User talk:PAustin4thApril1980

Notification

I just wanted to let you know that I've made reference to an RfC regarding incidents in which you were involved from several years prior in an ArbCom case statement. It was for purely contextual purposes, and I did not intent to cast you in a negative light. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackaustin card.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Jackaustin card.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|PAustin4thApril1980}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Blyton

Hi, it really would be of great help at the FAC if you could provide some sources to support what you say about notable omissions. I'm quite open to new content which we might have missed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Samantha Smith

I've removed the comment. I wouldn't exactly call it problematic, but as it wasn't there to improve the article, it has no place on the article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 20:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware...

Dear Paul: I saw your posting on Kudpung's talk page. You may wish to read this thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Another missing wikipedian? -- Kudpung. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Baby-peggy-fdr.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Baby-peggy-fdr.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Baby-peggy-fdr.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Baby-peggy-fdr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:Ivanhutch.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ivanhutch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:LimeGroveStudios.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:LimeGroveStudios.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samantha smith lime street.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Samantha smith lime street.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Marmalade atkins thames.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Marmalade atkins thames.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tate Genette.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tate Genette.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Paul1999.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paul1999.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Paul intensive care 1980.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paul intensive care 1980.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Paul chest surgery 1983.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paul chest surgery 1983.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivanhutch.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ivanhutch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Beverly Potts

Sure thing! I added some meat on the bones of the article :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I can certainly help, although I've never tried getting an article to a GA or FA before. Thanks for asking!--GouramiWatcher^pride 01:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Kylie-maybury.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kylie-maybury.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rotten regard 22:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Murder of Kylie Maybury‎

Hi! You can upload a low resolution of the image of the victim (you could use File:AmyMihaljevic.jpg as a reference for what to put for the fair use rational as well as what licence to choose. Thanks for asking! --GouramiWatcher^pride 16:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favor?

Hi,

There's a debate going on about one of the articles I created, as someone has stated that it is non-notable, etc. If you could possibly give your opinion on the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Lady, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!--GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your comment. If you could state whether you're opposed to keeping or deleting the page, that would be great. There isn't a lot of people who participate in these debates for this topic and I'm afraid the article will be deleted without a reasonable amount of opinions stated. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher^(?) 03:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Birthday

It seems we share a birthday of sorts. Happy Wiki-Birthday to both of us. -- Jack of Oz ^[pleasantries] 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kyliemayburyherald.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kyliemayburyherald.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kyliethesun.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kyliethesun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Kyliethesun.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kyliethesun.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart meetup

Hobart Meetup Next: TBA Last: 3 June 2023 This box: view talk edit

Hello! This is a message to inform you of a Wikipedia Hobart meetup which will be held on 10 January. New and experienced editors are welcome! Please check the meetup page for more information.

This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Bank

Are you planning on writing an article for the actress? If yes, please go ahead. If not, I propose to revert this edit, and add a hatnote to the Ashley, New Zealand article:

Ashley Bank directs here. For the American actress, see The Monster Squad

Schwede66 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re Murder of Kylie Maybury

Hi could please give Murder of Kylie Maybury some work or a once-over in editing? Paul Austin (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you request from the good folks at WP:GOCE. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Murder of Kylie Maybury at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! --Biblioworm 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process.
A discussion should take place at length about the issue at hand on the articles talk page (or perhaps a users' talk page or another forum in some limited cases) and Disagreements must be limited to 2 specific users (not a group of people), to qualify for a Third opinion request.
Perhaps a good discussion on the article's talk page would suffice, or a request for comment if more input is needed. Though if that doesn't work dispute resolution is always still an option, just be sure to clarify where prior discussion has taken place when seeking it. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archived request-

 Some people have questioned Murder of Kylie Maybury. There's no doubting the notability - it made the front page at the time,
 even pushing Reagan's win over Mondale over to the side. I still feel uneasy about using the term "handbag" on its' own, since
 "handbag" by itself usually indicates the type used by adult women and little girl's handbags are smaller and have licensed
 themes such as Disney or Barbie. Paul Austin (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. You have new messages at Lightgodsy's talk page.
Message added 08:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Emails

I removed the email you posted at Talk:Murder of Kylie Maybury. It is not reasonable to post private correspondence on a public website, and it is highly unhelpful to post private details including name, email address, and phone number. It's good that you are trying to improve the article, but as I mentioned when you approached me, it is unlikely there is much encyclopedic information available about a six-year-old who was murdered 30 years ago—that is unfortunate, but we have to be realistic. Good luck with the article, but please do not post emails on Wikipedia. If wanted, you could post a section where you mention that as a result of a query, you received an email which provided [insert brief paraphrase (not quote) of content here]. However, make it general—give the position the person held, but not their name and not their details. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think. I was so happy to get a reply from her. Paul Austin (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I imagine you did a lot of work to find people who might have information, and it would have been great to get a reply. The November 2014 Herald Sun report used as a reference in the article is very detailed, and I imagine it has everything known about the case, and finding more would be difficult. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart area articles

Hello, in advance of a possible project in the Hobart area, we're looking to identify and improve a specific range of articles, mainly those associated with locations in the Hobart City Council region. If you'd like to find out more, please join in the discussion at WikiProject Tasmania, or check out the list of articles at QR list. If you'd prefer to not receive these notifications in the future, please let me know.

This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania, Category:Wikipedians in Hobart, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tasmania participants by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Daisy" fixes

I have used the old-school rollback method to restore the page to what it was prior to the IP's edits. You do not need to be an admin to do this. Basically, should you need to do something like this somewhere again, you:

• Go into the history and ...
• Click on the time and date of the last "good" version. This will open that article up, with a boxed note at the top that you're looking at an old version.
• Click edit as you normally would. Again, there will be a boxed colored note at the top warning you that you've opened an old version and if you edit it, all subsequent changes will be lost (Which is, of course, exactly what you want to happen in this case).
• Save without making any changes. But do note that you're reverting to this version in your edit summary.

If there is anything else I can help you with, feel free to let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: Heather O'Rourke

Although a submission has already been made, you can also request protection through WP:RFPP in the future. AldezD (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of murder convictions without a body

Hi! I started on a project a few days ago in a userspace draft here and was wondering if you or @BabbaQ: would be interested in helping me out, as it turned out to be a lot bigger than I estimated. I've got a lot of cases from the US already, but I definitely need more for Australia, the UK and Europe for sure. I started off with sources by using database pages for most of the cases and I know I'll need to get more/better sources eventually.

If you are interested in contributing, feel free to edit the userspace, just add the {{underconstruction}} tag so that there aren't any edit conflicts. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher^(?) 04:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cousin ruby sue.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Cousin ruby sue.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Padme ep1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Padme ep1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have created an article about the Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp. Please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder Porn project"

I like that . As for the article, looks like it's notable and it's a nice start. I will be interested to see where that story goes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makin article

As I know you are from Australia I just wanted to recommend this article that I created years ago. John and Sarah Makin. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even though I did not create this one, I can recommend this one as well. 2007 Hitman case. Any improvements on this and the other one are welcomed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine

You know, that page isn't even on my watch list nor does it carry the Paranomal Project tag, so I'm not sure why you contacted me, unless I was the one to separate out the curse talk into a subsection, which is entirely possible. If I did, I was also likely the one who put it in Scare Quotes. However, I'm glad you did contact me, because I have a suggestion that might work. How about we change the section heading to : Purported family curse? That makes it clear that there is no way to prove that there is one or isn't one but that enough writers and readers consider the possibility of such a curse that is should at least be noted. That is usually what I do about claims that cannot be proven or disproven. I just toss in a "purported" and everyone's happy. Shall we go for it? LiPollis (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called family curse was sourced. It was mentioned in a biography of the family. But I don't object to removing the list of all the premature family deaths. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geli Raubal

You reverted my qualifying of 'suicide' in the lede. The lede should reflect the main article, which claims only that it had been ‘ruled a suicide’. (The authorities initially called it an accident.) Most historians allow that it may have been murder. Valetude (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valetude: I see. I'll revert my revert. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Bond

Unless that's been said by a reliable source, no. Daniel Case (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @Daniel Case: OK. It's just a bit upsetting. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and valid criticism, to be sure, however. Daniel Case (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About a certain edit within the Princess Doe article

Within the Princess Doe-article, you undid a revision. I would like to explain why said revision was performed. Within the Princess Doe-article, the same source (http://njsp.org/miss/ui_warren_u630870962.html) was cited twice for the same claim (The "The body was discovered at the Cedar Ridge Cemetery in Blairstown early on the morning of 15 July 1982"-claim). The edit was done because citing the same source twice for the same claim was redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) 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/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. AldezD (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. I appreciated the notification, but be mindful of WP:CANVASS when you do this in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I didn't know about Wikipedia:Canvassing. Surely asking people like you who helped me with LMN's article, or asking people on the Crime WikiProject is reasonable? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're not trying to stack the debate, yes. I just warned you because it could be used in the AfD to discredit a keep consensus (although in this case I genuinely think you weren't trying to do that). The idea is that it's ideal to let people know who could offer an informed perspective either way, instead of people likely to agree with you. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You probably don’t know me, but I came across this disagreement re WP:CANVASS, and I’d just like to point out this sentence from the lead: “However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate” (emphasis added). And from later in the page: “Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent.” Asking someone to help you save a page, for example, is campaigning, a form of unacceptable canvassing. A neutral notification would have been perfectly fine, so long as you didn’t cherry-pick who you notified based on which side you thought they’d be on.

