyring

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Dec 2004 and July 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note

The material below is temporarily stored here until I can place it on my user page. At that point I will also archive the existing messages and discussion. Please place any communications at the end of this page.

Views on the Australian Head of State

It may seem odd to state that there is a diversity of opinion as to the identity of the Australian head of state, and I can understand why some people have difficulty with this, but the demonstrable fact is that this diversity of opinion exists, and if the Prime Minister himself believes that the Governor-General rather than the Queen is the head of state, then obviously this is something worthy of investigation.

As a Wikipedia editor, my own opinions are irrelevant, except to say that it is my firm opinion that Wikipedia articles should reflect fact rather than opinion.

The three views

There are three opinions as to who is the head of state:

The Queen as sole head of state
The Queen and Governor-General as joint heads of state with seperate roles
The Governor-General as sole head of state

Government Sources

A Parliamentary Library Research Brief summarises the two "sole head of state" views in the context of "Who Must Open the Sydney Olympics?"[1]

If the Queen is not the Australian Head of State and the Governor-General is, he must open the Sydney Olympic Games as prescribed by the Olympic Charter of the IOC.

(The Governor-General opened the Sydney Olympics in 2000. The paper noted that the Queen could delegate her powers to the Governor-General, instructing him to open the games as her representative, but no such delegation was made, nor were any instructions issued.)

The Commonwealth Government Directory of March 1997 states that the Governor-General is the head of state on page ix under "Arrangement of entries"[2]

Entries are arranged in accordance with the formal structure of the Commonwealth Government. First is the Governor-General (the Head of State), with the Federal Executive Council (of which the Governor-General is the President)...

This directory is the official printed directory of Commonwealth government officers and representatives, published quarterly by the Australian Government Publishing Service in Canberra. It must be noted that the description of the Governor-General as head of state is not uniform from edition to edition, commencing during the years of the Keating Government and swapping from Governor-General to Queen and back again several times in the 11 years since.

Politicians

John Howard, Australian Prime Minister 1996-date.

The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution, the Governor-General is effectively Australia’s head of state.[John Howard's Statement on the Republic Referendum]

Simon Crean, Federal Opposition Leader 2001-2003, described the Governor-General as the head of state in an interview given during the Peter Hollingworth affair.[3]

Of course I do because I've known him over many years and he has done important work for the community. I also have sympathy for the circumstances of his wife and I expressed those to the Governor-General at ANZAC Day. But, you know, there's a whole lot emotions going here. But the truth of it is we're dealing with the Head of State and the Head of State cannot be a person who has covered up for child sex abusers.

Constitutional scholars

Others

Professor Owen E Hughes in Australian Politics, 3rd edition, Macmillan Education, Melbourne 1998, pp170-1

The Governor-General is the head of state and performs important ceremonial duties, but it is a mistake to see the role purely in those terms. The position is one of great formal power, both legal and political. The Constitution gives the Governor-General power to commission the government, appoint the ministers and command the military. Colin Howard argues this system is not a monarchy but a Governor-Generalship, with prerogative powers now deriving from the Constitution, rather than from being the Queen's representative.

The reference to Howard is in his The Constitution, Power and Politics, Melbourne, Fontana, 1980, p71.

US Department of State Background Note: Australia

Head of state is the governor general, who is appointed by the Queen of Australia (the British Monarch).[4]

The material above is temporarily stored here until I can place it on my user page. At that point I will also archive the existing messages and discussion. Please place any communications at the end of this page.

GG as head of state...

Welcome to Wikipedia. I note your interest in Australian constitutional issues, and thank you for your approach of asking on the discussion page before editing what has been a rather controversial topic in Government of Australia.

My detailed response to your comments about the head of state issue is on Talk:Government of Australia. I look forward to seeing your further comments.--Robert Merkel 00:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I apologise if i upset you - Wiki has been through a bad patch of POV pushers from the Left and Right and so people are a little twitchy. I only use my admin powers when requested after gertting involved in the whole German-Polish arguments over Danzig and Silesia articles. PMA 03:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing with me that magnificent picture of Dupont Circle. I've never been to Washington, I just liked the name Dupont Circle so chose it as Wikipedia username. Dupont Circle 08:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Governor-General of Australia

Hello,

Regarding your message, I have taken a look and don't believe User:Dlatimer broke the three revert rule. The three revert rule applies if there are more than three reverts, and here there were exactly three.

