User talk:AussieWikiDan/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AussieWikiDan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thanks for the vigilance x2.

Hi AussieDan! There's a user vandalising the Killing of Daniel Prude wiki. Thanks for reverting his changes! He has got a warning on his page for vandalizing content with a racist intentionality and all users constantly undo his edits but he continues to publish them every few seconds though... Hope it gets solved! Lots of love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprivacidadimporta (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You’re welcome. He has been reported by other users to the administrators and the page may be protected soon. AussieWikiDan (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the vigilance.

Hi AussieDan,

Thank you for the vigilance! I myself made that first edit to the Absorptance page (when I wasn't signed into Wikipedia), so then I had to log in and undo my own edit, then REDO the edit under my own user name (so that people know who made the edit and can talk to me about it).

I reverted to my edit.

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonturney (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense now. I will not revert it again although it has remained as stating ‘chemistry’ for several years. It seems however there is overlap. You may wish to edit Optical depth as this contradicts your edit. Try to use citations.

Thanks AussieWikiDan (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I need tips.

Hi! I received this message from you after I was editing a page here:

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been reverted. Even though I’m sure this edit was made in good-faith, it is a clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not for promotion or sales pitching. There was also unexplained content removal. Please note there are no account owners on Wikipedia. A copy of your edit is available on the article’s edit history. Please consider adding content which is more suited to an encyclopaedia and is easy for a layperson to understand.

Can you give me some tips on how to make the content suited for an encyclopedia? I'd appreciate your help input. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian.cabs (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. Wikipedia strives to maintain a very strong neutral point of view WP:NPV and ensures everything can be verified WP:V. It seems though you have a strong conflict of interest, editing in these circumstances is strongly discouraged, see WP:COI.

However, if you want to continue please do not remove content unless you can provide a valid reason (preferably through the article’s talk page); ensure all additions include citations; and try to keep wording simple and neutral.

I hope this helps and please ask more questions if you need.

You can also visit the Teahouse where you can ask questions and get more advice: wikipedia:Teahouse.

Cheers, AussieWikiDan (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How was my edit disruptive?

In what way did my edit for HMS disrupted the page? I just updated the definition of HMS with additional info and cited sources. How was that disruptive?Gian.cabs (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, you had been warned four times regarding similar posts to this page. You obviously have a conflict of interest and were told editing this page is strongly discouraged. However, your last edit added information that already existed on the page and removed a link to Google Mobile Services. It also closely mirrors the original website which could be a breach of copyright.

Because this is the fifth edit, even if in good-faith, it is now considered disruptive editing.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

But the page needs to be updated due to new information regarding HMS. The info is lacking and incomplete. I've been putting into mind all the comments about the edits. I've been trying hard to apply your comments about being neutral, etc. How could I add new info that is not here when you already flagged me as a disruptive editor?Gian.cabs (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I just need help in putting the info about HMS that is not in the page. I don't mind if I will not be the one to edit. I could give the info needed with the citations and someone could write the content based on the info so there would be no issue anymore. Gian.cabs (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I understand you are editing in good-faith however Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia. It is not for promotion of new products. The page may contain information you do not want but this is part of being a balanced reflection of content. Your previous edits added content already contained in the article; were too promotional or editorialised; or removed other content. You may continue to make edits and I will try to help you as much as I can but it may still be marked as disruptive by other editors.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What I want to post is not even promotion of products. The lacking info regarding HMS is just what I intend to add. Just like at the Google Mobile Services page, the equivalent of what is there. Just additional info. Not promotions. That is why I said I just could give the additional info and someone could write it so it'd be neutral as per wiki's guidelines. So there won't be conflict anymore.Gian.cabs (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates on Australian Unemployed Workers' Union

Hi AussieWikiDan. I noticed you undid my addition of maintenance templates pertaining to the self-citation (referring to partisan sources in this case the organisation's own website) and the nature of the article containing content that reads like an advertisement.

