User talk:Andreas11213

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

advice:User Pages[edit]

Andreas, and others I notice the recent arguments over warnings being posted here please read WP:UP#OWN this space is to discuss matters relating to the user, it not owned by the user it is a community page and all community policies apply including civility and edit warring. Content can be archived(preferred) or removed by the user with some exceptions, in doing so it is taken that the user has taken note of any warnings. Gnangarra 10:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

By "...it is taken that the user has taken note of any warnings" I think you mean that we should assume that he has taken note. This is like the Wikipedia rule that we should always assume good faith. We all know that situations eventually arise with some editors where we can no longer do that. It's the same here. Even if Andreas11213 HAS "taken note of any warnings", I think there are many of us who believe the warnings are making no difference to behaviour. Surely there comes a time to move beyond such artificial "assumptions". HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Woo hoo! To quote Banjo Patterson, it seems that, at last, there might be "movement at the station"!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In case it wasn't bleedingly obvious to readers of Andreas's talk page, I've made an unusually large amount of effort to educate this person. Let me hasten to add: "As have others." In fact, it is very unusual that so many experienced editors have gone to so much effort and been so tolerant of this person's recalcitrance. Why is this? It's because Andreas shows the ability to be a VERY useful and VERY productive contributor.
I started off being "a bit irritated" by his attitude and behaviour. Then I decided this was not useful, so I decided to be extremely polite and helpful, giving the best advice I could. In this modus operandi, I persisted for some time. However, this didn't seem to gain any sort of positive result from him, so I eventually moved to a combination of blunt factual statements and humorous sarcasm and cynicism. To my surprise, this also resulted in the same outcome - i.e. absolutely NO acknowledgement, and absolutely NO change in behavior. (OK, I'm naïve - on pragmatic reflection, why might it lead to any change?)
As those who are familiar with my modus operandi would now, I could go on. At length. Giving cited examples. (And I'm forced to admit the temptation is almost unavoidable.) But, ... I won't.
I'll simply say: Andreas: Normally, the next step would be for you to be blocked indefinitely. End of conversation.
However, very unusually, you are being offered an alternative, and this is only because you have illustrated your positive abilities, (in addition to your unacceptable behavior.)
That alternative is that you agree to modify your behavior into the "acceptable" class.
Should you respond in any form or manner that implies ANYTHING other than your willingness to modify your behaviour, you WILL be blocked - not just for a week - permanently. And let me educate you that this is no idle threat; in your very brief career of 1,500 edits you have succeeded in pissing of a HUGE number of people - there will be NO shortage of people willing to bang nails into the lid of your coffin.
I trust that I have been unambiguous. If there is anything about which you are unclear, do not hesitate to ask, because, genuinely, this is your very last chance to do so. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The disruption from this editor far outweighs any benefits in editing. Dave Dial (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I did think about a block but the problem wasnt occurring at the time I saw it and other participants were also not exactly behaving within policy of user talk page requirements either therefor it would be a punitive block. Pdfpdf is right in saying genuinely, this is your very last chance to do so Gnangarra 14:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf is right in saying genuinely, this is your very last chance to do so
We're awaiting your reply. (At some stage, you will exceed out patience.) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Andreas? Are you there Andreas? Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, he's there. Just doesn't care to reply. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeshift yes I'm here what Andreas11213 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, lets' see. That's a non-indented post, so we have to guess who it's a response to. Appalling grammar. There was no Edit summary. And there is an apparent complete absence of comprehension about the whole preceding thread. Andreas, can you tell that a lot of people find your approach to editing here unacceptable? And that they are frustrated with the fact that, despite massive efforts by others to help you, not enough has changed to remove that view? HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Full names of parties. You've been trying to remove Australia for ages and multiple users have reverted you. STOP AND GET CONSENSUS OR GET BANNED. YOU DON'T EVEN RESPOND TO THE ABOVE AND KEEP REMOVING WARNINGS. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You're the one trying to make a change, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs consensus Andreas11213 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You've been trying to remove Australia for ages and multiple users have reverted you. What part of this do you fail to understand? Timeshift (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No actually, I made those changes mostly last year and a few this year... no one had any objection to the changes I made up until now. If you want to change it seek consensus. Andreas11213 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No actually everyone else but you seems to think that infoboxes should contain full, not abbreviated names. The number of times you have been reverted points to that inconclusively. If you believe differently put your argument forth in the relevant talk pages. Alans1977 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tony Abbott. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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; 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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Blocked for edit warring again[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring, as you did at Tony Abbott. 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.  Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Given this is your third block for edit warring on pages relating to Australian politics any unblock will probably come with a topic ban from Australian politics or a one revert restriction on those pages. When the block expires you would be best advised to not edit war again as the next block is likely to be for a long time or indefinitely. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

About time. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Please note Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Parliament of Australia, 44th.svg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parliament of Australia, 44th.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for evading your block[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion with 138.217.89.223. 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.

