User talk:Lester/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ashton Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashton Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rode logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rode logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Quail Television, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Thewinchester (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Røde Microphones

Restored, per your comments on my talk page. Please urgently add at least a claim to notability - the lack of one is why it was speedied in the first place. --Dweller 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rode logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rode logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

Third opinion request

I have removed your 3O request, because there are more than two parties involved in this dispute. If you wish to pursue some form of DR, I recommend that you follow the RFC process. Adrian M. H. 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

Stop adding {{fact}} and other tags to the article of John Howard – Wikipedia's policy on biographies of a living person clearly states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". –sebi 05:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} tags are not reliable references, and should not be added in place of a reference. –sebi 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lester, please do not add the fact tags back into the article – if you read the policy I told you about before, you would see that an article about a living person on Wikipedia that contains unsourced information, the unsourced information must be removed, and should not wait for someone to find a source. Please read the policy Biographies of living persons again. –sebi 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've blocked you for 48 hours for 3RR and edit warring on John Howard. Sarah 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per our email agreement that you won't restore the text for >24 hours and will take part in EA and discussions on the talk pages etc. Sarah 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: Sarah 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
For the reviewing admin, a 3RR report was filed: here. Sarah 07:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the confusion came in. The first one looks like I deleted a paragraph, but if you look a bit further down, that paragraph is still there. I just added the line at the top, "used the now-famous". However, the other text is still there below. Thanks Lester2 07:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur. There was no violation of the three revert rule as far as I can tell. However, the block may have been justified for edit warring; this would require closer examination of the context. Given your talk page participation, I'm more inclined than not to assume good faith and unblock you. I'll request comment by the blocking admin. Sandstein 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I was just examining the page history in greater detail. On my first edit, I think I'm accused of deleting the quote of John Howard saying "We decide...." etc. However, one of the in between edits, made by Prester John (who made the complaint), seems to delete that entire paragraph anyway. See here [1]. So the deletions then seem to be going in the opposite direction. When I saw it was deleted, I restored it again. I'm a bit confused that if the complainant deleted the whole paragraph himself (in between my edits) that he'd be worried about me deleting anything. Anyway, I'd prefer if everyone comes to a round table to discuss the content, and hope that the Editor Assistant can advise me on how to bring everyone to that table. Lester2 11:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I just got the email you sent me earlier today. Sorry, it was snagged in my junk mail folder for some reason. I'm replying to you now. Sarah 11:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The page wasn't protected so I removed the template. Simple as that. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[2][3] Being a member of a political party isn't so bad as long as the editor doesn't break the policies of wikipedia. Being a former Member of Parliament however, to me, might present a conflict of interest when editing articles about politics... WikiTownsvillian 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps

Lester2,

The initial concern certainly seemed to be the fact-tagging, and I hope you noted that I indicated that some of the facts considered 'obvious' certainly needed citation or they could be removed. About the deletion of content while discussion is ongoing, it is certainly considered inappropriate to delete without discussion. I would not concern myself too much with a reminder not to fragment discussion. If you feel an article is problematic, requesting an RfC is fine; a wikiquette alert is about user behaviour, not article behaviour. Indeed, you could report the problem to the talkpage of WP:AUS - in a neutral tone, please - without violating any guidelines on centralized discussion. The RfC will continue as long as the page is listed. Editors will look in and add their suggestion; this will ensure that those disagreeing on the page will gain perspective how far their views reflect consensus. Hornplease 04:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard Family New Guinea Land Dummying Scam

I don't know whether you know, but there was a previous attempt to add this to the article on John Howard which was stymied once it appeared that the matter could be construed as shedding unfavourable light on the Howard family. It was OK when it read "They also controlled significant land interests in Papua New Guinea which had been granted to his family as a result of service in World War II. (sic)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Howard/Archive_3#Papua_New_Guinea_Land_Grab. The immediately preceding stuff on the talk page on Howard's appearance on the Jack Davey radio show is also instructive regarding some of the POV warriors. It was welcome in the article while a positive spin was put on it, but it immediately became unwelcome when a complete transcript showed Howard in a less positive light.

