User talk:Empire of War

Welcome!

Hello, Empire of War, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya there! Not sure if I'm doing it by Wikipedia's laws but will read into it later. I hope you don't mind the edit I made to "Raid on Darwin (3 May)". I highly doubt it was a Japanese victory, if you look into the AWM online official WW2 histories it has a quote where a Japanese commander (forgot the name) admitted it was a "heavy loss". Can show you if you wish but I didn't link it in the references as it was already there. So are you the leader around here?--Empire of War (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply: I just noticed this. Wikipedia does not have leaders per-se, and I'm just another editor. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good thanks for the info! --Empire of War (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello Empire of War! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Anotherclown (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya there and thanks for the invitation, will consider it soon.--Empire of War (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and HotCat

It would be great if you could provide an edit summary for each and every contribution you make. You may also find HotCat useful. First check your Preferences (link is in the upper right), then select the Gagdets tab. Within the Editing section, enable HotCat. Now when you scroll down to the category section you should see a combination of - and +. They mean remove, add, modify. The box will auto-suggest possibilities from existing categories and complete an edit summary for you. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, didn't think it would be necessary though because I was only adding a category.--Empire of War (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a category

I was wondering why you added the History of Brisbane category to certain bridges today. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Is there a problem with it?--Empire of War (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC) If you must know, most of them have their own sections of history and since they are in Brisbane I thought it fitting to add the category. --Empire of War (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that I must know. It was just that I was curious. Thanks for the answer. I am not so sure I agree with your logic, especially when applying it in a wider context. Nearly all things have a history but we don't place them all in a history category. I'm not going to revert your edits. Don't be surprised if someone else does as they aren't historical events. Also the Brisbane Marathon page needs a course section describing the current and past courses as well as some more references if you can find any. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks--Empire of War (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

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

Brisbane Marathon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mark Jackson, Bradley Smith, Robert Ellis, Andrew Thompson and Ron Peters

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Forced adoption in Australia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You have clearly broken the 3RR rule. The only reason you have not been blocked is because I'm not entirely happy you've had a clear enough warning about the consequences of your actions. On the article talk page there is a brief mention of 3RR but it's little more than a link and there is no mention of the consequences etc. I have blocked User:HiLo48 for 24 hours for edit warring as they should know better. DO NOT try and take advantage of this by repeating your edits at that article as that will quickly see you blocked for edit warring as well. Dpmuk (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dpmuk I am not edit warring, HiLo is. He is continually undoing an edit for which he has absolutely no reason to. But I suspect its from his own personal bias.--Empire of War (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes (at least) two to edit war, who is right or wrong is irrelevant. The constant back and forth is disruptive and the dispute needs to be settled on the talk page. I suggest you read some of the links above to find out why we consider edit warring a problem and what you should do instead. Dpmuk (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you block HiLo as well?--Empire of War (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although I strongly suggest you concentrate on your own actions rather than worry about them. Dpmuk (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How I am now supposed to defend myself on the Admin noticeboard?

What happened! I made an edit. HiLo reverted it on grounds of not enough references. I agreed and put up 10 references. He reverted it on grounds of not "credible" enough despite being from the Australian Government and major newspapers, etc. Nick Thorne then came in protecting HiLo, decided to try and get me blocked on the Admin noticeboard. They are saying I edit warred, yes to some extent. But I am only protecting my edit, they have given no reason as to why they want my edit undone. I ask them repeatedly and they say "Read what we said earlier"? What more references? Nice Thorne told me I had too many references and said I could keep the edit, so why does HiLo revert it again???--Empire of War (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Forced adoption in Australia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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).

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

Request reason:

Why should I be blocked I was protecting the article from HiLo48's personal bias, I did everything by the book. HiLo wanted more references and I gave him at least 10 credible references. But according to him the Australian gorvernment is not credible enough, and reverted it. That is when the "edit war" began because he had no good reason to undo my edit without further reason. When he failed to give me another reason for his revert. Empire of War (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are requesting an unblock on the grounds that you believe your edits were right. However, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you believe your edits are right". (Indeed, if the edit warring policy were to be changed to allow exemption for editors who believe their edits are right, then the policy would become completely ineffective, since in almost all edit wars, everyone involved believes that their edits are right. That is so in this case, as HiLo48 has also requested an unblock largely on the basis of being right.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (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.

I realise that your last revert was before I gave the warning above but your edit summary also makes it clear you are now aware of what edit warring is so I have blocked you. Dpmuk (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to accept that unblock request. Indeed if I hadn't done the block and I saw an unblock request like that I'd decline it but I, personally, think a user should have the right for a block to be reviewed by a second admin so I won't decline the unblock and am happy for any reviewing admin to do as they see fit. The reason I'd decline is that you seem to be basically arguing you're right. As I say above who is right or wrong is of no relevance. You need to address your actions and why they were wrong - read WP:EW if you don't see what you did as a problem. Dpmuk (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my issue here. I made an edit which was perfectly sound within Wikipedias policies. Yet Hilo reverted it continually.

Can you please ask him on what grounds did he revert it for?? I did everything by the book and he kept reverting it.--Empire of War (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE YOU UNBLOCKING HILO AND NOT ME? HE WAS THE ONE WHO KEPT UNDOING THE EDIT WITHOUT GIVING A REASON--Empire of War (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Brisbane

Hi there,

No I am not biased and I think Brisbane is by far the best city in Australia and wouldn't live anywhere else.

