User talk:AusLondonder/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Election articles

Hello AusLondonder. I see you requested the Myanma election article be moved because of an "apparent spelling error". Myanma is the demonym of Myanmar, and the titles are correct per WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Cheers, Number 57 08:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification...

Seeing the above interactions with E.M.Gregory, I wanted you to know about this discussion if you wanted to participate. MSJapan (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

An offer for you

I offer for you to nominate every article I have ever written for deletion. You seem to have a problem with the fact that I wrote an article calling criminal failure Joshua Bonehill a criminal failure, minor laughing stock National Action a minor laughing stock, divisive attention seeker Alvin Tan a divisive attention seeker etc. Axe to grind? Go on mate, find the bias in those articles I've written, there's a good boy '''tAD''' (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:The Almightey Drill. Your behaviour has been disgusting. If you have written an article simply calling some a "criminal failure" please read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. How dare you accuse me of an axe to grind and being an apologist for rape. Don't post here again, I will revert without reply. AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of CSD tags and reasons given by you

  • AusLondonder, you removed CSD tag here, here and here. In the first two edits, you cited WP:GEOBIAS + "has a ref" and in third edit you mentioned "Speedy does not apply here. Has refs and a claim notability". You need to explain to me why and how did you ascertain in first two edits that this is a case of WP:GEOBIAS? Furthermore, you also need to explain how does a subject become notable just because it has a reference? Your talkpage is full of posts that indicate towards your editing behavior; from one editor to another, please be cautious with your edits and also with the approach. I await your reply on what I asked. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I find your approach rather concerning. What is "editing behavior (?)" (sic) that concerns you? Those speedy nominations were, in my view, absurd. Speedy is for organisations, events etc with no claim to significance not those with newspaper coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, per WP:A7 having any claim to notability means an article cannot be nominated for speedy deletion. A7 states " The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." A campaign headed by a former parliamentarian which has achieved national English-language media coverage is a credible claim to significance, regardless of whether it meets the criteria of WP:GNG. Speedy is not for such organisations and events.

Frankly, I am astounded and deeply concerned by your misuse of WP:SPEEDY. You should not be so hasty to nominate articles for deletion without community discussion or consensus. WP:GEOBIAS is relevant because it is utterly inconceivable for an editor to nominate for speedy deletion an article about an American political campaign run by a former politician which had met with the President and achieved national media coverage. Such a nomination would be regarded as vexatious and absurd. AusLondonder (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • AusLondonder, Ok now you need to explain more things 1) How did you conclusively decide that this is WP:GEOBIAS? 2) What "credible claim of significance or importance" did the article make? A "turn vegetarian" claim? Thousands of similar campaigns are running across the world so does that mean we create a page for each one of them? 3) As per which guideline does a "campaign headed by a former parliamentarian" become notable automatically? 4) You said "Speedy is not for such organisations and events" - get yourself updated on guidelines. Check the CSD tag; that itself has a criteria "A7: Unremarkable organized event'. 5) Since when do we invite a "community discussion or consensus" for a CSD???? The entire idea behind CSD is to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I am talking about the Hindu awareness campaign. It does not become notable automatically, but it has a credible claim to notability. Should I ask for another opinion? AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • AusLondonder, my views are the same for that page as well. It's your judgement and call to seek for independent opinion; I have absolutely no say in this. As I mentioned in the AfD discussion, I am not going to reply to any of your comments anywhere on this subject unless we have some positive / constructive value to add. If I can be of any assistance; please feel free to contact me. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"No consensus"

Could I just point out that "No consensus [to include]" is not a valid reason to revert someone else's good-faith edits? There is no requirement to have a discussion before something is included in a page; once it's been reverted, then yes, there is a need to have a discussion about it, but you'd need a reason based in policy to do that reversion. Just reverting and saying, "No consensus," is putting the cart before the horse. I get the impression that your edit summary of "No consensus" is actually "I don't like it." GoldenRing (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing, may I ask if you are serious? There is a discussion going on at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn about which image to use. An editor changed the image without gaining consensus at the talkpage. In those circumstances it is absolutely proper for me to revert with the rationale of no consensus. Please get your facts right before coming here and making accusations against me. AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't make an accusation and I wasn't referring to any particular situation; you seem to regularly make reverts with the sole rationale "No consensus," though I haven't bothered to dig through your edit history to gauge it and I'm not going to. I didn't mean to provoke quite such a defensive reaction and I'm sorry that I have. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean, in that case. As far as I'm aware, I've only reverted and used the rationale 'no consensus' when a talkpage discussion is ongoing or beginning. AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for disappearing for a week or two. In that case, you could avoid all this by just saying, "See talk page." I'm already seeing much more nuanced edit summaries at Jeremy Corbyn - thanks for taking it on board. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Councils, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Bullock. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP

Hi AusLondonder - I trust you believe me when I say that Corbyn has been appointed a PC & that therefore he is a Privy Councillor. I appreciate that sometimes bully-boy tactics work, but it would be better to liaise first rather than referring to EDIT WAR. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No I don't believe you. This is based upon multiple reliable sources, including the Privy Council itself. Regarding bully-boy tactics - those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. AusLondonder (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Borough of Islington may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] of the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]], the current Leader of the Opposition since 2015. [[Islington South (UK Parliament constituency) is represented by [[Emily Thornberry]], of the [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central Tibetan School Administration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed AusLondonder (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn

Apologies for the revert of indentation on the talk page. The way you had it, the posts didn't go in the right time order in the way one would expect from the progressive indentation. It's not you who messed it up -- it's the "Legends" editor who interspersed his/her comments at various places other than the bottom... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, User:Nomoskedasticity. Seems like protecting Corbyn's blp from violations is going to be a busy job :) AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes worries [sic] - RSVP. Much obliged. M Mabelina (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't know what you mean, User:Mabelina. AusLondonder (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding AusLondonder - it's always better to talk. I've just amended Corbyn's article to reflect his status as a Privy Counsellor, although I am quite aware that this could get reverted - however, it is actually the correct state of affairs. Liaise soon - cheers M Mabelina (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It is the incorrect state of affairs and has, of course, again been reverted by other editors. AusLondonder (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Move from Department of Chemicals and Petro-Chemicals to Draft:Department of Chemicals and Petro-Chemicals

Hello AusLondonder,

I just wanted to inform you that I have moved your article from the mainspace to the Draft namespace from Department of Chemicals and Petro-Chemicals to Draft:Department of Chemicals and Petro-Chemicals. If you're wondering why I moved your article, please read WP:Verifiability or leave a note on my talk page, and I would be happy to address any questions, comments, or concerns you would have. Happy editing! --JustBerry (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:JustBerry. This seems unusual and uncommon. Raising verifiability seems to suggest you doubt the existence of the Department. However, the official website was included. AusLondonder (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello AusLondonder, your article did not appear to include any sources for WP:Verifiability. --JustBerry (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The official website is included in the infobox. Can I also ask what policy states articles without secondary sources should be moved immediately to a draft? AusLondonder (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Consulate General in Chennai (2nd nomination)

In what way was my nomination borderline disruptive? Everyone else voted delete except you. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is borderline disruptive to nominate for deletion after such a short period since the last nomination. Doing so is strongly discouraged. AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
6 months is not a short period. Read someone's reply to you within the AfD, after 2 months is considered ok . My nomination was not as disruptive at all, no one else thought it was disruptive, in fact your vote was the only keep, so you are the lone dissenter in a sea of delete. LibStar (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Strongly discouraged" is not backed by any community consensus, I will happily renominate after 6 months even 4 or even 3. LibStar (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hard Left

Hi, I'd love to resolve this dispute amicably so let's go ahead.

I see you have said that my edit was POV pushing. Wikipedia's systemic biases mean that many articles have a left leaning slant. For example, take Jeremy Corbyn's article: comments were made about Corbyn's electability by Peter Mandelson and Andrew Marr and this was added to the article with a source. These were removed because apparently they were "opinion and bias only". Comparing this with David Cameron's article one can see that their are comments made about him by trade union leaders. Using the same logic I could remove these comments and state that they too are 'opinion and bias only'. While obviously I would not do this, I am merely highlighting the pro-left slant acting on Wikipedia.

Anyway, regarding this specific article the issue is that the assertion that "'hard left' is a pejorative used by conservative elements in the media" is not backed up by a source. There is an article by the Sun about Corbyn's cabinet choices but that is all. If you find source that states something along the lines of "'hard left' is a pejorative used by conservative elements in the media" I would be happy to accept the article in its current version.

Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello there User:Reaganomics88. Bias is very much in the eye of the beholder. I see no evidence supported by reliable sources that Wikipedia is biased towards left-wing politics, especially article relating to British politics. I see you are on a self-appointed crusade to remove "bias" from many articles, despite your own possible biases. Regarding the hard left article, The Sun is a very conservative newspaper and has described Mr Corbyn as "hard-left". It has also used other terms in clearly pejorative contexts such as "loony", "oddball", "misfits", "left-wing loonies"
With the present source you would be able to state 'Jeremy Corybn has appointed a bunch of far left loonies to his cabinet.' This edit would of course be reverted because it breaches neutrality guidelines and does not have a reliable source.
Using the source in the current context would breach WP:PRIMARY which states "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The source does not state that hard left is a perforative used by conservative elements and therefore the statement counts as original research.
By the way I feel your "self-appointed crusade" comment did not WP:AGF. I would not make a similar comment about you because I feel those type of things are simply counter-productive. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Mabelina

Hi mate - is just me or do you seem to have a lot of politically motivated questions on your Talk Page? not to mention the types of argument over edits you like to engage in (such as just now alleging "These edits do not conform to WP:NPOV and lack SOURCING).

