User talk:AChan

Ha ha I've been punked

I am not Darren Ray, despite what Ambi would like to say. What humor you must have. Some editors obviously can get what they want. My edits are good and I would love to do more some time. Ambi did not like the checking of her edits which are often unfair and poorly written. She uses swear words including on this page and insults others in her edit summaries. But I am now "blocked indefinitely."

My crime is knowing Darren Ray, and liking him. I see Ambi who is willing to run down her political enemy is not revealing her name. Why?

I ask that people look at my contributions, I have done a lot.

Anyone wishing to speak to me direct please leave details here. Disgustedly yours

Alex Chan

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of DarrenRay (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Checkuser for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, AChan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Garglebutt / (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

I notice as a new editor that one of the first things you did was revert the redirect on Dean McVeigh which is a topic of heated debate here Talk:Dean McVeigh. Is there any particular reason you chose to dive into this contentious article? Garglebutt / (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section of the liquidation of MUSU in which McVeigh play a role in the University of Melbourne student services article. Perhaps you would be better to make any changes you think appropriate there. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not deleted but redirected to a more relevant and less POV page. Xtra 11:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are either a sockpupet of Darren Ray, Ben Cass or are specifically acting on their instruction to disrupt Wikipedia. If you continue, you will all likely be banned from editing Wikipedia. Do not tempt me to bring a case to the Arbitration Committee. Xtra 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to let them have their petty victory and pat themselves on the back tonight and we can redress this tomorrow. The way things are going we are either going to have a successful afd or arbitration, either of which is almost certainly going to see the end of this article. What a waste of effort! Garglebutt / (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from University of Melbourne student services. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Longhair 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty or not, if the content is true and includes valid references, it stays. People can't simply remove content they don't agree with. -- Longhair 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex. Be careful of the 3RR which means you can only make the same change in one 24 hour period. DarrenRay 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've enabled page protection at Dean McVeigh to stop the edit warring from continuing, there's a draft article on McVeigh, here. I'm sure Mr Cass won't mind you editing it to your liking. Once the draft conforms to a neutral standard, and passes notability concerns, we'll move it over to the main encyclopedia namespace. McVeigh might have done a lot of things, so include them, and reference them. If they're lies, lies on either side of the debate, take that matter up with whoever began those lies. Wikipedia is not here to determine the truth. Let the courts do that. We're here to present facts, backed up with reliable sources for the information you wish to add. -- Longhair 12:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a process where a group of independent arbitrators decide whether my issues with your conduct require and administrative intervention. See WP:RFAR. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sang Nguyen

Spare me the rhetoric. It says that he was accused of something (which he was). It says that the same scandal claimed the career of an MP (which it did). It says that there was no further evidence of wrongdoing on Nguyen's part, and thus nothing happened (which was true). All perfectly verifiable. Ambi 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant

Great articles. They seem very well formatted to me. DarrenRay 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Carli

Please quit this partisan crap. If you'd put your efforts into making sure we have a neutral article about Carli, instead of a "Carli-through-the-eyes-of-a-Unity-partisan-who-hates-his-guts" article, then I'd be long gone. It may surprise you, but I'm hardly a fan of Carli either. There are far more useful and far more important people on all sides of politics that deserve attention, so I'm pretty (deletion) sick of having to fend off dramas on this relatively unimportant SL hack. Ambi 08:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost your every edit here has concerned the internal machinations of the ALP, and you've insisted on displaying people's factions prominently within their articles, so please do not take me or anyone else here for a fool. Partisan edits like that on Carlo Carli are asking to get reverted. If you come out with the same partisan material, it is going to get reverted, and if you keep it up at the rate you're going, you're bound to end up on editing probation in the not-too-distant future. On the other hand, if you quit the partisan writing and make an effort to cover people neutrally, as you're quite clearly capable of doing when your political sympathies or not involved (as your business work shows), then you're unlikely to ever get reverted - just as you don't get reverted on your business articles. In the end, it's your call. Ambi 09:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the note of your business edits, it looks like you've accidentally left a sentence half-finished in Jack Cowin - "He has also invested in" (at the end of the fifth paragraph). You might want to finish that off. Ambi 09:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I suggest you ignore Ambi's profanity and insinuations. DarrenRay 09:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore. For the records, I have voted for John Howard and Steve Bracks. I also support AFL Premiers Sydney Swans. Whichever I support they win. Ambi should not be swearing on this user page. I am deleting it. If my mother finds you she will wash your mouth with soap. I can tell you this is no good. AChan 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen User:Garglebutt's Talk page. Well worth a look. DarrenRay 01:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please just talk about the sections of the article you dispute, so we can perhaps come to some form of amicable solution. I'm fed up with being reverted without any attempt at explaining why, let alone attempting to discuss or come to a consensus. Darren has shown a willingness to work towards compromise, and for the most part, he's getting just that. Reverting without explanation, however, is just taking the fast road to arbitration and a ban. That's a pain for everyone involved - please just play nice. Ambi 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this dispute to end, then calm down, raise your issues on the talk page, and let's try to come to some sort of solution. Reverting my edits on sight without explanation is not going to get you anywhere. Ambi 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather rich coming from someone who swears at another user on his talk page. JSIN 05:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being banned from Wikipedia?

Questions:

1\ I have been banned for what reason?

2\ Is knowing Darren Ray a reason for being banned ? I like him and am not ashamed to say this. I am not a secret anonymous person like Ambi who does not have her real name.

3\ Is this because he is in the different ALP faction from Ambi?

4\ I am not in the ALP and don't care less about it. Isee Ambi's (and her allies) bullying and reject it. She then says I must be politics obsessed. I am not at all. I don't care what you all do.

5\ When will someone actually tell me what is going on?

6\ I have done hours of work and hundreds of words for Wikipedia and being treated with no respect, courtesy just like a dumb person because I am not friends with Ambi. See what I write in my contributions[1] I write fairly and good articles and stop some pushing their politics agendas.

7\ Who will block Ambi for her bullying and swearing at users (like me)?

I want answers

AChan 09:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked by Ambi; two seperate admins, having verified that you are, in fact, a sockpuppet, banned you indefinately for the disruption. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bnb.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bnb.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:ABCLearninglogo.gif

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:ABCLearninglogo.gif. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FlightCentre.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FlightCentre.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]