Jump to content

User talk:Jodyrootes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Jodyrootes, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Jodyrootes, good luck, and have fun. – Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodyrootes, you are invited to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Jodyrootes! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Flag of Australia. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The research originated with the Australian Flag Society. It's hitting inboxes as we speak. I think it would be only a matter of time until a newspaper gets onto it. Something like that can't stay a secret forever.

Jodyrootes (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in this edit summary, galleries are discouraged and the edit clearly is based on personal analysis by a Wikipedia editor, regardless of where it may have originated. Such original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Everything added to Wikipedia must be supported by third party, reliable sources. The change that you made here did not add anything, it simply restored thesame gallery and original research.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The genie is out of the bottle now. Let's talk about it on the talk page. I think the Australian Flag Society is a good enough source even before one of their media releases gets written up.

Jodyrootes (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian flag society isn't a source for the edits that you made. Most of what you wrote was original research. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite wrong about that. I'm on their email list and here is their latest offering (I'm not a member or anything):

“The 1927 Mystery Unravels” (12 July 2014) 2(1) Flag Breaking News (ISSN 2203-2118)

The seemingly unresolvable controversy over the type of Australian flags used at the 1927 opening ceremony of the second provisional parliament house in Canberra is now one step closer to being solved. The latest research being carried out by the Australian Flag Society shows that, contrary to previous claims that only red ensigns are depicted in the official portrait, the field of the flag flying vertically in the second position in the order of precedence is predominantly blue, and may either be shown as a Union Jack or a blue ensign. One of the flags flying from the flag poles standing vertically in front of the building also has something of a blue streak. Both artists have made small errors in detail, as Power has positioned one of the westernmost horizontal facade poles as turned 90 degrees to the front and depicted facing the crowd instead. Other photographs taken that day also appear to show a large Union Jack flying horizontally from another, lower facade pole also at the western end. However neither of these two features are in evidence in the lithograph as one would expect from the north westerly perspective chosen by the unknown artist.

Upon microscopic examination, the only hard evidence in at least one of the photographs taken that day seems to show a blue ensign draped behind the Union Jack. John Christian Vaughan, vexillographer and former CEO of the Royal Australian Historical Society, has ventured to say: “The Cross of St George on the Union Jack is red and of darker shade that the blue of St Andrew's Cross. It is interesting to note that the blue on the Union Jack matches the shade of Australian flag which, to my eye means that the Australian flag has a blue field not red which would have matched the shade of the red St George's Cross.”

The 1927 mystery deepens according to other corroboration as to the presence of red ensigns, with a correspondent for The West Australian reporting that: "The sunlight streamed through the crimson of drooping flags”. When one binds all the available evidence together, this strongly suggests that both Australian flag variants were present on this occasion. However the choice would likely have been one Power - who left behind the words “It was decided .. flags in red” - would have made alone, and the fact that there was no comment when the official rendition was unveiled is also considered revealing.

Citations

[edit]

Please do not remove citations and replace them with {{fact}} tags as you did at Flag of Australia while logged out.[2] Fact tags are for completely unsourced content, not for challenging existing citations. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I'll reedit it.
Jodyrootes (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

[edit]

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially WP:TPYES. Use indenting and when signing your name, sign at the end of your post, rather than using a separate line just for your signature. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eureka Jack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Crawford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lambing Flat Banner

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lambing Flat Banner, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.nethelper.com/article/Lambing_Flat_riots.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lambing Flat Banner

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Lambing Flat Banner, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eureka Jack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denovo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tags

[edit]

FYI. The reference tags in articles come immediately after the punctuation mark ~ not after a space. Please do this from now on as it is tiresome correcting them. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eureka Jack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinegar Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

When placing a new request at the graphics lab, please be sure to give it a title in the field marked "Subject/headline" so that it creates a new section. When you don't do so, it appends the body of the request to the last existing section, and makes navigation difficult. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