However 'cultural capital'? That is a totally meaningless, unquantifiable term. What kind of culture? High culture? Popular culture? Asian culture? Sporting culture? Outback culture? It is impossible to measure a 'cultural capital' and everyone's view will be different. It sounds like some wishy-washy nonsense people from Melbourne would say because they know deep down that they have nothing on Sydney, and conveniently it is a claim that can't be proven either way. The introduction is full of basic quantifiable things like population stats, area/location, historic events, etc. Not only is this unquantifiable and totally subjective, but it's not even in the present but potentially in the future. Maybe we should change wiki articles to what something may be in the future rather than what they are now! Anyway, some guy has reverted it but, I think that a ref like this could certainly have a place under the "culture" section of the article but not in the intro where the most brief and vital facts about a city are listed.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see your point. Future outcomes shouldn't be listed as fact certainly but I thought it was a nice way of complimenting Brisbane's rise in the culture arena. The most visited art galleries in Australia is the GOMA and QLD Art Museum, as well as Brisbane consistently has the highest number of attendees at cultural events like Opera, Ballet, etc even against Melbourne. Im not biased, although I am a born and Bred Brisbanite, but the belief of southern states is that Brisbane is still a "outpost" or "backwater". Lets hope they keep believing that, as this city flies past them :P--Empire of War (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed good sir, well some day their perceptions will catch up with reality and they will stop thinking that we are a class down from that grubby, ordinary town full of hipsters with chips on their shoulders located on a dirty little creek called the Yarra. Actually its probably a good idea to put some of that stuff in if GOMA and the art museum are the most attended galleries in the country. That is something very quantifiable and concrete.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference, However QLD art gallery and GOMA are considered "twin" museums so they are paired together at #1. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/art-galleries-draw-big-crowds/story-e6frg8n6-1226033616503 --Empire of War (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sophie Collombet

You need to provide some reliable sources for the Death of Sophie Collombet page very soon as you are making serious allegations about a person you have also named. Please see Biographies of living persons policy. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 04:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have been made 2 weeks ago, I was waiting for someone else to make it so I expect help on this one.

Benjamin James Milward said "Yeah yeah you got me" after he was arrested, yes I'm sure he's totally innocent...--Empire of War (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indent added to your reply, see indent -- 220 of ^Borg 05:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia, and the source, but I have my doubts about the wp:notability of this death or the person alledged to be responsible for it. Don't be surprised if it is nominated for speedy deletion. - 220 of ^Borg 05:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete Death of Sophie Collombet, then why wouldn't Death of Jill Meagher also be considered for deletion?--Empire of War (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Death of Sophie Collombet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Sophie Collombet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sophie Collombet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Election articles

I've just reverted your changes to those articles, which are so ill-considered that I initially suspected that they were vandalism. The "Other" category in opinion polls is for all of the non-major parties, and not just the PUP. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really?? Sorry, didn't realize. Saw they were yellow and thought the wording was wrong. Thanks.--Empire of War (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 15 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2028 Summer Olympics page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Discussion is over. Drop it. Do not restore that comment to a closed discussion. In addition, I see now, from the blocking template above, that you have a bit of history with HiLo48. I strongly suggest you keep your cool and maintain some distance, and I will ask HiLo to do the same. But make no mistake about it: I will block you if your disruption gets out of hand, or if you can't leave HiLo alone. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thankyou but that prick makes me so mad, i was only trying to offer a quote to be put up and he started harrassing me, and like always the other members take his side.

I tried deleting the conversation to stop an argument breaking out, and Brown threatened to block me if I did it again, so how come you can do it without Brow threatening you?--Empire of War (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of these events. I just want you to note that I am an administrator and have closed the discussion. That means it's closed. Thank you. "Brown"--I assume you mean Dennis Brown? He was still in diapers when I started here. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop it and please move on. If you allow another editor to make you "so mad" and lose control as a result, then the consequences will be your responsibility. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Empire of War. You have new messages at Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS.
Message added 01:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SantiLak (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Empire of War. You have new messages at Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS.
Message added 01:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SantiLak (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Empire of War. You have new messages at Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS..
Message added 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SantiLak (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Something in which you might be interested is being discussed here. This is a blanket alert given to multiple editors, a response is not needed. DocumentError (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I am providing everyone who commented in the open page RfC without respect to their !vote. [[1]] This has to do with a possible editor stability issue. DocumentError (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collingwood26 Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

What have I been blocked for

Can anyone answer me that?--Empire of War

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Someone explain to me what I've been banned for? Even if I was Collingwood26, something which happened over two years ago, I've done nothing wrong since, I've behaved myself, so what have I done wrong?

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Someone explain to me what I've been banned for? Even if I was Collingwood26, something which happened over two years ago, I've done nothing wrong since, I've behaved myself, so what have I done wrong? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone explain to me what I've been banned for? Even if I was Collingwood26, something which happened over two years ago, I've done nothing wrong since, I've behaved myself, so what have I done wrong? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Someone explain to me what I've been banned for? Even if I was Collingwood26, something which happened over two years ago, I've done nothing wrong since, I've behaved myself, so what have I done wrong? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}