User talk:Miscreant

Please refrain

. . .from making the sort of infantile vandalistic edits which you made to Harry Hooton. Bjenks (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look again, you'll find both Cot and Got in the takver transcription of Soldatow's text. Takver has some good material but is not a careful enough scribe to hang your hat on. If you want me to grovel, kindly produce an indisputable source, which will need to be better than, eg, the National Library of Australia A scan of the book's title page would do. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apols too, where due. My prickly reaction fell somewhat short of being 'aggressive'. In retrospect, I withdraw 'vandalistic' because you have quite surprisingly shown your edits to be well-intentioned. Being busy and on the move, I omitted to check your creditable past contributions. WP provides useful opportunity for introduction of views, credentials, etc, on user/talk pages, which you have chosen not to utilise, thus risking snap judgements like the one I made. My own intention is always to be open and courteous, but this sometimes fails when I perceive unjustified arbitrary interference with patently correct material. I'm sure you'll agree that ruffled feathers rate a distant second to shuffled or mutilated facts. (Btw, I was/am personally acquainted with Harry Hooton and other people I've referenced in the Sydney Push article, though I don't have a copy of the edition in question.) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'weasel words' tags

Hi, again. I see here that (in an otherwise reasonable edit) you've tagged refs to Anne Coombs and Alan Barcan as weasel words. I don't get your drift, because both names are immediately followed by citations of verifiable sources. Would you care to rethink the edits, or explain them on the article's talk page, please? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]