|
User talk:Ashton 29Brisbane MontageWhen you say a "house" isn't worth having in the Brisbane montage, you're completely neglecting the fact it's about the architecture of the house. Queenslanders are a unique part of Brisbane's identity and technically the only style of archictecture native to Australia, which makes it of international importance. The new look of the montage is also terrible, perhaps instead of a house there could be a row of houses? --Fiftyfires (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Hello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) New Challenge for Oceania and AustraliaHi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyHello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyHello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now. If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again. About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Sydney editHey Ashton. I had to revert your edits on Sydney's article. First of all, you removed/reverted most of the content and substantial changes I made in the page. Please, edit the page manually. Don't revert, as you got rid of my recent, important changes, such as on geography, which I moved some of its contents to the geography of Sydney article. If you want a different image here and there, just click edit and change that image to your desire. Please do NOT revert to earlier edits and spare a thought, as I spent hours revamping the page (as you can see from the contribution history). Above all, you have to ask AussieLegend about adding images. He didn't approve of some of them as the page had breached the image limit. Thanks. Meganesia (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 18Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pyrmont. 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) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 5Hi. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 24Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Carey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyHello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list. Thank you! Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEvery response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyHello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now. If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. A page you started (The River Ophelia) has been reviewed!Thanks for creating The River Ophelia, Ashton 29! Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page. Learn more about page curation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Sydney montage imageWhat on earth is going on on the Sydney page? Why is the montage idea so controversial? I'm really at a loss over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CashythedogNovember (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 13An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shopping centres in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)  The article Victorian Major Events Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing Disambiguation link notification for June 1Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westmead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter message
File:Port of Melbourne, 1980s.jpgDon't just revert to a clearly inferior version - that's not helpful in the slightest. If you think there's a different improvement that can be made then my talk page is open, so talk to me. Your ownership of images is irritating, and there's a long saga about how you handle that badly. Break the habit of a lifetime, eh? You never know how much better that might end up making you feel - and you might even gain an ally... Don't you think that after all this time being the "annoying person" who everyone loves to revert this might be your opportunity to join us and become part of this team trying to improve the encyclopedia? If you do, you know where I am. -- Begoon 14:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) March 2020
Disambiguation link notification for April 5An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Year's Eve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenelg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 12An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Disruptive image editingBack in 2015, in a discussion now archived here, you proposed adding File:Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg to Australia after your addition of the image was reverted by HappyWaldo. The obvious consensus of that discussion was that the original image was preferred. Despite that, you added it to the article in February this year,[1] and indicated that you remembered the discussion when you edit-warred the image back into the article.[2] That I reverted you then was clear indication that your assertion in your edit summary that "that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know..." was incorrect. Ironically you also said "plus, this image is more populated with people", which was one of the issues that editors had with the image. Trying to sneak it into the article tonight,[3] so soon after you were given clear indication by two editors that the image was inappropriate is completely unacceptable. You have been around long enough to know that such edits will be instantly noticed and it would be wise not to do this again unless you have consensus to overturn the results of the previous discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC) April 2020
Notice
April 2020
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
AussieLegend's manipulation of votesJust thought i'd let you know that the reason why editors were missing from the "support" heading in the talk page for the montage, is that AussieLegend has repeatedly been removing them. I have included editors that have voiced their support for the montage but it seems that AussieLegend doesn't seem to want to accept the fact that more editors support the montage than those who oppose it. Now he seems to want to engage in an edit war - Cement4802 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
Newcastle, New South WalesSince you disagree with the image change that I made, I have reverted per WP:STATUSQUO. Please discuss your proposed image on the talk page and gain WP:CONSENSUS for the change but please do not edit-war. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC) May 2020 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 11:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Notice