He reverted your change at 23:38, at 23:59, and at 03:07–03:09 (using UTC times). He made two consecutive edits at 03:07 and 03:09, but there were no other users' edits in between. Sometimes users use two or more edits to make a change: you yourself made two edits at 20:37–20:45 and three edits at 23:45–23:52.

Regarding the editing dispute, I don't really have an opinion, I'm not knowledgeable about fine points of constitutional law and historical precedent.

In general, you can report 3RR violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

-- Curps 06:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archiving: I went control-A, control-X to pick up all the text, then typed [[Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1]] on the blank page, then saved the page. I then opened the new page (Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1) thus created, and went control-V to dump the old text into the new page, which I then saved. Adam 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Government of Australia

Really? Well, then you should state who those people. You did not, hence you got reverted. Incidently, it's highly dubious to say that we are a republic, and I am not part of the ALP, and not really all that supportive of the ARM (though I am currently toeing the status quo). I suggest if you want to argue this point, you provide specific sources for your edits and perhaps edit an Australian republicanism article to clarify this information and then wikilink to that article in your next edit. Until then, don't put it back or I'll lock the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR formatting

I don't know what you are doing that keeps breaking /3RR by duplicating large chunks of text, but please avoid doing so! Until you have the problem figured out, after making a change please look at the history and do a "diff" to make sure that the change you actually made was the change you thought you made. (And I hope the same problem isn't happening with any articles you have worked on!) In fact, you might want to do that on all changes anyway - I always do, just to check. Noel (talk) 13:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Yeah, I didn't have anything obvious to suggest, or I would have done so previously. Interestingly, you're not the only person to be having problems with this (see for instance this edit), so maybe there is a bug with XP/IE6 and Wikipedia somehow. You might want to compare notes with User:Jdforrester and see if there's a common thread. I note that in his case too, it seems he made this edit, and then immediately made another edit, perhaps just by hitting the "back" button, which sounds similar to one of your problems. But with this edit of yours there was no preciding edit, so it's not that simple. All I can suggest is that you make sure to hit the "refresh" button before doing an edit, and also maybe you could do some testing on a Wikipedia:sub-page of your User: page to see if you can reproduce the problem in a simpler (and repeatable) way. Noel (talk) 13:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

Hi, you and your jousting partner have both been blocked for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation on Government of Australia:

Skyring:

Adam Carr:

Please work this out on the talk page before getting into an edit war, or use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to avoid an edit war. We really frown on edit wars. Noel (talk) 03:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since User:Geni pulled the block on you, I have removed the block on Adam CArr too. I have simply locked the page instead. Work it out on the talk page, and then I'll unlock it. Noel (talk) 04:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your conduct and mine

It is very rare for me to use that kind of language at Wikipedia. I did so in your case not because I disagreed with your views, but because I finally had enough of your conceited, flippant, condescending and generally insufferable attitude. The straw that broke the camel's back was your stupid and insulting "Tibet" answer to a serious question. I won't be treated like that by anybody. You have not succeeded of persuading anyone of your views, so I suggest you go and do something else. (Don't reply to this message because I don't intend continuing to argue with you.) Adam 08:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently incoming arbitration case

You should probably be informed that Ed Poor is bringing a request for arbitration against Adam Carr for this comment previously directed at you. It seems likely that you will want to comment on this request, and urge you to do so. -- Grun t ҈ 20:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