I thought you'd get the message when I blocked your IP, but obviously not. DO NOT edit except with this account. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Julie Bishop 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. 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. AlanS (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, you really don't learn from experience do you? Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Madigan (Australian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Labour Party. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not change the religious denominations of multiple Greek political figures as you did to Karolos Papoulias and other articles, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Katherine Heigl. Thank you. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Charlotte Crosby. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on Ioannis Metaxas[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Greece. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

On Wikipedia, we don't call things by what their proponents say about them, and in the same way we ascribe the ideology of a party based on reliable sources, completely ignoring what the party's own Web site says. If you don't believe this, then read the relevant policies. Now, please stop edit warring for the purpose of promoting a certain political viewpoint. Zozs (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Nueva Mayoría[edit]

If you continue edit warring on the Nueva Mayoría article you will be blocked from editing, which given your block log is likely to be a long block. Stay on the talk page and discuss the change. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Iceland[edit]

Andreas, please discuss your reasons on the talk page for not using the denomination names as listed in the source for the Religion in Iceland article. For Iceland, I've put up a query in the Template talk on exactly what religion is suppose to mean in the Infobox. --Erp (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus[edit]

OK, here's the thing. WP:AUSPOL is not a particularly bustling project. There are probably less than ten people who would conceivably turn up to most discussions. Those people all have lives, and they're not necessarily on Wikipedia every day. One day is nowhere near long enough to say "hey, no one has replied, that must mean no one disagrees!" Generally, as a good rule of thumb, a week is a good amount of time, more if it's a particularly complex or contentious issue. If no one shows up to a discussion that is about a recently discussed issue where you're suggesting a change to consensus, it would still be a good idea to at least give the previous participants a heads up. These are not pressing BLP issues or anything - there is no rush. (I fixed the House of Reps talk page too - just start a new section, since you obviously don't get to delete all of the previous discussion!!) Frickeg (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sejm[edit]

In Sejm there are 460 members. Here you have all informations: http://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm7.nsf/kluby.xsp And here is chamber plan: (28th October, 2014) http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/posiedzenie.nsf/0/4DC97B5696E34B5FC1257D7F002FB73A/$file/stan%20na_28_10_2014.pdf Sorry for my weak english :> 193.151.79.239 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaining Consensus[edit]

Listen mate you have been told time and time again, that when other editors disagree with changes you have made it's your responsibility to gain consensus. Yet you insist on edit warring if you don't get your way. When will the simple fact that you need consensus finally sink in? It is amazing, the bulk of your edit history is edit warring.The Tepes (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The Tepes, I've already said it, I'm not you're mate. You just love sitting there reverting every single edit I make and saying "Consensus". Consensus does not need to be gained for every single change on Wikipedia. Andreas11213 (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As soon as someone disagrees with a change, it pretty much does require consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I am reverting those edits because as the history shows there are multiple editors who oppose your edit. It is then your job to take it to the talk page and gain consensus. It is not the responsibility of other editors to provide alternatives. This has been explained to you time and time again. I suggest you approach editing in a more mature way if you wish to be taken seriously.The Tepes (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Also I would ask that you do not make such paranoid and childish accusations about me. Particularly as I have supported changes you have proposed in the past. Twice recently in fact, such as inclusion of religion in infoboxes for politicians and the background colour for 2PP columns in election polling tables being changed.The Tepes (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Religion in South Africa[edit]

Re your revert of my edits, please discuss if you disagree with my edits which I have explained in my edit summaries (you have not even explained your revert). That is what talk pages are for. HelenOnline 09:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have started a new talk page section here. HelenOnline 09:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion in the United States[edit]

There is substantial disagreement with your preference for the CIA Factbook numbers. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Independent Greeks[edit]

Hello Andreas,

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Independent Greeks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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. --RJFF (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell[edit]

I've started a discussion about that infobox, hours ago. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Social conservatism[edit]

You are edit warring at social conservatism. You need to respect WP:CONSENSUS. You must discuss controversial changes and gain consensus for them before they are made. Even if you think you have good reasons for the change, you must discuss it first. You claim that the Liberal party page says it is socially conservative: searching for "socially conservative" brings up one match, a "citation needed" claim. Searching "social conservatism" brings up one match, saying the party has social conservative elements. I do not see the evidence you are referring to. Regardless, you need to provide the sources directly, not just say vaguely "they're on that page somewhere". Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International recognition of the State of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]<br>[[Conservatism#Religious conservatism|Religious conservatism]]<br />[[Torah Judaism]])<br>[[Populism]]<ref>Dani Fic (2009) ''The Political Right in Israel: Different Faces of Jewish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Crikey poll[edit]

I'm a little baffled by this edit. Which poll are you referring to? The ref just takes me to the Poll Bludger, which doesn't conduct its own polls. Frickeg (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It calculates all the week's polls and calculates an average, and you will find it if you look on the side or if you open the detailed analysis. Look for it before you come here and question me. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If you're talking about BludgerTrack, that's a poll aggregate, not a poll, and not appropriate for the polls table. I have reverted - please gain consensus for this edit as it's far outside current practice. Frickeg (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe i'm actually agreeing with Andreas on something. Frickeg, see here. Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh, I had missed that somehow. I still disagree, but will take that disagreement to the appropriate place. Frickeg (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by area[edit]