NB. "Hard Left
Hi, I'd love to resolve this dispute amicably so let's go ahead."

Would you admit that this (yours) somehow gives a clue as to where your political sympathies lie? I have no problem, and if you don't either please butt out of disrupting edits (especially where it is a work in progress).

Thank you & good night.

M Mabelina (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly no more than you do. Your monarchy obsession and edit warring has been discussed on forums before. AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh ho ho are you gearing up for a fight? M Mabelina (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What does Nuttall was found to place' (.. 736th out of 756 MEPs) mean in the English language? M Mabelina (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi AusLondonder - Frinton was in discussion with me, which contributor stated that his aim is to improve Wiki including badly worded English. I have done just that in the case of the John Bickley article, which previously made much reference to Twitter (which I undertand not be a good source for Wiki). You reverted my edits wholescale without any apparent attention to their pertinence. If you would be so kind, please allow me to undo yours and make considered edits accordingly. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why have you posted this here User:Peter Gulutzan? AusLondonder (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your 1RR violation at Jennifer McCann

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Discussed at Talk:Jennifer McCann. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How have I violated WP:1RR, User:Gob Lofa? AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
A reminder of this clarification of the 1RR discretionary sanctions concerning The Troubles, specifically all articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, are placed under an 1RR rule under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, I ask you, how have I violated it today? Will you answer that User:Gob Lofa? AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: your comment at ANI

Thank you for stating this clearly [1]. I'm the IP account that reported the edits, and I've signed off over what appears to me to be a tone-deafness there. I respect many of the admins involved, but see a real disconnect there as to why this would be so offensive to so many people. I'm not inclined to take this to a venue outside Wikipedia, but I believe it may be an inevitable process. Light shed on this would not be flattering. Anyway, thanks for your comment and cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:8C40:C684:713F:6378 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with you and I share your disgust at the awful behaviour from this editor and surprise at the approach taken by some admins. I realise the editor in question is long-serving but abuse of this level can surely not just be ignored and pushed under the rug? I hope common-sense prevails in this and that this matter is properly resolved by whatever means necessary. Good on you for bringing this to the attention of the community, by the way! AusLondonder (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justin Trudeau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haida. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved AusLondonder (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am losing the will to live

Can't really add much more than the header really. Frinton100 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I know the feeling Frinton100! Mabelina and I have quite a history, especially at the Jeremy Corbyn page. Their editing style is rather, shall we say, unconventional :) AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Mabelina is edit-warring at John Bickley (UKIP) as well right now. Has previously edit-warred at Paul Nuttall and Jeremy Corbyn as well. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No I am not - but anyhow if that is your opinion I shall wait 30 minutes & then recorrect what is appalling English as well as inaccuracies. Please proceed accordingly. M Mabelina (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. Frinton100 has been quite objective in his criticism so why revert to tittle-tattle AusLondonder? M Mabelina (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
What are the inaccuracies? You are edit warring though. You have probably violated WP:3RR AusLondonder (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
{Edit conflict} What a shame that Frinton100's objective criticism has not stopped your edit warring. AusLondonder (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this an attempt at sarcasm? It baffles me as to why you spend so much time reverting my edits wholescale & now allege edit warring. Far simpler to deal with the subject matter properly in the first place. I see you won't give up though - so let's try to get it sorted, within say the next hour. That should give you enough time to make poignant textual alterations (as long as time is not wasted "discussing" so-to-speak). Best M Mabelina (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I certainly do not wish to waste time reverting your edits nor discussing. However, I am left with little choice given you re-revert me immediately and restore your improper edits AusLondonder (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Noted. I have just amended the Bickley article to read well and accurately, and moreover so as to achieve the balance sought by Wiki. Needless to say, please feel free to make appropriate amendments (but after this Talk page discussion I suggest you do so on specific points with supporting comments - on which note if it is not already apparent to you, there is a huge difference between being a climate change denier - only a complete fool would claim that the climate doesn't change - and a climate change sceptic). I do hope this Talk page discussion helps. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
AusLondonder - John Bickley is not a climate change denier because he accepts that it is happening it is just that he challenges the science, thus making him a sceptic. Understood? M Mabelina (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with AusLondonder insofar as I don't believe we should use "denier" simply because that is the name of the article. A perfectly reasonable case could be made to use sceptic. However, given the limited knowledge I have of Bickley's views on the subject (it comes only from the tweets linked to on the article), he seems to suggest the climate change is not happening at all, that it is a lie and a hoax. A sceptic would accept that it is happening but question the extent to which it was created by humans, the extent to which it is still going on (given the plateauing of global temps in the last few years), the methods proposed to tackle it, or all of the above. A denier denies that there is any sort of climate change happening at all, and any fluctuations in global temperatures are completely natural. From what I can see, Bickley is a denier, but perhaps there are better sources that would suggest otherwise? If so, they are the ones that we should be linking to, not the tweets. Frinton100 (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Frinton100 and hello AusLondonder - re. climate change I do not see how John Bickley can be credited with any deep thought on the matter at all, so I agree with Frinton that it is not worthy of mention in the article. By the way, in UKIP world not to be a "denier" is bad, whereas Bickley seems to me struggling to pay anything other lipservice to this matter. Now, you raised the question about his being a golfer and an Anglican and I should hope you now see that he most firmly is both. RSVP - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, don't put words in other peoples mouths. Secondly, how about getting sources for those claims? I won't hold my breath, though. AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I have done so - thank you. M Mabelina (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
What source? The Spectator article does not mention "Bickley" the Sky source does not mention "golf". Another WP:COMPETENCE issue. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
it would be worth your while reading on - this is quite tortuous, having to spell everything out as if to a simpleton. Sorry but what can I say? M Mabelina (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please document your charge