A note

I have left you a note at Talk:Government of Australia and thought I would take the additional step of coming here to talk to you directly. Adam Carr is a very bright person and an excellent contributor here, but I know his temper is often quick. When he was angered by you initially, I was very willing to assume that he was at least partially at fault. Perhaps you knew this about Adam before your conflict with him started....I don't know. Anyway, Michael Snow and I are generally known (when we are known at all in this community) for being extraordinarily patient and compromising on virtually all issues -- we take great care with our words and actions here because it's important to us not to lose our tempers or say something unkind. When you have both of us saying you're going too far, that is a very good indication that you have, in fact, gone too far. I'm not saying this to be proud -- goodness knows I screw things up here on occasion. But you're an editor who I can tell has good things to offer, and you're wasting a lot of good will right now for no apparent reason, playing games with verb tenses. Exhausting Adam's patience happens -- he shouldn't be unkind, and when he is, people here talk to him about it, but if it happens now and then, people won't necessarily assume you're off-base. Exhausting the patience of normally very patient editors is another thing entirely, and you should take it as a red flag -- certainly I can think of many other editors who will. I hope you do also. If you're not clear about what I mean, leave me a note and I'll explain as best I can....but I think you do know what I mean, and I hope you'll do what you can to correct your approach here in the future. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A selection from your comments

Here are a few statements you've made at various points in the debate that illustrate the kind of problem I'm getting at:

I prove you wrong time and again, and you just pretend it didn't happen.

Stop making stuff up, Adam. It's not helping.

I suppose, following your reasoning, if I provided quotes from two different people showing contradictory views, you would either accuse me of holding both views at the same time, or whatever view best suited your purposes.

Continued dishonesty is likewise unattractive.

I am calling your bluff.

you display blatant hypocrisy

None of them were directed at me and I don't take personal offense at them, but I think it clear that this kind of comment is counterproductive. In general, your tone is frequently sarcastic and mocking - when you do this, it may feel like you are scoring points in the debate, but the practical effect is that it creates the impression you have nothing constructive to add, you're just interested in tearing down your opponents. I'm not saying this is true; it's just easy for people to develop that image of you.

Also, I'm not arguing that you're the only person at fault. Nor am I trying to single you out for criticism, except in the sense that you're showing a willingness to listen and act on it, which is what makes the effort of discussing the problem worthwhile. --Michael Snow 07:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would second Michael's comments here. First, thanks for avoiding resorting to outright personal abuse, even when others have directed it at you. That's commendable, in my book. Also, thanks for your efforts to make peace ("...we're going to have to work together on this, Adam. I'm not really out to make your life a misery. As I've said a couple of times now, you're a better writer of this sort of stuff than I am, and you probably work best when you aren't under the pressure of a nit-picking old curmudgeon like me breathing down your neck..."). However, as Michael's list indicates, some of your comments are not particularly civil, that is, they are not conducive to an amicable editing environment; and some are personal attacks. I would add, "Adam's continued refusal to do so is indicative of a certain state of mind outside normal behaviour." to the above list. One tip is that, when you post, try to write only on the matters under debate, and avoid commenting negatively on the behaviour of other participants. — Matt Crypto 11:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Monsenior

How would you suggests I present my cases to Dr. Carr? I do not want conflict but the material is current and valid. Greco-Turkish relations. What do you think? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You happen to be a history person? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Queen and Governor-General

I am well aware of that. But legally and constitutionally the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. It is by virtue of being the representative of the Queen that the drafters of the 1900 Act gave him those powers, not because of whom he is. Australia is a what is sometime called a nominal chief executive system, with the Queen as its nominal chief executive.

Our type of head of state, the Nominal Chief Executive, must be sharply distinguished from the other two types common in modern democracies. The Chief Executive such as the President of the United States, is head of government as well as head of state and acts in governing the country in a similar way to the way the Prime Minister does here. The Non Executive head of state, as in Ireland or Sweden, exercises relatively minor constitutional powers, most executive power being given directly to the government or parliament or its officers. It is important to note the basic difference because some publications state that both Australia and Ireland have Non Executive heads of state, thus masking the dependence of our system on the basic constitutional convention for its democracy.3

3 The three types of head of state are taken from Jim Duffy, 'Ireland', in Republic Advisory Committee, Report, vol. 2, pp. 154 - 5.