May 2020You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)appeal Ashton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I feel I have been unfairly blocked. I never engage in acts of vandalism, I always strive to improve articles with citations and illustrations/imagery of high quality. I have had some very difficult times with an editor on Wikipedia in the past month, and I feel as though I have been baited. It says I was edit warring - I don't see that. I have made a constructive edit on the Newcastle page, only to have it continually reverted by AussieLegend. Surely he is just as guilty of edit warring. He constantly prattles on about achieving consensus, but as others pointed out, he's hardly capable of it himself. The Newcastle talk page hasn't been edited since January, yet he acts as though he's reverting based on discussion?! What a joke. He never discusses. He just reverts my constructive edits and uses the guise "please seek consensus". How hypocritical. He opened up a complaint about him that amusingly got him blocked too. I really do not see my edits as being edit warring, a discerning Wiki editor should notice every time I make a constructive change on a page he frequents, he almost immediately undoes it and asks me to take it to the talk page. It's not because he wants consensus, I believe it is more because he simply does not like my edits based on his personal whim or taste. I do not play ownership of articles, that is absurd, I try to challenge those who do. Decline reason: I've extended the block to a month due to logged-out block evasion. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. 1 month is drastically punitive.Ashton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have been blocked for one whole month, for one single edit while logged out on somebody else's IP? This is absolutely punitive. I am being treated like a troll or a vandal. Wikipedia is becoming more of an unfair place in my eyes. I have battled for months with an editor who just flat-out refuses to compromise and consistently undoes my editing because of his own personal tastes. This feels grossly unfair. Before I ever got into this fiasco with said user, I kept myself, made constructive edits, tried to get some articles to Featured Article status, sourced hundreds upon hundreds of images for articles without visual representation and here I am, the bad guy in the ongoing war between myself and AussieLegend. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: Composing rationale. I type slow --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Points to ponder:
To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means and how you will conduct yourself.
Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unblock attempt threeAshton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have been thwarted from editing for one whole month. I find this over the top. Yes, I edited an article on somebody else's computer with their permission, while logged out. Yes, this is classified as block evasion and yes, I understand this is wrong. In order to continue being an editor here I will make sure I avoid such a mistake in future. But there is a very important milestone at Talk:Sydney regarding a montage, an article I have significant interest in. I am in full favour of a montage, to the chagrin of some editors. There was a Request for Comments made for a third party overview, because I could not compromise with one particular editor. I cannot make any contributions, comments or notes here as everybody else engages and has their input in deciding on Sydney's montage. AussieLegend, in particular (who was blocked at the same time as me for edit warring) seems to have successfully become unblocked at very perfect timing - so he can wield his influence on the montage discussion. He does not want a montage, and promptly reverted every attempt I had made at getting one. I'm sure he's very pleased that I remain blocked at a time when such an important discussion is had. As the external RfC editor noted, he has "power" and "influence" on Wikipedia, something I've been trying to communicate for months now to no avail. At least someone who has no interest in the Sydney page can see this, can see that it has been unbalanced, and slightly unfair. What I want, basically, is a chance to be unblocked so I can go on editing Wikipedia in the contributive, constructive way I had previously done until I got into this edit warring affair with AussieLegend. I do note that lately my editing has become more fervent, only because I was at my wits end trying to see eye to eye with somebody who basically undid everything he did not like for whatever personal whim. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: I don't find your assurance that you won't engage in further block evasion convincing, and the bulk of your statement deals with the behavior of someone else and the fact that others are involved in discussion(if you want to be involved, don't get blocked). I'm also not clear on what your "significant interest" in the article on Sydney but you will need to dial back your passion in this article and approach things more collaboratively. I am declining your request. If you make another, it should focus only on yourself and not others. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Talk:Sydney discussionAshton 29, if you wanted to participate in the discussion at Talk:Sydney then you shouldn't have evaded your block. It's really that simple. That's all I'm going to say on that. If you have thoughts on what is being discussed on the talk page, post them here and somebody may participating in the discussion may notice and convey the information on the page. I'd really like you to have the option to participate constructively, even if it's via a third party. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Unblock requestAshton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I would like my block reviewed and lifted, so I can demonstrate my previous constructed editing ability. I admit lately due to a fraught debate over a montage on Sydney's page, my editing had become more erratic and less civilised due to frustrations. Being blocked for edit warring recently only made me more upset. I did unwittingly edit a page on another PC, without even considering the weight of the action, leading to me being blocked for block evasion. I have no intention of doing that again. I have many edits I'd like to make, insights I'd like to add, and would like to return to a civilised manner with the editor who I have been involved in a spat with, recently, so we can reach an agreement or compromise. I must say the past day has brought a bit more clarity to the situation, and peace, as I've poured over the RfC at Sydney's page. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: No answer to the actual question surrounding block in 10 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I note first off that I do not know whether you have socked, or to what extent it may have been. But, no-one ever wins by trying to play the sock game. Some just get away with it longer than others. That game is particularly self-destructive if it's to get around a block. I've been here since 2006 and never seen it work in the long run. I do know that if you take a break for the block period and take the medicine, so to speak, when you then come back it will all be OK. You're a dedicated editor and wikipedia needs that. Go and embrace real life during your block. And if you want to get ready for wikipedia, spend the time researching (which is more producitive than arguing over montage vs. single image - advice for all of us!). And write/expand articles offline. Go take some great photos for wikipedia. Then come back more awesome than ever. Just don't play the sock game. (and for what it's worth, i think "montage" will win at Sydney, so relax. And even if it doesn't, there's bigger things to do on wikipedia.) Enjoy your time off. :) --Merbabu (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Hay Street, Sydney for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hay Street, Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay Street, Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DannyS712 (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Sydney photomontage RFCJust for your info, there's currently a redrafted RFC going on in the Sydney talk page for the photomontage. Would be great if you could drop some comments - Cement4802 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 9An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Launceston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC) TourismThe topic of the section is tourism. QVM is "the most popular single visitor attraction in Victoria for international visitors". It's the logical image choice, and you are giving serious undue weight to Pellegrini's, which is significant only at the local level with a spike of attention overseas due to a terrorist attack. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
I see that you added a LOT of text about various historic buildings that were demolished in the 60s and 70s - Im thinking thats too much detail for an article that meant to be about the full gamut of architecture from go to whoa. But its all great stuff, so how about a new article that specially about all the lost buildings ? or at least the major Victorian ones dem 60s- 80s, the only ones you havnt covered are Fink's Building (1888–1967), Victoria Building and Queens Walk Arcade (1888–1960s), the Fish Markets - APA Tower (1888–1967) has its own article so easy to add. I can research those if you like, or rather i already have a lot of info, i used to work at the National Trust. I have already put yuor text in my sandbox. Rohanstorey (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Manchester UnityHi. The section's too small for a third image. There's no way to accommodate it without causing excessive MOS:SANDWICH and intruding on the section beneath it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC) ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
TsiolkasHello. I have nothing against Tsiolkas, but I reverted your addition because he isn't in the cited sources. It doesn't qualify as a minor edit either. I actually think the whole sentence should go because it's an invitation for people to create a shopping list of their favourite authors. What's the criteria for a "renowned" author anyway? How do you "reliably" source someone's renown? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Your edits to SydneyHello there I reverted your edit about the metropolitan area of Sydney because it looks like original research. That is, you are combining three different sources to say something that none of the sources says. The Topography section of the article gives the ABS figure for the area of greater Sydney. But this isn't necessarily the metropolitan or urban area: it includes huge hunks of national park and non-urbanised areas. I don't think it can be meaningfully compared with other cities which have different (often administrative) definitions of their boundaries. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Montage image sizesHi there, the four central images in the Melbourne montage are all cropped to a ratio of 16:10. I used the CropTool, which allows you to crop to a ratio, if you want to do this for an image to get it to fit you just need to use that ratio. It creates a new cropped image but it points back to the original it's extracted from so it's still properly attributed. When I first created the current montage I used this image of Flinders St, which was at some point replaced by a day image. I don't love the overcast image, but also the one you added recently doesn't have the station's recent repainting, so always searching for the perfect Flinders St photo! Gracchus250 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ArbCom 2023 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add December 2023
Please join the discussion on the Melbourne talk page, before another edit war kicks off. Also, you need to stop marking all of your edits as "minor", when they're not. I see you've been warned about that many times in the past. GraziePrego (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Going forwardHey, I regret being snarky on the Melbourne talk page. Sorry about that. I think we both care about similar topics on here, so going forward, if we run into a disagreement over content, i'll try be civil about it and reach out to you first at talk page, rather than run on emotion and edit war. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) WikiProject BendigoHi Ashton 29, I have recently joined WikiProject Bendigo and I am currently recruiting more editors to join also. I can see that in the past you have made edits to various Victorian-related articles, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in joining the project, as there are still a number of Bendigo articles that need improvement. Please let me know what you think. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC) ArbCom 2024 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
.jpg){kind=link}