As I have accompanied these with written justification on the talk page, inviting discussion which has not yet arrived at consensus, I wanted to ask why you undid my edit. It is not proper to simply remove templates that you disagree with without first engaging with the appropriate talk page discussion. Thanks. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have left you a message on your talk page regarding my revert of your edit. I am more concerned with stopping edit warring on this page. I do however, as a neutral editor on this topic, believe the addition of three templates is unnecessary and perhaps added just to inflame the situation. Maybe try to find a more fitting template as:

the article is clearly not partisan as it has a mix of reputable news citations;
the article does not appear written like an advertisement; and
the figure which you marked as dubious already said reportedly and cited a reputable news source.

I hope you find this fair; I am trying to keep the article balanced and not cluttered.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message AussieWikiDan. I just wanted to point out that I have not broken the 3R rule and that the only user who has done so within the past 24 hours is JayBee00. I would also like to point out the guidelines on maintenance template removal that state the following:

"You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply:

You do not understand the issues raised by the template;
The issue has not yet been resolved;
There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue (with the exception of POV-related templates);
The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;
You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest."

I believe that in this instance points 2 and 3 are clearly still relevant as the issue is unresolved and there is ongoing activity. To prevent an edit-war the template should not have been undone in the first place. I think that this reduces justification for deleting the templates.

The article being mostly weighted towards the organisation's own website as sourcing is my reasoning for the partisan sourcing template. The language used in the History and Membership and Activism sections reads a lot like an advertisement promoting the organisation's own documents and activities. I will accept your point that using language like 'reportedly' is probably enough to cover that claim. I hope you understand where I'm coming from but either way I appreciate your civility in the matter. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I hope the issues are resolved and thank you for your understanding. On speaking with you, it appears the addition of templates was not a hasty decision on your part. You are quoting from a page which is ‘not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community’. However, I will take what you have said on board and think more carefully before removing templates in future.

All the best,

AussieWikiDan (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right it's more of a norm or expectation rather than official policy. Thanks for your understanding in equal measure. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for coming in and assisting so far with the problems on Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, vandalism etc. there

Certainly hope the situation can be worked out to ensure balance & neutrality are maintained on the article as is. Pretty stunned by what I feel like I'm encountering there in the course of seeking to uphold that.

Thanks again mate. JayBee00 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

You are welcome and I am trying my best to stay balanced and neutral myself.

I hope it gets resolved.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way mate, I should point out that about half the content in the History and Membership section of that article comes from NPOV, reliable published media sources, it's worrying also that the IP would seek to assert otherwise without attempting a basis for doing so :( Figured you ought to know... JayBee00 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Killing of Daniel Pride

ThrowPrude21 here:

You are actively hiding the truth about Daniel Prude's death, while removing my edits, adding the autopsy report.

"The autopsy reports Daniel had a clinical history of severe respiratory acidosis, a clinical history of profound global hypoxic ischemic injuries, a clinical history of suicidal ideation with possible auditory hallucinations and paranoia, and a clinical history of agitation with combative behavior."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThrowPrude21 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, As explained to you, this is an unreliable source - see WP:SOURCE. The WP:BLP policy is clear that content must be verifiable to a high degree. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the family’s privacy. It is however disappointing you did not discuss this with us before. All those edits caused considerable inconvenience for editors.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Colin Moynihan

Re Colin Moynihan, he is a baronet so his name should start 'Sir' and end 'Bt' followed by his peerage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8500:4BE0:BC0A:7508:85AB:CDBF (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed and found a citation to substantiate this. I have therefore added your request to the page. Thanks for your contribution!

