User talk:Eric A. Warbuton

I am now going to report you for repeated vexatious removal of relevant facts from this article, which amounts to vandalism. Have a nice day. Adam 08:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Adam 08:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The block expires at around 6:30 tonight anyway - i don't make the rules i just enforce them. PMA 05:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making irrelevant and/or illiterate edits to Australian articles. Adam 05:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really must concur. In future, if you wish to make legitimate edits, use the "show preview" button to review your edits.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you find this patronising, but I don't know any other way to tell you that if you want to make a useful contribution to Wikipedia, you need to stop making silly and pointless edits which are usually wrong, and concentrate on something you know about. You have already been blocked once for vexatious editing, and you will be again if you keep this up. Adam 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I sense you're upset. I suggest you back off the article for a while (at least a day), and then maybe make suggestions vis-à-vis your concerns on the talk-page. And please don't take my comments there as resolute support. Adam has explained the reasons for the wording, and I accept his position. “Tired of” is perfectly acceptable, and not something one should get worked-up about. Sincerely, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of the three revert rule on William McMahon. Your editing has been suspended for 24 hours. In future please settle disputes on the talk page rather than in the article space. Also please avoid personal attacks--nixie 08:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O'hea

Wikipedia naming convention is not to use titles (Sir, Lord, Father) in article titles, that's why I moved it. It still leaves the Father title name as a redirect. I've never seen the name O'hea in the US, at first I thought it was a misspelling of O'Shea, but I would imagine it would be pronounced like hay. Zoe 08:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The airport in Chicago is O'Hare International Airport. Zoe 08:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorist vs. Militant

The introduction refers to actions by groups on both sides; singling out just one group is POV, and needless detail in a summary article. As well, Wikipedia prefers the term "militant" as more neutral than "terrorist". I might add that following individuals with whom you are disgareeing (such as User:Adam Carr) around and editing articles after he has edited them is often seen as "wikistalking". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles O'Hea

Hi Eric,

you did a good job finding the source for Fr O'Hea's birth/death dates and so on.

I removed the building dates when I did the copyedit because there were four churches, but only three dates. I wasn't sure what to do with them, so I removed them altogether. I agree that the dates add to the article. I'm unclear on what the different names refer to (I gather Woodstock and Epping are two different churches, and St Ambrose is in Brunswick?) Would it be possible for you to list, either on your talk page, mine, or the Fr O'Hea talk page, exactly how we should refer to the churches, and what their construction dates are? e.g.:

St Ambrose, Brunswick (1869)
Beveridge (1857)

And so on? --fuddlemark (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Tyers

Haha, no problem. I really didn't do anything.. just fixed the title and added a bio stub... gren グレン 07:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arid and remote

Arid is a perfectly neutral term which means "receiving little or no rain." There is nothing POV about describing inland Australia as arid. "Remote" on the other hand is a POV term. If Oodandatta is remote from Sydney, then Sydney is remote from Oodnadatta. Yet you have left "remote" while "deleting" arid. [1] Adam 06:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evatt

Kindly do not just dump stuff you have copied from a library catalogue into articles. I am sick of fixing your lazy and illiterate editing. Adam 05:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam Carr is admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks. How many times has Adam been told to be polite?

Hoddle Grid

The map is a good idea, thanks for creating it, but there are two problems: the titles for the streets from King - Swanston are all one block too far west, knocking off Spencer St and leaving a gap where Swanston St is; and everything from Lonsdale - La Trobe Sts is missing. It also might be handy to add titles for the Little Streets, and adding Market St in, from Collins to Flinders, between William and Queen. Otherwise, good job. TPK 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joint sitting

Thanks for editing page to wiki std. much to do Eric A. Warbuton 08:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem dude, I do what I gotta do :p -- SoothingR 08:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly welcome not to fix any of my editing. It is obvious that you are systematically tracking all my edits. Wikistalking will get you banned. Adam 06:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stalking, copyediting

I know you're upset with Adam. However, following him around and altering his edits – especially those edits that don't need altering – is a real good way to get blocked. I'd rather you didn't get blocked; you're adding good information to Australian articles, and that's always needed. Of course, that's just me; if you want to be blocked, keep on harassing Adam. We have hundreds of admins, several of whom have experienced "wikistalking" themselves and have formed a disliking for the practice.