Hope this helps in the future! And please let me know if you think I’ve gotten anything wrong. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI

Hi, took a look at the AfD. Could you please take a look at my noms at TAFI. Some of then needs one more inout to reach the three review limit. Would appreciate it. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Von Sydow

Take a look at this article about one of Swedens most infamous murders. Von Sydow murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont children disappearance

Hmm. The article looks to be in pretty good shape as is, but of course there is nothing that can't be improved. What do you need? If you let me know, I'll see what I can do.

Funny that this comes up ... I am planning to write an article about a similar disappearance of five of a family's nine children following a fire, the Sodder children disappearance in Fayetteville, West Virginia, in time for its 70th anniversary this Christmas Eve. I had looked at the Beaumont article to see what sort of approach I might take, at least as far as how to name it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest aiming for GA, so you could get it in DYK ... but it was already there, back in 2004 (Wow! That's a long time ago!). So for FA ... the time frame is just barely possible, but it would have to be considered what it needs. Of course it would be great to get it into top shape for an OTD listing ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yarra River body

Not sure if this fits into your area of interest. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles

I took a look at the sourcing and I think it's enough for the articles to be viable WhisperToMe (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I recommend: backing up references at webcitation.org and making sure they have archives at http://web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. You have new messages at AldezD's talk page.
Message added 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

AldezD (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denise McGregor

Hmm. As it is it just might make it as far as notability goes. The first article's definitely got non-trivial coverage, but the second one could be regarded as a passing mention. Is there any possibility you can dig deep and find more substantial contemporaneous coverage? Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re West Berlin: Articles in Wikipedia need to be sourced

Hi User:Paul Benjamin Austin. Based on your long tenure and otherwise apparently high level of qualification as a WP editor, it's really surprising to me that you would revert the missing cite tags, which directly contradict the most fundamental cornerstone WP policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, etc. I've never had to push this point previously with any WP editor except a newbie.

As it stands, this article, almost totally lacking sources, appears 2B almost completely OR but in actual fact is almost certainly PLAGIARIZED from easily found and easily cited sources. The reason for inline need-citation tags is to point an editor who wants to fix the text by adding sources precisely where the source cites are needed.

PLEASE familiarize yourself with the WP sourcing and citing rules cited above. If you revert my cite tags again OR if you ask me to, I will refer this to an administrator to discuss it with you.

Please run this by your WP editor or admin. friends yourself. If the rules I've cited aren't clear or don't seem 2U 2B applicable, I certainly wouldn't expect you to take MY word. (The two WP essays you mentioned in your last edit summary reverting the tags, while NOT WP policy--the rules I've cited ARE WP POLICY, appear nevertheless 2B competent discussions; AND they clearly do NOT refer to the kind of core substantive content missing citations in THIS article.)

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Disappearance of Sheila Fox for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Sheila Fox 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/Disappearance of Sheila Fox until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TheLongTone (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Denise McGregor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Denise McGregor 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/Murder of Denise McGregor until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AldezD (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threads Edit War

Your recent editing history at Threads shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.160.111 (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Barsi

When making edits, please be sure to test the links you are adding to ensure they link to the proper site, and that they provide the necessary WP:V info to accompany the addition. Also, it is good practice to use Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news rather than including a raw link in the ref code as you did in this edit. Finally, please be sure to review Template:Infobox person and the details regarding the education parameter (see #Parameters). The field is intended to include "degree, institution and graduation year", not where a subject went to elementary school. AldezD (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1975 and all that

Just curious as to why/with what justification you have deleted this talk page contribution instead of replying to it (or ignoring it). Bjenks (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

warning for canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

haven't a number of people you have notified have never worked on it. Secondly a number are known keep !voters. I suggest you stop any notifying any user. LibStar (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

..... the article about Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers has been saved. No consensus. As expected.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to President of Germany (1919–1945) 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:

• |abolished = 2 August 1934 (death of Hindenburg)<br>23 May 1945 (Allied dissolution of the (Flensburg Government)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016 #2

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Miss Cleo are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Keith Moor (journalist)

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Keith Moor (journalist), for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Keith Moor (journalist) to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Celestinesucess (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kylie Maybury

That's a legal question, so I'm not sure of the answer. My presumption, based on my severely limited knowledge of American law on the subject (being as I live in the US) is that no, it wouldn't be untoward to mention the incident in the article as long as it's properly sourced. But I know there have been some issues under European law regarding the point, and I'm not sure if that would change the answer any.

Sorry I can't be of more assistance. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^Che dicono a Signa?_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, also as an American user and former journalist, I would +1 to most of what Nicaolo is saying. It would be perfectly legal under the American law that governs the servers, but it's good politics to respect the law and custom of the country where the incident occurred (this has caused some trouble in the past). It's probably best to get some consensus from your fellow Australians on how they feel about it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threads - name

Hello, Paul. I've noticed that you've done a lot of good work on the article for Threads. I just watched the film today. Do you know why it is called "Threads"? It doesn't seem obvious why it has this name. Is the spider web at the start of the film a clue? Epa101 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Australian constitutional crisis

Hi, Paul. I was away when you posted your question at the Reference Desk. User:Viennese Waltz pinged me but it escaped my attention. Here's what I would have written had I written.

• All of the machinations that occurred before 11 November were just appetisers to the main event. That a GG could in theory dismiss a Prime Minister - even one with a solid majority in the lower house - was well known to all the players. Whitlam even joked about this with Kerr himself at a dinner at Government House some weeks before 11 November. Whitlam knew Kerr wanted to seek Barwick's advice, because he asked Whitlam's permission to do so, and was denied permission. What Whitlam didn't know until after the event was that Kerr had gone ahead and got that advice anyway. What Whitlam never knew was that Kerr had also got Anthony Mason's advice. We know Kerr discussed his thinking with Prince Charles. We know he wrote regularly to the Queen, but apart from a few scant excerpts, those letters (and any responses from the Queen or her advisers) remain under wraps, not to be released until 2027, and even then not unless the GG of the day and the monarch of the day both agree. The early release of these documents is a matter of current legal action by Jenny Hocking, who argues this correspondence is not "private" but "official". We await the outcome of this with great interest.

• But to return to the point, what a monarch or GG can "in theory" do is not necessarily what can be ordinarily expected of them. In theory, the Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the UK Armed Forces; does this mean she can, on a whim, command the British Army to annex the Sudetenland, or attack Donald Trump's headquarters, or whatever? Of course not. In theory, the Governor-General of Australia decides which party or coalition will be the government of the day; but does this mean he can suddenly appoint the leader of the the Raving Bong-Smoking Loony Party as Prime Minister? Hardly. No, he makes his decisions based on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. Even where an incumbent party is defeated at an election, it is still the incumbent PM who goes to the GG, tenders his commission, and advises him to appoint the leader of the winning party in his place. It is not the winning party leader's role to initiate an approach to the GG to request he be appointed; he waits to be summoned. Once appointed, though, he then becomes the GG's principal adviser.

