User talk:Supertask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 ataturk
2 Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
3 new quote
4 Media
5 Media
6 Median kingdom/empire
7 Diakonov
8 Australia
9 Statute of Westminster
10 Statute of Westminster
11 June 2008

[edit] ataturk

Hi. pp means "pages" as opposed to p. for "page". Maybe a bit old fashioned. Kinross's book is/was one of the main biographies of Ataturk. (It's a bit old and I think it has a reputation of being rather sympathetic to the subject.)

On page 4: "He was born an Ottoman Moslem, of lower middle class family and ostensibly Turkish stock." On p. 216-7: After noting how the Sheikh of Islam had pronounced a fatwa on the Nationalists, Kinross says "In creating it [ an elected national assembly] Kemal must reply in kind to the Islamic manifestoes of Constantinople. Thus he still acted outwardly in the name of the Caliphate, whose abolition was his ultimate objective. With every appearance of defernce he mobilized the ulema, the religious authority of Angora, which now issued a counterblast to Constantinople with a fetva of its own." "... to encourage such deputies as might be reluctant to come to the newly elected Assembly, he thus circulated throughout the country his own proclamation which outdid the Sultan-Caliph himself in its Islamic invocations." Later, p.386 Kinross mentions how "an emissary, claiming to represent Indian and Egyptian Moslems" "suggested to Kemal that he himself should become the Caliph." Cheers, John Z (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

I see you reverted my edit to the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's leadership of the independence war articles when I said there was no evidence that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. I thought there wasn't but I'll take your word for it there is in Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation. However, I would like to know what you meant by pp.4,217, I thought pp. meant a page but obviously not. Could you tell me what you meant by that, what part of the book provides the evidence should I acquire the book and the exact words in that book that you think are proof Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. Also, please do not assume I don't know that there are Muslims that don't pursue political Islam. --Supertask 04:41, 10 April 2008 (GMT)

There is a whole section regarding his religious beliefs under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. Did you read it? --Rateslines (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read it and it shows what I think - that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's religious beliefs are not known with certainty. --Supertask 01:20, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

There is a whole section regarding his religious beliefs under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. There is a picture showing him preying in that section. The question of ones religious beliefs is somewhat funny! Do we ask how much "Christian" one should be to be a Christian man. If one does not accept the Pope's authority, (like Caliphate) do he become non Christian? I guess in the eyes of Pope that person will be deemed for the Hell. Besides if these people who question is religious beliefs were Muslims, they would know that if one accepts God's existance, become Muslim for life. If one deny the God later, that person do not become Non-Muslim, but Fajir. --Rateslines (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the information of his religious belief is important? It is important because he abolished the Caliphate. (removed the Political Islam from political arena) Was he a Muslim? Yes he was. Did he liked green apples? He was not an apple farmer or a genetic scientist who works on apples. That question is irrelevant. Hovever if he had an allergy to green apples, in that case this question would be significant. We ask questions, because they give us important clues of historically significant events. He never claimed he was a "Hoja" or compete for the position of Calip. He did not develop a theological theory. His position regarding angles or devil is irrelevant. His political theories are relevant, but you are not interested in them. It is not clear what your are trying to say or what is the significance of your position. Do not take it too personal, when people question your motives. Because they are not clear. --Rateslines (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss. Wikipedia works with citations. There is a picture of him preying according to "Islam" rules. It is included in the article. If you brought a better proof (a picture) disproves that stop reverting the information. --Rateslines (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new quote

Here it is. The talk page is getting big and confusing, can see why you had trouble.:

Here's some more from Kinross's book: Below are Ataturk's own words - a later recollection quoted on p.6 describing the occasion of his introduction "with the usual religious ceremony into the school of Fatima Mollah Kadin" clearly it goes along with the image discussed (which I can't find - I guess I am blind) :