AussieWikiDan (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Zayd ibn Harithah / Divorce from Zaynab Edit

It is recommended that unconfirmed, unauthentic parts of the story, or stories that are lacking evidence about the divorce and its reasons if in fact did happen, require disclaimers at the start and not the end of the text. A disclaimer about the story not being accurate at the beginning of the text, especially when lacking evidence and furthermore being rejected by qualified representatives, is highly warranted. This offers greater levels of accuracy and prevents the spread of misinformation - two points that are well respected by Wikipedia and other content governing bodies. There are proven and valid reasons why disclaimers come first and at the start of content and not after wards. For example, ratings of a movie, the copyright warnings on registered content, and books based on true stories. Therefore, and for the same reasons, stories rejected by historians and other qualified professionals, and that are lacking accuracy should forewarn the readers before presenting the content. It is not enough to list Wikipedia references to other non-confirmed articles on the web. This doesn't authenticate the story and would aid in the spread of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.136.233 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I have responded at the article’s talk page: talk page.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Whoa!

Your recent report to RfPP did quite a bit more than you intended. Please remember to preview changes. Regards, Favonian (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea how I did that! I think it might have been a glitch in the matrix.

If not, sorry! AussieWikiDan (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Friday the 13th Part 2

Who are why are you messing up what I was fixing Jonlandon (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there I patrol recent edits across Wikipedia. You appear to be changing details on pages marked as minor edits. These changes move information or inline citations around without reason. This is usually evidence of subtle vandalism. If your edits are for other reasons, please explain and I can help.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Friday the 13th Part 2

I fixed it for you I worked real heard 🙂 Jonlandon (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

your message about a Minor Edit

Hi Dan, You messaged me about the definition of a "Minor Edit". Can you please send me the specific edit in question so I can see it to get a better understanding of what you state? Thanks, Edisonwato — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edisonwato (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, here are a couple of examples: Diff 1, Diff 2. The 'minor edit' is a tick box you check before posting your edit. It signals that you are either reverting obvious vandalism or you are changing something insignificant, e.g. grammar.

Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hershey bar

You restored ~~vandalism~~ here [1]. I've removed your warning from the IP's talk page. Meters (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, ~~possibly~~ not vandalism. but I agree with the IP's removal. Meters (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are the one who recently added the unsourced "baby spit-up". I think you can consider your addition challenged now, and I think it was a bit much to warn the IP for having removed it. Meters (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My warning was appropriate because it wasn't vandalism they were removing. The inline citation is right there and is stated in the reputable sourced material.

I however don't think it is worth fighting over this inclusion, it is however disappointing how you both have communicated with me. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Hello. Sorry to write in this way and take your time but I saw your action about the UK lead article. But I checked the same user who did that with the uk lead section also added the same into lead sections of Switzerland, Luxembourg and Denmark like a spam. There is 100s of index rankings but this one, put in that detailed way in lead about countries and also pladge what could happen in 2050 (will is one,but what will happen in 30 years, we dont have a cristal ball) is not at all for lead section with the same note in the same time into body of article subsections. So if you can, check that and thanks. Cheers.77.46.180.241 (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there 77.46.180.241,

Thanks for raising this with me. I have looked into this and found that there was a problem with this user's edits and have contacted them directly.

Cheers,

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it was strange for me to see that, looks like spam and maybe advocacy. And I use wiki often but mostly to get info and I am thinking to make one account here to edit sometimes. It is great place. And I see to many editors are cool and warm and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.180.241 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I just checked Switzerland article lead, it still stays that user note about that index and ranking and about what could happen in 2050. Again sorry to bother. 77.46.180.241 (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm actually not an administrator but i will check again and edit at a later time. I don't want to do too many reverts at once. You can also report any concerns at the administrator helpdesk.

Cheers,

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Zaporozhian Cossacks

Hello. It seemed to me the opposite - I wrote the obvious things (the Ottoman Empire turned the Black Sea into an inland lake - it's enough to look at the map on Wikipedia, but of course I don't have a certificate from the Sultan; the file - the original engraving is kept in the British Library) ... Cossacks corsairs - absolutely unbelievable (corsairs will not storm military fortresses and attack the navy, although in those days all the military lived by robberies, especially the crusaders. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Олег Граченко (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the inconvenience and you are very much welcome to restore your edit with citations. However, Wikipedia requires inline citations when adding extensive text as you did. Let me know if you need assistance,

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 17:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Arabic Name

Arabic name page starts as a page about naming customs in the Arab world, so it seems like it should be focused on that. There are too many sections about how Arabic names are used in other parts of the world, such as the abbreviation of Mohammed and mistakes by foreigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:A703:FDB1:DD6B:4933:2F36:1CB (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 2603:7000:A703:FDB1:DD6B:4933:2F36:1CB, the text you removed was wholly inaccurate? If you are sure this is the case you should try to re-word the paragraph. Otherwise, if this can't be done, remove it but ensure you leave an edit summary.

Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Izzard

Could you perhaps contribute to the discussion, in the light of the more recent sources that have become available? I have commented further there if you are willing to explain why you have reverted. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And whilst you are at, maybe you could AGF in your edit summaries thanks very much. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 86.5.124.147, I did comment both on my edit summary and on the article's [[Talk:Eddie Izzard|talk page] regarding reasons for reverting your edit. I have been carefully reading comments and this latest source does not change how I see the consensus for the pronouns used on her article.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 03:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Grindr

Thank you for reverting that book section that I put on Grindr. I totally get what you’re saying. I looked at the page and it makes sense. I didn’t mean to make it a directory, of course. But it did add to the chance of clutter on the page, because the revised version is only one sentence but keeps the citations. I suppose I was just trying to give the book section as much weight as the other sections under the media subheading. Probably because I am a bookworm. Middleground1 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Middleground1, thanks for your understanding. I appreciate you took time adding those details. I did try to keep more but if we detail one or two books then every book would need to also have the same exposure. I hope this does not put you off editing, feel free to continue edits on this article if you wish. Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 02:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

You reverted my contribution because are trying to force the whole world to accept your ideology. This was not the aim of Wikipedia. It's a pity that it is now used for such propaganda which doesn't accept being questioned. Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Riccardo Riccioni, please try to remain civil. I, and other users, have detailed why your edits are contested at present. Fundamentalist religious groups is applied here in a neutral way to mean religious groups that stick strictly to doctrine.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 15:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just Being Sarcastic...

...and frustrated. However, since any real life critical examples (no link to primary sources this time) are not allowed from Austrailia & NZ, allow me to present hypothetical example; you add human right issues to Wikipedia that creates the public conflict with the Chinese Government & private conflict with Disney Corporation who tries to make business in mainland China. Are your remarks removed then? At least Immigration NZ would take sides even when it shouldn't simply out of personal vanity and I do respect your comment on "conflict of interest".

Otherwise I feel that I might as well write to toilet wall at the mercy of cleaning lady, and by doing so I would probably get better feedback than otherwise from the internet that is full of...88.115.19.177 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 88.115.19.177, you do realise I am one small editor amongst many on Wikipedia? Your edits were not notable enough to appear on the article and your talk page comments were not about the article. This is an encyclopaedia and not the NZ Immigration complaints department. I am not trying to be unkind but just truthful regarding Wikipedia content and discussion.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's rather say that you were the only editor amongst many on Wikipedia whose comment made some sense to me, and I appreciate that.

Otherwise you have right to dislike me as a 'naggger' and protect your own interests against mine. I shall gladly surrender this platform to you but let's not predent that we guard 'higher priorities and truths' above division - at least I thought that you can agree that?88.115.19.177 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I don't want to hear complaints either, nobody does. But I enjoy irony. When I tried to "meet and greet" Julie Andrews in NZ and I was stopped, I started to complain until someone said that "shut up, we don't care because that could happen only to you!" However, what seemed to be an exception in 2013 could happen to anybody after the outbreak of Covid-19-pandemic: your holiday flight to another country is cancelled; your ticket to the mass gathering event is revoked; you are not allowed to meet & greet with +70 years old person.

