User talk:Retarius

Per your question: Tesla was a creative guy who filed for an obtained an important early patent for wireless communication. Marconi worked to make a wireless communication system practical, and got some important and perhaps overly broad patents himself, but was really no great shakes as an inventor or scientist. Marconi gets credit for the first transatlantic signal based on his claim that he heard a known signal (3 dots-Morse code "s")at a known time, when later studies indocate it is doubtful it would have been audible. He did put wireless into practical widespread use, although his policy of not responding to calls from ships with other companies equipment is of questionable morality. He also slowed down the development of the art by emphasizing huge antennas, low frequencies, and huge amounts of power. Tesla was of a visionary and talked big without putting many things (other than AC motors) into practical use. Many wild and unbelievable claims about Tesla's accomplishments, especially based on wild "mad scientist" boasts he gave to reporters when he was old, broke, and not really developing inventions. Like I said he was outstanding with AC motors and innovative with radio, remote control, high frequency/high voltage transformers, x-rays, and high speed turbines. He exhausted the patience of backers building big towers which did not really send energy through the upper atmosphere or generate death rays. Marconi's accomplishments are much more concrete in wireless telegraphy commercialization in the late 19th/early 20th century. Edison 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full reply on my talk page. ♥ Clio the Muse 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retarius, and thanks for the compliment. Yuletide felicitations to you too.

You're right that an MP/Senator can't take part in proceedings of the House/Senate until they make an oath or affirmation. However, that's not what makes them an MP/Senator. What makes them an MP/Senator is being "chosen by the people". I can only refer you again to [1]:

• A Member’s status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament, nor on the Member taking his or her seat or making the oath or affirmation. A Member is technically regarded as a Member from the day of election — that is, when he or she is, in the words of the Constitution, ‘chosen by the people’.

The oath/affirmation – while being a constitutional requirement - is essentially a procedural matter. Refusal to make either an oath or an affirmation would mean the member could not take part in proceedings. Continued refusal would mean the member was absent from parliament without leave, and ultimately could lead to their seat being declared vacant. (Although it wasn’t related to a refusal to take an oath as far as I know, Senator John Ferguson’s seat was declared vacant in 1903 for being absent without leave for over 2 months – [2]).

Having the status of a member/senator, and being permitted to take part in the proceedings of the house/senate, are therefore 2 different things. If this were not so, every time a member/senator is expelled for 24 hours for rowdy behavior, they’d cease being a member/senator for those 24 hours. This is obviously not the case.

So, the oath is a very important matter, but constitutionally, it’s not the thing that counts as far as the commencement of terms goes. To prove this, let me refer you to the case of Senator Thomas Bakhap of SA. He entered the Senate in 1913. He was re-elected in 1914, 1916 and 1922. His old term ended on 30 June 1923, and his new term commenced on 1 July 1923. I don't know when the Senate first sat after 1 July 1923, but Bakhap died on 18 August 1923, without having been sworn in to his new term. He is shown in the parliamentary records as being a Senator from 1 July, continuing through to his death in office on 18 August. The fact that he wasn't sworn in for this new term did not affect that. See here – the note at the bottom says "§ New term began 1.7.1923. Not sworn in; died 18.8.1923".

When it comes to the end of a member's term (other than casual vacancies), it depends on whether or not they contest the election. Those who do not renominate are said to "retire", and their term ends at the dissolution of the parliament. Those who renominate remain members up until election day. If they are successful, they continue uninterrupted. If they are defeated, their term ends on election day. To demonstrate, see here, which shows:

• Bob Charles ceasing to be a member on 31 August 2004, the date of the dissolution of the parliament
• Ross Cameron being a member up until election day 9 October 2004, when he was defeated; and
• Peter Costello continuing uninterrupted, because he fought the election and won.

Hope that all helps. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You command: I obey! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So....did you know about pop-ups already? (If you sent me an email I didn't receive it.) Retarius | Talk 06:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Retarius; I thought you just wanted a test acknowledgement! I did not email, but I will if you like. Thanks for the info. on the navigation pop-ups, which I did not know about. I registered here as Clio in October 2006. I had looked through the Wiki window a week or two prior to this, though I did no actual editing. I love your castle analogy. I think of the whole thing a bit like the library in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, though with a lot of rubbish in beside the hidden treasures! Please keep in touch, by email, if you prefer, though I note your comment that you do not intend to use that particular account very much. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that; I've used email in various workplaces but I've never bothered to have a personal account before. I've always thought that once you have one and people start using it to tell you things you constantly have to fret about it in case something's there. Then there's the bloody spam!spam!spam!spam! and security concerns. (I don't know if the gentleman's fame has spread as far as your manor, but the woes of Brian Burke and his email and mobile phone mates are a signal warning to all about the perils of hi-tech communications.)

Cue Francis Urquhart voice: Of course, you, Anastasia, may send as many emails as you please (Raise eyebrow); I could not possibly object to that. In fact I'd be delighted to hear from you; just tip me the nod on my talk page first. I don't have Internet at home because of the way it can act as a time-sink and I don't need the grief of personal internet use in a workplace, so I only wiki from a public terminal. It appears that using Wikipedia as a medium gets past the block on sending email but it's otherwise blocked for IRC and email, so I have to go elsewhere for that.