"Then the teacher - a hoja - arrived before the green bedecked door of our house, accompanied by all his scholars. After a prayer had been offered, I made an obeisance to my mother, my father and the teacher, lifting my fingertips to my breast and forehead and kissing their hands. Then, amid the cheering of my new companions, I went in joyous procession through the streets of the city to the school, which adjoined the mosque. On our arrival there another prayer was repeated in chorus; then the teacher, taking me by the hand, led me into a bare, vaulted chamber, where the sacred word of the Koran was unfolded to me."

ciao, John Z (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media

Media

dear super task your I cannot open the link http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371723 but the other one states "petty Median chieftain subject to the kingdom of Mannai in modern Iranian Azerbaijan; later tradition made him the founder of the Median empire. " It says that he was first a subject of Mannai but then managed to establish (his own) Median empire. Also in the Irnian books is he recognized as the establisher of the Median empire. The confusion comes [put simply] because it is assumed that after a period Median throne got conquered( by the Scythians probably), but the Median royal clan again defeated them. See Diakonov on the History of Media.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran"--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media

Media

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran"--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Median kingdom/empire

dear super task see my talk page about Media. I think I have a clue and have a solution which is workable. sinply there was first a kingdom but later it became an empire.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diakonov

How on the earth can you call Diakonov's work as an obscure book??????? He is an authority on the ancient near Eastern history.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I announced I have left Wikipedia because of much irritation. Do not take it personal. But I am tired of some peoples'behaviour especially with regards to the Iranian articles. As your answer: I may hurt your British feelings but allow me to diagree with you, Diakonov is an authority in the near Eastern history and in general Soviet/Russian sources have a higher quality than the British ones. In addition even encycl;opedia Britanica says that 728 BC Deioces united the Median tribes and became their king. It is the establishment of the Median Kingdom. Nevertheless for some reason you want to diagree. But again as I said I have left wikipedia and will not do much efforts here. You can go on with your pinion. It is now up to other Iranian editors to discuss with you. Good Luck--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

Supertask and Aussielegend, please use the talk page to come to an agreement on what to use. Don't edit war back and forth. You never know - a third party might chip in with a great way forward that niether of you had thought about. Edit warring doesn't help anyone. kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statute of Westminster

I'm addressing this here, rather than at Talk:Australia because this is a more appropriate place for this discussion.

I directed you to WP:DEADHORSE and quoted a specific section[1] to which you responded "Yes, I read that, it hasn't happened." It's an interesting statement to make because, like your arguments at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster, it ignores reality. Other than you and me, the only person to join in on the discussion was Gazzter and he made only one post, over 3 weeks ago. My only responses to you in those three weeks[2][3][4] have been as a result of your demands on my talk page. More than just the community losing interested, it was never interested to start with. So yes, it has happened. Accept it, drop the stick and back slowly away. This is my final word on the matter. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page.[5]

"WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in WP:DEADHORSE, ie:

“

If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing

”

As you are well aware, I posted that quote at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster [6] but, like every other response, you just ignore it, or misunderstand it, and come back with the same old arguments, just as you've done on my talk page. To be quite frank, it's more than just annoying and gives nobody any incentive to discuss things with you.

"If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation" - There is nothing in the template to state that the date is to be the date it was formally adopted. One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8] What you claimed is not true. Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 states the date of royal assent as 9 October 1942 and the date of commencement as 3 September 1939 so these are obviously the important dates. In the amendment that I made to Australia after you raised your concerns,[9] which you might note I explained by creating Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster [10] and which was not opposed by anyone else, I have clearly explained the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Act. There is therefore no reason for you to change anything as your apparent concerns are completely and accurately covered by what is written. I pointed this out at Talk:Australia back on 21 May 2008 [11] and you haven't made any attempt to explain why what is written does not satisfy you. Instead you've just continued on about legal technicalities and how it was actually adopted on 9 October 1942, which is explained in the note any way, making it impossible to know exactly what would please you and what exactly you find wrong with the current article. Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.

All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits. Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely, then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8]

Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent which I wasn't, apart from that I still have questions that haven't been answered, the argument continues but you want to block me out.