I'm just trying to make a contribution. I'm a newbie. What did I do wrong? Instead of this, why don't you give me some constructive advice? I'm happy to be reasonable and talk about these edits I proposed on the relevant talk pages. It was all sourced material. There's nothing opinionated about it, and I see no examples of such edits have been cited. I'll admit, I could have truncated down some of what I have written even more, but is that a banning offence? They were basically all quality additions. The Eureka flag article in particular is light years ahead of where it was. There has been articles in the mainstream media citing the demographic threat indigenous Australians are facing, so there's nothing new or novel in that either, and would it be so horrible if there was just a one world race one day??? (see here http://www.news.com.au/national/more-aborigines-entering-mixed-marriages/story-e6frfkvr-1225696982117). I see the article on Indigenous Australians as it stands already states: "The proportion of Aboriginal adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-Aboriginal spouses has increased to 74% according to the 2011 census, up from 71% in 2006, 64% in 1996, 51% in 1991 and 46% in 1986.". Given the sensibilities involved, I'd be happy to take any proposed edits concerning this contentious subject to the talk page in the first instance from now on. All in all it's not as bad as its being made to sound is it? If block evasion is the only substantial issue. If I was ever blocked before. It was that long ago now I honestly don't recall anything about it. In my jurisdiction, even criminal convictions get expunged after ten years. I've already seen that it seems like anyone who is prepared to admit Australian aborigines are and will keep integrating into the host culture are in for a very tough slog on wikipedia, even with all the references in the world behind you. It seems remarkable to me to find census figures for the exogamy rate in the article on Indigenous Australians at all. There's no POV pushing going on here. What about if I give an undertaking to do all these things I have said and sign in from this sole account and I be allowed to continue my good work? You can really see that some of these articles I have spruced up really were poverty stricken before I found them, and all this time I've donated to wikipedia was worth money. All I can say is, I did create one identity for my PC. And then on my laptop, I sign in as Jodyrootes. I don't know why I started doing that. And now that I think of it, there could have been one other account, but the issue may have been I didnt make the alias memorable enough. Anyhow, I propose to use this one exclusively from now on. So this is a repeat my previous unblock request. I'd like a non Australian to entertain this unblock request please. I think this is all a bit political because of the wikipedia article I had input into on the Eureka Jack, which had a mountain of sources, and which has now been taken down and will be missed. Surely not! That was one of wikipedias best efforts! Being accused of of a conflict if interest is a bit predictable isnt it? I'm not a member of any orgnisations that might give rise to a conflict. I'm just a student of pure vexillologicial science. I invite you to look at the recent revisions that have been made to the Eureka flag article, its a lot poorer now is not? Thats blatant politically motivated moderating from Nick-D. Who was actually the person who banned Glorious revolution in the first instance was they not? Some of the regular editors of those two articles didnt mind my input and they even improved on it as did your image editors with some of the artwork and now its just gone??? Tell me in biased instead! Jodyrootes (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request makes it obvious you are the same person as User talk:JohnWayneCourier who also appears to be User talk:Gloriousrevolution. Given this fact the sock puppetry block is entirely appropriate. Chillum 03:27, 4 January 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Can we have a non Australian adjudicate on this one? Cant we let the ban expire one day? Is that really a big issue when as I read it you are allowed multiple accounts in any case? I let my computers worry about remembering passwords. Originally I was away from home with my laptop and couldn't log into Jodyrootes, so I set up JohnWayneCourier. Once again, I invite you to look at Nick-D's revisions to the Eureka flag article. Whose biased? Why leave some content I contributed and not excise it all? Was it really neccesary to delete the Eureka Jack article which had around 200 sources when multiple editors had been involved? He's the only editor who seems to have a problem with that content. Jodyrootes (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Multiple accounts are allowed in some cases, but using an alternate account to evade a block is not. Neither is using two accounts to agree with yourself and create an impression of consensus when it's just you. Huon (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Well if this is what goes on I'm happy to stay away. But is it really not possible we have have a finite ban? In any event, can we restore the Eureka Jack article? It was mentioned in a newspaper article. It really was a sterling effort. And can we restore the content to the Eureka flag article? He's even left some of my content about the Roll up banner but without the sources I provided! Wouldnt anyone else get kicked up the bum for doing that? There were other editors involved in these then just me. Otherwise, good luck with preserving some of these third or fourth rate encyclopedia articles. Jodyrootes (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. You must address the original reasons for your block in a way that makes it completely clear that the issues will not happen again. Since subsequent issues like legal threats and racist nonsense have popped up, there is quite a bit to account for. The bigger problem is that you've simply lied many times before in unblock requests; that will make it very difficult to appraoch the issues in a convincing way. Silly nonsense like "I can't remember back that far" is just a non-starter. Kuru (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2015 (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.

Let me make something very clear, I am not Australian. What about the Gloriousrevolution account? Chillum 03:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only substantial issue seems to be whether I'm glorious revolution or not, and not the way I have conducted myself anytime recently. I'm sorry I cant help you there but I just dont remember back that far. But even if I look to you like I was blocked previously. Cant we just start over now? Look at all the content I have added since 2013. It was all done in the usual way you'd expect of a wikipedia editor acting in good faith. The Eureka Jack article even made it into the newspapers. If I keep on keeping on like that, using only this account from now on, would it really be so horrible if I continued my work? I believe that since 2013 I havent been involved in one edit war. I've started up discussions on several talk pages. As I have said, in my jurisdiction criminal convictions even drop off your record after ten years. It just seems a bit unfair that Nick-D can totally savage the Eureka flag article, but leave bits and pieces I added here and there, but minus the sources I gave, and he doesn't get kicked up the bum and I do? You can really see from the revisions he made it was politically motivated. When are you going to sanction Nick-D for that? Do whatever you want to do. Anyone who saw it before can see it's a poverty stricken article on the Eureka flag you have now. Jodyrootes (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about it indeed? Even if it was me, I cant remember back that far. People grow up. Cant we just start over? Look at the state of the Eureka flag article now its gone backwards. And the Eureka Jack article which was one of wikipedias best efforts and will be missed, with the article having been mentioned in an Australian newspaper article and all. Even if you dont uphold this request, can we put the Eureka Jack article back? And return all the content Nick-D took out of the Eureka flag article? He even left what I wrote about the Roll up banner but without the sources I provided! Wouldnt anyone else get kicked up the bum for doing that? Thats over kill dont you reckon? He didnt even reverse each and every one of my edits. Other editors even got in there and cleaned up some of my contributions to those two articles after I put them up there. It's not like Wikipedia does not have a bit of a reputation for partisan, capricious moderators. Wishing I had a conflict of interest doesnt make it so. It's wikipedias loss.

Jodyrootes (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to unban me, I could undo all those revisions, and we could take it from there. If Nick-D didn't like it, we could argue it around on the talk page. So as long as I continued to edit in the usual way, there'd be no problem. Everyone would be a winner. Otherwise, as I say, good luck with preserving some of these third or four rate encyclopedia entries. I tried my best.
Jodyrootes (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euerka Jack and Eureka flag articles

[edit]

Perhaps Nick-D can explain why he removed the Eureka Jack article and removed all that sourced content from the Eureka flag article? I think those edits were politically motivated. The Eureka flag article used to be a hug dinger compared to what it is now.

Jodyrootes (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

[edit]

Due to your excessive use of the unblock template I have removed your talk page access. There are other users who need their blocks reviewed and you have already been reviewed by several people.

If you wish to seek further review you can use the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Chillum 05:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jodyrootes&oldid=1089967907"