User talk:AussieLegend

Home Talk Contributions Projects (tm – ) Miscellaneous
pages Userboxes Cheatsheet Vandals, bad
sources etc TV programs

It is approximately 7:20 AM where this user lives (Raymond Terrace, New South Wales). []

Warnings for disagreeing?

Aussie, you seem to give me a warning every time you disagree with my edits. Kindly knock it, share the internet please. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to avoid warnings you need to start editing in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Stop trying to force your point of view into articles - Subjects should be treated neutrally, not in accordance with your own beliefs. Don't ignore advice given to you, respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and don't change things just because you don't like it. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My contention is that you are basing decisions (like the category organization of SSCS) not on logic or what brings the most amount of sense to an article, or the best use of wiki policy, but on something else. And when a guy comes into the the article like myself and sees problems, you don't try to help you jumped right into assuming bad faith as if to push me away, getting into an edit war and what not. I mean I get that you view the SSCS article as a BLP of sorts and I get that the contents of the article tie into your personal interests, but you have to understand that my view of the article is not a personal attack on you but the neutrality of the article which it appears you have helped to skew. For instance, why such a fight to make sure the words "Eco-terrorist" don't appear on that page? Why such an issue to make sure negative comments are sandwiched in weasel wording and positive comments? It doesn't make sense. Neither does the millitant tone you take with me as if I were some random vandal inserting the word "poop" or "this guys sucks!" into articles of people I don't like. I'm asking you for two things. Examine your own neutrality here and assume good faith. I freely admit that i am not the best editor, but I'm here to help fix the article, not steal your baby. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Your contention is misguided. My decisions have been based on established Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to comply with. The most basic of these is WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. You weren't jumped on at all. When you first made your edits they were reverted with an appropriate edit summary.[1] Immediately after that I responded to a post of yours on the article's talk page.[2] It was only after you reinstated the edits that I left a soft warning on your talk page.[3] Your response to warnings has been to delete them and some of your edit summaries[4][5][6] and posts have been decidely uncivil and bordering on personal attacks. You don't seem to understand categorisation, although I've tried explaining it. Categories are not part of the article, they are ways of organising articles. Placing an article in a subcat is not an attempt to hide it from anything, it's simply a more effective way of organising and sorting articles. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Categorization. Hopefully that will provide you with some more insight. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My main contention is that your decision to categorize someone who disagrees with your POV as "disruptive" and "vandal" is disturbing. How is this misguided? An thanks for helping me with links to policy. I find that helpful, just not the rude tone it comes in. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My POV hasn't even come into play, other than I believe a neutral point of view should be maintained per WP:NPOV. Your edits have resulted in a negative, rather than neutral, tone being introduced. Your edit warring, inappropriate addition of unnecessary cats and removal of cats from a category has been disruptive to the point of being vanalistic, which is why you received the final warning. Your belief regarding categorisation is clearly misguided, which you should see once you read WP:CAT. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for links to policy. I've read and reread that particular one. How can you say that your perspective is neutral and others POV is not? We all have a POV. I happen to see yours as being outside that of the notable news sources and biased in favor of what appear to be your personal interests. My interest is making the article more neutral and I recognize we both have different views on that. I just ask you to reexamine your passion in that article for protecting the image of SSCS, in favor of providing a more comprehensive view of the subject. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A neutral point of view presents all relevant points of view. I'm all for that. Your edits to the article suppressed one view completely while enhancing the other view. How is that neutral? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I suppressed anything. I was adding information, like categories, extra links to the news etc. I understand that the links I added changed the tone a bit because the news was not favorable exactly (limpet mines, court injuctions, etc.) I even changed the wording of positive statements to have it make more sense. Perhaps your view that I am suppressing positive material is at the root to why we are having difficulty here. If you can help me understand in what way I'm being suppressive to the good things of SSCS I will most certainly pay attention to it and be sure not to do that. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Your very first edits to the article suppressed all mention of support for SSCS in the lead while enhancing the status of opposition to the organisation. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

With that particular edit, after discussion I helped reword it so that it made more sense. That doesn't strike you as collaborative and good faith? All of my other contributions have been additive in nature. You mentioned edits plural. Are there other areas you have found my alterations to the article to be suppresive? Or just the one which is now better?76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you reworded it, but then you added this, which shouldn't be in the article for reasons that have been explained at length. Adding it is ignoring WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, which you've been told previously. That is not collaborating. Disputed edits need to be discussed and added only when there is consensus to do so. You also made this edit which restored a category that doesn't belong in the article, for reasons that have also been explained at length, and turned an informative note into vague waffle. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I added more info because I think the additional information was valuable to the reader. That is different than suppression. The fact that you treat my perspective as wrong because it is different than yours is to me a double standard and not at all neutral. Regardless, I think this admin coming will help us with that. I am anxious to see what can be worked out. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't have added the information until there was consensus to do so. That's part of the process when edits are challenged, and yours clearly were. There's no double standard, please read WP:NPOV. It's not neutral to give one opinion more weight than others, as your edit did. As I've explained, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, not to mislead the reader int believing one POV has more weight than the other. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You could just as easily take the other point of view and say that your edits also required more consensus and less reverting, warning, etc.. Regardless, I thank you for helping make the lede what it is at this moment. It definitely looks more informational, and has less of a slant on it than it did a few days ago. I appreciate your skill even if we butt heads POV wise. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not the case at all When edits are challenged the burden is on the editor who wishes to add the content to seek consensus. My edits consisted of maintaining the status quo (when edits are in dispute the status quo prevails) or simple categorisation cleanup - the removal of unnecessary categories is generally uncontroversial. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