It is worth having a look back through the previous talk page material (including the archived stuff) as there are some hidden gems in there. AussieBoy 06:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lester for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the case as the checkuser result was unlikely and I can't seen any compelling evidence that would warrant further investigations. Sarah 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mont St Quentin

I noticed it was an anniversary today and it seemed a shame to leave it as a red link - the article needs work as it was an important battle for Australians: not just because of the Howard connection - also three Victoria Crosses and a significant set back for the Germans ... Thanks for your comments though - it is nice when one's efforts are acknowledged. Regards --Golden Wattle talk 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, 'Golden Wattle'Lester2 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyall Howard

I sent an email to the email address you used to email me about your block. I just forwarded some of the articles that I found on factiva last night...I don't know if there's any that you haven't seen yet, but we can use non-online sources like articles and books and such. His story seems to have been included in a book about the war, which would be good to use because that is outside the context of the John Howard biographies. Sarah 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it is a rather unfortunate word to use. Do you know what the equivalent word would be in modern terminology? Proxy ownership??? Sarah 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I sent the articles again. We don't need to change the dummy word but if there is an article on the same concept we can wikilink the word to that article. Also, I'm a bit concerned that the PNG section of the article might have undue weight in the context of the overall article. I'm going to change the "references" section to "notes" and then add a "references" section for articles and books which haven't been used in the citations. And I think the external links section should go last. That's the usual format: notes > references > external links (have a look at Australia for an example. Also, I think it would be good to use articles other than that David Marr article as the footnotes because that article is seen by many as an attack piece. I think it would be better to have that in the external links but use different articles for footnotes. Sarah 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should restructure it so World War I is one section and then the second section would be post war, which would include his various business interests, the PNG stuff, CSR, etc. Having the PNG thing in a separate section high up in the article is the main thing which makes it look like an attack page. Sarah 02:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The headings might be okay, I'm just not really keen on a section and heading "PNG interests" because of the risk of undue weight, which is something people are complaining about. Do you have a picture? If it was taken before 1955, the copyright would have expired. Sarah 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries. It was taken in 1916 and so it is definitely PD now. Sarah 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag teams

I'm not interested in tag teams or edit wars! All I did was restore to the current version as per the status of the discussion, the version I removed is similar to version I think is appropriate for the article but until consensus is established the current one should stay in place, because it is factual there isnt any liability concerns, the question is whether its relevant to JH. Gnangarra 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

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.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Regarding your factually untrue mesage to Vassyana

Regarding RfM John Howard

Hello Vassyana. I had submitted the John Howard article for mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard, which was rejected. I noticed your signature at the bottom of the page, but there was no comment or recommendation on what to do next. I haven't been through a mediation process before, nor do I know what to do next.

There's disputed information in the article. Those who favor inclusion seem to be more willing to mediate. Those who want the information omitted seem to me to be less willing to mediate. There doesn't seem to be much room to compromise. Discussions are heated and personal. Edit wars are common. People get blocked routinely. It would have been nice to resolve it one way or the other just to put such a hot issue to rest.

