User talk:Sliat 1981

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Contents

WP:AFL

G'day mate, just letting you know about the footy project we have going on - WikiProject AFL. We've got 49 members at the moment but make sure you tell all your mates as this is the biggest source of footy info on the net - and we want to keep it that way! Join the project and drop us a line on my talk page with any questions. Cheers mate, Rogerthat Talk 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Sliat 1981, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Image Tagging Image:Bttle.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bttle.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore 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}} 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. Longhair 07:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Pls.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pls.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore 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}} 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. Nv8200p talk 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ent-sachahorler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ent-sachahorler.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:H-cmc2a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:H-cmc2a.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:P_crashburn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:P_crashburn.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sachah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sachah.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Crashburn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crashburn.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Football articles

G'day Sliat,

you may have missed it, but we had a great deal of rather embarrassing edit warring recently over whether we should call a certain sport "football" or "soccer". At the moment the issue has settled on "football (soccer)", partly as a compromise, and partly because many other parts of Wikipedia refer to it thus. This is not an issue we want to have flare up again. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Footballer (soccer)

Hi, I've noticed you've changed "footballer" to "footballer (soccer)" on many bio pages (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joshua_Rose&diff=prev&oldid=44030727). Please note that "footballer (soccer)" doesn't make any sense, and you should have changed it to football (soccer) player (and not "footballer (soccer) player" either, which makes even less sense). Please be careful when making these changes as it creates more work for others. Cursive 13:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Jd4.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jd4.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 there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading 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, consider checking 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. Shyam (T/C) 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Durham.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham.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 there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading 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, consider checking 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. feydey 04:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Seekers.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Seekers.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 there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading 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, consider checking 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. feydey 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Horler.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Horler.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 there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading 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, consider checking 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. feydey 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Falcely licenced images

You uploaded two images and claimed to be both of them, Durham and Horler... Remember: Users who upload content with false license declarations ... may be blocked. feydey 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Loudysmiling.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Loudysmiling.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 there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading 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, consider checking 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. feydey 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tfg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tfg.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. feydey 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing images

Always give sources that people using wikipedia can themselves retrieve, a working URL, better a book or magazine. Also the english Wikipedia follows US copyrights so do not claim: ...is from my Father's old magazine from the sixties, so the copyright status is well past date. In the US all materials after 1923 are copyrighted usually (see Wikipedia:Copyright). Please do not break copyright laws. Thanks. feydey 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the images are not from the US they are hosted on US computers so the locl copyright laws abide. Please read what is proper to upload before uploading or the images might get deleted. Also please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Thanks. feydey 05:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry

sorry for listing your article on turkish australians for deletion :)

Please Don't

Please do not remove maintenance notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. 193.122.31.188 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Blocked while you think about things

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against Talk page etiquette. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.

The intent of this is to give you time to consider your position as previously advised. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) I do not want to respond. I have nothing more to say and the conversation is over. I just don't care about it anymore.

I just don't care about it anymore.... unblock denied -- Tawker 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Consider yourself bitten - denied. --Doc ask? 20:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

these people were not asking me anything. they were making a point and did not ask for a responce. the issue was over and i wanted to forget the unplesantness

Denied. — Apr. 13, '06 [10:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>

all right you've made ur point. i'll fix it up again

So what the heck to you want me to do?

Australia

You are arguing about something that is largely subjective and really doesn't warrant any mention in the article. Whatsmore your addition doesn't make sense and disupts the narrative of the text.--nixie 06:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The text is talking about sports Australia participates in on an international level. Later in the same paragraph other sports that are popular in Australia. Did you even read it?--nixie 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware that you have exceeded the 3RR? This is blockable for 24 hoursßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The text as it stands, before you started editing it with you POV, was choosen for a few very specific reasons, first cricket and union are not the most played sports, that's Aussie rules, second it's POV to pick out some sports- with no basis in fact and say that they are the "most popular". Netball Australia has far less members that the AFL or NRL. Please stop changing the text to reflect you understanding of the subject.--nixie 07:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sliat, could you please actually read the text you are changing and notice that it doesn't say anything about which sports are most popular. It mentions strong international teams, then other sports which are an important part of Australian culture in one way or another. Your versions mention cricket, rugby league, etc twice, and don't really reflect reality. Finally, if you really can't accept the neutral wording, please discuss it at Talk:Australia, instead of repeatedly changing it without consensus. JPD (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your Official WP:3RR warning. Since you've stopped reverting, I'm not going to block you now. But if you restart, you will get blocked. Please read 3RR carefully, and better still read WP:1RR carefully William M. Connolley 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm so scared

Nicole Kidman

We already mention that Ms. Kidman is Australian in the opening paragraph. --Yamla 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

New ACOTF

Australian Football Hall of Fame has been selected as the new Australian collaboration. As you voted for it, please help to improve the article in any way you can. Scott Davis Talk 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sport in Sydney etc

I think we've gone a bit far off topic in the NRL article, user talk is a more appropriate place for it. I can't work out at the moment exactly what the problems are, but generally no article should be in a category and also its parent category. eg if Western Bulldogs is in Category:Sporting clubs in Melbourne, there is no need for it to also be in Category:Sport in Melbourne, since the first category is a sub-category of the second. That's the only apparent dispute I've looked at, I suggest you talk with Chuq about it, rather than me. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have talked to him. I have explained why they should be in both as Sydney United and the lower grade soccer teams are. I think if they are there, so should the other codes.
It doesn't seem to be a case of "if A is there, then B should be there", it should be "should A be there? should B be there?". Sydney United is only in Category:Sport in Sydney. Sport in Sydney is a sub-cat of Category:Sport in New South Wales, so no article should be in both (except possibly Sport in Sydney, if it existed). The clubs should be added to Category:Sport in Sydney, but there is no need to add them to Category:Sport in New South Wales as well. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well he edited Newcastle Knights out, yet left Central Coast Mariners in of Sport in New South Wales. Being that they can not be catergorised in Sport in Sydney, I felt a right to put them there. --Sliat 1981 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
But Newcastle Knights are in Category:Sport in Newcastle, New South Wales, which in turn is a sub-cat of Category:Sport in New South Wales. Again, it is redundant to have this article in both. Seeing as there is no Category:Sport on the Central Coast of New South Wales, it is logical to have Central Coast Mariners in Category:Sport in New South Wales. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sports categories

I'm confused as to what your comments about different football codes have to do with it. My edits were related to the fact that Category:Sporting clubs in Melbourne is a sub-category of Category:Sport in Melbourne which is a sub-category of Category:Sport in Victoria. Having a single article in all three categories is redundant, hence my reversions to your changes. I don't know what Melbourne Victory and so on have to do with it - all I was doing was reverting changes you made, so I can't really revert them when you haven't touched them. -- Chuq 10:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim, film or movie

Hi, I reverted your changes concerning Tim the film (or movie). According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) the name should be film. Not that movie isn't good but it was decided that all movie articles should be consistent. So film was chosen in the end. Garion96 (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realised when I wrote the above that you already made an article. I moved the article to Tim (film). Happy editing! Garion96 (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne Victory talk page comments

I revert inappropriate comments as I see them - I don't go and scan the entirity of the pages history looking for them. Please don't threaten people with "reporting them for vandalism" when I did no such thing. -- Chuq 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume to know what other people are thinking. I simply checked the last edit of the article (as I do to many articles in my watchlist) and noticed the last one was a personal attack, so reverted it. I notice this isn't the first time where you have assumed an innocent action was an attack on you and the things you like. I assure you that it's not the case and you don't need to be defensive. -- Chuq 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaol or jail

  • Gaol is Australian English and appropriate for the article on Australia and the Vietnam War.--Arktos talk 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette

With regards to the Nicole Kidman article, could you please consider:

1. Sticking to facts. Saying she has X passport(s), has X nationality parents, rasied in X says a lot more about her identity than "she is AUstralian".
2. Please explain your edits and do NOT make repeated clumbsy reverts. I refer to you 2nd revert of my removal of a number of single-sentence paragraphs, and your removal of my standardisation of image sizes. Remember, wikipedia is about communication and the assumption of good faith. Why for example do you insist on having 3 different image sizes and a continuous series of 1 or at most 2 sentence paragraphs about the SAME topic.
3. Just because something has been there for a long time doesn't mean it is necessarily "correct" nor does it mean it cannot be challenged - it is no justification for keeping something.

