User talk:DPCU

Welcome!

Hello, DPCU, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Pearce (Australian soldier). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice your "undid" at Little Creatures was not in fact an "undid" but a removal of the section altogether. I support that, and wouldn't have reverted if I'd known. Hesperian 12:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material from articles

The correct course of action if you feel that a reference is needed is to put {{fact|November 2007}} — which will as appear as ^{[citation needed]} on the page — after the sentence in question and/or to raise the matter on the talk page. Any edits which are known to be controversial should also be discussed on the talk page. Grant | Talk 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CITE "If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing ^{[citation needed]} after the sentence or removing it." Have you thought that I tried to find to find a source and could not? No I don't think so. So do not add it again. DPCU (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That policy does not authorise you to delete anything that you can't find a source for. As I said the correct procedure is to add the {{fact|November 2007}}. You may then delete after a fair period of time has passed. You will learn these things if you hang around here for a length of time. Anyway, the source is stated there as the Macquarie Dictionary; which I happen to have here. If you want a page number, I will endeavour to find one. In any case, I can't see how anyone would regard the statement in question as controversial; surely most people in Australia use "-ise". Grant | Talk 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do also have a copy of the Macquarie Dictionary and it does not say that in there. DPCU (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Army Recruit Training

I have replaced the merge proposal tag on this article. Please let the discussion take place before removing it again. You may also think about adding some sources before creating articles in the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might think about letting an article being created before attempting to merge it into a different thing. I guess creating it and letting people help is too much these days. I see that if its not perfect when it comes out then you wont even look to help. DPCU (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay calm DPCU. One of the first things that all new users need to see/learn is that Wikipedia is a community - no one editor has ownership of any article or content. Mattinbgn has raised a legitimate proposal and other members of the community are making their comments. Please let that process continue until it reaches a measured conclusion - in the meantime continue to improve the training article - which at this stage needs much more research, content, inline referencing etc. By doing this you either will find that the article remains a stand-alone, or that the good parts of your article (complete with your identification as the provider of those parts) will merge with this article.--VS ^talk 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've changed my vote to oppose the merge. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate - stay calm. Nobody deletes anything, the information will still be in the histories. Once a section on recruit training outgrows the article then the current article structure can easily be restored. Just make sure everything is sourced - ideally, from sources other than DOD / Army training pamphlets and reports (eg: ARMY magazine, newspaper etc) and it should be easy to have both articles each about fairly distinct topics. BTW, sorry if that's telling you how to suck eggs.Ga rr ie 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AEC

Hi Simon, I'm afraid I'm in rant mode, I probably need to get a life. I see you've recently renamed 'AEC' as 'AEC (disambiguation)' (no problem with that), but then created a new 'AEC' article redirecting to 'Australian Electoral Commission'. The latter has no link to the AEC disambiguation page.

I invite you to type in 'AEC' as a Wikipedia search term and hit 'Search' rather than 'Go'. When I do this 20 out of the first 20 hits and and 10 out of the next 20 (I did not bother to count further but there are many more) relate to the Associated Equipment Company (makers of London buses and many other vehicles still in use around the world). This has only ever been spoken of as 'AEC', and most people would not know what the letters stand for. However, I would not consider redirecting "AEC" to "Associated Equipment Company" rather than to "AEC (disambiguation)", at least without discussion.

Please also note that the very first entry on the original "AEC" article (nearly 5 years ago) was a redirection to "Atomic Energy Commission", which I'm guessing would (outside election week in Australia) be a lot more popular as a redirection target.

As things stand you actually have to type in "AEC-space-open bracket-lower case disambiguation-close bracket" to discover that the page even exists - in my search for AEC I did not stumble across the disambiguation page in the first 10 pages of results.

So - in the interests in avoiding an edit war by the 18 or so other meanings of 'AEC' - how about re-redirecting 'AEC' to 'AEC (disambiguation)'?