What do you suggest to resolve an issue like this? --Lester2 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those against have compromised already but don't feel able to compromise further. Those against inclusion also feel that the Lyall Howard article fails notability and would prefer to see that article deleted as well. However, they agreed to withdraw the AfD and place a link to that article from the main JH bio in lieu of directly discussing the investments JH's father made ten years before JH was born and sold when JH was only ten-years-old. That was a major compromise from people who sincerely believe the Lyall Howard article fails notability. When you've compromised all your ground already, there is nothing left to mediate. Most of the people opposed to inclusion are very unhappy about us keeping the Lyall Howard article, but they have tried to offer a compromise in good faith. Furthermore, many people, including people who actually agree with you to some degree have asked you to give it a rest for awhile. I suggest that is what needs to be done to resolve this issue, instead of forum shopping across multiple venues: various admin talk pages, article talk, ANI, the Village Pump, etc. Also, people do not get blocked "routinely". The last people who were blocked (ie Brendan and Prester) were blocked because of their rv warring on another unrelated article. Honestly, this misinformation is starting to make it increasingly hard to assume good faith. Please stop spreading misinformation and forum shopping. We also need to be mindful given the approaching election of the fact that the two prominent warriors in regards to inclusion of this information have a history of other disruption on this and other articles with equally partisan edits. Sarah 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sarah. My conversation with Vassyana was not a formal submission to any mediation group. It was one-to-one conversation, so it would have been worded differently if it was any official thing. I don't expect Vassyana will be arbitrating on the subject, so I wasn't trying to influence her one way or another. I'm surprised how quickly you follow my edits. Do you manually refresh my contributions list, or can Wiki users install a bot to alert them? Also, you seem to think Brendan and I are POV editors, whatever that is. But everyone always thinks those on the opposing side of a content dispute are POV editors. When I read the Wiki rules, the copra plantation issue fits within those rules perfectly, and is not POV pushing. Sarah, I don't want to have a personal dispute with you, over article content. I like a lot of your work. I like a lot of the things you stand for. We disagree on the copra information. We probably won't agree on that one. In the next week or so I'll try to present a more persuasive argument for why copra fits into Wiki rules, and post it on the talk page. Cheers, --Lester2 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Like most admins I'm sure Sarah has a reasonable watchlist (per "my watchlist" at the top right of this screen) - I have about 3,000 on mine and catch a lot of stuff that way. The way I see it is that the claim is only relevant to the article if it improves Wikipedia's understanding and knowledge of John Howard. There are some things which do so which would lean towards a more positive view of him, and other things which do so which would lean towards a more negative view. But there are other things which have almost nothing at all to do with John Howard and adding them is not only, as in this case, seemingly controversial, but for no good reason. If my father had have been involved in something prior to my reaching the age of 10, the chance of my knowing or caring about it, let alone being involved, would be next to nil. If one is looking to question John Howard's credibility in public office, relying on a sugary comment by Howard about his own childhood (which also, to my view, should not be there as it adds nothing) then refuting it is not the way to go - stick to the "never ever"s, broken promises, switched views and other things he's done either in office, or as an individual before entering office. To some, the above comments look overly fixated on the copra issue, and speaking as someone that is trying despite time constraints to fix a whole heap of pages before the election (elections, electorates, MPs, issues etc), we have too much important work to do and not enough time to argue about this sort of stuff, and I'd personally welcome your assistance of the politics project's efforts elsewhere. Orderinchaos 23:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I'm not worried in the slightest about arbitration. Firstly, Vassyana is not an arbitrator (though Blnguyen is) and secondly, this is not an arbitrable case. It is a content dispute. It could very easily become a arbitrated case, however, if we wanted to obtain bans or topic bans on people who are bringing their political agendas to Wikipedia articles. What upsets me is that you are forum shopping, apparently looking for a particular response instead of showing some good faith and accepting what you have been told by numerous people, including those actually agree with you, who have asked you to give it a rest and move onto something else for the time being. And it also upsets me that you are making false and misleading claims all over the site. If you are sincere about editing the article within policy, you really should respond to the policy based comments that have been raised, instead of creating red-herrings and strawmen and then you would take up Gnangarra's offer to try to write this material in a way that fully meets WP:BLP, yet not one single person has made any real effort to attempt to do this. I can't help but wonder why people who claim to be attempting to write a NPOV article which isn't disparaging to the subject, don't simply take us up on that offer. I know that Brendan hasn't tried to because he won't be happy unless he can write it in a disparaging way, like he did the last time when he wrote that JH's recollection of his family as people with certain values, is "questioned" by Lyall's investment in legal copra plantations. Are you seriously arguing that that is consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV?

I don't really know what you mean about bots. I don't have any bots and you shouldn't run bots without getting permission from the Bot permissions group because if they malfunction, they can cause a lot of damage. I saw your edit on Vassyana's page when I looked at your recent contribs after I saw you on the Village Pump misleading people and giving them false information. I wasn't refreshing your contribs either manually or with a bot, I simply clicked on your name. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but I don't advise you to start running any bots on your account or you will most likely be blocked indefinitely.

I don't have anything against you personally and I found you quite reasonable to edit with on the Lyall Howard article, but you concern me very much as you seem to be completely singularly focused to the point of being obsessed with getting your own way. Meanwhile, you seem blinded to the fact that ignoring both pro- and anti-inclusion people when they tell you the same thing about having a break and editing something else for awhile, is only making the situation worse. If you do not have political motivations for editing, I don't understand the complete focus with regard to these edits and this article. Have you looked at your own contributions? You are looking like a single purpose account as you very rarely edit outside this topic. Have a look at any of the other involved editors contributions and you will see how dramatically single purpose you and Brendan look; this would really go against both of you and likely result in at a minimum, a topic ban at both the Community Sanctions Noticeboard and arbitration. Please consider respecting everyone's wish that you give us a break and go and do something else on other unrelated articles for a little while. Sarah 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable

Read this reference. [4], in fact read any of the references in the David Hicks article and try to find any one who says he was part of the Taliban and trained with Al Qaeda. Hicks writes home about it. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking by Prester John

You might be interested in Prester John "getting back" at you by reverting your edits in unrelated pages, see:

[5] [6]

--71.141.143.66 08:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that happens often :( --Lester2 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Headings

Please be sure to avoid capitalization in headings as with article titles, e.g. See also not See Also. Cheers. Richard001 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

Updated DYK query On 5 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article political donations in Australia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! --Espresso Addict 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitious advice

Hi, Lester!