I found this rather ironic & wanted to share it with you Wikipedia readers.88.115.19.177 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you must be frustrated. You disagree with the decisions NZ Immigration and Julie Andrews' management team made. However, inclusion of these decisions and your opinions regarding these do not have a place on Wikipedia. Please feel free to continue being a part of the Wikipedia community and editing on other issues. For more general advice on editing see the Contributing to Wikipedia page. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 17:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no universal definition what is notable or appropriate, or whoever claims that is a tyrant while getting both sides to agree is a notable achievement unlike now when my views are rolled over and neglected. Personally I don't understand why Julie Andrews is such a taboo. Whenever I try to follow her, I am treated like this Russian princess who tries to follow her condemned husband to Russia's Australia (you can find that scene at 2h 15min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIX4EDGV4ic

I guess her true fans are narcissistic rather than intelligent with a good sense of humour. When such a person sees something in a mirror that "shouldn't be there", reaction is something like what has happened to me as a "tresspasser". Is this all just about vanity then? Perhaps. Have you seen the movie "Ball of Fire" (1941); the inventor of a toaster hires a group of scholars to write a full set of encyclopedia from A to Z just because he wasn't able to find himself from the Encyclopedia Britannica.88.115.19.177 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing more I have to say on the matter.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 05:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to say anything in the first place unless you want to, and wikibot could provide all the cleaning & pretext quotes then. It's the human interaction that makes something feel right and true without any dead calculations. Nevertheless, it is your community and your rules. I am just tresspassing. But don't imagine that you cover everything that matters, or one day angry mob might storm in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wMdeRX5tYI

That happened during the orinigal Encyclopédistes in the 18th century, but this is already politics, not science.

Once again I do respect your efforts to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. It is just your unconditional unwillingness to make any kind of compromise regarding Julie Andrws that prevented me personally trusting in that. 88.115.19.177 (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just one more thing that I don't have to but I must add. Why people just don't follow the old Latin verse "factum non fabula" as their guideline? I believe that one reason is that facts are sometimes too painful to face and people use fiction as a mirror image of their own misery. Therefore being a "fan" doesn't necessary mean that you are a narcissist.

E.g. in my case my own father was an alcoholic. When your parents quarrel and split up, you easily start to think that your own birth was a sad accident. As such a case I was put to the Pentecostalist summer camp. There I started to feel that there has to be some kind of mysterious third party that loves me instead of my quarrelsome parents. When I later saw Disney's "Mary Poppins", something snapped in my head, or rather in my heart, and I felt that I am again connected with that loving third party. Later a movie called "Saving Mr Banks" was released where P.L.Traves tries to save not the children but his alcoholic father, and Mr Disney uses this as a mirror image of his own relationship with his workholic father. I guess all children of anyholics not only pity for themselves but also try to save their holic parents universally.

Later on I joined the Catholic Church and entered The Buckfast Abbey in England because we don't have any monasteries here in Finland. After two years I left without giving any final vows partly because their tonic wine would rather kill than save Mr Banks. That's why I would not try to add any insert to the article on Buckfast Abbey that I was their postulant & novice 2000-2002. Such egoism would not be appropriate to a monk anyway. But don't get me wrong. I was, I am, and I always will be grateful to the Buckfast Abbey community that they allowed me to test my vocation. You never know before you try, and The Catholic Church provides many options. Maybe I should have started to stalk Fr Malachi Martin in stead of Blake Edwards's second wife as a former Pentecolist "nutcase" who can speak in tongues. After all, "The Exorcist" is merely a remake of "Mary Poppins and Mr Blake used to share an office with Mr Blatty.