• Kerr broke all these conventions. He discussed his plans with Malcolm Fraser, but not with Gough Whitlam. He had clearly made up his mind, some days before 11 November, that, if things had not worked themselves out in the meantime, he would on 11 November dismiss Whitlam and appoint Fraser. He had time to work out the delicate timing, so that the Senate could pass Supply and the Parliament would have been dissolved (on Fraser's advice) before he would have had an opportunity to receive the Speaker and be informed that Fraser had just lost a vote of confidence in the House of Reps. That is exactly what happened. Kerr arranged his schedule so that he kept the Speaker waiting for some hours before receiving him, by which time Fraser had instructed his Senators to vote for Supply, and then given Kerr the advice to dissolve the Parliament (that advice was a condition of his appointment). By the time the Speaker was ushered into Kerr's office, the Parliament had been dissolved and the matter was moot. Fraser was now PM and, by convention, the incumbent PM remains in office throughout the caretaker period. Oh yes, all very proper when it came to honouring that convention; but to act in strict obeisance to certain conventions while utterly trashing others betrays the mind of a man with an agenda. Governors-general are not supposed to have agendas. It's not that the governor-general is a rubber stamp; he is allowed to question things, to be informed, to warn. He never warned Whitlam what he was planning to do (though the list of of others he let into his thinking seems to grow by the year). And even if he had warned Whitlam, the solution he settled on was so extreme as to be close to unthinkable. That was what blindsided Whitlam. He was so stunned that he even omitted to tell his own Senate colleagues that Fraser had been appointed in his place, so when it came to the vote for Supply, they all naturally voted Yes, and when they saw the Coalition senators also voting Yes, they had no idea what had taken place. They just assumed the Coalition had finally capitulated after taking three months to make its point. The Labor senators voting for Supply did not know they were now in the Opposition and were voting for Fraser's budget. Had Whitlam told them, they could have voted No. That wouldn't have changed anything since they were in the minority in the Senate, but it would have served as a token of their outrage at what Kerr had done.

• In the Australian context, a government ceases to be the government in one of only 2 ways: (1) being defeated at a general election or (2) losing a vote of confidence on the floor of the House of Representatives. Neither of those things had happened to the Whitlam government on 11 November. The government that Kerr swore in (Fraser's) DID lose a vote of confidence, but that was brushed aside in the brouhaha.

• That Australians massively dumped Whitlam's Labor Party and massively voted for Fraser's Liberal Party at the 13 December election, has no bearing on the outrage at the way Whitlam was dismissed on 11 November 1975. Whitlam was seen as a maverick who had visionary ideas but lacked the patience and pragmatism to implement them in appropriate ways. He was seen as having insufficient control over his party. He was seen as having failed, and lost his way. That's why the people voted Liberal. But the outrage at the devious, underhand, unfair and highly improper manner in which Kerr connived with others to get rid of Whitlam remained. We're great lovers of the "fair go" down here. The fair go didn't get much, or any, look-in in Kerr's thinking. For those who were around at the time, it's a day that will never be forgotten.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[pleasantries] 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Femme) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Femme, Paul Benjamin Austin!

Wikipedia editor Yoshi24517 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewing a 13 year old article! Looks good!

To reply, leave a comment on Yoshi24517's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Girly girl

(Or as Kelly would say, "He who laughs last laughs west".) I saw that anon edit on Girly girl a few hours ago and left it. You might be right maybe it is a slang expression. Make me wonder when something is slang or not. SlightSmile 03:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. 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)[reply]

No worries

No worries about your Rfa. Rfa is not a place an editor actually needs to invest his or her time to enjoy Wikipedia. I applaud your candor and effort to apply for adminship. Look, here's an analogy; I don't understand edit filters and don't ever wish to apply out there for rights to see and edit private filters - and if I do, I know I'll be sensibly shown the door by the regulars there. Big deal. That's what Rfa should be for you. Enjoy your time here Paul. See you around. Lourdes 16:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably withdrawing was the sensible thing to do at this time. I have not formed an opinion on whether I would have supported or opposed, though I had no a priori reason to oppose. Good for you for making the RfA in the first place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Happy New Year, Paul Benjamin Austin!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Paul Benjamin Austin. May your house be safe, and may you and those privileged with your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, — Sam Sailor 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Orphaned non-free image File:Cousin ruby sue.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cousin ruby sue.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:B19bb3dc8456f43cad8cec6349afcd5c (3).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:B19bb3dc8456f43cad8cec6349afcd5c (3).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julie Maybury holding a framed photo of her daughter Kylie Maybury.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Julie Maybury holding a framed photo of her daughter Kylie Maybury.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kmayburysnp.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kmayburysnp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul. To answer your question at the deletion discussion: Showing that an event made it to a major newspaper is usually done by citing the news article rather than providing an image of the paper. Especially tabloids like The Sun have often very lurid frontpages that won't serve the neutrality of a Wikipedia article; not to mention the fair use issues we've just gone through. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political alignment of Aus newspapers

Why are you continually deleting/refusing to acknowledge the political bent of various newspapers? The lack of this section is inconsistent with the vast number of articles that has this section (see Evening Standard, NY Post, The Independent, etc as an example). Most articles even, within it, state or hint at a political alignment.

2001:44B8:41AD:5200:D48E:B1AB:F1AA:E839 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. You have new messages at AldezD's talk page.
Message added 14:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

AldezD (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quick answer

As I'm not familiar with Australian criminal-procedure law, I am not the person to ask. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what I took off on Samanthas page

Some of this about the peace stuff was mentioned above (in the letter section). Is there a need to repeat it twice? I won't edit anymore with your approval. Please respond. Thanks. Lylyanphoenix (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.244.202 (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sixth Doctor.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sixth Doctor.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

For your information Operator873^CONNECT 02:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. 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)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3WM.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comment re "3DB Melbourne, 3LK Central Victoria, the Herald-Sun stations". I well recall this slogan being used for many decades! There are many on-line links that talk about this, and R.R. Walker mentions it in his book, "The Magic Spark". I agree that 'Central Victoria' doesn't make all that sense, but there are many slogans that include more nonsense than that. I'm guessing, but perhaps HWT was going for a larger market than just Wimmera Mallee.

I don't recall '3LK Wimmera Mallee' being used, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't utilised for a short period.

Ironically 3CV also marketed itself as 'Central Victoria'.

I hope this helps,

Regards,Albert Isaacs (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul, You won't be surprised to learn that I've been thinking a lot about this since yesterday. I vaguely recall "Wimmera Mallee" being used but certainly only during the last few years of the DB/LK partnership. This goes along with the fact that you say your soundbite comes from about 1990.

The major proof that "Central Victoria" was used is found in the HWT's own advertising, eg https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/224936346/24231506.

I think that the best way to handle this is for me to modify the 3WM site to say that the "Central Victoria" slogan was used throughout most of the DB/LK era, changing to "Wimmera Mallee" towards the end of that era. I suggest that you then add the link to your soundbite after this as a source reference.

Prior to this debate, I had planned to add a summary of the DB/LK story to the KIIS 101.1 Wiki page (which I know you also regularly contribute to). I still plan to do this, adding the same coda about the change of slogan. Again I suggest that you add your link to the KIIS page, once my addition is online.

Thanks for your help. I believe that between the two of us we've solved the mystery.

RegardsAlbert Isaacs (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the link. The background noise was atrocious! Nevertheless, I played it no less than three times and, surprisingly, I couldn't hear the slogan that you talk about. The nearest I heard was a slogan that appeared to be prior to 3LK days, namely: 3DB Melbourne, the Herald-Sun broadcaster. However, if you think that the "Wimmera Mallee" slogan is there, that's fine, and you should add the link to the 3WM page as per my suggestion on my last note to you.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again Paul,

Did you get a chance to listen again to that sound bite? Can you confirm that the "Wimmera Mallee" slogan is indeed there, even though I missed it? We need to get the 3WM and KIIS 101.1 pages right!

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again Paul,

I've just had a fourth listen to the clip and, yes, I can just hear the slogan in question through all that disconcerting background noise. I'll put a link to the sound bite on both sites and, thus, let others get headaches trying to listen.

The official name of the operating company for many, many decades was Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. The Herald was founded in 1840, but the Sun was first published as recently as 1922. Both these factors would contribute to why Herald came before Sun. When the two papers amalgamated in 1990, the name "Herald-Sun" was chosen for the new paper, even though it was (and is) much more like the Sun than the Herald.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article review to commence shortly.