By the way, if you'd like any help on working within Wikipedia's style guidelines, give me a yell. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Juanita Nielsen

Just an opinion on style. Usually films are conventionally denoted thus: 'Heatwave(1982)' (ie used in IMDB)and generally across wikipedia. But you've chosen '1982 film Heatwave'- which reads more easily, but is not stylistically conventional. I prefer the former. But its your baby, as it were, so I'll leave it there. Eric A. Warbuton 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It now reads Heatwave (1982). The change was made when I dabbed the link, which previously just linked to Heatwave. --bainer (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racosperma

Racosperma has been ratified, but the individual species names do not change from Acacia until a list is published. I don't think that has happened yet, but I might be wrong. I suppose you're aware that a new type species has been chosen so that the vast majority of commercially important species can remain in Acacia; So don't go by Pedley. Snottygobble | Talk 06:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, you can't go by Pedley. Pedley published a list in which the vast majority of Acacia became Racosperma, and only a very few Acacia remained Acacia. This was in accordance with the rule that the original type specimen of a genus must remain in that genus when the genus is split. However, this would have resulted in a name change to the vast majority of Acacia, including the vast majority of commercially important species, i.e. Australian nursery industry species. Because of this, the nomenclature board were convinced to make an exception to the rule, by declaring a new type specimen for Acacia. Under the new arrangement, the vast majority of species will remain in Acacia, and Pedley's 2003 list is no longer valid. We must await a new list, compiled under the new arrangement, before the name changes become official. Snottygobble | Talk 06:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is so. However will await verdict at Vienna conference. Eric A. Warbuton 05:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Please remember to abide by the three revert rule. You're not new to Wikipedia, so I've blocked you for 24 hours per policy. Ambi 05:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, grow up. Try making some legitimate contributions instead of silly edits aimed to annoy people and you might just get a markedly better response. Following Wikipedia policy is a good idea too. Ambi 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re Seconds mark

Use {{coor dms}} instead of {{coor dm}} and put in the two extra numbers in the obvious places. I normally just use degrees and minutes from the Geoscience Australia gazetteer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batman's Treaty

Where did you get the text of the treaty from? As it is a full text document, it belongs on Wikisource, but when I went to put it there, I realised I couldn't find a source for it online. Ambi 03:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source text goes on Wikisource, not Wikipedia; that's what Wikisource is for. I'd have added it straight to Wikisource except I wasn't sure what the source was; what book did it come from? Feel free to add it to Wikisource yourself if you like. Ambi 04:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you to retype it. It's in the page history. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it really does belong on Wikisource; that's where all primary sources go, which are then linked from Wikipedia. You're welcome to put it there, or I'll happily do it if you give me the source you got it from. Ambi 05:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, please keep discussion and meta-references out of the article space. There's a discussion on the talk page if you want to contribute. Furthermore, the text has not been "stolen", your edit is still stored in the article's page history, which you can view here: [2]. --bainer (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with Ambi, I suggest that you discuss it with her on her talk page. Ambi is a very good editor and a reasonable person, and discussion would go a long way to fixing things. Calling her a "thief" does not help, nor does refusing to discuss the matter. If you have a serious problem about a pattern of behaviour against you, then I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process. --bainer (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, I'm not trying to censor you. As Thebainer said on the article talk page, source text does not go on Wikipedia; it's a standing policy, which is why we created Wikisource; I don't really know what you expect to discuss. Having copies of all the versions of the treaty would be really, really useful over there - which is where they belong. I don't understand why you take such offence at adding them over there. Ambi 08:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still complaining to Thebainer, but I'm at an absolute loss about what your problem is with this. Source text goes on Wikisource. How many times do you need to be told this? Ambi 04:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know-you told me so many times. Funny I cant find it at Wikisource? So where is it? Return the text where I initially put it. How come you get to act unilaterally? I understand that now I have your permission to remove any text of yours at any time without prior negotitation. OK? Eric A. Warbuton 04:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be vandalism. As I've said repeatedly, I removed the source text in order to move it to Wikisource, but didn't because I didn't have a source for the document. I've asked you repeatedly to either tell me where you got it from so I can add it or add it to Wikisource yourself, but you've done neither. I know you mean well and it would be excellent if we had copies of each version of the treaty (even one would be a start) over at Wikisource, but I'm really quite bemused as to why you won't add it there or tell me the source so that I can do it. Ambi 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the text you added was source text, and belongs at Wikisource. Everyone and anyone can view the text there, where they are supposed to - when either you add them there, or provide your source so that I can. Ambi 04:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's precisely because I try to respect other contributors that I'm still trying to explain to you why the text belongs at Wikisource and should be added there even after all the allegations of "theft" and "abuse". Wikisource was created so that primary source text - such as the text of Batman's Treaty - didn't go on Wikipedia, and just about all primary source text on Wikipedia was moved there. I'm really at a loss as to why you're demanding that there we an agreement over where it be placed when it is a standing policy that primary source text be placed in Wikisource. It's easy enough to add all the treaties over there (this page being the likely place), which can be linked from this article with a pretty, prominent template - what is the problem with doing this? Ambi 05:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. I've genuinely tried to explain the right course of action under policy, even pointing you to the proper page on Wikisource, and you've completely ignored me. So I'm through with this discussion. Ambi 05:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be on Wikisource. There may be too many for the one page; in that case, they could probably be given a page of their own each on there, but that's your call to make. Ambi 05:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm baffled by your comments on Thebainer's talk page. What he did (in adding the page to Wikisource) I've just spent the last 24 hours trying to convince you to do - or to provide the source (so the provenance section isn't wrong, as you claim Thebainer's is). Ambi 06:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't bear to watch this argument any longer. And I just can't turn my back either. Eric, have a look at Yagan. If you look at the references section you will see two boxes on the right advising that there is relevant source material at Wikisource. Click on the top box and you will be taken to the source material at Wikisource. Note the box on the right hand side provides the provenance for the source. i.e. where it came from. The provenance information is necessary to allow users to judge of the accuracy of the text, and possibly to judge which of multiple versions is likely to be most accurate.