Rant ends. 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pterre (talk • contribs)

Reverted. AEC has way too many meanings to claim entitlement for a single one. Hesperian 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister-elect

Please stop closing this debate prematurely. There are currently 4 Keep voites and 3 Merge votes. They are quite different outcomes. There is NO consensus to keep the article as it is. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only closed it one and reverted an IP. DPCU (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go closing any more AfDs. You're too new around here to take on such a responsibility, as evidenced by this inappropriate premature closure, citing SNOW of all things, to a debate to which SNOW obviously doesn't apply. Hesperian 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

It should not be reopened. If you disagree take it to WP:DRV DPCU (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. Hesperian 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Why am i blocked? If you disagree take it to WP:DRV that is why it is there. Also who the fuck is ExtraDry & DXRAW? Orderinchaos blocked me why? Where is the checkuser request he says exists? DPCU (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

By convention, WP:DRV is for XfD's which have gone through the entire process, not for all closed debates. Your insistence on prematurely closing a debate with a rationale contradicted by fact was disruptive. Block upheld. — Kurykh 02:36, 27 November 2007 (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.

Son, when you're in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an AfD early, citing a clause that obviously doesn't apply, and then reverting to your preferred closure three times within 48 minutes, is disruptive.

Apparently a checkuser has confirmed that you are ExtraDry and DXRAW. Rest assured that has nothing to do with this block.

Hesperian 02:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a link to this checkuser. DPCU (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me, mate; it's got nothing to do with me. The block is for disruption. Hesperian 02:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It you cant prove it them remove it off my block log. DPCU (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me, mate; it's got nothing to do with me. The block is for disruption. Hesperian 02:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you cant follow the AFD procedures? As a admin are you above policy? DPCU (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you are not following those same procedures yourself? What gives you license to close AfDs as you please? —Kurykh 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy. DPCU (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually wanted to convince people that your closure was appropriate, I would think you would be more forthcoming with your justification. Your two word response indicates to me that even you don't believe your closure is defensible. Hesperian 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? —Kurykh 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you're missing something here, that being that an AFD can only be closed by an administrator, or the nominator withdrawing it. You are not an Administrator. You were not the nominator. Therefore, you cannot close the nomination. Got it? If not, how about this, from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure, "Another volunteer, the "closing admin", will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article."--Jac16888 (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins can close AfDs is the result is an obvious keep. "Obvious keep"s would be something like 20 keep votes and no delete votes except from the nom. The AfDs you are closing are far from keeps. Please learn policy before trying to lecture others about it. (Directed to the user, not Jac16888.) JuJube (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, while that comment is not for me, i still learnt something from it, i was unaware of that particular policy and will bear that in mind in the future. Anyway, my point remains valid, so try listening to other editors when they tell you that you're mistaken--Jac16888 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is not the first time this editor has closed an AfD prematurely - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 4#David Pearce (Australian soldier). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPCU, Wikipedia:Speedy keep has very restrictive criteria. The AfD you closed fit none of these criteria. So your excuse regarding "policy" backing up your closure is bogus. —Kurykh 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Welcome

If this is how wikipedia treats users then i can see that you don't want me. DPCU (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Where is this checkuser case? Show it or remove the false block

Decline reason:

What are you talking about? You were blocked for repeatedly SNOW-closing AfD debates. — Yamla (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2007 (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.

To be crystal clear here. You were NOT blocked for sockpuppeting. If you don't understand why you were blocked, it's moot whether you should actually be editing an encyclopedia. I'll just say this as an observer, not an admin, that so far you have failed to grasp some basic policy issues, particularly in relation to what you are allowed to do. Unless you get your head round those issues, your time here is going to be short and painful. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

09:43, 5 November 2007 Orderinchaos (Talk | contribs) blocked "DPCU (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second ‎ (old block log http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:ExtraDry - link confirmed by checkuser. see also DXRAW.) Where is this case? DPCU (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for this, so it has no bearing. Feel free to contact the admin who left that comment when your block expires, or what-have-you. — Haemo (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (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.

Your block for disruption has expired by now, so there is no need to request an unblock for any reason. And now you're requesting an unblock from a one second block applied 23 days ago?! This has descended into farce. Stop abusing the unblock template or you'll be blocked again. Hesperian 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]