→Userbox Ideas: hideous and disgusting personal attack removed, it probably violates the UN convention on human rights |
PantherLeapord (talk | contribs) Reverted good faith edits by Retrolord (talk): Do not refactor other editor's comments! (TW) |
||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
:::::::::It is really disapointing to see the comment ''I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all,'' in response to the comments. (1) WikiProject Australia is about contributing to an online encyclopedia (2) creating user boxes has nothing to do with that (3) collaborative projects (as this one has aspired to in the past) - if they exist - require members of the community to to take note of general advice (and actually take it on), and perhaps understand that some directions or activity are in fact detrimental to the project. I would strongly suggest that the editor proposing the activity as exhibited above - take note of what this project is actually [[WP:ABOUT|about]]. [[User:SatuSuro|sats]] 15:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC) |
:::::::::It is really disapointing to see the comment ''I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all,'' in response to the comments. (1) WikiProject Australia is about contributing to an online encyclopedia (2) creating user boxes has nothing to do with that (3) collaborative projects (as this one has aspired to in the past) - if they exist - require members of the community to to take note of general advice (and actually take it on), and perhaps understand that some directions or activity are in fact detrimental to the project. I would strongly suggest that the editor proposing the activity as exhibited above - take note of what this project is actually [[WP:ABOUT|about]]. [[User:SatuSuro|sats]] 15:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Well, at least he won't be creating these infoboxes for the next 20 hours, he's been blocked for personal attacks. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 15:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC) |
::::::::::Well, at least he won't be creating these infoboxes for the next 20 hours, he's been blocked for personal attacks. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 15:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::I am starting to think that Retrolord may genuinely have a [[Superiority complex]]. [[User:PantherLeapord|PantherLeapord]] ([[User talk:PantherLeapord|talk]]) 23:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia == |
== Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia == |
Revision as of 02:54, 22 July 2013
Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help
|
What is going on with Visual Editor, etc.?
OK, I admit to be a technoimbecile but I have no idea what is happening now with editing. I understand that Visual Editor is WYSIWYG but where do all these <nowiki>'s come from? I notice that now other editors com along and remove them, which seem to me to be a bit counterproductive. Also, none of my links work (including the one to the left), even under "source edit". Check out Geoff Rosenow for an example of the mess I have somehow made to the page. Can someone please explain what has changed and perhaps speculate why Wikipedia programmers have decided to change the way one edits to make it more difficult for chumps like myself. --Roisterer (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- You can "hide" Visual Editor in Special:Preferences, under Gadgets, Editing.
- You also leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks people. I'm sure I'll eventually understand the new editing format but please expect a few messes on the way. --Roisterer (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
MelbourneVictoryColours.png
file:MelbourneVictoryColours.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
File:STS068-258-80 Sydney.jpg
File:STS068-258-80 Sydney.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Someone moved it to commons -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Alan McNicoll FAC
Hi all. Sorry to spam the board, but I've had the article Alan McNicoll at FAC for over a month and a half now with relatively limited feedback and no comments of any kind for the last month. McNicoll was a career officer in the Royal Australian Navy who rose to become the service's Chief in the mid-1960s, before accepting the inaugural posting of Australian Ambassador to Turkey. If anyone has a few spare minutes, comments or reviews or any kind against the featured article criteria would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Cowra POW Camp.gif
image:Cowra POW Camp.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Australian Alphanumeric Markers
All Australian Alphanumeric Markers are now redone, representing the largest highway marker update thus far by WP:AURD. Please advise of any missing shields at WP:AURD/S. This set contains all of the existing shields from the current set, plus a few others (mainly the NT ones). {{AUshield}}
should be used where possible to link to the correct shield, and ease future maintenance.
