User talk:Democfest

Welcome!

Hi, Cement4802. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Altitude

Hi Cement, I had to undo your edits to the Sydney and Australian tallest buildings article, with regards to Altitude: you had not provided a reliable source which confirms that Altitude is currently in the topped-out phase. Feel free to add said content back in, once you've provided said source. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, please don't introduce content that is unreferenced, as you did at List of tallest buildings in Australia. Sydney's skyscraper count (completed and topped-out) is still one less than Melbourne, per CTBUH. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Opening title of "Ambulance Australia" television program.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Z33

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Article 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 BRD 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.

Note: The CNN article is under discretionary sanctions which you have violated:

• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
• Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

I suggest you revert your last edit. Also, there is a discussion on the article talk page.[1] O3000 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you have issues with habitual edit warring - the warning here applies to Clementine Ford (writer), too. Based on your edit summary here, please also review WP:ONUS. VQuakr (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carlos Maza; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antifa (United States); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SharabSalam (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 II

Your recent editing history at Steven Crowder 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. O3000 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Carlos Maza, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Australian residential architectural styles

Hi there. Thanks for your additions to Australian residential architectural styles. I've been working on this article on and off over a number of years and really appreciate your well-sourced additions. However, I've had to remove Toxteth Park, Glebe as it's actually Victorian Italianate. And Juniper Hall, Paddington that was already there is actually Victorian Georgian and not Old Colonial Georgian (in fact it was listed twice!). I'd really appreciate if you could add citations to each property's architectural style if you plan to add any more images. That really helps if an image is challenged. Many thanks, once again. And keep up the great work :-) Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I've also been working on the Australian non-residential architectural styles page which was and is still a bit oversaturated with architectural examples from Victoria, so it would be great if we could get some more examples from across the nation as a whole. Cement4802 (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A pleasure. The same issue applies with citations for the non-residential arch. styles. Yeah, I hear you the dominance of Victorian examples. I've been adding NSW over the years; but I'll try to give a national perspective. @Kerry Raymond: Any imagery from Qld that you wish to add to Australian non-residential architectural styles would be appreciated; especially where it's unique to your state or a landmark example. And perhaps suggestions on who to reach out in Tas, and SA/NT? @JarrahTree: Same re WA, if you're interested. I'm sure there would be good examples and images from Fremantle that could be used, if you can find citations that clearly articulate their architectural style. Many thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Can you please stop for a minute. You're adding properties to Australian non-residential architectural styles that are already listed in other categories; and you're adding them in the wrong category without references. eg. Department of Lands building is NOT Victorian Free Classical, its Victorian Renaissance Revival. Can I ask that before you add (or take off any more) you please add a reference that clearly shows the relevant architectural style. I'm fixing up VFC right now. I'm hyperlinking where possible, adding citations and sorting into alphabetical order. Re Glebe... do we really need four buildings from the one suburb to demonstrate the style? It's not about numbers on this page, it's about getting the best representative mix across Australia. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of the sources I used to determine the architectural style of buildings might have conflicted with other sources which have already been used on this page, especially since different architectural features from different periods could have been added on to existing buildings. I'll try and avoid this next time.Cement4802 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

For Queensland, if you go to the Search the Queensland Heritage Register webpage and choose the Advanced Search option, you get the option to search by Style which ranges from Art Deco to Tudor (but curiously seems to omit plain old "Queenslander" which is a dominant residential style). That list of styles (plus Queenslander) would appear to be a good starting point for Queensland architect, plus the search capability means it's easy to find examples of those styles (noting that as these images are CC-BY licensed, I have uploaded many of them to Commons to make life even easier). Kerry (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cement4802: Some of the sources I used... Please add the reference from now on so that we can see if it's from a reliable source; or maybe we can provide a better source. A lot of work in QLD and NSW has been done to extract data from the relative state heritage registers for items of state significance; and work has also been done on the Commonwealth Heritage List for buildings of national significance. We should use these buildings as the stand out examples of both residential and non-residential architecture (and the same for the other states/territories). Each of these properties has a Wikipedia article. Thanks
@Kerry Raymond: Great work as always. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rangasyd, just to clear things up a bit, all of the additions I've made to both the residential and non-residential articles are now sourced from NSW's State Heritage Register. Though I'm not sure if it's wise to cite every example from the same source, otherwise it'll get repetitive. Thanks - Cement4802 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: It is very wise to add a citation to every entry that clearly indicates why a property has been placed in a particular category. And please be judicious in your selection of examples. We don't need three examples from the same suburb of the same style. As this is an article that is focused on Australian residential architectural styles, examples should be sourced from across the nation, not just one city/suburb of one city. I have made many more corrections. And finally, please add a reason for everyone of your edits. We have to second guess why you doing things - a brief description goes a long way. And there is no need to use the words "File:" or "Image:", if located with <gallery></gallery> Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!