personal attacks

Calling someone a POV editor, accusing of "aggressive tandem editing" and of being "pro Japanese whaling spa editors." have nothing to do with an editor's content but are entirely about the editor as a person. How can you say this is not a personal attack? I remember you don't like it when people do that to you so why promote it when the happens to others? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The article has remained fairly stable for some time and then, quite coincidentally, two editors introduce POV edits to the article at the same time. One has not edited the article previously and all of his recent edits have been only to SSCS and closely related articles. The other has previously demonstrated an anti-SSCS bias. I believe the editor who started the section was just calling a spade a spade based on his observations. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

At what point did these spades tandemly and aggressively display their point of view regarding Japan? I see people asking for help, people responding, people adding info and people removing info, none of that being out of the norm or requiring anyone to break with good faith assumptions. Then the name calling. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Both of you, on the same day, shifted the tone of the article from neutral, to a more negative view of the subject. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But that's only because your view of SSCS happened to be more positive than the news articles I was adding. That doesn't make our view intrinsically wrong. Everyone's got a POV and the article will shift as the news does and as editors come in and out. Try to keep an open mind that YOUR PoV is not the neutral one. It's yours alone. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what my view is. I've been around long enough to be able to maintain a neutral stance when editing, despite my opinion of the subject. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting to watch this cat fight. If I may add one comment, generally media articles not always considered to have an unbiased view. For example, an opinion or article sourced from The Australian may be balanced from an article sourced from The Sydney Morning Herald. Rangasyd (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No doubt, it's pretty easy to find notable expert opinion on both sides of an argument. I think though once courts and governmental officials apply the label of Eco-terrorist, it becomes the global picture starts to shift and so should the article, despite where our own biases lie. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

State of Queensland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You will be knowledgeable enough to explain (and source), please, "misinterpretation of the official name" at this[7] and the other reverts. Qexigator (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your determination that the state names all start with "State of" appears to be a misinterpretation of sources. Official documentation often capitalises "state", but this doesn't mean that "State of" is part of the state name. S16(1) of the preamble to the Australia Act is an example of the capitalisation convention. It capitalises "state" in several places where it would not normally be capitalised, including "means a court of a State or any other court", "in relation to a State", and "'State' means a State of the Commonwealth and includes a new State". S16(3) also does this, saying "Parliament of a State", "legislature of that State", "any other Act of that State" and "Legislative Council of that State". This convention is followed in the other documents that you've used for Queensland. The name of New South Wales has been simply "New South Wales" since Captain Cook named it on 22 August 1770.[8] That the preamble calls it "State of New South Wales" is simply application of the convention to capitalise state. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Talk:Victoria (Australia). --Qexigator (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hillbillies

The purpose of A10 is not to run roughshod over other editors in figuring out how to organise content. The guideline gives a rule of thumb, not a straightjacket - an article where most of the size is not in readable prose might call for another decision (or maybe not). But another editor apparently has a reasonable position on content organisation, it's not my place as an admin to cudgel them to your preferred organisation. WilyD 10:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The guideline says there is only 285bytes of readable prose. An extremely generous interpretation takes that up to 28kB but that's still well below the 40kB guideline so even pushing the limits we still can't justify a split. The other editor's position is not that reasonable given that he's provided absolutely no evidence to back up his claim, and there is none in any of the related articles to support his claim. That editor apparently doesn't want to expand the article to support his claim so the split article just isn't going to serve any purpose other than being an orphaned article that duplicates an existing article. Deleting the article is not running roughshod, it's using commonsense. And remember, the editor opposing deletion is only opposing deletion of two of the nine articles. He has acknowledged that the seasons have been split out by an editor who "has a long history of splitting seasons from episode lists in a way that is of questionable value". --AussieLegend (✉) 10:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiley, we are having a similar issue of categorization disagreement and warring with myself and Aussie at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to the point where it got locked. I can't point fingers, having come close to loosing my own cool but if you are an expert at helping point out reason and policy relating to categories, please visit us there. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Television seasons

Can we take the debate to WP:TV. I don't want to have to go through this on each of a hundred different talk pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That you've had to go through this on other pages with other editors is a clear indication that there is wider opposition to this sort of thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#.2BThe_Beverly_Hillbillies_.28season_1.29.2C_The_Beverly_Hillbillies_.28season_2.29_and_many_others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Primeval

Hello,

Why did you revert me in this article? Even worse you didn't even offer a justification? Yann (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my edit summary says "Don't knowingly add unsourced content", which is the reason that your edits were reverted.[9] Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" and "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." It's one thing for somebody else to challenge your additions, but when you include "{{citation needed|date=October 2013}}" as part of your addition, it's clear that you can't verify it, so it shouldn't be added. In any case, MOS:TV says entries should be limited to those from English speaking countries and France doesn't fall into that category. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)