The new set can be found here: Commons:Category:Diagrams_of_Australian_alphanumeric_route_markers (Total - 420 images)
-- Nbound (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It would also be appreciated if shields found using the older AUshield syntax were updated per the current docs -- Nbound (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
MarkOliphant.jpg
image:MarkOliphant.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Doesnt appear to be PD-US -- Nbound (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Problem is, I added this image 7 & 1/2 years ago, when the rules of images were very different (and simpler). Of course I have no memory of where I obtained the image or of the other information now required to keep it from being deleted. Shame. --Roisterer (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is an all too common problem. I had a similar issue with an image that was sourced from a website that explicitly allowed free use of the image. It was discussed at length on several talk pages as well as the image's talk page. I subsequently uploaded it to commons where it was later deleted because the copyright page link went dead. Some of the people deleting these images really need their mum to cancell their WoW account.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some things end up for deletion for the sole reason that it isn't using a properly filled out template. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is an all too common problem. I had a similar issue with an image that was sourced from a website that explicitly allowed free use of the image. It was discussed at length on several talk pages as well as the image's talk page. I subsequently uploaded it to commons where it was later deleted because the copyright page link went dead. Some of the people deleting these images really need their mum to cancell their WoW account.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Problem is, I added this image 7 & 1/2 years ago, when the rules of images were very different (and simpler). Of course I have no memory of where I obtained the image or of the other information now required to keep it from being deleted. Shame. --Roisterer (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Liverpool hospital images
have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure these were the same images that were previously deleted. They appear to have been uploaded with different names.[2] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then South Western Sydney LHD (talk · contribs) may be a problem user? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are warnings on the user's talk page about these images. The fact that they were deleted and re-uploaded under different names is a bit of a red flag for me. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then South Western Sydney LHD (talk · contribs) may be a problem user? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Paddy Island 1868.jpg
the copyright status of image:Paddy Island 1868.jpg is under discussion, see the linked NFCR discussion on the file page. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at the article Thérèse Rein. An editor insists that Spouse of the PM is an office worthy of topping the infobox. I don't recall any such consensus. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no official position in Australia so it shouldn't be in the infobox. Claiming it's an unofficial position is equally ridiculous. Political spouses have no more relevance than the wife of the local garbo. I suspect that the new editor is logging out and editing as an IP to get around the 3RR warning on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia is slightly more significant than wife of the local garbo - but Spouse of the PM in an honorary title, not a recognised "office", so I agree that should {{infobox officeholder}} should not be used. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The editor has now made this change to many Prime Ministerial spouses' articles. I changed a few back and he is now reverting, despite your warnings, with the sheepishly mispelt "We have been over this, regardless of wether it is formal or informal, it is still a recognisable office." Seems we have a stubborn bastard with a real bee in his bonnet. I don't want an Edit war. He needs to be blocked. Somebody please? HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've submitted an AIV report. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The editor has now made this change to many Prime Ministerial spouses' articles. I changed a few back and he is now reverting, despite your warnings, with the sheepishly mispelt "We have been over this, regardless of wether it is formal or informal, it is still a recognisable office." Seems we have a stubborn bastard with a real bee in his bonnet. I don't want an Edit war. He needs to be blocked. Somebody please? HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The guy is back again, using yet another IP address. He's been blocked repeatedly, but just ploughs on with no idea of consensus or negotiation. I've reverted him (most PM spouse pages) but I'm sure he will keep going again until he is blocked. Ho hum, the joy of being a Wikipedia editor ... WWGB (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now he's back again! As User:Hellomynameisandrew19991999. I wonder if 1999 is the year of his birth. That would make him 13 0r 14 years old. And I wonder if we have case of genuine incompetence here? Surely it's time for a much longer block. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
(non-member wave from the other side of the planet)
New, actively being worked on stub that I 'assigned' to you guys...seems like something that could be easily improved, and probably of higher 'importance' than the low I gave it by default. It's not my work, but the author had {{help me}}d about getting improvement assistance, and eyeballs from the same hemisphere could probably do more than the 'generic' advice I can give. Revent (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Cite It's an Honour
Just wondering why Template:Cite It's an Honour doesn't contain a url to the It's an Honour website. I asked the question at the actual template but have had no reply. Hack (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ipa-map.gif
image:Ipa-map.gif is up for review at NFCR, see WP:NFCR for the discussion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does anyone know what OGL is? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- OGL - Open Government Licence - it's something the British came up with. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though it's known as AusGOAL (Australian Government Open Access and Licensing) in Australia. Example sites that use AusGOAL is Geoscience Australia and Australian Bureau of Statistics. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I guessed wrong. At least I discounted "Oman Gas & Light". --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though it's known as AusGOAL (Australian Government Open Access and Licensing) in Australia. Example sites that use AusGOAL is Geoscience Australia and Australian Bureau of Statistics. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- OGL - Open Government Licence - it's something the British came up with. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Asylum in Australia
This newly created article, Asylum in Australia needs integration with the other related topics. It was listed as the first top story of Google News this morning and is a candidate at In the news so it may get some traffic. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing attention to that article. It needs an awful lot more than just integration with other articles. Correct grammar would be a start, and implying as it does that the history of the topic began in 2001 is not satisfactory. A classic case of WP:RECENTISM. I shall have a play there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- How about a dyk nomination? Any suggestions for a good hook? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Table of contents?
I seem to be having trouble with the table of contents layout lately. See Willaura for an example. I have no idea what I have done to the article to make the table of contents layout look like that. Help would be appreciated. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've been noticing this problem across a whole range of articles this morning. The table of contents box is extending right across the page. I'm assuming it's just a temporary glitch, hopefully fixed soon.--Melburnian (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- See discussion here.--Melburnian (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Userbox Ideas
I think this project needs some more identifiable userboxes, for people to advertise their involvement with wikiproject Australia. If anyone could turn these into actual infoboxes that would be greatly appreciated.