I actually posted a response to your last comment on the Talk:Sydney page. However, User:AussieLegend removed it. Can you believe that? He has the gall to remove something I wrote simply because he did not like it. It's ridiculous. Have you considered taking it further? These same editors can't keep their rigid control over the Sydney page forever. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't tell lies. The response is still there. Only the personal attack was removed in accordance with WP:RPA. It wasn't removed because I did not like it. Another editor agreed that it was a personal attack. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely Ashton 29, a few stubborn editors in complete denial have held up any sort of progress on the page for at least a decade now. I have consistently maintained my position and I've always tried to get the ball rolling, but everyone else seems to chicken out and give in whenever the few select editors in opposition pull up their same old tired excuses, which is weird given the overwhelming majority of editors are in opposition to them. I can simply only sit and watch, unless we get more editors with some actual balls to just push forward. It's certainly very frustrating.- Cement4802 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas on a formal process we can put forward, or where we can take this? Ashton 29 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've opened up a request for a dispute resolution here. Would appreciate your input on the conflict, hopefully a user with non-biased views can help us achieve a resolution or compromise. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ashton 29:As witnessed with the complete lack of participation in your dispute resolution, this is one of my main gripes with the community of editors involved in Sydney's page. Where are they? They'll support the move for a montage and they'll happily share the same frustrations with the lack of progress, but once it actually comes time to taking drastic action or making a move, they vanish into thin air. I hope they know that it takes more than two editors to actually push away the anchor holding this proposal back. It makes no sense for them to collectively complain yet lazily take no action to resolve this. - Cement4802 (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: Suddenly there's a bunch of users united in their opposition. It's like AussieLegend or somebody has canvassed them to come and voice their disapproval. It just seems like totally circumspect, almost sly or vindictive behaviour, to me. Some of the editors who have suddenly added their names to the list of opposition to the montage hardly ever edit the Sydney page, or haven't really contributed much in months/years. Suddenly they want to stake their claim in the anti-montage sentiment? It's rubbish, mate. Absolute piffle. Ashton 29 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ashton 29: Absolutely. Several editors that i've been having disputes with over seperate unrelated articles, especially those political in nature, have decided that they'll use their personal grudge against me to come on over to the page to likewise target and harass me. It's a disgusting mob mentality. For the record, an moderator on the dispute resolution page has actually ruled that you didn't actually make any personal attacks or cause any disruptive editing. The only thing you've violated so far is not consulting everyone you were creating it, but the main point remains. I've seen the constant harassement and attacks on your page coming from (talk), and all of his claims have been rightly refuted. It seems he also has a history of harrasement and sending out false, unsubstantiated claims if you look through the archives on his talk page, and i'd suggest that he himself is actually in violation of several wikipedia policies.Cement4802 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ashton 29: - All of the editors who have recently posted are active editors who have edited Sydney previously and who have participated in previous discussions. No doubt they have Sydney on their watchlist and have become tired of the situation. Accusing somebody of canvassing without proof is unwise at the best of times.
@Cement4802: - Similarly, accusing people of opposing you because they have some grudge against you is uncivil. If you have had conflict with so many editors then perhaps you should try to look objectively at your edits and try to understand why you have been opposed. As for the DRN discussion, no admin said anything. The editor who mentioned disruptive editing is a volunteer and not an admin. In any case he did not mention personal attacks at all. Finally, Accusing somebody of harrassment is unwise at the best of times. Ironically, posting bogus warning templates to another editor's talk page, such as the one that you posted to mine, could be seen as harrassment, especially if you persist. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Accusing people of personal attacks when no such thing has occured, and proceeding to do the same thing to other editors, is just as, if not more disruptive. The edit warring warning was justified, as your recent editing at the Sydney page shows that you have been disruptive in your edits by constantly reverting edits that you disagree with. For an experienced editor like you, i hope you should know that such disuptes should be resolved in the talk page, not in the form of constant reverts and disruptive behaviour that borders on vandalism and harassement. Should you continue with these behaviours, discplinary action can be taken against you. In fact, you have quite a long history of harassement, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and blatantly accusing other editors of actions without any substantiated evidence. - Cement4802 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusing people of personal attacks when no such thing has occured, and proceeding to do the same thing to other editors, is just as, if not more disruptive. I agree, and both you and Ashton 29 should not do that. The warning that you left on my page was completely inappropriate as there was no edit-warring. If you believe there was, then by all means submit a report at WP:AN3. Either do that or remove the baseless allegations that you have made in the above post. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Again, please be mindful of the fact that you and another editor have been just as guilty of using personal attacks when you disagree with someone. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And the warning was sent over for good reason. If you can't accept the fact that your behaviour has not been up to scratch, then focus on improving it instead of denying it.- Cement4802 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. I would suggest that you read WP:NPA and WP:EDITWAR after which you should apologise. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to apologise for something you have done. Your actions were in line with the definition of edit warring - Cement4802 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you refuse to take any action I'm afraid I have no alternative. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks. AussieLegend (✉) 17:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please note, I'm only advising you of this because the last time I opened an ANI discussion and didn't advice tangentially involved editors, somebody got upset. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 14:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word claimed