I like to bring your attention to the fact that you made some serious charges against another editor which I have not seen backed up by facts. I tried to bring this to your attention with this edit, and included a ping but I am aware that occasionally pings do not go through which is why am posting here. I suggest that allegations of removal of source material aren't even relevant to a CFD discussion, and should have been brought up either on the talk page of the article or on the editors talk page, but wherever they are raised, they ought to be backed up by evidence. Perhaps that evidence exists but I look for it and did not find it. I urge you to either identify the evidence or strike your comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking further, my guess is that you are referring to Jess's claim about Jones's removal of content. He did, it was unsourced. Jess claims it was sourced in a subsequent paragraph, but, as you know, that not how sourcing works.
I will be specific. @Jonathan A Jones: removed a paragraph which started Jones says he does not believe in significant human induced climate change .. That claim was not sourced—not immediately after the claim, as would be proper, nor at the end of the sentence which might be acceptable, nor at the end of the paragraph, which would be far short of ideal, but might at least give a reader some chance of finding the reference.
The claim has been restored, and while a citation exists at the end of the sentence, it does not support the claim. Perhaps the placement at the end of the sentence means it is intended to support some other claim in the sentence, although I don't see that either. (I hope no one pretends that the key issue is a subsequent sentence discussing the Prime Minister. It is obvious, in the context of the CfD regarding climate change denial that the key point is the opening phrase.)
I note in the article talk page, that the claim still is not supported. I was tempted to remove it on BLP grounds, but I prefer to use the talk page to discuss controversial edits. I hope you will join the conversation but if something doesn't happen soon, it will be better to remove it and then discuss how and whether it should be restored.
It is possible I have guessed wrong as to your reference. If you meant something else I urge you to identify it. If you are referring to the removal of the unsourced claim, you are clearly mistaken and I urge you to correct your statement in the discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I confess I'm stunned that anyone would characterize the removal of a category as "removing sourced material". Thanks for clarifying what you meant — I think it's tremendously misleading but I guess that's why they pay the admin's the big bucks to sort out claims like that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I looked at Joanne Nova. Her own words support her belief that "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas" and "adding more to it will warm the planet". The rest of her statemnt inicates her belief about the climate sensitivity. A value of zero is consistent with being a denier, but she believes the range is well above that. Her range is lower than that of some scientists, but that doesn't make her a denier, unlesss you mean the word other than what it means in English.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what has me more stunned, that you think it is ok to make a charge without providing examples, or that Media Matters qualfies as a reliaaible source. On the first point, I thank you for prodiding examples, it will give me something to check through. On the second point, the more I read about just about all sources, the more I despair that we have to resort to them. I'm reminded of Chrchill's lament "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I'm feeling that way about our accetped relaible sources, "They are the worst ways of establising the truth, except for all the other ways."
I don't know whether you had a chance to look at the Media Matters reference. It does indeed say " hundreds of thousands on both sides " but I listened to the clip - twice, and I think he said "hundreds or thousands". Do you think it is definitive? Who knows, maybe I'm biased, we often hear what we want to hear, but I'd want something better than that before accepting that he made a false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe Media Matters is reliable in this context because it contains videos of the individuals making the statements. AusLondonder (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Neelix

The shrine for Tara Teng was incredibly disturbing, indeed stomach-churning. If you don't feel Heelix should apologise for his actions at all if you (instead you apologise to him for crying out loud) and if you "don't care" that he did this you are part of the problem.