Can I make a small suggestion? I think I understand what you are trying to do, but you must be finding it all very frustrating. Believe me, I've been there two years ago. Can I suggest that instead of making an edit loaded down with opinion, that I'm going to look at and immediately revert, you try writing something that I might grumble over privately, but I can live with.

For example, I really don't mind mentioning in various articles that children of asylum-seekers were detained. It's factual, it's an area of concern, it's something that resonates. But when you make an edit that is loaded down with words like "incarcerated", uses opinion pieces as sources, and either doesn't present a complete picture or implies something that is not true, then you are setting yourself up for conflict and disruption, because naturally those with other views are going to respond in order to prevent the article becoming unbalanced.

If an article is reasonably stable, that's a good indication that all editors are reasonably happy with it. Adding something that is contentious, even if it is something that you feel very strongly about, is probably altering a balance that has already been thrashed out.

A good approach would be to present your evidence for making an edit to an established article. Make your case ahead of time, present a good unbiased source, illustrate how the existing article is deficient. Perhaps suggest some wording. If nobody raises any valid objections, then that's a good indication that your edit won't be reverted.

I hope you don't want to spend all your wikitime edit-warring and wikilawyering and arguing around and around, because I don't. But the way you are going, you are eventually going to wear out the patience of those occupying the middle ground, and when that happens you are going to find life here very difficult indeed. --Pete 02:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of those who delete my edits are former high ranking officials of political parties. It's quite extraordinary how many there are. Don't you think that presents a conflict of interest?--Lester 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable rather than extraordinary, I suggest. I'm just a humble cabbie. --Pete 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You weren't ever a active working member of a political party? Reading the WP:COI pages, it seems that someone working for one company (say, General Motors) shouldn't edit content about either General Motors or the opposition (Ford, for example). It doesn't say explicitly, but I assume it probably applies to politics too. For example, someone who may have worked for one party (say, The Greens, just as an example), maybe shouldn't edit articles about One Nation, or the opposition (say, Liberal Party, just as an example). I suspect that quite a few of those who delete my content may have close connections with one or another political party, and make edits to an opposition political party.--Lester 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you are drawing a very long bow there. --Pete 03:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am. I don't know what the rules are about people with affiliations to political parties or organisations. Anyway, I have nothing against you personally, Skyring, I'm sure you're a nice guy. However, you and Prester play hard-ball (I learned that early on), and yours and Prester's editing style seems to consist of a lot of deletion and revert waring. I don't personally have any affiliations with any political party, but I don't understand those who want to hide past events of a political party of politician. If you support that politician, you should be in favour of all that he has done in the past. I don't support the hiding of facts, from either side of politics. If the politician has done something in the past which raised a lot of media attention, then it should be included in the wiki article. Whoever that politician may be. It's better to lay all the facts out on the table.--Lester 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And using 'Lesters' logic, it implies that he is a member of a political party. Shot info 03:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I'm a member of a party? No. What about you, Shot info? Lester 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you read my sentence, you will see that by using your logic on yourself, it implies that you are a member of a political party. Quite simple really. Frankly I don't care if you are or aren't. Your edits will stand or fail based on their merits and conformace with Wikipedia policy, not your alliances outside of Wikipedia. And for your information, it is absolutely 100% none of your business if I am or am not a member of, or voter for a particular political party or parties. My edits will stand or will not stand based on their merits. If you think that I or any other editor has a COI, then I suggest you go to COI/N. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke and completely failing to assume good faith. Shot info 03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Shot info, that's pretty heavy, considering you came stalking into this conversation. You already suggested I'm a member of a party, then you become defensive when I ask you the same thing. --Lester 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
<koff> using your logic remember. Not my fault your logical reasoning is flawed. And if you again read my edit, you will see I extend to you the common coutesty of WP:AGF even if you are a member of a political party. Perhaps if you extend some good faith and stop reasoning that people who "delete [your] content" have "close connections to"...well anything, then perhaps you will find that people will extend good faith to you. Understanding policy is a good start. Shot info 03:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Shot info, due to incivility, I ask that you no longer stalk me, comment on my talk page, or comment in my conversations on any other users' talk page.--Lester 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
'Lester', I gather you are refering to your uncivility. I will continue to edit without regard to your demands. If you feel that you have a problem with my edits feel free to mention them to the appropriate admin board, taking due care to note the failure of the Wikipedia Policy(ies) in question, and the necessary diffs supporting your statements. Thank you for once again failing to assume good faith on behalf of my edits. Shot info 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester, you can ask an editor you feel is harassing you to stop posting on your talk page and if they continue, you can just start reverting them without reading and without comment. If this is your preference, you can also ask an admin, such as myself, to watchlist your talk page and to help you. However, you can't enforce this on other people's talk pages and you will run into trouble if you start demanding that Shot Info is not allowed to comment anywhere you comment. Sarah 12:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Check Lester's contribution's and see how many are related to me. Even admin's have accussed him of stalking me. The problem with this dude is that he can't even recognise what a personal attack is. In examples like the one above, he construes arguments against his logic used and edits made as attacks against his person. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 17:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Prester, up until now, this was a private conversation about editors with present or past links to political parties. I hadn't thought of you. But now you decided you want to join this discussion, I feel obliged to ask you the same question I asked everyone else. Prester John: Have you been a member of a political party? Tell us about your political past, Prester John. I think everyone would like to know.--Lester 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lester, you don't have to retain malignant comments on your talkpage if you don't wish. You're free to delete/revert edits to your talkpage. It is your talkpage, after all. Relatedly, it's quite amazing that Prester should accuse you of stalking, given his userpage at User:Prester John/Evidence where, among other links, he maintains a diff to both your and my IP address respectively; and given the massive ANI page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John documenting his numerous transgressions. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re the original post - I have to say this is pretty good advice, regardless of what your opinion may be of its giver. It's a lot easier to edit here if you start by having a neutral tone and an editor's eye for what should be in, what should be out. In a project like WP Politics it's a given that we'll have active members of parties - the interest range is narrow and the political class are the only people who care on such things most of the time. However, I take a strong line against in-role party editing, or editing which solely or narrowly reflects that party's views and not the goals of the encyclopaedia (NPOV in particular). Orderinchaos 23:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the comment. I will explain when I have time, but I'm very busy offline atm. Orderinchaos 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war warning: Willie Mason

