User talk:I elliot

Dante Arthurs

I've taken your advice and placed a POV warning on this article. I'll also do my best to educate the newer users which are editing this article and point them towards policy and procedure as required. Perhaps I did jump the gun here, though I wasn't going to protect the article myself as I am an active editor there also. I was rather pointing out where edit wars usually end up, ie, the article locked, and the argument referred to the talk page. It's a dangerous area at times when unconvicted persons are subject to articles which make claims that are not supported. I've got the article watchlisted for now. We'll see how things proceed from here. Thanks for your advice. It's been taken onboard. -- Longhair 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

124.184.224.64

I've given them a warning. I'll wait and see if they come back and keep it up. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him/her a block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, Elliot. He's complaining to the unblock list right now and called me a "filthy animal". :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crickettragic

Hey Elliot, I just received your message. It's best to leave talk page messages at the very bottom of the page, otherwise, if the person receives multiple messages, they likely won't see the one at the top. I only just saw yours when I was archiving old messages. I checked out User:Crickettragic, however he had only made two edits on December 4 and hasn't edited again since. He was warned for his vandalism, so I've watchlisted his talk page in case he starts up again. All the best, Sarah Ewart 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Keating

Hi, I notice you keep reverting an edit to correct a typo in the word "Parliament" in the above article. I'm pretty sure its not meant to be "Patliament", which is what you are reverting it to. I assume this is an oversight - could we let the correction stand? Jeendan 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong view about the dismissal paragraph being in this article or not. But have a look at the article as it stands right now - after your reversion. It contains the dismissal paragraph and the typo. As you are the most recent editor, it appears this is the way you want it? If you want to remove the paragraph, go ahead, but take the typo with it. Jeendan 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :) You're right, it would be better placed in the Whitlam article. In "Mates", Keating denied the story ever happened, but it is an entertaining bit of folklore and is a good Whitlamism so it has persisted. still - if there was a trivia section on the Whitlam page, that's where it should be mentioned. Jeendan 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst at the shoulders would be good, I did it for the purposes of the shots such as Australian federal election, 1993... the shoulders would have him too zoomed out. You're welcome to do another version of it tho, it was just a quick crop job in paint :P Timeshift 06:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did one but as I thought it was too small for the 1993 page, so i've used it for Paul Keating. What do you think? Timeshift 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the new ones? :P Timeshift 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Adam Sinclair

I've declined the speedy deletion tag you placed on Adam Sinclair as notability is most certainly asserted as the article claims he was an Olympic athlete. I'm not sure if you placed the tag by accident, as you did not include an edit summary nor inform the article creator that you were tagging the article which you really should do in such cases. If it was an accident, don't worry about it. If you suspect the article is a hoax or similar, then take it to Articles for Deletion. Regards, Canley (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with Michael Michaelokopoulos. A coach and former player in a major sport in not eligible because it meets WP:ATHLETE. Royal broil 18:43, 7 March 2009 (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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, I elliot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]