User talk:Lester
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Fucking Cunt
Are you in charge of censoring Wikipedia then?[1]
[edit] Request for mediation not accepted
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stalemate?
I share your disappointment that the RfM did not proceed. I do not see edit warring going on though. I am actually very impressed with the conduct on the talk page (and of article edits) of those editors who are still around discussing the issues. While the conversation does not feel as though it is progressing very fast I believe it is progressing. I seriously do believe that some of the way out is to have an article on the Howard Government and for some of the comments that people seek to include in the Howard article to be included in the more relevant articles on the topic - eg Immigration to Australia. Regards --Matilda talk 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I personally find your comment decided by edit waring, which is a completely unacceptable situation. I'm fed up with the censorship that's been going on, and rogue editors who would prefer to fight it out in a deletion war, like dogs over a scrap of meat, than to put it through the proper community process to gain consensus insulting. I do not like being accused of edit warring. I don't believe it is a practice I engage in. I am not engaged in a deletion war. I am prepared to engage in community processes and I ma prepared to discuss on the talk page for as long as it takes. So are quite a lot of others. Your comments are tedious and ill-judged as well as being insulting.Matilda talk 04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please point me to To generalise, some editors feel it is fine to resolve content disputes by deleting newly added and referenced content seconds after it was added.--Matilda talk 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean "show me examples of where this rapid deleting has occurred"? yes please - not in the past but in the last week or better few days - I agree it has occurred in the past but I felt we were making real gains in conduct. I agree that it was disappointing that the RfC really didn't progress the content issues very far, disappointing that the RfM did not proceed, and I am as tired as almost everyone else concerning incivility that singles out individual editors for harassment - not very incivil but niggly! My proposal with the last behaviour is to not engage - talk about content only and remove behavioural comments to the archive ASAP. If there are concerns with another editor's behaviour then they should be raised with that editor on his/her talk page.--Matilda talk 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote: I'd call these edits from the past day uncivil: #1, #2, #3. However in hindsight, after reading your post I agree with you that it was probably a pointless exercise to call for a behaviour change on the article talk page. The problems have been going on for years, and I guess the failure of the RfM concentrated my frustration by destroying a means to end it. The incivility continues. The Obama dispute has not been resolved, as we know the present state has only been reached by rapidly reverting the opposition. If any editor goes in and reverts the Obama content back to its original longer form, then we both know the rapid revert war would begin again. I've had enough of it. I look back though the contribution history of the article and see so many editors who were past involved in the article, who no longer go there. The reason given is because of the raging disputes. Even editors who were actively participating 3 weeks ago are staying away 'cause they think the issue may explode at any time and don't want to be associated. Also interesting that some of the main revert and incivility participants are now lying low for some reason. I think it's necessary for the article conduct to change before the article is open for everyone to participate in content changes. My belief is that things desperately need to change regarding conduct at the JH article. I have failed to solve anything with RfC. I have failed 3 times with RfM. I was silly today to think I could achieve an agreement to stop the incivility and rapid reverts. So the conduct situation is like a big elephant in the room that is too big to sweep under the carpet and pretend it's not there. What do you think? Do you think things need to change? How do you think all this can be resolved?--Lester 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the diffs were less than totally civil and that was why I chose to archive the page so promptly and call for dicussion on the Talk page to focus on the content and not behaviour. I saw them in the realm of niggly though rahter than breaching WP:NPA. Any discussion on behaviour will be archived promptly to try to reduce the amount of distracting conversation. I certainly think things have changed and I think the trend needs to continue. The way I think it will continue is if editors do not engage when some less-than-mature editor starts with these behavioural comments. Take it to the user talk pages if necessary but keep it off the article talk page. I am optimistic that the separation of the Howard biography from the achievements and events of the Howard Government into two articles will help with some of thse content issues too. Regards --Matilda talk 04:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote: I'd call these edits from the past day uncivil: #1, #2, #3. However in hindsight, after reading your post I agree with you that it was probably a pointless exercise to call for a behaviour change on the article talk page. The problems have been going on for years, and I guess the failure of the RfM concentrated my frustration by destroying a means to end it. The incivility continues. The Obama dispute has not been resolved, as we know the present state has only been reached by rapidly reverting the opposition. If any editor goes in and reverts the Obama content back to its original longer form, then we both know the rapid revert war would begin again. I've had enough of it. I look back though the contribution history of the article and see so many editors who were past involved in the article, who no longer go there. The reason given is because of the raging disputes. Even editors who were actively participating 3 weeks ago are staying away 'cause they think the issue may explode at any time and don't want to be associated. Also interesting that some of the main revert and incivility participants are now lying low for some reason. I think it's necessary for the article conduct to change before the article is open for everyone to participate in content changes. My belief is that things desperately need to change regarding conduct at the JH article. I have failed to solve anything with RfC. I have failed 3 times with RfM. I was silly today to think I could achieve an agreement to stop the incivility and rapid reverts. So the conduct situation is like a big elephant in the room that is too big to sweep under the carpet and pretend it's not there. What do you think? Do you think things need to change? How do you think all this can be resolved?--Lester 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean "show me examples of where this rapid deleting has occurred"? yes please - not in the past but in the last week or better few days - I agree it has occurred in the past but I felt we were making real gains in conduct. I agree that it was disappointing that the RfC really didn't progress the content issues very far, disappointing that the RfM did not proceed, and I am as tired as almost everyone else concerning incivility that singles out individual editors for harassment - not very incivil but niggly! My proposal with the last behaviour is to not engage - talk about content only and remove behavioural comments to the archive ASAP. If there are concerns with another editor's behaviour then they should be raised with that editor on his/her talk page.--Matilda talk 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] user:Rakkar
its not for 3r its BLP thats the issue, Gnangarra 07:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Howard
A number of reasons I suppose. The biggest of course is that he is no longer PM and this is no longer an election campaign. Pete is unfortunately obstinate, of course, but that's not a major factor. Truth be told, I don't edit very many Australian articles at the moment. My editing habits are a bit peripatetic. Slac speak up! 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