One of your arguments was that I am not notable enough because media doesn't mention me. I believe that this is not entirly true, although my name wasn't mentioned. E.g. NZ TV interviewed Julie Andrews who told that she is so afraid of explosions that she cannot be in the same room with the balloons. Later on Immigration NZ sent me ONE single evidence that why I was considered to be a threat to Julie Andrews: it was a snap shot from my YouTube video where I blow up a balloon with a pin. I mixed this two separate elemets that are connected - as I believe - in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3GQjllT6XA

One more relevant coincident. Banks...Bankhurst...Hursti. I met pastor Hursti in that "Jesus Camp" mentioned earlier. He told that his father was also an alcoholic until he was saved by...later on this same pastor was interviewed publicly, and he told that as a 12-years-old boy he was so angry and desperate that he climbed onto the roof with his twin brother. The plan was to eat a chocolate bar and after that jump down to the certain death. But chocolate tasted good and life went on. My plan was just to meet and greet with Julie Andrews and return to Finland after that in order to show everybody that "Mother Godess" finally showed her face to me and there are no further secrets. But what was supposed to be a boring routine VIP-treatment turned out to become a new normal after the outbreak of covid-19 pandemic. And the relevant coincident then? After my unnoticed complaints another Finn on flight to New Zealand via Hongkong tried to hijack the plain with a Toblerone chocolate bar. It just happend to be so that another Finn, who happened to be also a security man, happend to be on board, disarmed this dangerous terrorist. This comedy was well covered by media.

So, what is my mission then? Do I wish to spread the gospel that "Mary Poppins" will save you all? I know, that's ridiculous. In fact I took my own old mother to the top of Etna on holiday in 2014, because I wasn't able to see any volcanos of NZ in the previous year. There is no NZ embassy in Finland. But NZ has a honorary consul whose first name happens to be also "Dan". He helped me to get a reply from Wellington. However Immigration NZ refused to withdarw their "alert" on me. That provoked me to start one-man's boycott against NZ. But that creates also conflict-of-interest with Dan, who wanted to help me to clear up the mess that was created by a small government official who thought that she was saving Julie Andrews. Would a gentleman behave like that? Anyway, New Zealand and Finland are very much alike, two small countries. Robert Wise directed a movie called "Until They Sail": NZ women marry American soldiers, but war brides' backgrounds are checked first before VIP treatment. We had similiar situation in Finlad during the ww2 when not American Marines but German - or should I say Austrian and Bavarian - Alpine Jäger were stationed here. When they sailed back to Germany, they too took some Finnish women with them. When I was a young boy, I knew a silly old lady who was one of those war brides. However, for some unkonown reason she was thrown overboard off the coast Finland, but she managed to swim back to shore. She was so traumatized by this that she didn't marry again.

AussieWikiDan, I sincerely hope that you read all this and that you find it helpful, although my novicemaster once said to me that he doesn't need my sarcasm...but maybe I will receive some justice as well when Sam Neill and the other antichrists are condemded at the Last Judgement. You certainly need some sense of humour in the middle of all these serious "facts". But even the sense of humour is not always enough to save you from the conflicts, because the prestige can be a bitch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy2VqDi4sFg

Just think Australian Government that expects apology from Chinese Government (Comment on Australian war crimes in Afganistan) and money from Google Company (Copyright issues). And all I wanted was a simple apology from the Immigration NZ after fraude accusations and alarm against me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE1xVSmxwIM

Or is it really so that the world is corrupt and nobody likes informers even when they are just guessing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzbw8q-W1Jw

15 years ago I pointed out at my website that Julie Andrews doesn't resemble his claimed father at all, and later she publicly told that Mr Wells in fact isn't her biological father. But I guess everything that has happend to her after 1962 belongs to "Mickey Mouse":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5XdiVZFQg

But I guess this is already one of those "crackpot conspiracy theories about who is really in control that don't belong to Wikipedia":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OSNtf76C5M

"And so mighty Mickey Mouse returned to Valhalla" in the manner that reminds of this scene where a retared bonusless comedian flies with Prince Oleg in the golden age of ballooning that started a millennium later - a fact that I am certain of even without the confirmation from Wikipedia...or who knows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKRCIjz5Tk

I must say that the sixth season of "Vikings" sucked, a Finnish actor Peter Franzen has a relevant line though: "They don't advertise second wives", and yet Blake Edwards tried to give some artificial respiration to his second wife's career. But I guess Wikipedia isn't any platform for the film and TV critics either.88.115.19.177 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikko 88.115.19.177, I am concerned for your welfare because of your unusual behaviour on Wikipedia and my talk page. Please consider visiting these great mental health support resources.