Thanks. --Merbabu 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your response seems to miss my point. I too would call her an Australian - i have no problem with, but it is how it is written. But you cannot tell people what to believe - people just aren't going to accept what you tell them, you need to back it up. Ie, you can't just say "she is an Australian". If as you say you have been doing this for months, did you not stop to think what the problem was? Instead, just state the facts - she was born in Hawaii to AYstralian parents, was raised in Australia and holds dual citizenship (US & Aust). I think that makes it clear. And if as you say she "always" refers herslelf as an Australian, you would be helpping your cause if you included a reliable source or two. Wikipedia is not about telling people what they should assume, rather, providing facts only for them to make their own decisions.
Also, could you please my other two points above, or, shall i just assume you are a clumsy reverter? And please sign comments you leave on people's user pages. --Merbabu 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, you still missed my point. But don't worry about it. --Merbabu 06:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3 reverts

Silat, are you familiar with the Three-revert rule? The problem i see at the moment on the Nicole Kidman page is that from my calculations you have now reverted that first paragraph at least 5 times, mainly in opposition to myself, Sarah & slf67. --Merbabu 06:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: don't know if you were the one who just wrote the last comment on my page (it was unsigned), but it isn't up to just three people to decide what the first paragraph should say. Besides, if I can't revert it, I'll just type it out again. It doesn't really bother me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)
That is in clear violation of the 3RR. It does not mean just through a standard revert process, but any edit that has the effect of a revert. Ie, your "typed" reverts. I suggest you take it easy. Such an attitude gets you blocked. You are basically saying that your way is the way it is going to be and anyone else can go jump - well, Wikipedia is about collaboration, you need to learn this. You can start by explaining some of your edits better. --Merbabu 07:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. Changing it to what you think it should be is the same as reverting. Please stop or you will be blocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know any of the other users and can assure you they aren't my friends. I reverted your edit because I believe it was not beneficial to the article. Please sign your talk page comments. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR. You clearly do not understand the policy. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please sign comments on talk pages

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!--Golden Wattle talk 10:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Daicos