AussieLegend: All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits.

There is no definition of a status quo in Wikipedia policy you just made it up. There is no consensus because no one has supported your point or mine and I have already said this. There is no policy on Wikipedia which says those defending the status quo get a boost of any kind.

AussieLegend: Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely

I wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed. You have not answered some of my points properly and are now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'. Your argument is not the default because it's the status quo, they are still equal, you only supporting yours openly and me only supporting mine openly.

AussieLegend: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing.

It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.

AussieLegend: Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.

What about this as a compromise: I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence so what if rather than saying: "- Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 (commenced 3 September 1939)" it said: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)"--Supertask (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered the Australian adoption acts official name is Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (emphasis mine).--Supertask (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statute of Westminster

Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way (it hasn't shown interest in showing your point of view either) and WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't. If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation because this is when it made its dent on history 9 October 1942.--Supertask (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page.[12]
"WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in WP:DEADHORSE, ie:

“

If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing

”

AussieLegend: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8]

AussieLegend: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing.

It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.

Basically your saying you want to leave the discussion because it is your opinion that it has come to an end, but I can't change anything anyway because the community hasn't commented. When I said there is no Wikipedia definition of status quo I meant there is no policy on it - you are putting your argument on higher ground by saying that if the discussion stops (despite the fact your the one stopping it) your view automatically stays just because it is the status quo - you could have saved loads of time if you had only responded to me once, then flashed WP:DEADHORSE and said "actually I think the discussion has come to a natural end and you can't edit this article because my view is the current status quo" - show me anything like a WP:Status Quo and OK.

I thought the Australia act was more important because it's when the Statute of Westminster 1931 actually took effect, and it would allow the infobox to display both dates. My point on legal technicalities vs actual dates is that the actual date that act had an actual effect on Australia's independence can't have been your date because the act hadn't been invented then. In addition, even if beyond that you say they are equal dates, both being in the document of the act, then which one should be picked? Well the one which has a being on physical reality would be the one. The act that Australia used to ratify the Statute of Westminster, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is even Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (emphasis mine). You mentioned earlier that not showing the backdate would be excluding relevant information, so please accept my compromise which will show both dates: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)".--Supertask (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: "No, I'm saying the conversation did come to an end a long time ago. You just won't let it die until you want it to and keep insisting that I continue this pointless discussion. It's pointless because the concerns you raised in your edits back on 5 and 6 May were addressed in an edit made on 8 May, as I've already mentioned, and provided diffs for. You're arguing about something that was fixed for you a month ago. I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."

It's just your opinion it's ended, they weren't addressed on 8 May, just put at the bottom of the page, the date it actually happened it important enough to be in the infobox. Just putting "did" in italics still doesn't make it anymore your opinion.

AussieLegend: "I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."

Immature insults don't help a discussion.

AussieLegend: "You've only raised the Australia Act in the past day or so. Until now the thrust of your arguments has been about the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Australia Act is not relevant to the discussion that we've been having. Why the sudden change of tack?"

What?! I can't believe this, I told you its so that both dates can be displayed easily! I'm fine to have it list the date of the Statute of Westminster 1942 and the date it was adopted, but to have both our dates on it would need more space and so we could use the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 isn't relevant at all other than to display both dates and reach a compromise.

AussieLegend: "I'm really not interested in going over the same arguments over and over and over and over again."

No, you just want to back out without continuing the discussion because you can't be bothered to continue.

AussieLegend: "That information is already in the article. It has been there since 8 May 2008 in response to your concerns. I've told you that and provided diffs to it. I'm not sure that there is any more I can do to point it out to you."

The 9 October 1942 date is put at the bottom but it is not a side note it is the main date so this is not sufficient. In addition you misrepresented my argument at the bottom by saying "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 received royal assent on 9 October 1942" how many times do I have to say my argument for listing it with that date has nothing to do with royal assent? Even if royal assent was on a different day, I would still support the 9 October 1942 date because thats when it came into operation, thats when it actually started being enforced so that is when it affected Australia. Anyway basically the 9 October 1942 deserves to be in the infobox.