As stated before, I can not enter into any more discussion regarding edits on Wikipedia.

Take care, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, as I said before science doesn't cover politics - or religion. It's an old trick to lock your political opponents into the "mental hospitals". That happend in the Soviet Union all the time. I was expecting less offensive "advice", not something that could come from the mouth of the tyrant who doesn't want to listen nor understand. Was it really given in good faith, or do you just want to abuse me? I wanted to laugh with you, because humour is the good medicine for proud and wounded minds in conflict. But I quess laughter is like love, you cannot force it.

Yes, I know that you are just a small editor, not a powerful dictator who can send millions to the (mental) camps. But we all know the type; somebody pullls at sleve a card that says "mental issues", or "racist", or whatever invalidates your opponet's points when you have no more sensible arguments left. However, personally I believe that privacy issues are bigger problem than abusive hostile behavior also hear in Wikipedia. For example, you already know my name. You might as well pin down my location at Helsingfors (Helsinki in Swedish):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBHoLHQ-0c

Mices with wings! Mickey Mouse ought to be excited:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNMRD9nCASw

Otherwise you don't have to be concerned for my welfare. I am doing just fine, and I don't have to earn my livelihood by cleaning public toilets - yes, I can be a little bit abusive too, sorry for that and no hard feelings.88.115.19.177 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

88.115.19.177, I was being genuine regarding my concerns. I would never use mental health to belittle someone, I'm sorry if that's how you feel. If you would like me to delete this or request an administrator to blank this to protect your privacy, please let me know.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Dan! Trampling somebody undefoot on one patronizing concern or another hypocritical pretext was the cause for my complaints in the first place. Otherwise I can only blame myself if my privacy was compromised as far as it has already been.

Algorithms can never replace human tasters, or otherwise we all might get poisoned. But two human beings can always try to reach a consensus on a matter when you think that it is not good and I don't think that it is not good. This has been such an attampt, although I remain at solitary confinement as always when I start to talk about Julie Andrews. I leave it to you to decide if this section serves any public purpose since this is in fact your talk page and I am merely a guest here.88.115.19.177 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Just something I wish to share with you. The New Zealand Herald publishd this cartoon on January 30th 2021; I might as well be that poor Mr Jack Banks when I try to bring back something from 2013/14 that doesn't do credit to me, my name not mentioned though.88.115.19.177 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Joss Whedon

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joss Whedon; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please refrain from making the same edit repeatedly if the matter is under discussion on the talk page. Gershonmk (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

COI vs. vandalism

You are right. I should have said COI, not vandalism, re: Linda M keeps editing her own page. Thanks for the correction. LeDroitInternational (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LeDroitInternational, you're welcome and thank you for helping with the COI edits with that page. Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 17:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Log Rolling

Hi Daniel,

I am trying to edit the log rolling page and you have reverted my edits. I re-wrote all the content from the Key Log Rolling website in my own words, so it is not directly copying their page. Please let me know exactly what you are referring to that is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.110.85 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to hear back from you on my response to your messages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.110.85 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi 24.118.110.85, Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been on a break from Wikipedia. If you still have concerns related to this edit, please let me know. Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 17:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

OTDIC

Hi Dan,

Thanks for reaching out recently and informing me of my lack of evidence when making a change :-D and thank you also for putting in the obvious work you do. I've come across a few mistakes in my time and have started screenshotting them. I had no idea we were able to correct obvious errors ourselves. I'm still navigating my way around the process of making amendments and attaching the relevant links to prove the information is correct. Please don not hesitate in reaching out or offering more guidance whilst I'm here. Cheers :)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)