Hi. I think that it was clear enough why i corrected the articles by saying that Peter Daicos is Greek. Replying to your statements one by one: 1. Yes, he was known as the Macedonian marvel, but as u can see in his article, 'Mecedonian' redirects to Macedonia (Greece). This is were his family origins were from. not from modern day FYROM. Apropos, when his parents emigrated to Australia, FYROM was called Vardar Banovina. 2. The name 'Daicos' is a Greek Macedonian surname, not a Slav Macedonian one. This is obvious enough. U are an Australian from Melburne, i bet u know Greeks there... All of our names end in -s. Slavic names end in -ov, -fski, -ich, but not in -s. I have a link from Cambridge University Press about the Greeks in Australia [1], where his name is mentioned clearly [2]. And i am quite sure, that it is possible to find more sources. Thanks for your messange. I will not revert u, until u reply. Ciao --Hectorian 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What are u talking about? Have u got any idea of geography and history? Me, and the rest of the Greeks, do not consider what u call "Macedonia" to be Greek! There is the region of Greek Macedonia, whose people are called simply 'Macedonians' and they are Greeks. Your POV regarding how the people of FYROM are called is none of my interests. Peter Daicos' origins are from the Greek Macedonia, his surname is Greek and u are listing him as a Slavo-Macedonian. The ancient region of Macedonia is indeed still owned by Greece, and the modern Republic to which u are refering to does not have the copyright of the name. As a matter of fact, your own country recognises it with the name the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (id est "the republic that used to be called Macedonia within the limits of former communist regime of Yugoslavia). Deal with it! about this But simply renaming someone as Greek because you think their country should be owned by Greece is just POV opinions, not fact that u said, i consider it offensive, since i do not care whose their country is. but Peter Daicos is from Greek Macedonia. so, rephrasing your statement, i say that But simply listing someone as non-Greek because you think their region should not be owned by Greece is just POV opinions, not fact. Thus, i am reverting your edits, and btw, u have not replied to what i said above, not to the source i provided (which is more credible than yours). Regards and remember that POV-pushing is not allowed. --Hectorian 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my aggresive way in the last comment of mine, but i got angry, cause u were talking about things i never said. about the link u provided, it states that his family came from the Lerinsko region of Aegean Macedonia. Aegean Macedonia is a term some none-Greeks use for the Greek Macedonia. so, i was not wrong in saying that he comes from Greek Macedonia. btw, the link u showed me is Written for an American-Macedonian monthly, which i can hardly consider it as neutral. as a counterbalance, i could provide links from the Pan-Macedonian Assosiation, to see the Greek POV, instead of the FYROMian. However, i am not 100% sure either if he is of Greek descent. i just say that place of origins and surname are greek, and that the fact that he was called 'Macedonian marvel' can well signify a greek origin, instead of slavic one. it is not surprising if a greek identifies with his regional name... u may listen to Greek-Cypriots saying that they are just Greeks or Cypriots, and to people of Crete saying that they are Cretans. it is the same case with the Greeks in the Greek Macedonia. many times, their federations abroad have the regional name as their title (e.g. Pontian Assosiation of Germany). this is not something to be used as if they are not Greeks (they are just subgroups of the Greeks) (e.g. Bavarians, Saxons, Berliners are all Germans). for the moment, i have reverted u. i am not sure if i can find more info about him (have in mind that i hardly know anything about him and his career). however, if u find anything more, pls let me know before u revert me. Thanks:) --Hectorian 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
U are Australian, and i bet u know a lot about sports. so, tell me: if he was not of greek origins, how come he was named as vice-captain of the Greek-Australian AFL Team of the Century in 2002? [3] (pro-FYROMian webpage!). don't u know that? can u find more about it? so, revert yourself. --Hectorian 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, i am not angry with u, but angry with the way some people try to hijack a name which they prefer to use (but internationally they can't) into refering only to them. Peter Daicos was named vice captain of the Greek Team of the Century, he accepted the honour, and i bet he is in the group picture [4]. This can be an undisputed source about his origins. what u have presented me is a link for a clearly pro-FYROM article, in which it is mentioned what he "supposendly" said in an interview. the name 'Macedonian marvel' can refer to his greek heritage as i said before. u have no reason to include him in Macedonian Slavs, unless u find sources that he had at least such ancestry. i will revert u again, placing an internal link to the Greek Team of the Century in my edit-comment. pls, do not revert back, unless u have sources about him been a Slavo-Macedonian. Regards (still not angry with u personally:)...). btw, he is Australian, as u said before... no doubt about that:) --Hectorian 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in my 20s, i live in Greece and i do not remember the specific interview (if it happened anyway...), but i have cousins in Melburne who i guess know about it:). I certainly did not mean u trying to hijack anything (look in the internal link i made under 'people'-obviously not refering to u!). Saying that he have been accepted into the Greek team because realistically there is not enough players from Macedonian origin to make a Macedonian team of the century, sorry, but seems ridiculous to me... Only people of Greek origins were accepted there, and so, he was as well. for me it is clear enough. as for 'only he can say which his origins are', i guess he said it by joing a team strickly limited to people of Greek heritage. claiming a biased source that he was not greek cannot solve things, nor can it be presented as fact or dispute (have in mind that i can find greek biased sources), from the very moment that in a unique way he said he is of greek origins. the first link u gave me says that he is 'macedonian' (have in mind that Greek Macedonians also self identify as Macedonians, in the same way that other regional greek sub-groups also use the regional name). only a clear interview by him saying that he is not of Greek descent could make me accept his inclusion in Macedonian-Slavs. sorry, but at the moment everything points out that he is Greek... Keep searching and let me know if u have found something clear and credible. Take care. Ciao --Hectorian 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on man! why are u doing this? i have explained everything: place of origins, surname, links from the Cambridge University Press and the Greek AFS Team of the Century, photo, usage of the term 'Macedonian', a pro-FYROM site that says he is Greek!, et cetera! all u have have provided is a biased link and another one which merely mentions the name 'macedonian' and nothing more! why don't just quit? u cannot support your claim, unless u find something more. --Hectorian 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh... now u call me a racist... u know, i could quote pro-Greek sites and articles written by Greeks... but i won't. Your link is the only one that gives a reason for the 'Macedonian Marvel' origin, cause u have stricktly connected in your mind the term 'Macedonian' with the new republic of the Balkans. I will revert u again, but not now cause i do not want to break the 3RR. --Hectorian 00:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Obviously" written by a Greek... nice attitude... No, your claim is not as legitimate as mine: was he named vice captain in a team where only players of greek origin could take part? he was and he did accept the honour. nothing can be more clear than this. --Hectorian 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately u fail to understand that 'Macedonian' does not refer only to FYROM. Had he been from another Greek region than Greek Macedonia, his nickname may had been 'Cretan marvel' or 'Thessalian marvel', but this would not mean that he is not Greek. He became the vice captain of the greek time, so he is greek. u can quote anything u like, no matter how biased it will be, but he will still be Greek... Don't worry, other wikipedians will notice what is going on in this article, and so, it will be fixed... Oh, and u indeed called me a racist ... --Hectorian 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Eurovision Song Contest, the singers are not obliged to be natives of the country they represent (see Celine Dion). Eurovision Song Contest is for EBU members, not for European countries only (see that Morocco has also taken part). But the Greek Team of the Century was made up strictly by Greeks (players who had at least some Greek ancestry). So, he undoutably has greek origins. Also when he was younger, he would have been likely to deny being called Greek, now that he's is been accepted into the Greek team, he feels less sensitive about it u are making assumptions to support your claim?! Once more: 'saying "Macedonian" it does not mean "non-Greek", quite the contrary... I will revert u again, until u find some Slavo-Macedonian ancestry regarding him. --Hectorian 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, big diff... U did not call me a racist, but said that i SEEM like one... --Hectorian 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
He was nominated because he has greek origins, just like all the others were nominated. it is a team for Greek-Australian only. saying that a source is biased, it does not mean that u say that the author is racist! come on! u know better english than me, i guess... I do not know if he is 100% greek, but i do know that he has at least some greek origins. that's our difference: u have no idea if he has slavo-macedonian origins... In the beginning u had been removing his name from the Greek Australians (u, a football fun, did not know that he was in the Greek Team of the Century?! it is written in his article! yes, the one u reverted...). then, when i found out about that team u said 'OK, include him in both...". It seems that u are POV-pushing, and now that u can't exclude him from Greek Australians, u are trying to preserve the least of what u wanted... Debating with u is over for me, for the same reason u said about me. --Hectorian 01:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hello. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 10:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman, Aussie or not