Paul Benjamin Austin Please forgive my initial comment on your request for me to look at this Wikipedia page pertaining to this case. I was just following EEng's brand of humour in my replies. I'd never heard of this case before and have literally just clicked on the link minutes ago and feel very bad. I'm primarily focused on the Murders of Kerry Graham and Francine Trimble article (painful enough), but will get around to this one for you. Any suggestions of particular focus, let me know. Kieron.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieronoldham:, it's OK. I hope you can do justice to Delta Dawn. The current forensic recon is a joke as they've given her appearance a massive Girliness Upgrade and she looks as though she's a contestant in the America's Most Beautiful Baby pageant. The original recon is much closer to what she actually looked like, according to the police. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see the disclaimer on my user page, like they have on auto adverts while the driver negotiates hairpin Alpine turns? EEng humor, do not attempt unless specially trained. EEng 13:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Yeah but i was impressed with you and hope you can copy edit the Murder of Heather Rich article. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Kieron, actually. Do you have a specific goal, like GA, or do you simply crave to feel the sting of my copyediting lash? EEng 13:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Both, I think. Murder of Heather Rich needs work as it's in poor shape for an article on a case that got national attention in the U.S.. And it needs a picture of Ms. Rich, even if it is that widely-circulated in the media cheerleading shot. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I hear you, EEng. I have got a crude sense of humour dude, I just didn't know the case and thought both our comments went a little too far. Drive a little further past my favourite restaurant and pub which I visit every second Saturday when my Dad visits me from Greenmount, turn left at a subsequent T-junction, drive on a little, and you come to where this file is located. Actually if there are any images you'd like for the Commons pertaining to this case I might be able to take them.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dawn

Hi Paul,

I noticed you added the statement "Law enforcement regard the one on the left as closer to how the child appeared in life" under the infobox image. Throughout my research on the case, I haven't noticed this sort of statement be used. Do you have a source? Thanks --GouramiWatcher^Talk 06:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Gourami Watcher: the lady who runs the Delta Dawn Facebook Page told me the police who found DD indicated to her that the original recon is more like what DD looked like. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the WP:OR problem aside, since we don't know who she was how does anyone know what she looked like? EEng 11:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Newspapers back in 1982 published a photo of Delta Dawn supplied by the police, in an attempt at identification. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm completely confused. A reconstruction is used when you don't know what a person looked like, to show what you think the person might have looked like. If there's someone telling you "Reconstruction A looks more like the person than Reconstruction B does" then I guess that someone knows what the person looked like, so why do you need a reconstruction in the first place? Anyway, it's OR so just remove it. EEng 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I don't know. There's a newspaper microfiche scan from 1982 circulating. You can tell from the outline of the photo that they showed the whole body. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Amy Everett

@The Drover's Wife: My 10c on this issue. I think that Suicide of Amy Everett is a "one event" wrt to Wikipedia (and indeed the article may get AfDed sooner or later for that reason). But it's one of all too common a pattern where a teen suicides in the presence of cyberbullying and everyone says the same platitudes that it's terrible and something needs to be done about it and then nothing happens. And presumably there are many more cases of it that don't make the news. I think it might be a more powerful response to write the article Cyberbullying in Australia with Amy Everett and others as examples of the horrendous consequences of cyberbullying (and Amy Everett and Suicide of Amy Everett could redirect to that article). Such an article could outline what avenues exist in Australia (or individual states) to report cyberbullying (or lack thereof), to support victims of cyberbullying (or lack thereof), and what is being done to combat it (or lack thereof). Think in terms of a reader who is a person being cyberbullied or their parent/teacher who becomes aware of it or (in some ideal universe) a legislator who might want to do something about it. Provide the facts and figures (if available) and illustrate with case studies, of which Amy Everett is but one. I think to write the Suicide of Amy Everett is just to be another part of the echo chamber of platitudes. For example, did you know we have an eSafety Commissioner in Australia? Right now that fact isn't on Wikipedia but it is the sort of information we can get out there via Wikipedia if we write the right kind of article. While Wikipedia's role is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, there is nothing wrong with us presenting the scale of the problem, putting human faces (like Amy Everett) to the problem and showing what services are (or aren't available). Kerry (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3DB / KIIS.

Dear Paul,

Good to hear from you. I assume that it was you who used the nom-de-plume 58.104.0.130, and to whom I originally sent the suggestion of splitting the page. Yes?

I will work on splitting the page at some time soon - leave it to me. I think it's better for the new article to only cover 3DB and the MIIX page to include a 3DB summary history and a link to the new page. The MIIX page would include the history since 2 April 1988. Of course, the new DB page would also include links to MIIX.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Albert Isaacs: No I'm not the IP. My IP is 182... not 58.. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I'm now intrigued as to how you knew that I was contemplating splitting the page as per 3AK and SEN 1116. I'm about to start work on this. However, I will make the division as the change of name from 3DB to 3TT because when 3TT changed bands and became 3TTT-FM, the program format remained the same; and don't forget that there was a short period when the station was heard on both frequencies.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Albert Isaacs: I saw the edits 58... was trying to make and saw you were frustrated with them on their talk page. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul,

It's interesting that you responded but 58 ... hasn't got back to me. You'll note that pages have now been split. I now about to update links to 3DB on pages like 2UE and 3WM. Then I'll add a very brief summary of DB's achievements to the KISS 101.1 page.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Suicide of Amy Everett

The article Suicide of Amy Everett has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BIO1E

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cabayi (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Limestreet-samanthasmith.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Limestreet-samanthasmith.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please do not remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia, as you did to File:Limestreet-samanthasmith.jpg, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Suicide of Amy Everett for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suicide of Amy Everett 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/Suicide of Amy Everett until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Kb.au (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dawn

Hi. Think I am finished with the above article. Whattaya think? Surprising how little info. is out there (at least on reputable sites). Cheers. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poltergeist Carol Anne.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Poltergeist Carol Anne.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie Sports Radio.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for changing the title of the 3XY/Macquarie Sports Radio page. I was able to make most modifications to the former Talking Lifestyle page but just wasn't sure how to change the actual title. Can you make a similar modification to Brisbane's Talking Lifestyle 882 page? Thanks.

Yours,

Albert Isaacs (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert of my edit of Samantha Smith?

Hi Mr.Austin. Can you please explain why you reverted my edit of Samantha Smith as no reason was given-I would in any case strongly advise you to give an explanation for your edits, to get the conversation going in my case and for the benefit of others in general. DadaNeem (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Paul for reconsidering the revert-it's restored. DadaNeem (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions

Please stop adding unsourced non-WP:V content. [1], [2]. You have been an editor for years and are familiar with the rules about edits and required sources. AldezD (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AldezD:, Dawn Lyn's statement about the short dresses she had to wear on My Three Sons is here. Heather O'Rourke's birthplace being Santee is on her IMDb and a bunch of other places reachable with a quick Google. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well what the requirements are for adding material along with sources, as well as using IMDB as a source. Stop making unsourced edits. AldezD (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hi, Paul Benjamin Austin. Do you still want me to work on the Murder of Heather Rich article, or do you have another article/case in mind? I'm practically finished with the Bible John article now. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Hi, Kieronoldham, Yes please I would like you to work on Murder of Heather Rich if you can. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it a go. PS You ought to try looking at your talk page through special epilepsy glasses mate. It's like viewing peacock feathers through a kaleidoscope in 1967 lol. ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Andersen

I can keep an eye on it, but I'll only be able to catch blatant vandalism, as I don't know anything about her. Trivialist (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey Hey It's Saturday

Re your message: It looks like you reverted the edits and no further intervention is necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridgette Andersen as Savannah Driscoll.jpg

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 calculation 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. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Australia

Please don't revert my linking to Communist Party of Australia (current) (for example on Communist Party of Australia (1930)) as Socialist Party of Australia now links only to a disambiguationp page.--Darrelljon (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bridgette Andersen as Savannah Driscoll.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bridgette Andersen as Savannah Driscoll.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Hi, the article about Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp was Kept as expected. Congratulations. :)BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Andersen

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Bridgette Andersen has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

So you know, I found a source and added her date of birth and the citation. There is a glitch in the text so it is unclear what or who inspired Mark Miller. I do not have access to the source so couldn't fix the text. It's marked clarification needed.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update With the help of another editor I see the problem with the unclear text and have fixed it. Apparently Findagrave is an unreliable source so that citation has been removed Apologies for the confusion. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks

Thank you for your message PBA. I do appreciate it. My very best wishes to you on WikiP and, even more so in real life. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again PBA. I heard this interview today and thought it might be of interest for you. Click on the blue arrow in the upper right corner to hear it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops and facepalm I meant to write upper left corner. Hopefully you found it in spite of my messup. As Charlie Brown always says Good Grief :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK MarnetteD. Looking like i do, i get a hell of a lot of attention. Not easy looking like one gender thing when you identify as the other. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks P. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing

Can you do one last thing for me? Can you ensure these articles are protected? Bye.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing at Murder of Heather Rich

1. You are edit-warring. You are aware of the policy on that, but if you need to please refresh your memory of it.
2. You have not given any explanation of your changes in edit summaries. Please do so, especially when reverting another editor's work.
3. You have reinserted unsourced content after it had been removed with lack of sourcing given as a reason for removal. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations) so please either provide suitable sourcing for the content you have restored or self-revert. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna echo JamesBWatson here. In addition, I strongly encourage you to discuss changes you see as problematic with users on their talk pages (this includes editors contributing from IP addresses). This editing was brought to my attention through RFPP. Airplaneman ✈ 21:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, Airplaneman, I was acting because Kieronoldham had asked me to have it protected/ I'm not inclined to give IP editors the benefit of the doubt, especially this one who changed IPs to make themselves look like separate people. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Benjamin Austin. I agree wholeheartedly, and I am sorry if, to one degree or another, I may have inadvertently contributed to this friction. Mockery and thinly disguised overall intentions from others incl. sites other than Wiki. cause suspicion, I suppose.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Dealing with contentious edits and editors can indeed make you more suspicious overall, especially with more sensitive articles. I can empathize. I think for this specific instance, I was concerned about the reversions because the IP edits did not appear to bear any malicious intent (as I said in my RFPP response, please correct me if I'm wrong here). In fact, I found the edits to be welcome improvements. Also, I think IPs can sometimes be dynamic in nature, and as a result, change without user action. But again, I can agree with you that other events can make you more weary about where edits (especially anonymous) are coming from and what they hope to accomplish. Just try to be careful to not undo good work in the process. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 02:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I try and certainly will continue to do so, Airplaneman/Paul Benjamin Austin. I have never doubted observations regarding IP's, and never will. Sometimes things can be lassoed and overlooked with regards to the overall work of the article, hence a few of my reverts' results.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many things I could say about this, such as questioning your choosing to ignore Wikipedia:Assume good faith in the case of editors who do not have accounts. However, much more important are the following facts:

1. Giving editors "the benefit of the doubt" is completely irrelevant to the matter of edit-warring. It is up to you to make sure that you don't edit-war, no matter what anyone else does, and however much or little you trust them.
2. Likewise giving editors "the benefit of the doubt" is completely irrelevant to the matter of restoring content removed because of lack of sourcing. It is up to you to make sure that you follow Wikipedia policy, no matter what anyone else does, and however much or however little you give them "the benefit of the doubt". Making edits which are contrary to Wikipedia policy (and, incidentally, are also unconstructive for several reasons) just because you don't think much of an editor who previously edited the article is not acceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • JamesBWatson, Airplaneman, Kieronoldham, It's just that after 16 years here, I'm pretty weary and suspicious of anon IPs. Especially ones that decide they have to dumb down and simplify an article's language because they seem to think encyclopedic language is "stodge". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can definitely understand the weariness. However, I think we may have different standards regarding what constitutes "good" English. And again, those edits were definitely not vandalism or unambiguously unconstructive. Airplaneman ✈ 06:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too tend to be suspicious of IP editors, because experience over the years shows that a far larger proportion of IP edits than of edits by accounts are unconstructive. However, being suspicious of them means that I check the edits more carefully, not that I presume they are bad edits without checking. It is your duty to check every edit that you revert, and to make sure you do not revert it unless reverting it is justified, whether you are suspicious of the editor who made the edit or not. It is also your duty to explain what you are doing. I have found that of your last 100 article edits you wrote edit summaries for just two; most of the others had no edit summary, and the rest had a default automatically generated edit summary, such as "Undid revision 856643667 by 77.144.123.179". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • JamesBWatson, Airplaneman, Paul Benjamin Austin. I think there is some good advice for all here. Again I am sorry if I caused this issue to one degree or another. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp

Hi, Just so you know, many news sources pertaining to this case are blocked where I live. Also I only have a limited knowledge of what are reputable news sources in Australia as opposed to Britain, Ireland and America. If I did work on this case the information would be sparse and certainly barren as far as references are concerned. Can you propose a different case for me to work on, or would you like me to go ahead and do what I can (although I suspect it would be limited compared to previous cases worked upon)? There is a book called Introduction to Forensic DNA Evidence for Criminal Justice Professionals which has a section pertaining to the case, but it is solely devoted to DNA analysis. Hardly worth purchasing for one or two pages. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC discussion for Bridgette Andersen

There is an ongoing discussion about whether the image in the infobox at Bridgette Andersen passes WP:NFCC. Since you recently edited the article, we would appreciate it if you could join the discussion at Talk:Bridgette Andersen#non-free imagery. Aspects (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. You have new messages at Bleakcomb's talk page.
Message added 06:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bleakcomb (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please start using edit summaries. Not doing so is very unhelpful to other editors, who cannot get any indication of what has been going on in the history editing of an article without loading up every edit individually, and in some cases doing a considerable amount of scrolling down the page and looking at several little changes to try to see what the overall thrust of each edit is. I asked you to use edit summaries on 16 September, and reminded you on 18 September. Since then you have written an edit summary for only one article edit, that one being on 19 September. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for continuing to scarcely ever use edit summaries. This is fairly short block, and it is made not in order to prevent you from editing, but in the hope that it will prompt you to take notice, because several messages asking you to use edit summaries have failed to get any response. If you will agree to use edit summaries for all your article edits from now on, any administrator will be welcome to unblock you without consulting me. 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 ~~~~}}.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 31# File:Hutchinson.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 31# File:Hutchinson.jpg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in My Three Sons moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of characters in My Three Sons, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. 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)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Master Editor

Help me out here. I note your user page claims 11,000+ edits but also Master Editor status which has a 42,000 edit threshold. Wikitools credits you with 17,000+ now which is confirmed by the List_of_Wikipedians by number of edits. Total of multiple accounts? sirlanz 11:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back in October I briefly blocked your account from editing. When I did so, I posted a message to this page which said, among other things, "This is a fairly short block, and it is made not in order to prevent you from editing, but in the hope that it will prompt you to take notice, because several messages asking you to use edit summaries have failed to get any response." I went on to say that you could be unblocked if you would agree to use edit summaries for all your article edits. Alas, it has not worked; you still scarcely ever provide edit summaries, apart from automatically generated ones. I don't like blocking you from editing for such a minor thing, but nothing else works. I have therefore blocked your account again, this time for a longer period, in the hope that at last you will take notice. I am at a loss to understand why you are so unwilling to take the very small amount of effort it takes to provide edit summaries. If you will agree to use edit summaries for all your article edits from now on, any administrator will be welcome to unblock you without consulting me. You can request an unblock by adding the following text at the bottom of this page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Carltonitv1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carltonitv1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:London Weekend Television logo (2002).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:London Weekend Television logo (2002).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

PAustin4thApril1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will properly use edit summaries from now on Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As you have pledged to use edit summaries, I will lift the block. If you do not generally keep the pledge, you may be reblocked. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrew Rule

The article Andrew Rule has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello PBA, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi PAustin4thApril1980, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 ^Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. My proposal on AN concerning Nightscream and SanAnMan hasn't gotten any traction except for your support vote. I'd like to withdraw it, but, technically, I shouldn't because of your vote. Do you mind if I withdraw it? Let me know here, on my talk page, or in the proposal discussion at AN. [3] Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: feel free to withdraw it. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New case

Hi, Paul Benjamin Austin. Hope you had a decent new year, and of course all the best for 2019. Any suggestions for a new case you would like me to devote focus upon? I am practically finished with the three I have been working on as of late. If you name a few you feel need improving and expanding, I will very likely pick one. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couchman

I don't disagree, but I couldn't find the citation on Psephos (it was given as just the whole website, which is not very helpful!) and even if it was there, I don't see how you could make that claim until you had verified the death date of every candidate, which I'm pretty sure no one has ever done. I don't think anyone has even done it with just female candidates, and I can think of another centenarian there off the top of my head (Henrietta Greville, 103). Frickeg (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samantha Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America's sweetheart (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) 11:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Transgender

You've had an account since 2003, and you appear to edit quite a bit so I think you know full well that "I don't need sources" doesn't fly. I've removed the section you added as your comments were clearly not going to lead to anything productive.