Great comment. NE Ent has taken this kind of position for years, but the most frightening thing is that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of editors just like him. Over the years I've noticed the same pattern: low social intelligence. I'm not sure how you can even begin to address the problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Viriditas! I was certainly shocked by NE Ent's comments. AusLondonder (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
It's amazing that another user accused you of "going too far" with this while ignoring NE Ent's painting of everyone who disagrees with Neelix as a "villain". I wonder what NE Ent does in his spare time when he isn't kissing up to admins? It's interesting how there's always a class of people who devote their entire life to supporting the unsupportable. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I certainly don't have the nature to suck up to anyone and I certainly have no desire to become an admin. They'd sack me quicker than Neelix (he is still officially an admin and unblocked!) AusLondonder (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa

I'm starting to think that a case needs to be made to restrict Gob Lofa. 90% of their edits are fine , but 10% are problematic. Not sure what or how, but a 'no revert' restriction over time might be worth proposing ----Snowded TALK 16:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'd have to agree, User:Snowded. He has violated the WP:1RR rules at Martina Anderson. Rules he himself notified me about. He is clearly taking a very WP:POV and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to Northern Ireland related issues and unilaterally rejecting reliable sources. He has also claimed in a edit summary at Martina Anderson that the matter had already been discussed. But I am not aware of the categorisation of Anderson having been discussed. AusLondonder (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
OK I'll try and find time to draft something in a sandbox later this week - will ping you when I have ----Snowded TALK 03:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This came up so I made a comment ----Snowded TALK 07:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jain organizations -> organizations

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy.

There is a question there about your nomination of Hindu/Jain organizations -> organizations.

I have added this message in case the "pings" on that page may not be working. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies. I have been very busy with other issues. I did see the ping but forgot to reply. AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD

I agree with the reasons behind your Afd, but the user is very new. I had got halfway through the AfD process when I changed my mind. I have posted to their talk page and offered to help with the article. It might be worth someone else doing the same. I don't think this will make any extra work for us as I don't imagine there's any more to add. Frinton100 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, you are probably right per WP:BITE. I can remove the tag for now as I imagine they would want to anyway if/when they realised they could AusLondonder (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Changing the subject, how long before we escalate? Do we do it now or give it one more chance? Frinton100 (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the only reason I have done nothing so far is that, despite my "obsession", I'm being lazy. Diffs, arguments etc. But it does have to be done. Mabelina has a record for this. Have you seen their block log (incidentally, my block log is blemished by an early on 24 hr block for 'incivility'). Are you any good at reports/complaints? :) AusLondonder (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I tend to leave it to other people for the same reason! Yes, I have seen their block log, we have crossed paths before too but never on this scale. I thought I was getting somewhere last night. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they genuinely didn't know or understand article talk pages and WP:BRD but appears I was having my time wasted. What gets me is all this whinging about how much time on wikipedia is spent discussing things compared to working on articles. Frinton100 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. I was reminded of the old joke about the man who goes for a drive and while he's out there's a report on the radio about a car going the wrong way down the M62. His wife phones him and says "be careful, someone's driving the wrong way down the motorway". He replies "one, there's hundreds of 'em".

Hahahaha! That's our Mabelina. Mabelina is certainly lucky in one regard, though. That is that we are all hoping someone else will deal with the problem. Mabelina often acts so incredibly polite and decent you do think it is all an honest mistake and that they are here to help. Re discussions you would assume Mabelina loves discussions given the often trivial matters they force long, wearisome discussions about, even when they are manifestly wrong. I can report to WP:AN3 if you like? Or what do you think would be best? AusLondonder (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it - I've not done one before so it's probably a useful thing to do. I have just been reverted on John Bickley again. Apparently he is once again a councillor in an ancient diocese created by Henry VIII. Frinton100 (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. You've been a bit more involved anyway. As I understand it John Bickley was a great personal friend of Henry VIII. They played golf together. That's why Henry made him a councillor, you see. Not a ward/"Ward" councillor, by the way. An ancient councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, someone else nominated Jane Brophy for speedy. I removed as she has "credible" claims to significance. They have now nominated for deletion per AFD. AusLondonder (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It was inevitable really, shame. If I had that talk page within a couple of days of joiing wikipedia I don't know that you'd see me again, but then I haven't had a reply to my offer of help. Frinton100 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikipedia can be quite daunting for a new editor. I knew a bit, had previously edited about 10 times as an IP. Spent a lot of time reading up after creating this account. Did have some minor troubles at first, but persisted. Established editors can be very quick to jump on newbies unfortunately. AusLondonder (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice one siblings - shut out the incognoscenti - stupid really because they know something! M Mabelina (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the point we are both making in principal and practice is that new editors should be welcomed. AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't start up again - oh, sorry it was me this time. M Mabelina (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