Maintaining Our Democracy in Monarchy or Republic
Paper presented to the Australian Institute of International Affairs
Dyason House, 124 Jolimont Toad, East Melbourne on 31 July 1997.
The Hon. Richard E. McGarvie AC

There are three distinct kinds of head of state in modern democracies.1 There is the Chief Executive, found in the United States where the head of state is also head of government and has and exercises extensive, important powers. That head of state should be elected. There is the Nominal Chief Executive, as in Australia, who has and exercises important powers which are not as extensive as those of the US President but which go to the heart of our system of government. The Constitution gives the Governor-General legal discretion to exercise them at choice or, in the case of powers of the Governor-General in Council which must be exercised only on Ministers’ advice, to decline to exercise them at choice. The glue that binds the Governor-General to the democratic process in exercising those powers and gives us responsible government is the basic constitutional convention. That convention binds the Governor-General to exercise the powers as advised by the Ministers of the government elected by the community in elections. A Nominal Chief Executive head of state should not be elected by either Parliament or the electorate. There is also the Non Executive head of state as in Ireland and Sweden who has under the Constitution only a few powers of relatively minor importance. It does not matter much whether the Non Executive head of state is elected or not. Ireland has an elected President. Sweden has a King.

RESPONSIBLE LAWYERS AND THE REPUBLIC DEBATE
Article published in Young Lawyers, June 1997, p.2
FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 01:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

irrelevant. Unless the constitution is amended, there is a limit beyond which the Governor-General cannot cross, as successive governors-general have pointed out. The Queen, as lawyers as distinquished as George Winterton have made abundantly clear, is head of state, and will remain head of state, until the constitution changes. Conventions, such as the development of the governor-generalship, as they say, are not worth the paper they are written on. The written text of the 1900 Act takes priority, and its meaning is 100% clear. FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 01:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

When the view on the page was his view the last time we were in contact a few weeks ago. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 02:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood what George said. He did not say that there are two heads of state. Look at the words -

An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The governor-general is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia.

Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. That is what everyone keeps telling you. All the Governor-General is is the de facto head of state, in other words he kinda acts like a sort of head of state, not a real one. But he isn't the legal or formal one. That is the Queen alone. And even then the Governor-General's sort of head of stateship isn't comparable to the head of state of Australia at all. It is a sort of quasi-informal working thing inside the Commonwealth, but worthless and counts for nothing outside of it. Being a sort of head of state-type figure inside your own country is meaningless. Douglas Hyde was in a similar situation as President of Ireland between 1938 and 1945. But in reality he was not an actual head of state. And an encyclopaedia cannot carry sort of looks a bit like . . ." definitions. They have to be precise, formal, legal definitions. And George makes it plain who fits that category - The Queen and no-one else. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 02:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless another name is attached or they are in bold italics they are things you said. And the quotes are from the archives of the talk page. BTW I never wimp out. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 03:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.

My proposed policy position is this:

That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather than go through with this poll I have made a formal request for arbitration on the issue, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and comment.--nixie 11:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

As I'm sure you know already, there is considerable discussion going on about your activity re Australian constitutional arrangements. I know very little about that, save what I've read on the page histories since the discussion caught my attention a short while ago. This concerns me, as up until now I only knew of you from crossing your path on entirely unrelated pages (cleaning up some of that paranoid Port Arthur stuff, and the like) and (in my vague sort of way) had marked you down in the back of my mind as a productive and helpful sort of contributor, a god guy to have around the place. I'm not going to enter into the constitutional pages fray (or at least I have no present intention of doing so), and my message has to do with that only indirectly.

I've been around this place long enough to be a pretty decent judge of the likely course of events, and the way I read the comments that are flying around (not yours, those of other people), there seems to be no doubt that some action will be taken quite soon now. The question is what action? The two front-running alternatives are (a) ban your account for as long as it takes to stop you making changes to the constitutional articles - forever if need be, or (b) make it a formal policy that any changes you make of that nature are not subject to the 3R rule - i.e., that they can and will be reverted instantly and without question.

I'm not going to try to "pick a winner" here, not between those two options - but it's London to a brick that one or the other will go through: the mood around the place is heavily in favour of administrative action. I don't like either of these options much. The second at least leaves you free to edit on other topics, which is in its favour, but also introduces a precedent that might have nasty consequences further down the track in other contexts. (For the 'pedia, I mean. Thin edge of the wedge stuff.)

Anyway, the reason I'm putting this note here is to suggest that you propose a solution. If you can put forward a proposal which would (a) head off administratve action and (b) leave you free to participate here in other areas, that would be a very good thing. Essentially, it would need to assure people like Adam that they won't have to worry about reverting your "Queen of Australia" edits anymore. There is no third option, not that I can see. Given the weight of opinion against your views, I can't imagine the AC settling for any sort of compromise.

Sure, I know that you don't agree with Adam's view, but in practical terms, it is a non-issue. The reality is that even if you are 100% right and Adam is 100% wrong, you are never going to prevail here, not on this issue. Trust me on this: I've been around the 'pedia a long time now, and there is no doubt at all of which way the wind is blowing.

It seems to me that your choices are either (a) to continue as at present, which one way or another will result in your changes being reverted and your not being able to edit at all, or (b) agree voluntarily to avoid the constitition-related pages, in which case you will (presumably) remain free to contribute in many other areas. This, in my view, would be a good thing.

I hasten to add that this is not any sort of ultimatum. I'm writing purely as a concerned bystander, not in any official capacity whatsoever. I like your edits (save the constitutional ones, which I have not read, at least not to remember) and hope that you can find some sort of accommodation with the powers that be. If not, well, see you round.

Best regards,

Tony (Tannin 12:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence. I also removed some anon's vandalism from here - seems someone doesn't like you. Ambi 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

National Building Museum

I'm glad you enjoyed your trip to Washington, D.C. As a local resident and architecture fan, I'm particularly fond of the NBM. I hope you get the opportunity to return soon, maybe in the spring to see the cherry blossoms when it's not so cold. --Polynova 03:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

As per advice received, your actions have been reported to the Arbitration Committee and a request is being made for your sanctioning over your behaviour. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 06:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia

I am sorry that I am to be deprived of any opportunity to read your views on this topic. I have seen a couple of web-sites which appear to be arguing that there is a constitutional flaw which prevents HM from now exercising any authority, and that in consequence both the Governor-Generals-designate and the various Administrations have been de jure ultra vires, no matter what de facto authority they have exercised. I do not know 9and will now never learn, if you are on this line or another.
One of the commentators higher up the page argues that HM being Head of State means Australia is automatuically a monarchy. I am almost certain that there is at least one republic within the Commonwealth whichr etains her as Head of State, but not as monarch. After all, Victoria R was Empress of India, without (as I understand it) being Queen, thus allowing local kingdoms to continue to exist under her benificent reign.
My best wishes to you --Simon Cursitor 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

poll

Poll There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

Re: Mawson Peak

Yeah, I like it too ;-).

And as a side hoby I'm trying to learn the highest peaks of many nations for pubquiz-purposes. Though Australia is somewhat disputed, I believe. Mt. Kosciusko is the standard answer, but then you have teritories like this, and I think one can even argue for Mt McClintock. Oh, well. Shanes 30 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)

Skyring arbitration case

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the skyring case →Raul654 June 30, 2005 20:15 (UTC)

LaRouche

I saw your comments on the mailing list. Here is a short explanation I wrote for another's talk page that may address some of your issues.

The LaRouche-related editor(s) has worn out the patience of many fine contributors. Though Carr's explanation that edits are worthy of reversion simply because they are made by a LaRouche-related editor may seem arbitrary or excessively broad, it is not. At the time of the second ArbCom case against him, I personally reviewed User:Herschelkrustofsky's contributions carefully, cross checking them against LaRouche sites and others. Virtually every single one of the hundreds of edits that he made served to promote one or another of LaRouche's theories. Some were so obscure and innocuous-seeming that if I hadn't been studying the material the connection would not have been apparent. Many edits were clearly composed of cut-and-paste plagiarism or copyright violations. That is why we are not approaching LaRouche-related editors with good faith. LaRouche has earned the bad faith of Wikipedia. -Willmcw 03:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into any LaRouche war. I don't understand it and I don't want to and it seems to be handled adequately by existing procedures and those who understand what's going on.