If you feel like finding some sources, feel free to reopen the discussion topic. However, it is my sincere desire that you instead do your own reading and come to your own conclusions rather than believing what the TERFs or "gender critical feminists" are telling you about the "trans activists" trying to "make children trans". Here's a good starting point on trans kids by a prominent trans writer: [4] --Wickedterrier (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wickedterrier:, My point was that a two year old toddler has neither the mental capacity, not the emotional and psychological maturity to meaningfully understand or consent to changing their sex or gender. A two year old who claims to be another gender should not be considered trans in the way an adult with an adult sized brain can. 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Does the transgender article mention 2 year olds? --Wickedterrier (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malou

If possible, could you help me moving the article Malou Prytz (singer) to Malou Prytz. Much appreciated.BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bruce Baskett

The article Bruce Baskett has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

There is a question on the Savannah Smiles article for a proposed change. No one has made any comments yet. As you are an editor that has shown an interest in the article I wanted to invite you to comment on the article’s Talk Page. Thanks for your consideration. AliciaZag13 (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Curtin

Mu apologies. I was out of line. Post suggested changes to the John Curtin article at Wikipedia:Peer review/John Curtin/archive1 and I'll see if I can dig up a source to support them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children and Ponds moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Children and Ponds, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Citrivescence (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Borman

I have nominated Miranda Borman for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. Please do. Option 16 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

• Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

• In the media: The disinformation age

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

• Technology report: Actors and Bots

• Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

• Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

• Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

• From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

• In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

• Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

• Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:DavidFarmbrough, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Never delete anyone's talk page comments again, or you will be reported for vandalism. WOPR (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to move back and forth very easily from being a "poor victim of mental illness" who "needs to talk to his mum about getting help" to angry self righteousness. Also you are required by policy to have a link to your talk page in your signature per WP:SIG. I see you currently have no such link, kindly follow the proper Signature policy or I shall have to report you. WOPR (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it with the threats, WOPR. Those edits had to be suppressed by an oversighter (which you can see if you look at the page history of User talk:DavidFarmbrough or your own contributions) so there was obviously something improper about the content. Editors are permitted to remove certain types of talk page content including content that violates BLP or copyright-violating material. In fact, it should be removed, this is not considered vandalism.

You are correct about Paul's signature. Paul, can you fix your signature so that it includes a link to your user talk page? You can do this in your Preferences. If you have any questions, you can ask me or inquire at the Teahouse. Liz ^Read! Talk! 20:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Barsi

Paul, knock it off. This edit listing the individual as a "U.S. child actress" is not in line with MOS:ETHNICITY, which has clear guidelines on presenting the "country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident". By far and large, the bulk of articles regarding actors born within the United States lists the individual as American.

If you feel something is missing, re-add it (i.e., "of the 1980s"). Stop using edit summaries as a WP:TALK forum or to make personal attacks on other users. If you question an edit, be WP:BOLD and take it to a talk page. AldezD (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry AldezD. I get confused and frustrated too easily. Also, I am aware that many from Latin America do not like the term American being used for people from the United States. It actually happened to me on here in the early days of the Samantha Smith article, I'm willing to work with you constructively, I can assure you on that. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing the point. Knock off the disruptive editing and misuse of edit summaries. AldezD (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of characters in My Three Sons

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of characters in My Three Sons".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 07:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Dems

Don't want to get into an edit war over this, but the degree of influence the Lib Dems had over the Coalition goverment is a matter of debate and opinion, not fact. You at least need to cite some sources to back up what you are asserting in the lead here. Haldraper (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your disruptive edit warring

Paul, you have habitually disruptively edited the Judith Barsi article for years. Stop. You made this unsourced edit 13:19, 22 February 2014 after edit warring earlier in the day, only to have it undone again because it is not text included in the linked reference. You made the same edit today 06:32, 5 August 2019, again which is not referenced.

Stop your disruptive slow edit-warring of this article. AldezD (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Stop making personal attacks in edit summaries. [5]. This is not behavior exhibited by competent editors. AldezD (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Muggs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mr. Muggs. Since you had some involvement with the Mr. Muggs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. AldezD (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion re: comma after year in date

Hello,

Tonight I added a comma after the year in a date on the article for The Torkelsons. With all due respect, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style (specifically, MOS:DATECOMMA), this is correct and should not have been reverted.

I quote:

Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical.

Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.

Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.

Accordingly, I request that you restore the comma. Like you, I endeavor to make Wikipedia a better place, sometimes to the smallest of details.

Respectfully, 1980fast (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Rachael Runyan

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Murder of Rachael Runyan has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

One sentence, "Nonetheless, Runyan looked repeatedly out the kitchen window and conversed with her children as she prepared the meal."[12], is not supported in the citation given. I only checked it because a few sentences later I wondered why, if the mother could converse with her children, and they could hear her call them for lunch, she did not hear the girl screaming as she was carried away. Perhaps a contributor to this article can clarify this.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solo performance

"its not "being PC" to respect that women trans and non-binary people perform these too" I suggest you change the article lead for Solo performance as it does not reflect that. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers

Please do not use my personal Talk page for a subject which I have never contributed to or have any interest in. I just do not see your point. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop immediately

Stop posting suggestions on my talk page and leave me alone. AldezD (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well P. MarnetteD|Talk 05:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea

why should ask me about an article I have had nothing to do with... best of luck - seasons greetings JarrahTree 13:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of AN/I Report

I'd like to notify you that I'm reporting you at the AN/I page for the comments you made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike&diff=934047198&oldid=934040945

Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Please take this as a final warning. Your request to sanction another editor based (even partly) on their ethnicity is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You will almost certainly find yourself blocked indefinitely if you make that kind of comment again. Any issues you have with an editor's edits must be framed in the context of the actual edits, with diffs, not in the context of any personal attributes ascribed to that editor. I'm sure you can understand the difference, and I sincerely hope you keep that in mind in future. --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Poltergeist Carol Anne.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Poltergeist Carol Anne.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naming aviation accident victims in articles

Has been discussed multiple times in the last six months.

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question
• And how about last week- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203

Please read....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

• From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

• News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

• Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

• In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

• Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

• News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

• Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

• In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

• Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

• From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

• Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

• Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Kobe Bryant, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

• From the editor: The ball is in your court

• News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide

• Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews

• In the media: Mapping IP editors, Smithsonian open-access, and coronavirus disinformation

• Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?

• Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed

• By the numbers: How many actions by administrators does it take to clean up spam?

• Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman

• In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019

• Recent research: Wikipedia generates $50 billion/year consumer surplus in the US alone

• From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark

• Gallery: Feel the love

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

• Opinion: Wikipedia is another country

• Humour: The Wilhelm scream

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Children and Ponds concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Children and Ponds, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Children and Ponds

Draft:Children and Ponds, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Children and Ponds and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Children and Ponds during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

• From the editors: The bad and the good

• News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report

• Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters

• In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story

• Discussion report: Rethinking draft space

• Arbitration report: Unfinished business

• In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"

• Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19

• Recent research: Disease outbreak uncertainties, AfD forecasting, auto-updating Wikipedia

• From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world

• Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia

• News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Yawn"

If only you could examine the whole history of Pete/Skyring's editing on Australian articles. You will find that I am not the only editor that finds his obfuscation, POV pushing, wasting other editors' time, and boring of other people to death, while pedantically (maybe) staying just within the rules. Oh well, he's been getting away with it for years, and no-one's done anything about it yet, so I won't upset you any more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC) PS - You could start with Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season, but you would have to look back through the archives to see all the different, mutually exclusive, time wasting positions he has aggressively argued for in the past 2 months. But there is much, much more.... HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

• News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

• In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

• Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

• Featured content: Featured content returns

• Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

• Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

• Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

• Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

• Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

• By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

• Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

• In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hi, PAustin4thApril1980, I reverted your recent edit to Girly girl, because it was original research, and not supported by the reference in the Fitzgerald story. If you disagree, let's discuss at the article Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Sue Collins

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Cora Sue Collins at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howard Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rudd Government (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) 11:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

• From the editor: Meltdown May?