NPA on Neelix

AusLondoner, you can disagree all you want but it was a personal attack and as such blockable, so please don't do it again. And please stop arguing: it's not going to make me look at the initial remark more kindly. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, given that after all his conduct Neelix is unblocked and still an admim I find the irony in your threat to block me almost comically unbelievable. Two editors have personally congratulated me on my remarks. Many more agree. Wikipedia is a community led process. What gives you the right to unilaterally declare that saying someone is part of a problem is such a serious attack as to warrant blocking? The disregard and disrespect you are showing to the view of many community members is shameless, arrogant and elitist. I am very disappointed that you would seek to stifle and silence free speech of other contributors in this way. Are you an admin? AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I notice a personal attack has been made by a pro-Neelix editor here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servants Anonymous Society. What are you going to do about it, User:Drmies? AusLondonder (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, could I clarify that have you read WP:NPA? It says "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks". Egregious is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "outstandingly bad, shocking" . Do you seriously believe that me saying someone is a part of a problem is "outstandingly bad and shocking"? It also says "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all" and "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly racist or sexist insults) should not be ignored" - was my "attack" a physical or legal threat? Was it racist? Was it sexist (no, in contrast to Neelix's redirects). AusLondonder (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am an administrator, I was an administrator years before you even began editing here, yes I have read the policy, etc etc. Your attempts to irritate me are noted, as is your attempt to deflect by pointing at other editors who are being naughty: feel free to report them on a noticeboard. Trying to school me and editors like NE Ent in policy is laughable. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies. Thanks for your reply. I thought you must be an admin, as you seemed intent on threatening me in a rather heavy-handed way. You do seem rather irritated for unknown reasons. It is unfortunate that you wish to silence a significant body of community opinion. I reject the idea that because you are an admin and you disagree I have no right to my opinion. I didn't look how long you've been an editor. I don't actually think that is relevant. However, I am sure, then, that you know policies well. It surprises me in that case that you suggest what I said is 'blockable'. I ask you respectfully, do you seriously believe that me saying someone is a part of a problem is "outstandingly bad and shocking"? AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, given there are 122,498 active users any claims about "many community members" based on small samples area always suspect. In any event, let's just focus on the fact we all agree it is time Neelix and Wikipedia to part ways, the quicker the better. I was hopeful he was choose the easiest path and simply resign, and to the extent your (AusLondoner) comments reinforced how strongly the community feels about it, I didn't see it as entirely a negative thing. And if be willing to treat a fellow human decently, regardless of mistake they made on a website -- we're not taking ISIS or Boko haram here -- is part of the problem, then I'm happy to be part of the problem. That said, while Drmies suggestion to tone things down in the future is undoubtedly a good one in general, in this particular case perhaps we should all agree to disagree and good our separate ways? NE Ent 03:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @User:NE Ent - Thanks for your reasonable and decent reply. Someone posted on my page and several editors "thanked" me for my edit. I recognise that it is a small sample, but from what I have seen I feel community anger is greater than admin anger. I was trying to get that across. I feel it would have been better had Neelix addressed the many issues raised and agree it would have been better had he resigned. I agree that Neelix should still be treated as a human being, even after his mistakes. I do feel however that it wasn't necessary for anyone else to apologise to Neelix. I retrospect, I do apologise to you if you felt attacked by my comments. I was surpised WP:NPA was raised as I didn't feel it was a personal attack. It was criticism of your post, yes. But it wasn't intended to be personal. I was not saying you personally are a problem, more that being overly supportive of Neelix sends the wrong message and is a problem. I was surprised also at the suggestion above of a block for me given the circumstances. Anyway, you are right and I am happy to agree to disagree on the finer points. AusLondonder (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Text of my "scattergun" circular about GBS Irish/British thingee

As I hinted - I have bombed a number of people's talk pages with the following.

Was he "Irish" or "British" or do we need to define his nationality in some other way? A debate on the subject, to reconsider a long-standing consensus that he was Irish, has started at talk:George Bernard Shaw. Just in case you're interested. Current comments are at "Nationality", at the foot of the page - although an earlier thread at "Irish"? may also be relevant.

I hope this is fairly neutral - I have tried to be "see to be" so. The people I circularised were all people who have edited the GBS article recently. I didn't filter these in any way - except to ignore obvious vandals and IPs.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK User:Soundofmusicals, it will be interesting to see how the discussion goes. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD for White Cross Army

Dear AusLondoner, Hi. Hope all is ok. I think more refs can be easily be found so am not sure of the need for an afd. Is there something I am missing here? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC))

Dear AusLondoner, sorry ignore the above I see from the recent additions to afd and what the issue. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC))
Hello there User:Msrasnw - I'm just not sure it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Some fleeting mentions do not equate to significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Labour's PPC for Oldham West and Royton