Thank you for the message on my talk page, but no, there is no 'edit war' and to ensure the matter did not devolve to that point I took the discussion to the relevant project page - WP:RL - and it had already been resolved before your warning was issued. I note that the other party to the supposed 'edit war' was not also issued with a warning. ~ Florrie • talk • 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudd and same-sex marriage

Thanks for the vid - a few interesting expressions, but he said nothing that I didn't already know or that surprised me... he's very predictable. Timeshift 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

JH

Hi Lester, That latest edit is probably valid, however the supporting link seems to be to an incorrect Age article. I think you might have mixed up URLs. Just a heads up. Shot info 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, BTW, a blog...could be problems with EL there. But I'm going to see how it stands with the Community (ie/ I'm not going to edit it :-) Shot info 01:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

For your advice. Alans1977 02:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages...

I didn't say you didn't use the talk pages. Rather, for contentious topics using the talk page doesn't entitle one to immediately go and make any edit. People should wait for the response and work towards a solution. Talk page comments doesn't mean one can immediately return to edit warring. regards --Merbabu 11:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of Steady Eddie

Hi, The article was deleted because of notability concerns under CSD A7; an "article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not indicate the importance of the subject". If you wish to re-write the article ensuring that it does assert the significance of the subject, feel free. If you require any help then please ask me. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles eh?

I've linked to them in all federal election result tables! IRV in the lower, STV GV in the upper. Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Racial policy of John Howard

Racial policy of John Howard, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Racial policy of John Howard satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial policy of John Howard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Racial policy of John Howard during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mattinbgn\talk 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were you i'd copy and paste the text from this article and put it in to some sort of more broad John Howard government article or some such. I just think the page has noteability issues in that it is either too specific on a certain area of Howard policy, or, could be considered by some people we know as POV, and would have a case as there's a page on racial policy, but not on other social policy, or economic policy, et al. Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rode logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rode logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludlam

Thanks for those links - quite interesting.

The ABC site appears to be just predictions, as they've got six winners marked even in states like Queensland and Victoria, which are extremely close and most definitely won't be known until the final distribution of preferences in a couple of weeks. I'd be a little bit careful about taking the one newspaper article either - I've noticed several papers jumping the gun and calling seats that are way too close to call on actual figures (for instance news.com.au just called La Trobe for Labor, which really won't be known for sure until every vote is counted). This is why I'm wary about calling the results of the fifth and sixth seats, and have only added those that have gotten a quota on primaries to Members of the Australian Senate, 2008-2011 - I don't want us to have to change the results later, which we've had to do before.

That said, I think the results in WA, SA, NSW and Tas are probably pretty set from the psephological commentary I've read, and I think we might be safe to add these pretty soon if a few papers start calling those results as certain. Rebecca (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's probably worth updating the rest in those four states as well. Rebecca (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
WA's so predictable - it's either 2+3+1 or 3+2+1, and has been at every election since 1984, and with an even higher than usual Green vote and 3 guaranteed Lib quotas I'd conclude he's in pretty safely. Orderinchaos 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good page for you to work on

I came across this, and in the spirit of USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, you might want to create an article cited with this type of reference? Timeshift 07:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial policy of John Howard

I have commented on this discussion as requested basically endorsing your page move. I see nothing to suggest you did not follow the correct procesdure for moving the article during an AFD. I won't comment on keeping or deleting the article to avoid any accusation of canvassing. Davewild 09:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on page-moving procedure.Lester 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

Lester, might I suggest, if you wish we (admins) would take action in response to your ANI complaints about Prester, that you consider removing your comment from the MfD for Prester's userpage and then in future staying away from similar issues concerning Prester that don't otherwise involve you? People who really are being cyberstalked go out of their way to avoid their stalker; they don't actively follow their "stalker" around looking for opportunities to engage them, make complaints or oppose them. You really make it impossible for us and I'm afraid that you are now pretty much in a "Cry Wolf" situation with many admins, particularly Australian admins and those who watch ANI. I urge you to refrain from commenting about Prester and involving yourself in discussions relating to him that don't otherwise involve you, stop checking his contributions and simply get on with your own business. If you were to do this and then come to a complaint with "clean hands" you would find admins were far more responsive and willing to take action. It was only a day or two ago that you melodramatically announced to ANI, "Help me, I'm being stalked" and complained that you were being stalked and harassed and that "It's horrible. It's bullying. No Wikipedian deserves this. Nobody. It is continuing, and I ask again for Admin assistance." Yet now here you are, following your "stalker", commenting on not just his userpage, but his username, and the articles he edits! If you really want one of us to act against Prester, then please stop doing this and stay away from him. Thank you for your consideration. Sarah 13:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was commenting on articles that I was followed to.Lester 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reworking MPs leads

Thanks for going around and doing this - a lot of these articles looked very messy beforehand. I'd been meaning to do it for days. Rebecca 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lobato article is a good little stub. If you're interested in expanding it some, the parliamentary handbook and the re-member database are really useful for Victorian politicians. It might be worth saying a bit more about the GM crops issue - I was reading the writeup in The Age this morning, and it's probably the defining moment of her career so far - at the rate she's going she might get kicked out of the party. Rebecca 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote requested

Here. Cheers. Timeshift 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

South West Coast

Thanks for the heads up - there's quite a few of these pages that were never updated after the state election. I've updated it anyway - if you see any others, feel free to let me know. Rebecca (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic image!

But! What is the source?! :P Timeshift (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Still not working - I can email others fine? Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PNG

Show me a reference that supports, not speculates that PNG had a direct influence on JH and his philosophies otherwise its just something that Lyall did and its already in the Lyall article. Gnangarra 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