• News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting

• In the media: CBS on COVID-19, Sanger on bias, false noses, and five prolific editors

• Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct

• Special report: The sum of human knowledge? Not in one Wikipedia language edition

• Featured content: Weathering the storm

• Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction

• Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam

• Op-Ed: Where Is Political Bias Taking Us?

• Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book

• News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement

• Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020

• Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime

• On video: COVID-19 spurs innovations in Wikimedia video and virtual programming

• WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles

• On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

• Obituaries: Dmitrismirnov, Kattenkruid, Muidlatif, Ronhjones, Tsirel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an explanation

Hello, how are you? Can you tell me why you did this? Do you think that an anonymous person on a web forum is a source that Wikipedia should use? Do you think that having breast implants means that a woman is a stripper? Can you explain what you were thinking when you did that? Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC) @Mo Billings:, Ruff was clearly mentally ill and unstable so I am not exactly sure why we are giving her the benefit of the doubt on anything? Also, there are often reasons such as exotic dancing and sex work that make a woman have her breasts surgically enhanced so dismissing such reasons out of hand may be unwise. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas about breast implants are insulting to women who have them but the real problem is that you added an unsourced anonymous claim to the article. Mo Billings (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous person posting on a message board is obviously not a reliable source, and you even explicitly said that the person was "claiming" to be a particular person, clearly indicating that you knew full well that the claim was not reliable. Please be careful to avoid making similar mistakes again when editing; make sure you have reliable sources.

There are often reasons such as making a getaway from a robbery that lead people to want to use cars, but that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to link having a car with being a criminal as though the one followed from the other; likewise, I have no doubt that you are right in saying "there are often reasons such as exotic dancing and sex work that make a woman have her breasts surgically enhanced", but that does not mean that it is always so, and linking the two as though they are connected in a specific case without providing reliable evidence that they are connected in that case is not justified. Again, please avoid making similar mistakes in future.

You say "Ruff was clearly mentally ill and unstable so I am not exactly sure why we are giving her the benefit of the doubt on anything". I am at a complete loss to understand what you can possibly mean by that. Superficially it reads as though you are saying that if someone suffers from mental health problems we are free to write anything we like about them, without needing to provide reliable sources for verification, but you can't possibly mean that. Can you explain what you did mean by it? JBW (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see that you have not answered my question, although you have edited since I posted it. I assume you must have some meaning other than the one which I mentioned, and I would have liked to have known what it was. However, let it pass. JBW (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Sutton

I don't know on what grounds you think you've warned me before. But I note your lack of assuming good faith and ask you to please follow it.

If you've got a source that identifies what Sarah Sutton is best known for, and by who, and why the lead sentence needs to mention it, I'm happy to see it. If it wasn't known, and wasn't notable, it would not be in the lead. Thanks --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haines-Chipp frolic

Hi, PA. If you really must state the obvious in this caption, why not also add that "Chipp is playfully simulating rabbit ears over Haines's head?" ;-) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

• Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?

• COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money

• News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin

• In the media: Dog days gone bad

• Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy

• Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom

• Traffic report: Now for something completely different

• Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist

• News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users

• Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia

• Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project

• Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil

• In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problems relating to sources, opinions, etc

You have a persistent habit of editing without regard for need for references, and at times even with the appearance of providing references when you are in fact doing nothing of the sort. You also have a habit of not distinguishing between verifiable fact and opinions or subjective judgements. Some of the things you do might be understandable mistakes from someone new to editing Wikipedia, but are puzzling coming from someone who has been editing for eighteen years, and made close to twenty thousand edits.

• Not only was this edit completely unsourced, but it was also no more than a personal opinion, and moreover it is difficult to see what relevance you thought it might have to the content of the article.
• this edit is truly bewildering, it is inappropriate in so many ways. Firstly, it provides a "reference" which is merely a statement by a Wikipedia editor, not a citation to an external source. Secondly, it is a comment about, not a verification of, the statement made by the sentence to which it is attached. Thirdly, it refers the reader to another article which does not even mention either the fact stated in the sentence to which the "reference" is attached nor the supposed fact mentioned in your "reference"; nor, in fact, does it mention anything relevant in any way, so far as I can see. Fourthly the edit removed a "citation needed" tag without providing a citation; please don't do that again.
• There is also your remarkable editing to be seen above in the section "Looking for an explanation".

I am really not sure what to make of all this. Perhaps you would like to explain some of the odd editing you have done. There is a danger you may be heading for being blocked if you continue in the same way. JBW (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

• News and notes: The high road and the low road

• In the media: Storytelling large and small

• Featured content: Going for the goal

• Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way

• Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax

• Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics

• News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online

• Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles

• Arbitration report: A slow couple of months

• From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?

• Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Serra Cary and Calvin Coolidge

You added the sentence "Cary was also the last living person to have met President Calvin Coolidge during his presidency", Coolidge is not mentioned in either of the references which immediately follow. Do you have a source for this claim? Mo Billings (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: FYI. Mo Billings (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings:, @JBW:, I was using common sense ("Wikipedia does not need a cite that the sky is blue"). When someone who Calvin Coolidge when they were 6 dies at 101. it is a pretty safe bet that all the teenagers and adults that met him have long since gone to meet their maker. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this comment came from a new editor, or even an established editor without a history of problems over sources, I would patiently explain why making an edit on the basis of what you think is "a pretty safe bet", without a source for verification, is unacceptable. However, in view of your history, I find it difficult to believe that you don't know better. Moreover, in the unlikely event that you really don't know better, after all the experience you have had and the messages you have received, then you lack the competence to avoid making the same mistake again. What you wrote may well be true, but we don't accept information on the basis that someone who has created a Wikipedia account thinks it "is a pretty safe bet".

Your persistent disruptive editing, over a long period, has been far more than enough to have earned you a long block well before this. I can only assume that the reason you have not received such a block is that you spread your disruptive and unacceptable edits out among innocuous edits, so that they get lost. On the matter of sources for edits, ignoring all other problems, you have received numerous messages about the need for sources over the course of many years, and twice recently I have warned you that continuing in the same way would be likely to lead to being blocked. Since messages and warnings have failed to persuade you to change, I have now blocked you from editing for 48 hours, in the hope that doing so will persuade you to at last take notice.

Unfortunately I also note that the last time you were blocked, for persistent failure to use edit summaries, you were unblocked on the basis of your undertaking to use them in future, but in fact you are still making most edits either without edit summaries or with the default automatically generated ones, so I cannot have faith that this block will be more successful in getting you to take notice. I am therefore warning you that if, after the block is over, you continue any of the unhelpful editing practices which have been mentioned to you over the years, I will consider blocking you for a substantially longer period; you do not need to have warning after warning for each kind of problematic editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of this page: {{unblock|reason=Put your reason here ~~~~}} JBW (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PAustin4thApril1980: you have made 39 edits to articles since your most recent block expired. By my count, you used edit summaries for only a third of these. I suggest that you take @JBW:'s warning more seriously. Mo Billings (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Children and Ponds

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Children and Ponds".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen your recent editing in the article Death of Leah Betts, and your comment about it at Mo Billings's talk page. I find it difficult to imagine that you can think that the comment you made in an edit summary was a valid "reference". Also, your statement that what you wrote "seems highly likely" is virtually identical to your statement on this page above (in the section "Diana Serra Cary and Calvin Coolidge") that something you wrote was "a pretty safe bet". Either you understand that your opinion that something is "a pretty safe bet" or that it "seems highly likely" is not a valid source, in which case you are deliberately refusing to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy, or else you don't understand that, in which case, after all your experience, and all that has been said to you, you lack the competence to edit in accordance with policy. I warned you above would that continuing in the same way would lead to a block considerably longer than your previous blocks. I am therefore imposing a block for two weeks.

I would like to make it clear that the reason for this block is not the particular edit you made to the article Death of Leah Betts. (Frankly I regard the issue of whether she should be called a young woman or a schoolgirl so utterly trivial and insignificant that I can't understand why anyone cares enough to argue about it, either way.) The reason for the block is that you are still giving your own personal experience, and your own assessment as to what is "likely" or a "safe bet" as justification for content edits of articles. Wikipedia does not accept the opinion of any individual who chooses to create a Wikipedia account as a valid source. I strongly recommend that you read the guide to reliable sources.