Hi AusLondonder - should I assume that my efforts to talk you & Frinton through my thinking the other day were to no avail? This is a bit dismaying but not surprising. I asked you as to whether you are Labour supporters to which no reply, despite TOTALLY UNFOUNDED retorts of being UKIP myself! This is no way to carry on. What is the highest authority in Wiki to resolve such matters - not the noticeboard which you kept cited over & over but the body which presides over this mechanism in Wiki. Presumably you know & will be prepared to share that info with me? M Mabelina (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You accused both of us of being Labour supporters with no evidence. I have taken this matter to WP:BLPN so please reply to the issues there. AusLondonder (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
No I asked you both whether you are Labour supporters to which you didn't reply & then seemed to take massive offence. You also have a tendency to trigger immediate further discussions or talks, whereas it would much easier and more straightforward to confirm or deny the point made in light of consistent reversions of my edits. These to any independently-minded individual would indicate more than a hint of bias - which I shall be able to detail as & when required. Your lack of integrity does not fill me with confidence so I welcome scrutiny of all related posts (of which there are many) & then I and others will be able to reach an informed decision as to how balanced Wiki wishes its articles to be. M Mabelina (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Please no personal attacks regarding my "integrity". AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Paul Golding
added a link pointing to National Front
The Answer (band)
added a link pointing to Mike Fraser

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Absurd claims

Stop, you dimwit. Your accusations and insinuations may be well-intentioned but you are clueless. Sure, be bold but don't be fucking stupid. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What the fucking hell are you talking about? AusLondonder (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You and your behaviour at the Paris article. It isn't the first time I've seen it but it is the first time I have been the target. You start commenting about the contributor rather than the content then you'll get it back in spades. I'm out of here for a while now due to meds but, believe me, my interest in your antics has suddenly grown immensely. That does not bode well. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't try and threaten me. I never personally attacked you. You called me a dimwit twice and swore at me. Again please file at ANI. Rather curious as to what other "behaviour" you are referring to. AusLondonder (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to the crap as discussed above around 11 November, for starters. Anyway, like I said, it is probably best that I retire. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I've now seen the really awful personal abuse by you of User:Fences and windows whiles simultaneously threatening me. You still haven't indicated a single thing I have said to warrant such fury by you. AusLondonder (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked Sitush for 24 hours. I checked the page at Talk:International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks and I could not see direct personal attacks or incivility directed at Sitush, but the debate is getting heated. Please avoid reverts where possible and keep the discussion calm. Some of the options at WP:Dispute resolution may be useful. Fences&Windows 01:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks User:Fences and windows. It's a shame all this happened. I now see he told me to fuck off as well. I can't understand the ferocious anger, threats and abuse over such a minor content dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest disengaging from debating this incident with Sitush. I don't think Bishonen's unblock needs reviewing as the spate of insults is hopefully past. If it recurs, please first ask for an apology and then follow the advice at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Fences&Windows 20:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Are you on? Allygggggg (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, User:Allygggggg thanks! AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Rather than templating me how about you have the decency to respond to my question, User:John. What is defamatory about " Take for example the utterly ludicrous over-coverage of the Kim Davis (county clerk) controversy" or "Result - two articles and hundreds of hours devoted to producing millions of words on talkpages". Your behaviour looks a lot like WP:WIKIHOUNDING because of our content dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
User:John - I would welcome a reply. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, what is it you are unsure about? --John (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What is defamatory about " Take for example the utterly ludicrous over-coverage of the Kim Davis (county clerk) controversy" or "Result - two articles and hundreds of hours devoted to producing millions of words on talkpages." Also, per WP:USERPAGE you should have raised the issue with me first rather than editing my userpage. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You broke WP:BLP on your user page. I removed the violation. You restored it. I removed it again and warned you. If you want to restore a version that is BLP-compliant you are welcome to do so. I hope this clears the matter up for you. BLP applies everywhere. --John (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, you have failed to answer what it is you feel violated WP:BLP about what was posted. You have also failed to explain why you unilaterally removed content from my page not disputed by any other editor without consulting me first in violation of WP:USERPAGE. AusLondonder (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean to say you have not read the material that was removed from your user page? If you do not understand BLP you will run into trouble again and again here. Read the link here: WP:BLP. Then read the material you restored. Then think about it. Let me know if you are still struggling. --John (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop the petty insults. I have not had BLP issues raised in the past from my 8500+ edits. I am not asking for my view - I am asking for your view on what specific words you feel should be excluded. You have still failed to answer why you unilaterally removed content from my page not disputed by any other editor without consulting me first in violation of WP:USERPAGE. I now realise you just have no intention of answering. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to repeat the violation here to show you what it was. If you are not sure which material that I removed from your page was a violation, probably leave it all out. --John (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Your heavy-handed, WP:POINTy and WP:WIKIHOUNDING behaviour is astounding. You are treating policies with contempt apparently because of the content dispute. You abject refusal to answer reasonable questions about this is telling. Quit the sarcasm, by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Well done, I knew you would figure it out in the end. A pleasure to be of help. --John (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Poor form in dealing with such a minor issue AusLondonder (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim McMahon (again)

Hasn't the Oldham West article (and all of its associated pages) been quiet lately? There's a little bit of contention at Jim McMahon (politician) at the moment over a couple of things you added/deleted. Frinton100 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frinton100 - Indeed, I wondered how long before the peace was broken. Thanks for the tip, by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review, Request for comment related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Butler (3rd nomination)