Copied from User talk:Daniel, 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Hi Daniel. I want to ask your advice on how content disputes are resolved, as you're familiar with mediation processes as well as the content involved (John Howard plantations). I'm just not familiar with the processes within Wikipedia. There is still reverting going on at the article. As you know, I submitted it for a Mediation Committee hearing, but because a couple of editors didn't wish to participate, it never got to mediation. In a case such as this, where there is no clear or decisive outcome (opinions are divided), how can it be settled in one way or another. It would be great to have a mediator to oversee a civil discussion and arrive at some compromise, but what does one do when some parties don't want to participate? Do you have any suggestions for a process to arrive at consensus? Thanks, Daniel,Lester 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if consesus can't be reached by involved editors, maybe soliciting input from uninvolved editors to try and determine a consensus either way may be a good idea. Short of that, ask everyone involved if they are willing to try mediation (which is basically a negotiation discussion trying to compromise and find a solution which everyone accepts), and if they are file a request for mediation. Otherwise, there's arbitration if people are behaving badly and nothing else works. Daniel 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: Please reply here on your talk page, I shouldn't miss it. Trying to keep the discussion in one place :)
Daniel. Great to hear from you. The issue was recently rejected from Mediation, because some editors didn't want to participate. What normally happens then? I know it is within editors' rights to reject mediation, but does that also mean they are opting out of the debate? Some of those who previously chose not to get involved in mediation still want to get involved at the article/talk page, so it never resolves. Thanks again, Lester 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, although they may have changed their minds since :) If not, an article requests for comment to get uninvolved editors commenting to try and work out consensus, or else arbitration if nothing works and people are revert-warring etc. Wikipedia is based on consensus, negotiation, compromise and discussion, and if none of those work...well, nothing therefore can fix it :| Daniel 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain it, Daniel. I should then try for a second mediation. Cheers, Lester 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, probably only the recently-involved parties, and then only those who would be considered the "most involved", not those who have commented once etc. Daniel 09:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Response from Hamiltonstone

Just letting you know I finally responded on my talkpage. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dame Joan

Thanks for your note - I hadn't been watching the article any more. I see fromt he history though that the controversy section under discussion and reversion in November was not professional, neutral or referenced. See this diff as an example. I htink it should be mentioned and referenced but in a neutral way. I think it is somewhat significant but certainly one has to watch WP:UNDUE - ie not giving it more weight than it merits. Can't attend to the research and form of words right now though I did have a link to an ABC profile in my talk page comment. Regards --Matilda talk 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Source

Hoorah! Love the slideshow! :D Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:140206 PC frontpage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:140206 PC frontpage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject talk page

I took the considered decision that nothing was achieved or gained for anybody involved, the thing had the potential to flare up once again once people come back from Christmas holidays, and no positive purpose could be served to the encyclopaedia by maintaining it. Orderinchaos 20:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And this differs from Wikipedia standard fare, how? /cynical Timeshift (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

White Aust policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.whiteaustralia.jpg - fixed, could do with a better rationale though... it really isn't sufficient. Betacommandbot has been setup to go around making sure the basics of FU images are correct, ie: has the neccessary bits (see the diff for more info). Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray Williams (businessman)

Just as an FYI, I requested (and got) protection as the repeated POV pushing was really getting out of hand. I'll request unprotection (or you can if you like) if they discuss and reach consensus, or if they get bored and leave...:) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

ABC logo

I'd wait until the channel is actually rebranded as ABC1 – at the moment is still "ABC" or "Channel 2" until (supposedly) next week. The right time to change the brand in the article's Infobox is when the on-air identity of the channel has changed.  SEO75 [talk] 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

I have been trying to edit the caption for the abc1 logo at the bottom of page however I made a few mistakes so reverted myself. Samualm (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray Williams (businessman).

Maybe you should try a checkuser to confirm the sockpuppetry (or prove otherwise). · AndonicO Hail! 09:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening par proposed wording

Hi Lester, With regard to the Hicks opening par, it is not clear to me from your comment whether or not that you support the propsed wording. Of course you might in any case agree that it is an improvement from the current version? Wm (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Steady Eddy

Hi Lester - I noticed you commented on the deletion of an article on Steady Eddie. did you know that it already exists as Steady Eddy? Cheers, --Ossipewsk (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No wuckers. It didn't make sense to me for him not to have an entry. Any stand-up comedian who can make a living at it (no matter which country, language, etc) is probably "notable" for WIkipedia. --Ossipewsk (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudd

Would you mind removing your comment from the project page and on to Rudd's page? Timeshift (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing it, simply the wording. Timeshift (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GaryGazza

Yes I'm already well aware of him messaging all and sundry. He has made all sorts of wild accusations against me and admins. He can't spell Labor though so already his impression of any expertise has been severely damaged. He admits that Roxon simply has a Jewish father rather than practising the Jewish faith herself, but seems to think that still equates to her religion. I've been accused of conspiring with admins, being anti-semitic, and other crap here. Frankly, i'm prepared to let the discussion speak for itself rather than going on any sort of counter-crusade myself. Timeshift (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John Howard

Hi Lester, I think it's enough to just say "only former prime minister". You don't need to say "only living former prime minister" because no one expects the dead to rise and attend. ;) Somno (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


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.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