If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. If you choose to do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}to the bottom of this page. JBW (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Williams

This is going back a couple of years but there was no need to make this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graham_Williams_(television_producer)&diff=822439023&oldid=808170425

There are plenty of reliable and independent sources that regard the Hinchcliffe era as the peak of Doctor Who as a popular show in its first run, so instead of just removing, adding a "citation needed" would have been better. Rather than being a "pro-Hinchcliffe bias", your edit looks more like an anti-Hinchcliffe bias. Anyway, I have found a source for it. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

As you know, about a week ago I received a request on my talk page for help regarding your persistent unsourced editing, and in addition to the editor who made that request another editor also pointed out there that your editing was not supported by sources. I did not take any action then for a combination of reasons, including the fact that I am reluctant to block an editor with a very long history of being in some ways a constructive contributor on the basis of problems that could easily be avoided. However, your history of making edits which are unsourced, at times by your own account done for the purpose of promoting a view that you hold, seems incapable of resolution. Being told by editors does not deter you; being blocked for a short while does not deter you.

As you also know, you have continued to make unsourced edits following that occasion, and I have again been approached on my talk page for help. I was in the process of drafting a message to you about the latest problems, in the faint hope of some resolution, despite suspecting that it might be futile, when I was called away from the computer. On my return I saw your message about it on my talk page. If after all that has been said to you, you can honestly and sincerely think that your own judgement that it "must have had an effect" justifies adding content without any source anywhere, then you are clearly so incapable of understanding the point at issue that you evidently can't, rather than won't start editing in conformity with the requirements. If that is so then trying to persuade you is doomed to failure. Other problems (which I shall not enumerate, as you have been told of them before) also persist. With reluctance I have therefore blocked you indefinitely from editing.

You may, of course, request an unblock, as before, and you may be unblocked if you can produce a convincing case that you do actually understand what the problems are, and that from now on you will do differently. However, the fact that a previous block was lifted on the basis of a promise to do differently, and that you have not kept that promise, despite having been reminded of it by more than one editor, must make it harder for you to persuade anyone to take your word for what you will do this time if unblocked. JBW (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

• News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking

• In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books

• Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20

• Op-Ed: Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward

• Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story

• Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.

• Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?

• Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner

• News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters

• In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You know how to request an unblock. Attempting to get round the block, whether by using another account, by editing without logging in, by emailing editors to get help in evading the block, or by any other means, is unacceptable. The more often you do such things the less likely it will become that you will be unblocked if you do eventually make an unblock request, and the more likely it will become that steps will be taken to stop you, such as blocking IP addresses, removing your email access, and so on. I have removed email access from your account. JBW (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^Superscript

@JBW:There's not much point in requesting an unblock. I've noticed in the last few weeks since you blocked me that several articles on my watchlist have been edited to insert POV or vandalism and those edits have either been left in place or only reverted after a long time. If I had not been blocked, i might have been able to revert the vandals. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a point in requesting an unblock if you acknowledge your mistakes in editing using your opinion instead of reliable sources. If you can not change your editing habits, then, yes, there is no point. I'm not sure after editing for 18 years, you can change your approach to editing on the project. Liz ^Read! Talk! 01:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is every point in requesting an unblock if you choose to start editing in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you did so then you could indeed revert vandalism. You can't because you choose not to be unblocked, and you are blocked because you chose not to accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You are perfectly free to make other choices. User:JBW (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Whatever I do, a certain Mo Billings will keep stalking me on here. If You get him to back off, I'll wait six months and take WP:Offer PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a very interesting statement.

1. In the context of recent editing it is clear that by "stalking" you, you mean checking on your block evasion. Mo is to be congratulated for doing that, and I hope he will continue to do so if you persist in your block evasion.
2. You will wait for 6 months if I "get him to back off"? So you mean you will continue to defy Wikipedia policy if I don't "get him to back off"? In my ten years as an administrator and 14 years as an editor I don't believe I have ever once seen any blocked editor succeed in getting what they want by threatening to evade blocks if they don't.
3. Every time it comes to my attention that you have been evading your block I shall revert any editing you have done, unless it's already been reverted or substantially modified. It is just conceivable that eventually that may manage to get it into your head that evading your block will not achieve anything. Anyway, it's worth a try.
4. Perhaps you didn't take in the most important point in the message I posted above, so here it is again: The more often you attempt to evade the block, by whatever means, the less likely it will become that you will be unblocked if you do eventually make an unblock request. And as for "evade the block by whatever means", I think that one of the most certain and infallible ways of discouraging any administrators from ever unblocking you is to threaten to evade the block if they don't. Never fails.
5. It's totally up to you. If you are not willing to accept Wikipedia policies then you have two options: (a) forget about editing Wikipedia, and find something else to do, or (b) keep evading your block, and keep on having the frustrating experience of having all your work destroyed. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept Wikipedia policies, then you know what you can do. It's totally up to you.
6. No, it isn't true that Mo Billings will keep "stalking" you (as you choose to call it) "whatever [you] do", he will do it only if you continue to violate Wikipedia policies. Again, it's totally up to you.

I have now spent far more of my time on explaining to you how things stand than you deserve, so I won't do it again. In future, when I become aware that you have been evading your block again, I shall just revert, block, and ignore. (Some people might think I should say "if" I become aware, rather than "when", because you may possibly decide to stop now. But you won't, will you?) JBW (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I will mention the following fact here, just in case at some future date you try the usual trick of "Oh my goodness, I was making perfectly good edits, but they were reverted just because I was technically evading a block; reverting my edits wasn't constructive". In the course of reverting your recent block-evading edits, I found a number of unacceptable actions, including removing another editor's legitimate talk page post, changing content so that it contradicted cited sources, and at least once unambiguously making an edit that you must have known put a false claim into an article. JBW (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. removing another editor's legitimate talk page post: Itt was false information. As I point out legally the government licence for 1323 AM is the old 5AD not 972 5DN.

2. changing content so that it contradicted cited sources The Tapp murders happened late on August 7 or early on August 8 not on the 6th.

3. unambiguously making an edit that you must have known put a false claim into an article The edit i changed said Mark Troughton's occupation was "Bill Plant Driving School". PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AldezD

@AldezD:. you really are foolish, aren't you? a simple check by you of the talk pages would have shown you that both those IPs are registered to the State Library of Victoria, so getting @JBW: would harm A LOT of innocent people, not least the State Library's STAFF! PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So let's get this straight. You believe that blocking those IP addresses will "harm A LOT of innocent people", and yet you knowingly and deliberately behave in a way that will lead to their being blocked? Really? So what does that say about you? JBW (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purely out of interest

@Blablubbs:, you should be smarter than supporting my stalkers/the nutters over at Wikipediocracy. But then, they are the ones who branded me a pervert without bothering to check with me or even look for innocent explanations as to why I like childrens television and Childrens books. [TVTropes] has a page on what conclusion has been jumped to. I have a developmental disability, am non-sexual, and DESPISE perverts and paedophiles. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know there was a Wikipediocracy thread about you, and I haven't insinuated anything about (or given much thought to) your motives. If you want to continue to edit, you should appeal your block, not evade it. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are completely correct. @Blablubbs:, I just get tired of those fruitcakes. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

@JBW: @AldezD: I doubt you both should keep the company of those fools over at Wikipediocracy, but that is what pandering to their obsession with me, let alone calling me an LTA, is doing. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said anything constructive here in a while and have instead continued to be disruptive, so I am now removing TPA. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there was anything about you at Wikipediocracy, nor, now that you have told me there is, do I intend to waste my time looking at it. What is done about your disruption of Wikipedia is all about what you have done here, and nothing to do with whatever may or may not have been said about you by anyone else, including the kind of people who have nothing better to do with their time than endlessly whinge on Wikipediocracy. Do you get that? Probably not, as you never seem to see anything in terms of faults there may be in anything you do.JBW (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul! So sad for this chapter to end. I'll miss your shout-outs here. I hope you have something in your life to which you can dedicate your passion as you have here in adding unreferenced, unsourced opinion to articles of long-since-dead people. AldezD (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PAustin4thApril1980. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]