Logically there is a big difference between reverting POV edits and reverting all edits by a particular author. Adam was either very stupid or very stressed to say he'd be reverting all edits made by particular editors. That's not the wikiway.

And Adam's not stupid.

Adam and I have had our differences, but it pains me to see any editor become stressed by what should be a pleasant and constructive community enterprise. It was a cry for attention and I am very concerned to see that he chose to put up a photograph of someone who is dead, apparently through LaRouche activities. It doesn't take much to read the subtext.

On a wider point, there is something seriously wrong with Wikipedia if editors are driven to such lengths. Pete 04:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

G'day

That made you take a look!

The previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (Dec 2004 to July 2008):I'll archive all that stuff later. When I can.

Apology

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for any distress or pain caused by my actions in recent months. In particular, I would like to single out User:jtdirl and User:Petaholmes, whom I am sure were especially upset by my actions.

It was wrong of me, I am very sorry for this, and I shall not bring up any points of difference between us again. Pete 01:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of all, I can only hope you are being sincere. If so, thank you.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring, I read your apology both here and at WP:AN/I. I hope that it's sincere, that you'll be able to convince Jimbo and the ArbCom that it's sincere, and that you'll be welcomed back to do some productive editing.

As far as I know, while blocked users have the technical ability to edit their talk pages, banned users are not permitted to edit any pages, including their own talk pages. So I think it really would be better if you refrained from posting anything while awaiting a decision. If you have a message which you want to make public, I'm sure it would be okay to user the "E-mail this user" function to ask an administrator to pass on any important message. I hope that we'll all be able to welcome you back as soon as possible. Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your good advice, Ann, so that I can say thank you very much. And the same to Cyberjunkie.

I understand your skepticism. I've been feeling very uncomfortable about this downwards spiral for a while, but couldn't find a way out. So I asked someone who seemed to be able to help, and he offered some advice, I've swallowed my pride and wiped the slate clean. I won't mention any of the things I've been rabbiting on about again. --Pete 11:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As an uninvolved general user who has been following this ugly dispute for months, I am delighted to see this development. I take the apology at face value. I commend both Pete and the wise advisor who recommended this action to Pete. It is also important that the solution is within the framework of the unavoidably necessary rules of the community. I hope it enables all involved to move on and devote their energies to our shared goal of making Wikipedia a significant, successful and novel feature of the internet age. - Rye1967 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Please explain

The object is to write an encyclopaedia, right? Perhaps someone can tell me how replacing a good photograph with a poor one improves the quality. I'd like an explanation for this diff. Which is the better photograph to illustrate the Australian War Memorial article?

Image:35AWM.JPG

My photograph

The photograph substituted for mine

Both seem pretty good Peter. However, whilst 35AWM.JPG is better quality, I believe AS AWM 2.jpg better depicts the Memorial. Just cautiously, I really don't think this is an important enough issue for you to be breaking your editing ban.--cj | talk 11:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm allowed to edit my own talk page. How can you possibly believe AS AWM 2.jpg better depicts the AWM? The building face is shadowed and all but lost against the background of Mount Ainslie. The dome seems to be perched on top of the pylons. Unless a reader knew the structure already, they would get no sense of the length of the building. --Pete 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Flat out