The account I've created is supposed to be anonymous, apart from the "retarius" handle; could you do me a favour and send me a message back by email and tell me what the identifying details are, if any, that appeared at your end? Many thanks, Retarius | Talk 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: We're having a long weekend here, so I'll probably be off till Tuesday. Retarius | Talk 06:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Retarius. I hope your weekend was fun-mine certainly was!. Anyway, this is just to let you know that Anastasia will email you tomorrow. I bet you just can't wait! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to look at other biographies of living persons and wikiify your article work on Estelle Blackburn - biography articles are not cv lists - and you need to follow the standards already clearly set out if you read the material in help and guidelines pages. The current state of the article needs a lot more work to make it look like a normal article - cheers SatuSuro 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my response from SatuSuro's Talk Page

I refer you to the comment I made on your "Cleanup" post. Your advice is redundant. Retarius | Talk 04:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I really hadn't seen the talk page item - it is much better to carry works in progress on a sub page of your user page - rather than leave such a work in progress in the open.

If you are not sure of that - you create a sub page of your userpage - and the work in progress can continue until it is ready to go on show.

BTW - I always assume AGF - I hadnt realised you had responded there, as for my talk page - I had no idea it was currently protected - I also try at the best of time to assume WP:Civility and WP:AGF regardless of how many times I or others might slip up regardless SatuSuro 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my response from SatuSuro's Talk Page

Okay, I started the article in mainspace because I thought I wouldn't be in anyone's way - the article has been a very-neglected red link for years and it seemed pointless to start a subpage. I thought I could tinker with it at my leisure over weeks or months (Half-a-King, Ha!). Since then it's become Piccadilly Circus. I was sprung by the subject of the article within a few days and I've been walking a fine line on not distressing her and striving for verifiable accuracy. The CV she provided to me will (of course) fail the original research test...good luck to me in looking for other sources. How did anyone even discover the page? Perhaps because I fixed the broken links on John Button etc.? I think I'd better undo them until the article is kosher. I prefer to locate discussions on one talk page: If you want to converse further, let's do so on my page, as that's where we started. Retarius | Talk 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't want to bother you about it at all - as to how anyone finds anything is a totally different subject; long, complicated and at least the equivalent of 3 beers in real life or 4 cups of coffee. The thing is; it is out there and potentially open to anyone just coming across it and looking at its state, regardless of the tag at the top and having the looks of being worked on - can be open to a number of issues - I would always recommend subpage work. I, however, rarely practice what I advise :( SatuSuro 05:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luck has nothing to do with finding sources - go to [3] henrietta - she has some remarkable suprises - and when necessary her [4] big sister - they both can be of immense help if you have not used them before - they can get around issues their greedy bandwidth wayward cousin [5] with the terrible itch for immensity - with good local knowledge SatuSuro 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I shall give that a go. Retarius | Talk 06:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But - oh but - take care - try various terms - apart from names - that might connect - and once inside a record - check the subjects - below the publication details - which the wily cataloguers place there - you may well find leads inside these parts of the record - as they mightnt be obvious to us outside the steamy rooms of library cataloguers fetid imaginations (its ok i used to be a university general library assistant in the very deep deep past) - for instance the playful ones at henrietta feed us with railroads for instance - and have abandoned local common usage in favour of their american cousins misuse in AACR2 - as if for the last century we in western australia have used the term at all:( SatuSuro 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware - mister oggle and his zillions of brats might have some tempting items they can have inherent bias - try the cousin once removed as well [6] - a little more european and selective in its orientation SatuSuro 07:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links; the "Clusty" one looks most interesting. Retarius | Talk 06:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an improvement, a clean up like that does not require discussion on the talk page. I would have been happy to explain why, but you burned off my last comment. The probably non-notable info was in a 'comment out', available in your edit window. It is a good start to the article, but the CV style is inappropriate and duplicates the section above. cygnis insignis 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post to you but you reacted before I could. (I didn't "burn off" the comment, I was going to transfer it to the article's talk page.) I can only say that the article is stub-class and the criticisms I'm receiving seem premature. What's the point in "improving" something which is 10% finished and may not ultimately look remotely like the current version? As I said at the top of the talk page I intend to refer it for an assessment by experienced editors before I call it finished. Retarius | Talk 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your best way out of the attention is to put it (what you are doing) on a sub page - then it wont attract the bother it is getting :) SatuSuro 03:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why do the guidelines for article development suggest doing it this way as an option? What else is the "under-construction" template for? And if it's worth making comments here, why not engage in the same discourse on the article's talk page? Isn't it better to A. read what the other person's said first and B. propose changes politely rather than just hacking in? Retarius | Talk 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again misread - I have not engaged in discussion at the one article you are doing. I simply see by the article and here that you are attracting more attention than you obviously want (it shows up on my watch page if you dont understand why i know). As to the options - you seem to be put out a lot by things - clearly for your lacking any good faith in others comments and assuming impoliteness -I strongly suggest the off mainspace option - before you meet the less friendly members of the wikipedia community. Thats it. Very few editors that i have encountered in over two years ever use the template that you choose to use, so the suggestion is from experience - not from the desire to offend you - I wish you best of luck on this hot day - cheers SatuSuro 04:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know you didn't - you are misreading. I think part of the problem here is that you are assuming that I just arrived. I've been reading and then editing this site for longer than 2 years. I may have been here longer than you. I just used IP's and didn't bother to register until Sept 06. I have made a very thorough study of the behaviour patterns on the site and read reams of the feuds, ArbComs, block reviews, sock puppet reports etc. I've already met the less-friendlies and the outright hostiles. (Some of them met me, too. They didn't enjoy it, strangely enough.) I'm not a paranoiac and I don't offend easily. I don't assume impoliteness on anyone's part (or ignorance) and I've had plenty of conversations here without getting jacked off. I understand that people who do a lot of edits don't always gild the lily as much as I might prefer and, on reflection, I'll remove that section from the article's talk page. I think your choice of words was infelicitous but I should have responded more pleasantly. Retarius | Talk 07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Please don't interpret my edit as criticism, I wanted to improve it to a start class with a small edit. Most edits go undiscussed and you haven't said why it was not an improvement - I would reply. I don't use the construction template, I see people put it up while they are editing. When the article is in 'main space', it becomes public google rank = 12↑ and is already being used. If you haven't contributed to a wiki before, it might take a bit of getting used to. I hope my comments are useful, I will get out of your way. Cheers for the contributions to our document, cygnis insignis 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis, I understand that "criticism" is not necessarily a negative thing and my use of the term was not pejorative. I simply thought that people weren't noticing the template and were being previous. I didn't revert your edit in anger, I'd just like to finalise the form of the article before offering it for review. Obviously, you and SatuSuro don't agree with the presence of the Career and Education sections, and I accept that they're too rough to pass muster as they stand. I don't, however, think that it's a bad idea to have a couple of precis sections that recapitulate what's in the main text for the benefit of those who "just want the facts, Ma'am". Compared to many of the other stubs on the site I think it's quite passable - as a stub. I think it will take a lot more to get past that. As to templates, I think the "in-use" template is the one for use only when actively editing. As far as I can see, I'm within the rules for use of the "under-construction" template and at this stage, whatever its merits, I may as well kick on with it. Retarius | Talk 07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my comment from Canley's Talk Page

Many thanks for picking up my tentative suggestion and bringing it to life so quickly. I was amazed to see how much detail you managed to put together. I didn't intend my post at the noticeboard to be a request for someone else to do it; I was only looking to obtain support so that it would survive an AfD. I'd expected to put it on my to-do list and that it would be like chopping ironwood with a blunt axe when I did get to it (and it would have been too!). Retarius | Talk 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'd actually half written the article a few months ago when I'd cited the show as a reference in another article and noticed it was redlinked, which is why I was able to knock it out so quickly! -Canley (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Nice expansion with the article, it was overdue for creation (like so many others:) I want to phrase this personally, so I'm posting on your talk again. Please address the EB matter with reference to policy or guideline, with regard to BLP especially. I don't think that reference to the West or other views are adequate citations. If you feel that you have already answered the questions and concerns I have presented, we may need to get more views. Do you know of an editor with experience in this prickly area of our document. cygnis insignis 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the talk page contents for Estelle Blackburn and, although another contributor to the discussion may add something to which I would respond, at this point I'll rest my case. I've also looked at the Claremont serial murders article. I have previously amended this article with some copyediting. It contains the essence of what you are concerned by in the other article and also a reference to the "prime suspect", the Cottesloe public servant. The Blackburn material was inserted on 2 December, 2007, at this revision and is the sole edit recorded for IP 203.59.61.94. The reference to the "public servant" is present from the commencement of the article by Longhair at this point on 1 May, 2005.

I don't point this out as substantiation for my views: If the matter is to be discussed further, these references should be considered in the same context. My concern is that the links from articles are just as much part of them as any text and if the links are followed, so is what one finds at the end of them, including external links. If the reference I've made to The End of Innocence is excluded, that can lead to the book itself being in contention and any place where it is cited. It seems like pulling a loose thread on a shirt; a highly risky move. I can give a direct example of this: I've read the book, The Devil's Garden, by Debi Marshall, which I believe is the only book-format work to deal with the topic, apart from Blackburn's. Strictly speaking, it should be a reference for the serial murders article, as I believe, should The End of Innocence. The reason I refrained from listing it is that I found it exploitative and repugnant; being disrespectful to the dignity of the victims and the circumstances of their families. It also, I feel, pointlessly disparages the suspect's family. My judgement of its quality determined that decision (for the time being). Was that within policy? Possibly not.

I'm perfectly glad at this point to put these matters before others for discussion. I'm not aware of any experts on the subject; I believe it would be best to begin by inviting contributions on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board‎.

If you don't object, I'd like to copy this to the Blackburn article's talk page, beginning with your words "Please address.." Retarius | Talk 05:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a contribution to the discussion at the talk page, the post here is a message to you. My interpretation of policy and guidelines is that it should not be included. I would recommend the the use of caution when including this sort of material, the comment I highlighted regarding journalistic and encyclopaedic content sums that up. Keep it simple. Feel free to include my comments here on the talk page, but I can't see how that would help the discussion. Drafting versions of BLP in main space in potentially disruptive, please keep user and main space separate for the same reason. I hope you will appreciate that this topic is not something I'm currently focusing on, but BLP is a special case of remove and discuss if possibly contradicts the policy. Regards, cygnis insignis 08:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK: Please seek other opinions before restoring that item. This nebulous topic is fraught with problems, I prefer to give priority to something else. Please reflect on couple of things first. Consider the CSK art; the line on one suspect indicates that he was a former mayor of Claremont, this information was sourced from the newspaper. Why did they include that fact? To generate the readers interest, to inspire them to purchase the next edition for a followup, this is their business and they do so with virtual impunity. The information was unsourced, the inclusion was suggestive and a synthesis of facts and rumours. I read it all, but it told me nothing - they are not generally reliable sources. And nothing came of it AFAIK. There are other facts that were not included, like his outspoken civil libertarianism - I have read that used as evidence for and against his guilt of any 'uncharged' crime. Perhaps Blackburn's accusation is useful in a newspaper or TV show, and fulfills some function. Can you appreciate my view the distinction between their purpose and ours and please consider making it simpler? We could be expanding articles instead of deciding whether to make a pillory, there is no end of articles needing improvement. I frequently reconsider issues of OR, N, RS, etc., it was not a decision taken lightly, but I can't see how to advance this discussion any further. cygnis insignis 12:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed the Easton affair article - I know you have been on Wikipedia for a long time already and suffer those who think you are a newbie - but - but any stage of a new stub deserves a category - doesn't matter how wide it might be - it might even be wrong - imho - a category of any sort is better than none, at any stage of the article's life - cheers. SatuSuro 07:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks; I've added "Australian political controversies" as a more specific tag. Retarius | Talk 07:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - when they are mere stubs - it is my theory that project tags at rear of article and cats are things that frighten off novice deletionists and similar nuisances SatuSuro 07:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw - I was trawling [7] for those refs SatuSuro 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need something on Halden - wasn't he tried by the Council for contempt and acquitted? Retarius | Talk 07:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention him - check out how the RC was catalogued by the intrepid LISWA cataloguers: [8]bless them in their AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing rules) little socks - they do a great job - but someone hasn't found anything but the RC report to nail him on. SatuSuro 07:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then there aren't articles or stories on some parties if one ventures into earlier events - such as the fallout from WA Inc and some of the stars in that particular series of events remain somewhat unwritten about SatuSuro 08:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to search the West Australian? I know they covered all of this in horrible detail over many years. Retarius | Talk 08:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can search it to late 1996 and the Sunday Times to early 2001 on Factiva, but need a uni student account to do it. I can help if you're looking for something specific. Orderinchaos 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. Right now I'm trying to nail down exactly what happened with Halden -I put a note on the Easton affair article talk page. I'd also like to know in which court's jurisdiction the trials were held. Retarius | Talk 07:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that their current index is internal - try these for fun :(

Info on him seems to be:

• http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Memblist.nsf/WAllMembersFlat/Halden,+Stanley+(John)?opendocument
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-42995385.html
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-21419562.html
• http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s38659.htm

As I don't think I'm in the situation to start an article at the moment - I suspect there's some good reading there - depending on what you understand as good. SatuSuro 08:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that. I think the stub has actually reached start-class already, thanks to your contributions. Well, that's enough for one day. Retarius | Talk 08:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a danger in this Wikipedia, a bit like finding newspapers under old lino. I took a look at the links on my start-article on Estelle Blackburn and off it's taken me. You've noticed the reformat I did on the Lawrence talk page (Sorry about the bogus attrib. It was so messy I lost track of what went with whom. I've fixed it now.) and I thought you might be interested in the Easton affair stub which it inspired me to start. It's basically some of my copyedited stuff from the Lawrence article with some new trim added to the chassis. In the course of looking for background I discovered this. Take note of the comment by Mike of Vegas. I don't know if it made "Wikipedia In the News" on Signpost. I'd like to put the guy straight some time. Retarius | Talk 06:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this very interesting thread, and link, and your contributions. You and I now share an unusual bond. You've written an article on the second time an Australian parliament imprisoned somebody under parliamentary privilege provisions; I wrote an article on the first, the imprisonment of John Drayton.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who makes the effort to read Talk:Carmen Lawrence will see that I was merely trying to keep the article from turning into a poorly written coatrack for the Easton affair. But I think some people won't allow themselves to be set straight.

You're preaching to the converted re: the "danger in this Wikipedia". I have no problem finding my next topic to work on; my problem is sticking with today's topic in the face of countless distractions. If there were a million of me I'd still be leaving behind regrettable loose ends.

Hesperian 10:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that Gutha stuff should be in an article on the place, not in Carmen's bio - thats a bit like spending time on describing Buckingham Palace history and structure in an article on Her Majesty - you need a separate article for that! SatuSuro 04:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) There is a red link here: Shire of Morawa - basically asking for your collected info to be added - I suspect. SatuSuro 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just testing how to put a quote in and accidentally saved it! Gutha appears to be a whistle stop and I've been looking for some coherent timeline on Lawrence's life and locations in various websites. I think there's a regional hospital at Northam and her connection there was just a maternity hospital stay. I think the schools were boarding schools - I'd put that in if I could confirm it. Any ideas? Retarius | Talk 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I strongly suggest you start the Gutha article for one thing - the Mullewa railway line arts are a bit short for a start (check Wubin or Dalwallinu to see what I mean). As for the other stuff I wouldn't bother about linking to any of that stuff in a bio for a start - no need to get too detailed on that stuff - it's a single person - have a look at other WA bios - they do not weightily ponder on the places of residence - regardless of the person. SatuSuro 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too sure why you do that - that then links your talk page to the article - do you really want to do that? It was not linked in for the reason that when discussing the item - it is not necessary to have your talk page turned into a clapham junction of a myriad of links viz [9] SatuSuro 07:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it provides a handy shortcut if I'm reviewing the matter. There are so many article links on talk pages (often just for humorous purposes) that I don't think a few more here will hurt. Retarius | Talk 07:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough - but you must understand that I do not tamper with others talk items on my talk page (apart from archiving) and do not ever encourage extra links - that's the way I do it - but as long as you understand my point I won't bother you about your practice - cheers - I'm out of your way now. I'm off. SatuSuro 07:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my post at Adam Bishop's Talk Page:

• I've just noticed the latest hack on the Edward I of England article and I'd like to know if you would consider putting a protection on the article against IP editing. Most of the rubbish placed there seems to originate with one-off IP access. In the past week someone has mistranslated the Royal motto and the latest effort introduces a factually inaccurate reference to Nazis.*

• Further to the above; as I've said on the talk page, I know very little about the subject in detail. I try to compensate with a cautious approach ("Be bold!" be damned.) One thing I'm intrigued by is where the source for the Edict of Expulsion material is. Is a properly-provenanced copy of the thing in existence somewhere? And what about the Statute of Jewry? Retarius | Talk 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• *PS: I don't think the date of posting is necessarily all that significant. Retarius | Talk 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Ealdgyth's response at Adam Bishop's Talk Page:

Butting in here (sorry, Adam), I can't say I'm an expert on Edward (he's a bit outside my time frame of Anglo-Normans) but I went ahead and looked up his relations with the Jews in Prestwich's biography of Edward. He says that the Jews were expelled because Parliament required that in return for a grant of a (rather hefty - it raised over 100,000 pounds) tax. The edict was issued on July 18, 1290. Prestwich is citing, among other books, a book by Richardson English Jewry Under Angevin Kings and a book by Abrahams The Expulsion of the Jews from England which is available in full text at Google Books. I'm not sure if the edict itself is extant, but those two books should get you started. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the vandalism too; I just protected it for two weeks. (I doubt it will help, the vandalism will continue as soon as it is unprotected, but there's not much else we can do.) As for the Edict of Expulsion, I'm sure that either the actual document still exists, or it has been published in one of those weighty Victorian/Edwardian tomes of medieval constitutional material. I'm not sure exactly where though. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my response at Adam Bishop's talk Page:

Adam, thanks for protecting the article, I'll have a search for the Edicts. Ealdgyth, thankyou for the references, they may be useful sources for the article generally as well as the Edicts section. Retarius | Talk 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally hitting your user page is not a pleasant experience i must say. Re the ongoing article - mention of the marks rc was on the line above - I have reverted your references to the wider scoped range of rcs mentioned at the premiers department - and simply put a mention at where the marks rc is already mentioned - it seems better that way. However we seem to have differnces over a few issues, and im off so i wont see your response till much later - have a good day - I do hope your wiki balls in no way reflect your personal reality - they are gross! SatuSuro 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be respectful to the balls, mate. They are Wikiballs after all!

I'm not sure which issues you mean. Do you mean generally, or in regard to the article in question? As to the placement of the reference, I just copied it from the WA Inc article a few minutes before and was parking it there till I had a better idea. Retarius | Talk 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah dont worry about issues - there are some with the Bevan Lawrence stub though - it is a stub and needs a stub tag, its a living person, and there are little signs of notability or refs and neither slwa or natlib have anything directly against his name on a search so you might have to be very clever in your ref finding expedition :( - anyways am off, really now - cheers SatuSuro 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well I suppose you pass the audition - but they look unconvincing compared to direct external links or specific items like books or articles :| SatuSuro 07:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested to Moondyne offline that what you are mentioning at the article talk page should be a separate article and i had prepared the material to do it - however due to my editing style and ridiculously large watchlist and my immanent wikibreak for relief from the madness and my own madness - please have this - http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X1987+americas+cup&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A/X1987+americas+cup&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A&SUBKEY=1987%20americas%20cup/13%2C88%2C88%2CB/frameset&FF=X1987+americas+cup&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A&16%2C16%2C and this http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X1987+americas+cup&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A/X1987+americas+cup&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A&SUBKEY=1987%20americas%20cup/13%2C88%2C88%2CB/frameset&FF=X1987+americas+cup&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A&17%2C17%2C and may they serve you well - under no circumstances thank me here or anywhere else - just do it - cheers SatuSuro 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's tough to respond to..Okay, I don't thank you. I also don't know when I'll have time to get to it myself but I'm sure that will give me a good start. Retarius | Talk 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to attach the dates to the subjects for a good sequence from those two parts of henrietta (she's a very accomodating catalgoue database) and from that alone the farce shines forth - i'm off (wiki) for a while so I cannot help - however when i return if I find no start - I'll jump back in again - but the current status is that is handed to you to do what you may for a few weeks - cheers SatuSuro 07:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocks are tricky things. They are a technical feature of the Mediawiki software, and a blocking administrator can disable them, but in many cases they would not want to (for example, they can prevent a blocked user from creating multiple accounts to dodge their block). Unfortunately, through no fault of yours or of the blocking adminsitrator, sometimes people get caught as collateral damage. It also isn't as simple as one person using a coincidentally used IP as another. In an autoblock, all IP addresses used by the person are simultaneously blocked as well. This means that if he has used 50 IPs, all 50 are blocked under that single block. If you are coincidentally currently trying to edit under one of those IPs, you will find yourself stuck by the autoblock. It sucks, but its easy to fix... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I have redone the block on the user in question, and disabled the autoblock feature: [10] . You should have no more trouble from this users blocks interfering with your editing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the Bathrobe thing got started. I have known LaraLove (on-wiki) for years. Not sure any of us have met in real life. The members are spread over 3-4 different countries (we have regulars from U.S., U.K., and Australia) and we've sort of become a clan, at least on line. There's a IRC channel we have, a vB forum, and some other stuff where we chat and blow of steam. Just a bunch of people who got familiar working together on Wikipedia and kinda came together... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will vouch for Cygnis as a good editor with good intentions. In my experience he always puts a great deal of thought into his actions and edits here. Granted, his perspective is sometimes unusual, which can lead to misunderstandings. And yes, he can be a stubborn bugger sometimes. I'm not interested in endorsing or disendorsing anything either of you have said or done here. What I will say is that it is unfortunate that this has escalated all the way to AN/I. Right now you two might see each other as adversaries, but for the rest of us WA editors, you're both useful collaborators, and we would prefer that you were on friendly terms. Any of us would have happily done our bit to help with that, if only we had known it was needed. I hope that this situation is not so far gone that you two won't be laughing about it over a beer at a future meetup. Hesperian 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

— Oliver Cromwell, 1650

Received yours. Not ignoring you. Will get around to replying eventually. Hesperian 12:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries. Retarius | Talk 05:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retarius, lucky you living in beautiful Perth and amazing WA! Thanks for dropping by, I found this set of thumbnails for you[11] on Western Australian skinks and dragons and there's a list: List of reptiles of Western Australia Do your skinks grow big? They must be the biggest family of lizards around and yep, very lithe. Though I mostly see the small ones, I've seen really 10cm ones in protected places. Best, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very nice pics -- I am touched by those little skinks on longsoops, logs, hanging with friends, on the wall : ). They keep garden pests down apparently. Maybe Perth's in for a mild/er winter? When I can, I'll find some eastern types for you, best Julia Rossi (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the flashy ones not in my garden[12] so the little model in Common Garden Skink fits (and needs expanding *hint hint* haha). I once saw a baby skink in battle with a green inch-worm type caterpillar like a couple of 2cm dinosaurs, it went on for awhile, lunging, fencing, stand-off... still going when I left. It's a world. Have a great day, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a red link newbie trying classic cut paste and got reverted - don't worry about it - it's obviously been fixed. SatuSuro 09:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I reverted it! (Heh, Heh.) Retarius | Talk 09:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can only tell you a little much more - the history is self evident - redlink name and talk page and clear cut and paste - if you ever meet it immediate reverts are the only obvious remedy. SatuSuro 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just having a quick blog about related matters, wanted to do a link and noticed it. Anyway, I just got the urge to start that stub on Halden, so here goes. Retarius | Talk 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you have a good lawyer or safe house with a blog like that, or good teflon-lined clothing. SatuSuro 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its server's in America, baby! Long live the First Amendment!! Retarius | Talk 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. Hesperian 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you've got it. Until 1989 there were 17 Provinces. Under the Acts Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 1986, all members' terms expired on 22 May 1989, and the Provinces were then replaced by 6 Regions. The first election under the new system was held on 4 February 1989. Hesperian 12:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17? I thought there was 15, each with 2 MPs. (Prior to another date which I have now forgotten, it was 10 with 3 each). And all sorts of things are out of date - I've researched all of the stuff necessary to kick Wikipedia's coverage of WA politics out of the stone age, but have been besieged with assignments, exams, illnesses and everything else for almost 6 months. It will be fixed within the next two, now that I'm more available. Orderinchaos 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retarius. I know nothing about the JCML except what this tells me. Clearly, only Labor heavyweights get asked, not just any old Joe. I'd say it deserves an article, but even without that I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in all the speakers' articles. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting reading your recent articles and finding whole sections without a single in article cite - is there a particular reason for not citing assertions that would not stand up in a general review of articles? Is there a problem about using in article cites? SatuSuro 04:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could give a better answer if you'd identify some specific examples. Retarius | Talk 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easton affair - assertions of fact in every section not a cite in sight - this is not the west australian :) SatuSuro 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR jump out like your new robot - how does the reader know where you got the info regarding the suicide, and the other issues of fact in the article? SatuSuro 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont serial murders is a little better - as it shows you can use cites - but there are some patches there as well that really need something to ascertain you are not in OR territory :) SatuSuro 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was started from a specific sense of AGF - as there is a possibility that others might not be so generous - considering you are in territory that some might consider contentious - you are most welcome at any time to return the compliment if I happen to add material without adequate citing :) - cheers SatuSuro 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>

The only answer to that is that it's all there in the reports of the Parliamentary Committee and the Royal Commission. If someone with more time than me wants to dig out the originals at the Law Library at UWA or at the Parliament House, they can go line-by-line and cite 'em. I think you would agree that there's nothing in the article which is not factual. I know you know this already, but I'd use the inadvertent pronoun in your first posting as my start point: They're not my articles and I consider that an "unsubstantiated" fact is better than a complete omission. I'm putting a text-base in place that others may build on. I've had a look at the article on the Claremont serial murders today and I know that a lot of what's there I can't cite reference for. But go back and compare the current form with the one before I started. Do you really want to revert to that? Let's face it; apart from The West Australian and other papers and the poorly-written, error-ridden Devil's Garden, there just aren't any public sources. I'm currently just doing what I've got time and resources for. Retarius | Talk 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - nah I wouldnt go for that - which is not factual - thats your opinion mate not mine, specially the claremont serial issue. The fact that peoples lives have been lost and the issues are still strong for many - the cite free easton affair makes it a pov art in my mind - it doesnt take much time or effort to even use a ref see source a for further details ref style note to verify - just because I am a local and know the material does not convince me it wouldnt take you any time to place a few notes here and there to clarify you are aware of the issues.

I consider that an "unsubstantiated" fact is better than a complete omission. where there are issues of what was royal commissions and related WP:BLP involved - you gotta be kidding - I have no interest in reverting - its just with articles like these if it was that an outsider would read those arts and ask - where is the WP:RS WP:V being attended to - there is no sign of it. SatuSuro 05:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's better now - cheers SatuSuro 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But who is 117. etc.? Retarius | Talk 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)?[reply]

Well I dont bother to look at all those gizmos at the bottom which tell you where they are and who they are - could be a journo considering how the bad spelling was missed :) SatuSuro 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I saw the hand of a WAN "media relations" type. I don't mind them editing; they're as much entitled to as any other critter on the planet with access to a keyboard. I wish they'd take the general quality of the article into account rather than just flogging their product. Retarius | Talk 03:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh I could lead you to so many articles that need the cleanup you just did we'd never get off our computers before next week :( SatuSuro 04:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the Claremont serial murder article. Take a look at the last edit that I reverted. I asked OIC to block the IP because I thought it was a vandalism-only account. On reflection, and looking carefully at the IP's history I acknowledge I was over-hasty. However, such an edit prompts some interesting questions... Retarius | Talk 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to somebody or something its gonna get out of menu mode very soon - there are MOS rules and regs about something like that - not lists but prose surely? If you dont, I am sure others might take offence at the style - who cares if he was on the farnarkling committee for 1966 to 1967?

I am sure there is something very odd about doing it that way, I wish you a speedy recovery SatuSuro 13:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a stub, bub. I just cut and pasted that stuff before packing it in yesterday. I see the vultures have already had a go at it. It's interesting how many people can make deletions on this site...I've never yet encountered anyone adding fifty thousand words of informative text, several enlightening graphics, hundreds of citations...just deletions. Anyway, I had a good laugh when I Googled it before signing in here and discovered that it's number nine rank already. Up, "The Hyphen!" Retarius | Talk 03:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with previous case I beg to disagree with your ideas - but hey - vive la oddness of us all :( - SatuSuro 07:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But just to keep the oddness issue up - well done on the Colleen Egan article :) SatuSuro 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue of disparagement, by the way - ArbCom have taken a very hard line on biographies of living persons in a decision passed on Monday. Please see here for reference. (Note that the specific ruling relates to deadlocks where admins were previously confined by other policies - WP:BLP has been in force for nearly a year.) There was clear evidence of synthesis additionally in the Noel Crichton-Browne stuff which was removed.

WP:BLP says: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Orderinchaos 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Noel Crichton-Browne is the best place for this - I'll post an analysis there. Orderinchaos 05:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some very serious concerns have been raised about activities surrounding this and some related accounts and I can only suggest that you refrain from edit warring over biographies, especially biographies pertaining to WA figures. Here are some problems with this particular article:

• "and revelation of domestic violence allegations against him and of the issuing of a restraining order in connection with them." - serious unsourced allegations, violation of WP:BLP
• The entire "Power broker" section is loaded with editorial commentary and synthesis and the sourcing is utterly unacceptable. You're saying well x,y, and z used "power broker" in media reports, therefore Wikipedia can determine he was a power broker and because they used the term after he was expelled then that means he is still an influential "power broker" within the party! Sorry, but thats totally unacceptable in any article but particularly a blp.
• "is a controversial figure" more editorial comment and opinion - controversial according to whom?.
• "...an influential member" editorial comment, again - influential according to whom?
• "...has been featured as a participant in many of the political disturbances in the State." again, editorial commentary.

This material has now been reviewed and removed by two different administrators. Please cease using Wikipedia to push your POV through synthesis and editorial commentary. You are in breach of the BLP and NPOV policies on numerous pages and I must ask you to stop and ensure your edits to BLPs are verifiable and reliably sourced without injecting editorial comment. Thank you. Sarah 05:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank Sarah for this most excellent warning. It will be very useful...Retarius | Talk 07:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reviewed your version of the article, and there were some points where it doesn't conform with the biographies of living persons policy. You have to understand that BLP is probably now our most important policy, because it governs pretty much the main area where Wikimedia is exposed to the prospect of being sued out of existence. You might be able to get away with being a bit slack on sourcing articles about plants, penises and Pokemon characters, but when it comes to living people we need to operate with military rigour.

Specific problems I can see with your version of the article:

• The assertion that NCB "has been featured as a participant in many of the political disturbances in the State" is unsourced and could convey the hint that he was a cause of these disturbances.
• Both his expulsion and his alleged behaviour towards Egan are on the record, but (a) I'm not certain that the Egan allegations have been substantiated; if not then you need to present them as allegations rather than as fact; and (b) your article strongly implies that the latter was the cause of the former, which is an unsourced claim.
• The domestic violence material is unsourced, and despite the use of the word "allegations" the sentence structure and use of the word "revelations" strongly implies that the allegations are factual.
• The claim that NCB still pulls strings behind the scenes in the Liberal party appears to be sourced, but the only relevant material in those three sources is the phrase "the disgraced Liberal powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne is said to be behind the leadership manoeuvring." Note the is said to be; yet you're presenting this as fact.
• You can't really use three uses of the phrase Liberal powerbroker to support the assertion that Crichton-Browne has "often been described" as such, although this claim at least is unlikely to be contested.

Of course, all of this is a somewhat separate issue to the issue of how it all was handled. Yes, that was a rather enthusiastic edit summary, wasn't it? But I can't take her to task for having been more forceful than necessary, as I am far more guilty than she of that particular sin. Hang around here long enough and sooner or later you'll catch me carrying on like a pork chop over something insignificant... if you haven't already. We're all of us only human, and Sarah is actually one of the best of the disgraceful rabble that call themselves admins here. ;-)

As someone whose first Featured Article was described as nothing less than "a stain on the face of Wikipedia", I feel qualified to declare that nothing good will come of defending your honour against the "shockingly appalling" slight, so you might as well get over it and get on with fixing the article.

Hesperian 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. In posting this I've hit an edit conflict with Sarah, and from a one-second glance it seems we may have duplicate comments.[reply]

I very much appreciate the time you've taken. I wasn't aware that Sarah was an administrator; she certainly hasn't done anything to justify it in this episode. On the subject of defamation; she seems to have been fed some against me, swallowed it whole and to have started from that basis instead of addressing me directly and asking me. She's been speaking to me as if I was a notorious vandal and edit-warrior. Next she'll be blocking me for talking back to her. Is there something I can do about this? Retarius | Talk 06:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; you can let it go. (Yes, that is the kind of trite advice that is easy to give and exceedingly hard to take; I am sorry, but that's all I have for you) Hesperian 06:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute resolution process laid out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I think that's what you're looking for, although I can't tell you much about it, having never used it myself. Hesperian 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to pursue any dispute resolution you so desire but as I have better things to do with my time I won't be partaking. I also won't be explaining my comment beyond saying that I was asked to review several WA bios and accounts and IP addresses as an uninvolved administrator and this is what I have been doing and intend to continue doing to ensure the articles comply with our policies, specifically, on WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Beyond that I will not reveal anything further because private information has been entrusted with me in confidence and so I'm afraid that you are not going to find out no matter what dispute resolution you decide to pursue. As for your stated concern that I may abuse my position on Wikipedia to block you for "talking back", that's just an absurd suggestion. Sarah 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are capable of stewing for a few days over my 'tone' maybe you need to cool out on this one as well - rather than focusing on the admins and editors who take issue with your edits - which as far as the wikipedia community and its way of maintaining a 'house in order' specially with relation to {[WP:BLP]] they have the right to take issues with you over edits - what Hesperian has advised above - is clearly the sage advice - taken it will serve you very well - ignore it at your peril -SatuSuro 08:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK you admit you dont like reading the rules and policy - try writing about rocks or trees- and forget people - specially living ones :) SatuSuro 09:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received with thanks. Hesperian 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retarius. I encourage you to continue working on the Noel Crichton-Browne article. Some months ago, I searched for this article and was surprised that none existed. It is commendable that you decided to put in the effort to create the article. As you already know, it takes a lot more effort to add content than to delete it. The #1 thing you have to remember is to provide a citation for every fact, especially because it is a controversial article. Try to use major reliable sources for your citations. Let me know if you need any help or advice on it. Cheers, --Lester 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that farnarkling was associated with - was the guy on thursday nights in the failing minutes of 7.30 retort - i thought he was the culprit - but then the memory aint what it used to be, i think SatuSuro 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be an item on the Gillies Report, I think. Whatever the show is where Il Dismissale was performed ("I am the very model of a modern Governor-General.."). Or was it the Comedy Company? John Clarke seems to be taking credit for it on his site, but I'd always thought Patrick Cook invented it. It looked like a lot of fun from the video I saw of the competition winners' effort. I might ask the ABC! Original research of course...disgraceful. Retarius | Talk 06:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being as bald as clarke i'll vote for him - its much more his vocabulary than cook's any time - dont even think of putting it on here SatuSuro 06:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll look for more citations, but we must first go in to bat at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_25#Bevan_Lawrence, eh?! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice that you are using an animation on your talkpage which is nominated for deletion. It is the walking robot! Go here and here for the image and deletion notice and contest the deletion here.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:07, 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