This user wants to Axe the Tax
This user supports the Convoy of no Confidence
This user wants to Stop the Boats
Thoughts? ★★RetroLord★★ 04:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you are serious I would say most of us are beyond that stuff. Its best to keep political stuff like that to more appropriate forums. I can't see how it improves things or helps us edit. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- User boxes were taken seriously in the first 5 years of wikipedias main history - now there is such a drastic shrinkage of actual active co-operating editors in the Australian project (or even those who simply know this noticeboard exists, and then to either watch it or use it) - time and effort could be more profitably utilised to keep the main project and its child projects in working order, rather than worrying about what goes on user pages... sats 04:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I dont like the idea in general, but if you were going to roll them out, you would at least not make them all Liberal Party one liners :P. Besides the witch has already been ditched, and the tax has been axed :S -- Nbound (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well we could have some labor ones I suppose for balance. How about:
- I dont like the idea in general, but if you were going to roll them out, you would at least not make them all Liberal Party one liners :P. Besides the witch has already been ditched, and the tax has been axed :S -- Nbound (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This user supports Happy Little Vegemites, with a reference perhaps to [[3]]?
Thoughts? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 05:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Its a start, but like the other users, I dont think things like this are really appropriate, they are more likely to cause division between editors than foster co-operation. -- Nbound (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any of these are good ideas. From a personal level I think all your suggestions highlight the exact problem with Australian politics - thought has been reduced to lame one liners that must uncles would be ashamed of. On a policy from I don't think any of these ideas sit well with WP:ISNOT or will produce a collegial atmosphere - we are meant to be NPOV, publicising our reactionary tendencies hardly helps on that front. Liamdavies (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Users can already have userboxes like "This user is a communist", "This user supports a free Tibet", I don't think these are any more divisive than those. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really think that matters, your asking for input, I gave it. I would also note that those are far more generalist than the ones you are proposing (and in a number of ways less controversial or possibly offensive). Liamdavies (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- You should stop with them altogether. Per WP:POLEMIC those userboxes will probably get you banned! PantherLeapord (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really think that matters, your asking for input, I gave it. I would also note that those are far more generalist than the ones you are proposing (and in a number of ways less controversial or possibly offensive). Liamdavies (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Users can already have userboxes like "This user is a communist", "This user supports a free Tibet", I don't think these are any more divisive than those. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any of these are good ideas. From a personal level I think all your suggestions highlight the exact problem with Australian politics - thought has been reduced to lame one liners that must uncles would be ashamed of. On a policy from I don't think any of these ideas sit well with WP:ISNOT or will produce a collegial atmosphere - we are meant to be NPOV, publicising our reactionary tendencies hardly helps on that front. Liamdavies (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I, too, think that the suggested infoboxes are a bad idea, and contrary to the spirit of WP:UPNOT, and specifically contrary to WP:POLEMIC. They are all obvious points of view, which is not how we want people to be "involved with wikiproject Australia". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- What policy bans POV userboxen? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The userboxes you're proposing clearly breach WP:POLEMIC and Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions. This discussion alone highlights other users thoughts that your proposed userboxes are 'statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities', 'inflammatory or divisive', and 'propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics'. You have come here with ideas, your ideas have failed to reach consensus. I would suggest you learn from that, don't implement them and move on. Liamdavies (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- What policy bans POV userboxen? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I, too, think that the suggested infoboxes are a bad idea, and contrary to the spirit of WP:UPNOT, and specifically contrary to WP:POLEMIC. They are all obvious points of view, which is not how we want people to be "involved with wikiproject Australia". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is really disapointing to see the comment I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all, in response to the comments. (1) WikiProject Australia is about contributing to an online encyclopedia (2) creating user boxes has nothing to do with that (3) collaborative projects (as this one has aspired to in the past) - if they exist - require members of the community to to take note of general advice (and actually take it on), and perhaps understand that some directions or activity are in fact detrimental to the project. I would strongly suggest that the editor proposing the activity as exhibited above - take note of what this project is actually about. sats 15:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, at least he won't be creating these infoboxes for the next 20 hours, he's been blocked for personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am starting to think that Retrolord may genuinely have a Superiority complex. PantherLeapord (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, at least he won't be creating these infoboxes for the next 20 hours, he's been blocked for personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is really disapointing to see the comment I'll proceed with them regardless. But seeing as I have encountered opposition here I won't post them here further for a while. Thanks all, in response to the comments. (1) WikiProject Australia is about contributing to an online encyclopedia (2) creating user boxes has nothing to do with that (3) collaborative projects (as this one has aspired to in the past) - if they exist - require members of the community to to take note of general advice (and actually take it on), and perhaps understand that some directions or activity are in fact detrimental to the project. I would strongly suggest that the editor proposing the activity as exhibited above - take note of what this project is actually about. sats 15:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia
I have tried and tried again to explain this. Everyone knows that being the Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia is not an official office. It is not an official role in the United Kingdom either, however Samantha Cameron, and all other Spouses of Former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom have their infoboxes naming them as office holders. All I am trying to do is give people who look at The Spouse of the Australian Prime Minister information as to when they came into the unofficial office, who their predecessor and successor is, who their spouse is etc. as done with the Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I am new to wikipedia and I am trying to contribute like everyone else is, but i don't understand the issue with updating the Spouse of the Prime Minister's infobox and saying when their term started/ended, who their predecessor/successor was, as done with the Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellomynameisandrew19991999 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- This guy has, against consensus, gone and changed about 40000 articles (a minor exageration) to reflect his POV. Is this grounds for blocking yet? His talkpage is littered with warnings. I think he has had enough rope. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that before you start this again you have a thorough read of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OTHERTHINGS. You made changes, they were reverted and you were asked to discuss them, this is to create a consensus on what the articles should, or should not contain. The general feeling is that it is inappropriate to include 'Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia' as a title, arguing that other pages do it is not accepted, you must convince others (build consensus) as to why it title should be accepted. Continuing to edit war will only get you banned and will have zero chance of getting your changes accepted. Take it to a talk page and try to build consensus. Liamdavies (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It should be noted that this user has been blocked for 2 weeks, so entertaining his requests may not be the most productive use of our time. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- You forgot WP:OR and WP:V. Claiming that somebody is an officeholder in their infobox, when there are no verifiable sources confirming that they are an officeholder violates both of these policies. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- True AussieLegend, thanks for the addition policy requirements. Retro, even withstanding the ban it is still good to explain why the changes have been reverted and a policy based solution/explanation to how changes that are contested are made. It is highly dismissive to say that as the user has been banned there is no point explaining policy to them. With a better understanding of policy and conventions we may be able to help this user productively contribute to Wikipedia. Liamdavies (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- This user and his obvious IP sockpuppets have been advised several times, by several editors, over several days, to use Talk pages to discuss the edits he has been repeatedly making. He hasn't done so yet. I see no evidence that he is capable of or intending to learn or cooperate with our policies. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- To separate the issue of accuracy from the unacceptable editor conduct here, there isn't a position of "Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia" or equivalent. Traditionally the PM's spouse performs various charitable roles (some of which are, under the individual charities' conventions and traditions, earmarked for the spouse) and accompanies them on major international trips when invited by the host government. I think that the spouses receive some support to undertake these roles from staff in the PM's office as well as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on an ad-hoc basis, and they can also claim travel expenses associated with the tasks (mainly so that they're not left out of pocket). But it's not considered a formal position like the First Lady role in the US is. Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I know this user has been troublesome with their edit warring, and has been warned, but I don't see any harm in laying out all the policies their actions go against. I to have little faith that this user will become productive, but we are still at least meant to strive to AGF (although that boat is sailing) and one last ditch attempt at explaining the situation can't do any harm. For the record, I oppose the changes, the position doesn't hold weight in Australia. Liamdavies (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- To separate the issue of accuracy from the unacceptable editor conduct here, there isn't a position of "Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia" or equivalent. Traditionally the PM's spouse performs various charitable roles (some of which are, under the individual charities' conventions and traditions, earmarked for the spouse) and accompanies them on major international trips when invited by the host government. I think that the spouses receive some support to undertake these roles from staff in the PM's office as well as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on an ad-hoc basis, and they can also claim travel expenses associated with the tasks (mainly so that they're not left out of pocket). But it's not considered a formal position like the First Lady role in the US is. Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- This user and his obvious IP sockpuppets have been advised several times, by several editors, over several days, to use Talk pages to discuss the edits he has been repeatedly making. He hasn't done so yet. I see no evidence that he is capable of or intending to learn or cooperate with our policies. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- True AussieLegend, thanks for the addition policy requirements. Retro, even withstanding the ban it is still good to explain why the changes have been reverted and a policy based solution/explanation to how changes that are contested are made. It is highly dismissive to say that as the user has been banned there is no point explaining policy to them. With a better understanding of policy and conventions we may be able to help this user productively contribute to Wikipedia. Liamdavies (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that before you start this again you have a thorough read of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OTHERTHINGS. You made changes, they were reverted and you were asked to discuss them, this is to create a consensus on what the articles should, or should not contain. The general feeling is that it is inappropriate to include 'Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia' as a title, arguing that other pages do it is not accepted, you must convince others (build consensus) as to why it title should be accepted. Continuing to edit war will only get you banned and will have zero chance of getting your changes accepted. Take it to a talk page and try to build consensus. Liamdavies (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright problems
Central Gardens Nature Reserve and Nurragingy Reserve hHave both been tagged with copyvio templates and require attention from editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)