AussieLegend: "you've ignored my requests to explain what exactly you find wrong with it"

I noticed this but didn't bring it up because you haven't used it up until now, all you've been using is the 'ahhhh! stop pestering me with your discussion (but I still want to enforce my view)' argument so this is a new tactic.

AussieLegend: "I'm starting to think that you're arguing for arguments sake."

Yes, along with that I'm pestering, and that your really glad your not my mechanic, what more rhetorical gems of simple slander will you throw my way? I'm starting to think about what the next one will be.--Supertask (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: "This goes back to my statement about you ignoring reality. You keep saying that the discussion hasn't ended but if you didn't pester people to respond it would have ended a long time ago. The community has no interest in continuing so it did end, just as WP:DEADHORSE says. You just won't let it go."

The community hasn't shown interest in either of our views so there still on equal ground, again you still pass silly judgements "ignoring reality" yet I have responded to this before and you keep bringing it up so it seems to be you who is ignoring the reality that I have already responded to this.

AussieLegend: "There's only so much information that you can put in the infobox. That's why the statement is included as a note, which isn't just at the bottom of the page. It appears when you roll over the note tag in the infobox. There's no way anyone is going to agree to a whole sentence appearing in the infobox. That's not the way it's done. What has been added as a note is far more accurate and descriptive than just adding a date. It expands on what is in the infobox in such a way that nobody reading the article could misinterpret what is written."

The date the act was passed is important enough to be in the infobox. It's amazing you are telling me no one will agree to a whole sentence in the infobox - what do you think I was talking about when I said we needed to save space and proposed my compromise which would show both dates in minimal space?!

AussieLegend: "It's not an immature insult. It's an analogy based on the way you've handled this. You raised issues at the beginning of May and what you wanted included was added to the article soon after. Here you are harping on about it a month later with still no sign of accepting that what you wanted in the article was included so you've got nothing to complain about."

"I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic." is just a quip and doesn't help the discussion. You are constantly passing false judgments on me with these silly statements yet I have not done the same disservice to you.

AussieLegend: "The Australia Act is irrelevant to displaying the dates. That's already been done without any hint of the Australia Act."

But the actual date the act affected Australia is not displayed on the infobox.

AussieLegend: "No, we don't need any more space. That's why we use notes, references and wikilinks."

While I'm trying to reach a compromise you are declaring by fiat that the 3 September 1939 date is more important.

AussieLegend: "It's not a discussion when you're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything."

Because you suddenly pulled out I am trying to get you to answer some of my points and defend your point of view.

AussieLegend: "It isn't the main date. Previous editors of Australia obviously disagreed with you and so do I. We've been over this before. The Act backdated itself to have effect from 1939 so that is more important, regardless of whether or not you think it's a technicality."

We have 2 dates, I argue mine is the main date because it is when the act actually took effect on Australia, when Australia was allowed to fully self legislate (yes, it had legislated itself before but it didn't have the independence of the British government to do this fully without the possibility of intevention, so don't bring that up), I have elaborated on this point a lot earlier. You, however, are just declaring by fiat that your date is the main date, regardless of the fact the act confirming the Statute of Westminster 1931, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is: "Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942" and regardless of the fact that my date is the one when the act actually effected Australia, as explained earlier. Now you are using the strange tactic of calling on the support of the original editor who inserted that date, again it is part of your unfounded notion that the status quo is automatically a stronger argument than objections on Wikipedia and that objections must overcome this advantage. I have already said all this, so now who's "rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything".

AussieLegend: "I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month."

No they weren't, I am referring to your edit which put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom.

AussieLegend: "We're clearly getting nowhere so, unless you can come up with a much better suggestion and some new material there I don't intend continuing this."

Fine, but don't then have the arrogance to think you can ban me from editing that date.--Supertask (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end. You haven't justified your desired change so it will just have to stay out. The simple fact is that even the Act states that the beginning of the war is the important date, and it does so in its long title:

“	An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany	”
—Long title, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is 3 September 1939. I've pointed this out previously. Don't say I didn't, as you are wont to do, because here are the diffs. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 may have come into operation on 9 October 1942, when it received Royal Assent, but it immediately caused the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted as from 3 September 1939. Whether you think that's a technicality is irrelevant. Australian law says that 3 September 1939 is the date and if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour."

The act also says it comes into operation 9 October 1942. So which is more important, adoption or operation? Well, as I've pointed out before, the date it actually came into effect would be. It is convention that acts have the date they started in their title, again: Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.

AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end."

Where I repeat stuff it is only because you haven't responded or have missed the point. For the record, you repeat stuff too.

AussieLegend: "if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour"

I wondered before what the next bit of simple, immature slander you'd throw would be, well here it is as predicted.

AussieLegend: "This is not the first time that you've claimed that I haven't said something that I have and you've done it even after I've provided diffs to the change. The edit where I "put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom" was here at 06:10, 8 May 2008 UTC. Your first complaint at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster was here at 00:23, 9 May 2008 UTC so the edits "were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia", 18 hours and 13 minutes before to be precise. It would be nice, just once, to see you actually acknowledge that you've made a mistake rather than ignore the fact that you did."

Your just using a simple mistake of mine to turn into as if I've been decietful all along, part of your false judgement thing earlier. I'd like you to show me the other times I've misrepresented you and these times I'm ignoring making a mistake. You have made mistakes before and I haven't passed judegement, such as this one "Because, by backdating the effective date of the Act the effective date that the Act came into operation became 3 September 1939. It's not rocket science." even though your own cite of the act itself says it came into operation on 9 October 1942, you choose to say that adoption makes the operation 3 September 1939.

AussieLegend: "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 makes it quite clear in both the long title and the preamble that it causes certain sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted from 3 September 1939"

This statement makes no sense in our universe, how can something in 1942 cause something to happen in 1939? Again a mistake you have made and I can't believe you fell into it because I've been pointing it out all along.

AussieLegend: "You know that because the evidence has been presented to you a number of times over the past month. Your interpretation that the date is 9 October 1942 is WP:OR"

You sure are good at flinging accusations, but here is a change of tactic WP:DEADHORSE stops working so now you switch to WP:OR? It's all in the act, the act gives a date, it actually came into effect on that date, therefore the act originated on that date, I've elaborated on this a lot earlier.

AussieLegend: "If you insist on changing the date of adoption to 9 October 1942 it will be reverted and an appropriate warning will be placed on your talk page. If you continue to change it the changes will be treated as vandalism, for that is what they are."

Back to threats now I see. Ones you can't carry out, either.--Supertask (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Australia, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. As we discussed over the period of a month, the appropriate Act is the Statute of Westminster, not the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act. There has been no consensus for your change. AussieLegend (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The original research ploy is a complete lie that you have only recently started using because it's a buzzword which labels a users contributions as bad, rightly so. Though I have never once resorted to my own hypothesis or evidence, only using the act and what it says and history to support my side. I have used the act itself as my source and you have no consensus either.--Supertask (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You've made your own conclusion which is different from what is actually written. That's WP:OR so it's not a lie. It has been the case all along but I haven't used it until now because I've been trying to get you to see reason by pointing out all of the flaws in your arguments. After a month of pointless discussion I see no problem pointing out what you should have realised from the beginning. I don't need consensus because I'm supporting what was in the article to begin with. You're seeking to change the article and you've been opposed so you need consensus. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability which states:

“

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

”

I suppose now you'll tell me that WP:V doesn't apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Supertask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ataturk

[edit] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

[edit] new quote

[edit] Media

[edit] Media

[edit] Median kingdom/empire

[edit] Diakonov

[edit] Australia

[edit] Statute of Westminster

[edit] Statute of Westminster

[edit] June 2008

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search