Wikipedia policies
Article standards
Neutral point of view
Verifiable information only
No original research
Citing sources
What Wikipedia is not
Biographies of living persons
Working with others
Civility and etiquette
No personal attacks
Resolving disputes

You need to review policy list. You also need to take your argument to the "American born" section on Kidman's talk page where the current consensus is against you (do not reply on my talk page-it will be deleted if you do).

I personally don't care whether she is Aussie or American, and it has nothing to do with what I know, but to claim one or the other is a "claim", and according to policy on Bios of living persons needs to be sourced, or removed, and this process is not subject to the three revert rule. It will always be reverted. You need to consider the revert war you have engaged in as disrupting the editing process. So take it to the talk page. If she considers herself as Australian in spite of being dual nationalist, it must be cited, and it must also be negotiated whether the info belongs in the lead paragraph, or integrated in the body of the text (e.g. trivia). Other members engaged in the discussion have been informed. If your edit war continues I will take to a mediator. If you do not like what I have written, you need to take it to a mediator. Amerindianarts 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to reply in the discussion section at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08_Nicole_Kidman), a page created for mediation to end the revert war. Amerindianarts 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Your blatant violation of WP:3RR on Nicole Kidman is unacceptable. That it is at least the third time you have violated this policy is quite upsetting. However, as the issue has now gone to mediation, I am not blocking you in the hopes that you contribute your rationales on the mediation page. This is instead of a block, so please don't abuse this. --Yamla 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Glamour team

In your edit of Sydney FC you requested citation of "glamour team". Well, take your pick (2 minute job, Google will get you plenty more if required) .....[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] -[dM] 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent reverting of Nicole Kidman