The source that is the subject of this dispute is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but it is highly suitable for inclusion in Wikisource. You should feel free to upload it to Wikisource. It may not have been clear to you that Ambi cannot put it on Wikisource herself, because she is unable to provide provenance information; only you can do that because only you know where you got the text from.

Once you have uploaded the text to Wikisource, it is trivial to add a pointer to the source from relevant Wikipedia articles. Thus your text, although not directly visible on Wikipedia, will be readily and almost seamlessly accessible to Wikipedia users. Snottygobble | Talk 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism of article Batman's Treaty should have clearly signalled to me what I have only just realised: that you are less interested in making a great encyclopaedia than you are in pursuing justice for Eric A. Warbuton. Personally I care deeply about the former, and couldn't care less about the latter. I won't bother you again. Snottygobble | Talk 06:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the treaty (according to your transcription) is now at Wikisource, at the page wikisource:Batman's Treaty, as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

As to the matter of the personal dispute, you said on my talk page that: "I was not asked for my opinion, negotiated with or informed in ANY way." Well, Eric, it is quite common on Wikipedia for people to make edits without talking to other editors, indeed it is encouraged. Ambi's edits were consistent with policy, and she did leave a summary in the edit history. Wikipedians are also encouraged to assume good faith, which I do not believe you did. You could have asked her nicely to explain her edits, instead you attacked her and called her a "theif", despite the fact that the text was, and is, freely available in the edit history (If you don't know how to use an edit history, see this page: meta:Help:Page history). Assuming bad faith only leads to others assuming bad faith towards you.

In the future, please be civil, and disputes like this will be completely avoided. --bainer (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said three times already, your text was not deleted, your text was, is, and will until the end of time be available in the page history. To see it, click on this link: [3]. I cannot make that any clearer. If you do not understand what a page history is, or how to use one, I suggest you read this page: meta:Help:Page history. --bainer (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kalorama

Thank you for your very flattering remarks about Silvandale tearooms. They make what i di there all the more worthwhile. Can you contact me please so I can find out who you are and say "thank you" personally.Frances R 14:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lazlo Toth, vandal

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Murray river, Chowilla.jpg

Eric, please see my comments at Image talk:Murray river, Chowilla.jpg. I suspect the photo is copyright, and also not of the Murray River, but of Chowilla Creek. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buton or Burton

Thanks for the acknowledgment about the joint sitting. I have an interest in surnames, and am wondering whether you really spell your surname -buton and not -burton. The -buton version is one I've not come across before. JackofOz 02:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Hawk Wars

You will be pleased to learn that I have found proof of Howard's support of the Vietnam war which his supporters here have always denied. See the Rodent's Talk Page Albatross2147 07:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited claims

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced negative information to biographies of living persons, as you did to John Howard. Thank you. Andjam 05:58, 22 November 2006 (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) 13:07, 23 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]