I suggest that you read WP:CLAIMED. In fact, the whole page. I'll save a bit of time by quoting: "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence". Doug Weller talk 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing while logged out - sockpuppetry

The IP which made this edit geolocates to New South Wales, Australia. Was that you editing while logged out to evade the 1RR restriction on the page? If so, you need to know that that is prohibited behavior and can lead to you being blocked or banned from editing the encyclopedia.

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, edits were indeed made logged out but that was out of pure convenience. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you may be referring to the Andy Ngo article, where an IP address made edits on the page. I witnessed that too. I did indeed make edits logged out, but that was out of pure convenience on a different unrelated page. I have no connection with the IP address on the article. Thanks for letting me know though - Cement4802 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - MrX 🖋 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:AussieLegend. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Cement4802. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. AussieLegend (✉) 02:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that if you decide to post a retaliatory warning on my talk page, further action will be taken. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Crown Sydney

Hi there,

I've noticed Crown Sydney is listed on Wikipedia as having topped-out, with you having made these changes a month or two ago. However, I can't find the source to corroborate this. I've found this source from Crown (February 2020), which speaks of a WP:FUTURE topping-out in March (which, for all we know, could have been delayed due to COVID-19). Yet, I'm not finding any secondary sources. Considering it will be Sydney's tallest building, I'd imagine there would be a lot of coverage.

As such, I don't actually think it has topped-out. Instead, it appears to still be in its final days/weeks/months of construction. I'm happy to be wrong though, so can you please provide the source you based these edits on? kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'll cite some secondary sources for the topped out status. My apologies for the unsourced edits, I should have known better.

On a quick unrelated sidenote, if I'm not mistaken I believe I've seen your username around on the online development forum skyscrapercity? - Cement4802 (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cement!

I'm wary that the source appears to report on the same source I provided above... a bit of circular reporting going on. But I won't pursue this further, considering it does look like it's in that awkward phase between UC/TO (and could very well have TO per the sources provided).

And yes, guilty as charged! I don't frequent it as much, but it's always handy to know what's going to happen with developments before they hit the press. You're on Skyscrapercity too? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, i'm a regular on that forum. I'm quite active over there and my username is almost a mirror image of my wikipedia username, so you really can't miss it. I'm surprised you didn't get the subtle hints that indicated this, such as my suspiciously odd confidence that crown was topped out without any sources (yes, i know i shouldn't be relying on forum information), the nicking of cul's crown photo to be used over here ("richard braddish" would be him) and all the contributions i've made to skyscraper and transport related topics on wikipedia haha. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I feel so silly. I have indeed seen your username plenty! it just didn't click... so many names, I'm pretty hopeless remembering at times. Yes, it may be controversial of me to say this, but Cull is probably one of my favourite people over at Ozscrapers. He knows his stuff and likes accuracy which is always good. And yes, I know the feeling re forum information... it's a pity we can't use this often privy information, but I guess it's still good to have the advantage of at least knowing what's coming next and what to look out for. Hope to bump into you more at the forum! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Where we are at re: Sydney montage