I would advise not touching the article again, and bringing your concerns to the talk page. Noticing your editing history, your edits are reverted immediately. Any further edits to this article along the lines of the previous ones will likely cause you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bastiq▼e demandez 01:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Don't do that again. Your provided "citation" absolutely does not make any claim of Kidman holding only single citizenship or even being Australian. Only the person doing the interviewing makes any claim and that claim has nothing to do with her citizenship. --Yamla 23:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your citation needs to provide evidence that she does not hold dual citizenship. Or specifically, that she has renounced her American citizenship. I can say that I'm Canadian but this does not imply that I am not also British. --Yamla 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "About that thing you put on my page. You and Nicloe Kidman are not that same cases. Nicole's parents and whole family are Australian. She does not have any American ancestory. "

Except, of course, she was born in the U.S.A. which makes her American. --Yamla 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So Olivia de Harland is Japanese and Vivian Leigh is Indian are they? You're trying to claim someone as american, even though they have never refered to themselves as one and has several times reffered to herself as an australia? that's pretty lame. american must be desparate for stars if they're trying to claim someone who's proud to be an australian as their own

User talk:Yamla

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours for this. This is absolutely unacceptable. When your block expires, please return and contribute positively. Naconkantari 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for one week for your continued vandalism of Nicole Kidman. --Yamla 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: " i have been blovked for so called "valdalisim of the page. if you have a look where the case was reffered to:[13] nothing has yet been resloved and aggreed on. the article was temporarly blocked while we were to discuss it. they have gotten rid of the blocking and simply said that their view has prevailed even though nothing was yet aggreed on. this person hasd no more right to revert it than me. I demand to be treated fairly."

Decline reason: "Silat, your behaviour has been inappropriate for months. You've been warned repeatedly by numerous people, but have chosen to continue. I suggest you be very grateful that you haven't been indefinitely blocked and take this opportunity to have a break and rethink your editing habits here. -- Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Excuse me, these various people r u and yamila who think their ideas on nicole are right and they're right. u had no right to remove the protection on this article. i'm going to fight this and make sure that u both get into trouble for using it. u had no right to touch that article. You have chosen to ignore the proff and quotes i have put on there. you should be blocked for removing nthe protection and reverting it before anything was agreed on. so you have no right to judge my blocking and be thankful i'm not demanding you get blocked too

Knock it off. I don't care about Nicole Kidman (check how many times I've edited the article), I care about your extremely disruptive behaviour over a sustained period of time. I did not remove protection, nor have I "touched" the article and I have no idea why you accuse me of these things. You're welcome to report me for refusing to unblock you. If you continue with your disruptive behaviour, you are going to be indefinitely blocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So ur alowwed to revert it because u think ur right and i'm wrong. well that sounds really fair

I haven't reverted the page. I haven't touched the article since the start of September. Your accusations against me are false, unfair and unfounded. Please stop abusing the unblock tag or your page will be protected. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: "this person has no right to judge as they are forcing their views while dismissing mine. i demand not to be judged by someone who is biased in this case"

Decline reason: "Though I agree that this is purely a content dispute (and not vandalism), I will not be lifting the block on anyone who is grossly violating Wikipedia:Civility by calling other editors "bitches" and threatening to have administrators blocked. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: "I already was blocked for that and sat it out. not unblocking me because even if u think i shouldn't be and just because you don't like my attitude is very unprofessionable"

Decline reason: "Your past and continued disruption and incivility don't bode well -- you've called another editor a "bitch," and now you've made repeated and baseless accusations of conspiracy against another editor who hasn't even edited the article in question, all the while reverting or removing her comments. I need reason to think you'll do anything but continue edit warring, before I'd unblock -- evidence of willingness to discuss your edits and actions would be great. Please take a day or two off from editing, at least, before using another unblock template. -- Luna Santin 08:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Wikipedia:Civility: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.". How am I "unprofessionable" for enforcing standard policy? Your block was escalated because you resumed tendentious editing right after your last block expired. I'll let a third administrator review your block, but in light of your most recent threat, it's doubtful it will be lifted. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

excuse me those people have been editing the same article without agreeing to the talk page, y werent tyhey blocked? as i said i was already blocked 4 this civility thing

The next time you dishonestly delete comments, I will protect this page so you cannot edit it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
excuse me, u deleted my responce 2 yamila and got rid of my apealls twice. sonn as i get out of this i'm gonna recommend u 2 b blocked

Stop it with the unblock requests

You have been told enough. Once more and I protect this page completely. Glen 09:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/l/i/User_talk%7ESliat_1981_0ebe.html"