RfC SkyRing

There's a lot of material in there from December 2007 and we're in March 2008. I wasn't doing much on WP at that time, that's all. Perhaps you could break your commentary down a bit so that it relates more directly to the original claim made by Wm, and which has been endorsed by others? Eyedubya (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lakhbir Singh Rode

I have updated this article, with some newer news items on his activities. Perhaps this will help. Thanks for letting me know! mukerjee (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CH-DVD

I understand your scepticism, and will offer you this.... First of note is I only have a few hours of access to a computer signal access per day, if that, so I can't overly read and reference everything at once. I've labeled the page with the correct template, and I'll work on it as time allows over the next few days. Please, allow the time for this to be done as per wikipedia:AGF. I'll get there. I've moved my work off of what could be considered (one of?) your pet project of HD DVD both to limit my time to expanding and properly referencing the CH-DVD page, and to rightfully keep the two articles separate. Reverting while I try to do all the things you ask for in referencing the project page make it hard, if not impossible to finish the work needed; and the page does need work. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: John Howard RfC

Replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Beenleigh rum logo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Lester! Just dropping by about some edit warring I noticed here. If you'd please be awesome and help me out; if someone (notably Skyring, because it seems you guys have a history) makes an edit you do not like, and you know they won't like it if you revert, don't revert. That way, I don't have to go around locking up pages. Instead, bring it to the person's attention, the talk page of the article, and/or me; that way we can reach a resolution. Reverting is practically useless in that he can undo it just as easily as you can do it; therefore, let's not edit war and instead let's reach a resolution. I don't know much about the history of this dispute, so if you could sum it up for me so I have an idea of what I'm mediating I'd appreciate that very much. Thanks! Have a great day, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So wait, they're reverting just because you're adding information? Or is there a deeper reason? They don't agree with the statement? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

I'm not sure i'm understanding what you're asking. The JH article was locked due to edit warring. Once the article was unlocked, people began to remove content again (ie: an admin who will remain nameless) despite a huge talkpage shitfight over it. Timeshift (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey

I've been waiting a long time to weave his example in to an argument... :D Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Using [7][8][9][10] in your RFC would be my recommendation. Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama

I didn't vote b/c I thought it was clear what I thought and the aim was to seek editors who'd not already indulged in discussion. Eyedubya (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not be agreeing to the RfM, it is a waste of time if you and I are not even trying to work towards content that is acceptable to both of us. A list of specific concerns about the John Howard articles from you and Timeshift9 would be the most helpful contribution you could make at this time. --Surturz (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I will not be agreeing to the RfM and if the powers that be decide to discipline me, then so be it. I would prefer you and all relevant editors to list the issues that have caused them to insist on the POV tag, and I will do my best to make the appropriate changes. --Surturz (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lester. I have no issue with the procedural approach, but as has been demonstrated, its easily frustrated by people who don't wish to participate. Eyedubya (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RfM

Lester, I'm not agreeing to this, for reasons stated in the RfM. However, if you can withdraw the case and submit a fresh one with only two names as the parties involved, everything the same, then I'll agree to mediation. I'd much rather find ways of working with you than in seeing the situation continue to distintegrate. If some of my guesses about you are correct, then you must be experiencing considerable frustration. I don't want to see useful articles deteriorate into POV, but neither do I want to cause you undue anguish. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your comments on my talk page. The RfM you initiated (with multiple participants) isn't going to proceed without my involvement, so I guess that's it. Let's see if we can prceed on good will alone.

Could you look over my comments here and rewrite the US relationship section, beginning with the material you used originally, expanding it significantly along the lines indicated, and ending with the Obama incident? The US relationship is genuinely significant, it deserves a longer section, and the Obama material would then be a legitimate part of it. You did an excellent job on the original material, in that your writing and research skills are a lot better than those of the regular contributors to the article. Writing an article by arguing over every bloody word isn't working: even if agreed wording is ultimately found, the result is very poor as far as prose goes. --Pete (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't sell yourself short. After weeks of bickering, if you and I can co-operate on something and have it mutually satisfactory, I think anyone who disagrees is going to be out on a limb. I'm particularly nettled that your para on the US relationship was removed for what seems to be no good reason. You're a better writer of encyclopaedic prose than I, but if you feel disinclined, I'll have a go. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are useful guidelines - basically they reward good work - we don't have to run everything past a committee. And having seen what the committee has so far produced, frankly it is embarrassing to see such poor writing on Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)