Well, I thought I'd start a new subsection on your talk page because AussieLegend keeps hijacking the discussion. Currently, Merbabu has proposed a weekly (or similar) rotation where we have a single image and then a montage, vice versa. How does that sound to you? HiLo48 was particularly stubborn, and dug his heels in, point blank refusing this suggestion as did AussieLegend who very inaccurately labelled the discussion a dead horse, to suit his own agenda about closing the discussion so his single image wins. It's interesting the same few users consistently refuse compromise, yet as soon as you add a montage they ask you to take it to the talk page, presumably under the guise of discussion and "compromise"..and yet you simply can't discuss anything with them. Their minds are made up. If I went and added a montage now, he'd revert it, yet I'm not really sure he has the credibility to do such a thing given how many people now have put the names to the support, how I've CLEARLY used the talk page many times (so it doesn't simply look like edit warring or non-constructive editing/vandalism as he might portray it to be whenever a montage is added), and how silly his ownership of the Sydney page is starting to look. Ashton 29 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, anything to get the ball rolling I'm all for it - Cement4802 (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

it seems like one step forward, two steps back with these editors. AussieLegend, in particular, is becoming more and more controlling. He is even undoing edits on the Newcastle page. I wonder how many other Australian pages he has an ownership style of editing of.Ashton 29 (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Citing podcasts

Hi, with regards to your recent edit to Lando Norris, when citing podcasts and the like, it would be helpful to readers and other editors if you included a time stamp (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Sound recordings. Don't worry about doing it for Norris, but for future refernce. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please do not repeat the canvassing evident at diff or diff. The second also contains gratuitous attacks on named editors and is doubly prohibited. Bear in mind that just as you are frustrated and struggling to get your preferred outcome, so are others. And just as you are editing in good faith, trying to improve the encyclopedia against clueless opposition, so are others. At any rate, canvassing is a serious issue which you can enquire about at the WP:Teahouse if needed. The bottom line is that blocks will follow anything that looks like canvassing or personal attacks for the next couple of months while the issues at Talk:Sydney are discussed calmly and politely, and then digested. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, canvassing is a stretch, considering my and Ashton 29's level of involvement in the prior discussions and lack of participation in the RfC. Which similarly involved users who disagree with Cement4802 should they have notified? --Cjhard (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the level of involvement: that's why I didn't think about a block. However, it is canvassing and the second diff is a personal attack. Anyone at the Teahouse would explain that you don't notify individuals about an RfC with certain possible IAR exceptions, such as notifying a subject-matter expert who has not been involved in disputes at the article concerned. If notifying editors who have, for example, edited an article, all such editors would have to receive the same notification. That might be cut off to all within the last year. The bottom line (explained at my first link above) is that selective notification is not on. It's "just" a guideline, but it is taken very seriously. There is no need for anyone to get overly excited: the only point is that it should not be repeated (and particularly opponents should not be mentioned unless at a noticeboard). Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq I'll refrain, but just so you know the other editors have been just as guilty of "personal attacks", especially after I took the right initiative to notify one of them about the (previous) ongoing ANI discussion, to which he hopped on board with his trusty partner in crime to make some snide, mocking remarks that I had forgot to sign my comment (quite hilariously childish actually). I'm not asking you to tell them off or anything (because i'm not that type of guy, and unlike certain editors here who shall remain nameless, wikipedia is not my life), im just pointing out that such behaviour is quite widespread across all editors involved, and i reckon my comments were actually rather mild in comparison. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's on both sides and that's why I'm trying to hose everyone down, particularly during the RfC period. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation clutter

In editing Antifa (United States), as you did here, please beware of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Five consecutive references, especially in the lead, are excessive. NedFausa (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's just that such edits are usually really controversial in nature, and based on the history of the page, "over egging the pudding" with sources seems to be necessary to get an edit across. But I'll refrain in the future - Cement4802 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources concerning Antifa

Just one example.[2] - it simply calls the group controversial and " The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform." Do you not even read your sources? See WP:HEADLINE. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question is have YOU read the sources. They all describe ANTIFA as being far left or conforming to far-left ideologies. Nothing has been misrepresented and stating otherwise could suggest a bit of bias - Cement4802 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)