User talk:Feedington

January 2010

I will not do the welcome bit as I can see from your history that you have been here before. Just to warn you that your edit at [Alonso] is regarded as vandalism. Please refrain from making disruptive edits. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your agreement to be unblocked, an immediate explanation of this edit is needed, Feedington. Kuru (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And given that I unblocked you in good faith on the basis of your commitment to abide by policies, this edit worries me. Accounts should be operated on an individual basis only and not shared in any way; quite apart from the obvious problem that vandal edits may be misattributed, the free-content licences we operate here require that each edit is attributable to one, and only one, editor. I am prepared to accept that you may be unaware of this, and I invite you and whomever shares this account to split into two accounts; as confirmation that this has happened, you may email me with the name of the new (separate) account, which will, of course, be strictly confidential. The alternative will be that this account is blocked as a "Group Account" and both of you will have to start again here from scratch. Regards. Rodhull andemu 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be perfectly clear, this needs to be done before you make any other edits. Kuru (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't addressed the issue raised above, I've reblocked you. I had hoped that if you were uncertain about the issues, you would have asked me, or someone else. But you haven't. Assuming good faith has its limits, and you've already transgressed those limits. Rodhull andemu 02:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The individual sharing the account agreed to create their own. As the account was no longer 'shared', i didn't feel it was necessary to follow up. Rather than use up the time of other people, we came to an agreement in private. As my password hasn't changed, if you wish me to create a completely new account, i am willing to do so.

Decline reason:

If you are not willing to mail the name of your colleague's new account to Rodhullandemu, this one will probably remain blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery