User talk:Errantius

A cup of tea for you!

I noticed your edit to your userpage while I was patrolling the edit filter log, and I just wanted to say welcome back to Wikipedia! OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, OhKayeSierra! I was very happy to discover the Errantia image. What about you celebrate your baby with a more cheery image on your page? All the very best. Errantius (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

George Pell

On 1 September I examined all the material at George Pell#Criminal charges, conviction and appeal. I noticed that all paragraphs except one were adequately supported by in-line citation of reliable published sources. I attached the “Citation needed” tag to the one paragraph that was unsourced.

When I checked a few hours later I found that you had erased my “Citation needed” tag without replacing it with a citation or anything else. As well as that, you erased the in-line citation supporting the preceding paragraph. So now there are two paragraphs entirely free of any citation to allow independent verification of their content. Your edit summary included “Needed VSCA citation provided”. I remind you that you provided no citation, needed or otherwise, so your edit summary was either negligent or dishonest.

It is easy to view your actions as disruption, or even edit warring. Is there some good reason why you erased these things? Dolphin (t) 08:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Not guilty. I added an AustLII ref to the judgement, which seemed to be the citation needed: I said “Needed VSCA citation provided” and it is there, as "Pell v The Queen" at (currently) ref 241. Everything that follows as summary of the judgement is, I think evidently, covered by that ref. If you think that every para of that summary needs a separate ref, feel free, but I think that would be unnecessary. Errantius (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Dolphin (t) 14:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Hello. You say "He says he will" and "it says it won't" but please note I did not speculate. You appear to believe my edit to be a hypothetical (and use that as a reason to revert), but that is not the case. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. His statement of intention is a fact, indeed. But I'd say the motion itself is very hypothetical, in these circumstances, until it's actually tabled. We'll see on Monday, although tabling it later is also possible. Regards Errantius (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Privy Council appeals

I will have a look at Blackshield tomorrow, but don't remember seeing anything that specific. Some bloke called Murray Gleeson said the combined effect of the legislation earlier mentioned, and that announcement, has been that s 74 has become a dead letter, and what remains of s 74 after the legislation limiting appeals to the Privy Council will have no further effect. Gleeson, Murray. "The birth, life and death of section 74". Retrieved 10 November 2019. Do you think that will satisfy our friend? They do seem somewhat impervious to reason. --Find bruce (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you: I've added it. Errantius (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerning my questions about the Brexit

Greetings, mate! I'm just wondering why you deleted my questions about Brexit. I wanted to know the information, please! ;) --62.63.238.25 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I explained the change by linking to the policy on talk pages. You were asking for posts that clearly would have been outside the policy. Errantius (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at George Pell. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I could say the same about you at George Pell. Errantius (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Errantius, WP:BLPPRIMARY prohibits you from using court documents or trial transcripts in a biography of a living person. I left a note on the talk page to that effect. Your editing is disruptive and I'll continue to remove invalid citations if you insert them again. Elizium23 (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph of WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Citing the High Court judgment "augments" the media reports already cited, which are based on the High Court's summary of its judgment. Errantius (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in here to say that court judgements are not primary sources. They are secondary sources. Court transcripts (primary sources) are very different to written judgements Elizium23 Jack4576 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion of this at WP:OR/Talk#"Texts that establish law". Errantius (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at George Pell. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not infringed that rule and do not intend to do so. I have merely responded to your unconstructive behaviour. Errantius (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Errantius, I feel you are editing against policy. It took you quite some time to pull out this exemption you are now claiming. We will permit WP:BLPN to hash it out. Elizium23 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

All of 20 minutes is "quite some time"? Errantius (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at George Pell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Elizium23 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

See the extensive reasons I have given, before seeing this. Errantius (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Term Parliaments Act (Repeal)

Hey - I've just checked who edited the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, just letting you know that a Repeal Bill has been published, I've thrown up a rough and ready Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill article, in case you want to keep an eye on it. doktorb _words^deeds 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you—very considerate. Errantius (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for editing your userpage

I apologise for editing your userpage directly instead of leaving a message on the talk page to award a barnstar, as this was my first time awarding a barnstar.

SonicPortal6283 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Very kind of you, SonicPortal6283! Errantius (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Governor-General of Australia. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That was my interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES, as I explained. You can take your different interpretation to Talk on that page. Errantius (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This matter was discussed for nearly four months at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2020_archive#RfC:_First_mention_in_the_first_sentence..._(MOS:JOBTITLES). The consensus is to use lower case in that instance. Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus, either for the original RfC or for its continuation. There was a dreadful debate and it got exactly nowhere.

The original RfC was closed by a non-admin who adjudged:

Consensus was reached to keep consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article. A fresh and more precise RFC about other issues that were raised during this discussion is recommendable. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk)

Well, I can't see any consensus on anything—especially because "consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article" can mean always capitals or always non-capitals.

The continuation went on after that attempted closure and it ended:

If you ask me, my opinion given this information would be that the entire MOS:JOBTITLES section needs to go, and something needs to be rewritten and agreed upon before it gets put back. There should be no Manual of Style guideline if there is no "generally agreed guideline". (cf. Blueboar, The Drover's Wife) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 8:54 am, 3 March 2020, Tuesday (11 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+11)

I think the last three months of discussions have gone a considerable way to clarifying where opinions lie on the matter broadly, but what we still don't have is a solution that can find an acceptable consensus in an RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 9:24 am, 3 March 2020, Tuesday (11 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+11)

@The Drover's Wife: I think that means there's only one course of action left to take. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 5:46 am, 7 March 2020, Saturday (10 months, 27 days ago) (UTC+11)

That "one course of action", I suppose, is to go with one's own interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES. Accordingly, I will revert you again in that article and in Prime Minister of Australia.

I am copying this to Talk in Governor-General of Australia so that others can have a say.

I'll add two policy points: that on a question of linguistic usage preference should ordinarily be given to opinions:

1. of native speakers;
2. when usage in a particular country is concerned, of users in that country.

BTW, I am a native speaker of English and I live in Australia.

Please just leave this sleeping dog where it is now lying. Errantius (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No. You do not get to reject the results of an RfC just because you do not like them. RfCs can be closed by non-administrators, and that closing editor's decision was not challenged and overturned. Therefore, a consensus exists. MOS:JOBTITLES says what it says. The onus is on you to achieve a consensus overriding the existing one. Until then, the existing consensus is valid. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Immanuel Kant

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immanuel_Kant&diff=1005764761&oldid=1005745244

read: WP:INFOBOXNTLY 188.192.228.162 (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)