There is pending deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Butler (3rd nomination), filed 28 November 2015, which seeks to change the result of that AfD. Because you commented in the underlying AfD for the Annie Butler article, you are being notified of the DRV discussion @ Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28, so that you may comment in the pending DRV if you so desire. For an explanation of the DRV process, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Also, please be aware that there is also a related Request for Comment regarding the validity of "delete and redirect" for AfD !votes and outcomes, filed 30 November 2015. Because you commented in the underlying AfD which prompted the RfC, you are being notified of the RfC discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect. For an explanation of the RfC process, please see Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Secret Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New World Order. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your user page

Have you seen the last edit on your user page? Wondered if you might be ignoring it. Frinton100 (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Frinton100 - thanks for that! I didn't notice at first. What is it about Jim McMahon and vandals?!? AusLondonder (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's just any non-UKIP politician who happens to be in the news. Either that or it's an Oldham local with a grudge against their council - planning disputes are common causes for people to launch irrational tirades against local politicians. Was this account connected to the one below do you think? Frinton100 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Frinton100 - Doesn't exactly say much good about UKIP supporters. I suspected the two could have been linked but it might also be some other long-term abuser. I'm certainly attracting some hostile attention at the moment! AusLondonder (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for revert

You really don't want that on your page. I've revdelled all their edits. --NeilN talk to me 22:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, User:NeilN. They obviously aren't a new editor. I wonder who they are a sock of. AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I know it's a long term abuser - I tracked them down once but forget exactly who it was now. I want to say this guy but don't quote me on that. --NeilN talk to me 23:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

Happy Christmas!
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this User:John, I hope you had a great Christmas and wish you a happy new year. AusLondonder (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Misclick?

What happened here? We can't use the Mirror here per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I re-removed the offending material. We can't use tabloids like this. --John (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Nisour Square massacre

Once again, there is an attempt to obfuscate and mislead with respect to that subject. Please consider adding your voice to this. The task seems to be endless. Zedshort (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Labor-Progressive Party

The Parliament of Canada website has corrected the spelling of the party name so it's now Labor-Progressive Party. The article name Labour Progressive Party is therefore incorrect. See this entry for example. Please see new move proposal. Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of number-one dance singles of 2016 (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dakota. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

re Queensland Nickel

The content, sources and formatted references at Yabulu, Queensland#Palmer Nickel and Cobalt Refinery may be useful for expanding this page. 220 of Borg 11:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) AusLondonder (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

George Lansbury

Hi there, I want to let you know about a discussion I opened regarding categorisation of the George Lansbury article at Talk:George Lansbury#Categorisation. Cheers, Graham (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016 has been nominated for discussion

Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Alfie Deyes and feminism

Could you explain on talk page for Alfie Deyes, why you think the Feminist categories are appropriate? There's nothing in article to indicate a feminist position or feminist activity. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shane Warne Foundation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Clarke, Ray Martin and Lloyd Williams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theatre of Canada may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {Use Canadian English}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Question re Neelix talk

Do you really think that post meets the definition of "trolling" and how that justifies your removal of that from another user's page and making threats against another editor? AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I will answer the last question when you stop beating your wife. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The serious answer is that the original post served no purpose whatsoever except to pile on and be a pathetic example of grave dancing. Neelix isn't banned, and even if they were, should still be treated with common decency, same as any other person. I don't see any "threat". Perhaps you confused me with somebody else. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I see the humour in violence against women, but I fully understand that the sort of disgusting misogynist redirects created by Neelix lead to the attitudes which demonise and sexualise women. I guess we all have different perceptions of humour. Can I ask again what authority you have to unilaterally remove a post that contained no abuse or threats from the talk page of another editor? AusLondonder (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Asked and answered. Stop badgering me. It wasn't humor. It was cutting sarcasm to show that violence isn't solved by more violence. Violence goes both ways. It's not just men vs women. Stop enabling that IP to harass Neelix. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure why you moved this here but whatever. I'm afraid your so-called "cutting" sarcasm didn't cut nor amuse. Per WP:NOBAN and WP:TPO I can't see the rationale for your unilateral removal of a non-threatening message from another editor's talk page. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You might not be fully informed, or you might be mistaken. If the IP who's obnoxious comment was removed wants to talk to me, they can. I'm not sure why you are speaking for them. We're here to write articles, not debate endlessly about things that have little connection to writing an encyclopedia. I moved the conversation because I don't want to have to look at it every time I open my talk page, but I don't want to forcibly archive it. Moving the conversation here is a compromise. Jehochman Talk 22:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
As you have given no policy based reason for the removal, I expect you will restore the content at once. AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I am done speaking with you. Jehochman Talk 23:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Been a pleasure. Have a wonderful day. AusLondonder (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for Prodding Rafik Y

If you weren't WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, I would not have noticed that the article needed a little updating.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Prodding an article does not equate to harassment. AusLondonder (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AusLondonder/Archive_3&oldid=1187074608"