I've deleted what used to be here because I think it has served its purpose and I'd rather not stir up ill feelings. I lack the ability to archive stuff, so if anyone is really interested, they'll have to wade through diffs or look at previous versions. Thanks for the input. --Pete 17:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Peter.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Stan! It's my image, and while I didn't take it (obviously), I have permission from the photographer to use it as I see fit, and I'm happy to have it used to illustrate my various blogs, profile pages and so on. Fair use would apply. As you can see, I can't update the image page, and rather than delete the image, if you would be so very good as to add a fair use tag, and move the page to Image:PeteSkyring.JPG, then my smiling image may once again grace my defaced user page. --Pete 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I've cut and pasted some of your comment (down as far as so on) and posted it on the page. I've also changed it to fair use. The trouble is however that fairuse images aren't allowed on user pages (I think it is a wrong interpretation of law, but that is what the WP foundation has decided.) I went to see could I move it to a new name but it seems that images can't be renamed. To use it on your userpage you'd need the original photographer to download it under GFDL as a PD-user image. That way it could be used on a talk page. Alternatively you could download a photograph you yourself took because then you could GFDL it yourself. The downside though is that it would cease to be your image and become a free use by anyone. I don't know if you would wish that. Personal pictures on user pages are tricky.

I hope that helps somewhat. However I suspect that as it is a fairuse image and so can't be put on a user page, it will end up being deleted as an orphan image. Maybe the best route might be to create a link on your page to a copy of the image held off Wikipedia, with the tag "this is me" or something. I can't think of a better solution but maybe someone else might be able to. Anyone else out there with other ideas, guys? Slán. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 18:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There's something bothering me

Much as I'd like to forget all that stuff and start afresh, there's one thing that niggles away at me. I've made a genuine apology and I've been good for the past five months. A model Wikipedian, I'd like to think.

I honestly acknowledge my bad behaviour, but I don't think anyone would say that it was entirely one-sided, and much as I would like to, I am going to find it very hard to trust those who tormented me, and have not acknowledged this.

In particular, I had nothing to do with User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU despite the accusations of this anon whose IP address comes from the far side of the world to me.

Now, I'm not going to make a fuss over this, because I did so before and found that nobody, from Jimbo on down, gave two hoots, but on a personal note, I simply cannot bring myself to think fondly of someone who would do this and not own up. --Pete 10:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you say you had nothing to do with User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU then I for one accept it. I think we can all move on from it all and let bygones be bygones. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you deny involvement with that particular account, while not denying connection with the others, and since Jtdirl accepts your statement, I see no reason to leave that user page tagged as a Skyring sockpuppet page. I have removed the tag and replaced it with {{indefblockeduser}}. Hope that helps. AnnH ♫ 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

May I humbly request...

In a few days time, the 1 year ban imposed upon me by the ArbCom expires. However, this ban has since been extended until the end of October, due to some very bad behaviour on my part. I have made a public apology to the two most visible targets of my unhappiness, and a blanket apology to everyone else who was upset and inconvenienced. Since then, I have done my best to keep my wikinose clean and study up on Wikipedia's ways of doing things.

I would like to return to editing Wikipedia in a constructive and co-operative manner, and I humbly request Jimbo, the ArbCom, the corps of administrators and Wikipedians in general to forgive the extensions to my ban and allow me to return as a full member of the community on the original expiry date.

I recognise that the extensions to my ban were justified under Wikipedia's procedures for behaviour that was unacceptable. I sincerely regret that behaviour and promise that it will not recur. Pete 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that your page is watched by several administrators, but I don't think any admin has the authority to unblock you early. My suggestion would be that you e-mail Jimbo and/or the members of the Arbitration Committee. Or, if you like, I can make a post at the RfAr talk page, alerting ArbCom members to your request. Good luck. AnnH ♫ 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd like to see if those who watch this page (and are presumably most familiar with my case) can come to a consensus, before I take this any further. Pete 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Five days and no further comments. Thanks, Ann; I'll take up your first suggestion and send emails to Jimbo and the ArbCom, requesting their grace and favour. Pete 21:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you post something here that you want the arbcom members to see, I'll copy and paste it to the arbcom talk page. AnnH ♫ 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ann! I've just sent off the emails, each one identical, containing the text of my leading paragraph(s) above, along with a short note explaining who is getting the emails. I have included a wikilink to this section. I have sent information copies to Jimbo and two other editors. I'll see how it goes, but if it doesn't happen, I'll suck it up and wait out my full sentence. Pete 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/y/Talk%7ESkyring_Archive0508_731a.html"

Category: Talk archives