I have re-added Cyprus to the List of countries and dependencies by area. I cannot see any reason for not including it. It has a ISO-3166-2 that we say it needs to be included and numbered. Additionally the wikipedia article about Cyprus clearly says it is a country. Please bring relevant discussion to the talk page on List of countries and dependencies by area. Additionally you say it is only recognized by Turkey but it is a member nation of both the UN and the EU. Seems like pretty board acceptance. XFEM Skier (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You changed the wrong one again. XFEM Skier (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting. XFEM Skier (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United States#National March[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#National March. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bronwyn Bishop, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —MelbourneStartalk 02:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

Hi Andreas11213. Next time could you please include a reference when adding new polls like these? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Copypasta my edit summary from Jamie Briggs[edit]

"oh my god. andreas, we've been through this before so you can't plead ignorance. stop uploading non-free photos of politicians, and moreover, put "add/change photo" in the edit summary or something. i've seen enough, i'm gonna go thru ALL his r-edits." Timeshift (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The 50th time... why?[edit]

My userpage indicates a decade of wikipedia, and that i'm a TAGGER OF FREE IMAGES. As far as the subject of Australian politics goes, I honestly reckon i've uploaded more politician images and applied more image tags than anyone else, except perhaps the much-missed ex-User:Adam Carr. Don't you think all that experience, together with my bountiful talk page archives, maybe, just maybe, indicates I know what the bloody hell i'm talking about? On the other hand, you don't even use talkpages, you just arrogantly revert both the content and many times a message left on your talkpage - after dozens of various editor attempts, ranging from suggestions to warnings, seriously, who does that? Doesn't dozens of warnings from many users obliterate away any belief you appear to have where you single-handedly know everything to the point where you're prepared to revert any article, article talk and/or user talk? Rudely reverting their words of advice/not responding, over and over, as if nobody else could possibly add anything significant or noteworthy, is a nasty wikipedia habit you've developed which requires change if you want to be a long-term editor. But more on that below. Now that i've got that off my chest (argh), why don't I start another pointless explanation that if history is anything to go by, will be ignored and/or reverted. Here goes, one last time (more on that below). Have you actually READ the copyright page? Is English your first language? Now, to demolish your false understanding of the page... and FOR ONCE, take someone's advice who clearly knows how things work!...:

"The contents of this website are protected by copyright law. Copyright in this material resides with the Commonwealth of Australia or various other rights holders, as indicated. Apart from any fair dealing or other statutory use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the terms and conditions of reuse of the material on this website are governed by the following: Commonwealth of Australia permission. You are free to use information available on the Department's website provided you comply with the Copyright Act 1968."

Demolition one - Living person images cannot be copyrighted regardless of provided fair-use, it's wikipedia image guidelines 101.

"Creative Commons (CC) Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Where identified by a CC logo, the material is licensed under CC."

Demolition two - you don't provide the links for your images, just the copyright URL. Before I searched for the URLs that the images are on, I bet myself dollars to donuts that there wasn't an accompanying CC logo. And guess what... THERE ISN'T!

Demolition three - IF A TAGGER OF FREE IMAGES WITH A DECADE OF SERVICE SAYS IT'S NON-FREE, THEY PROBABLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT NO, NOT EVEN A TALKPAGE CONTRIB. JUST STUBBORN MISINFORMED REVERTS BASED ON ZERO FACT. I'm going to re-add the acceptable photos now. If, somehow, despite the above, you still have an issue (and i'm sure you will *eye roll*), then discuss it. Lastly... read this entire post again. Then again. Then perhaps 10 more times. Keep going until you understand both this issue, and your personal issues. And hey, I know it's head against brick wall time, but if you still disagree, how about explaining why, like I have and often do with you? Rant over. It was a long time coming Andreas, you never listen or learn. If you're not willing to learn, then wikipedia is the wrong project for you. Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

SO... considering the vast number of times people including myself have tried to help you but to no effect, i've decided it's time to take a step up, permanently - i've listed your three unlawful pics at Images for Deletion (I think i'll just save time and skip the PROD step from now on). You've wasted the generous countless second chances from many editors so many times, to the point where change is required. From now on I will take more formal, unravelable actions with you. So now if you still think i'm wrong, finally you now have a path available to you, which will ensure the correct guidelines are upheld. This will force you to do one of two things: a) learn how to discuss on wikipedia, or alternatively, b) ignore this advice and lose the 3 IfD images. You'll have to choose between the two (ignoring it is choice b). Your choice will speak volumes, not the least of which it will define to both you and us what sort of future you want on wikipedia. I think that given the countless wasted second chances from many users, this method is the best way forward. After 50 times, if a person isn't listening, there's a reason. So enjoy IfD. Note: They don't take kindly to steamrolling tactics. But hey, as an apparent non-trolling genuine contributor who is just sure he is correct, you'll heartily welcome and embrace it, won't you Andreas? This should be interesting. Timeshift (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • HAHAHAHA WOW!! What do you do all day? Do you have a job? How do you have time to write this stuff?? I can't be bothered reading this; cool delete the images if you want seeing as you know everything!! Honestly your life actually sounds SO cool!!!!!! Andreas11213 (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion[edit]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 September 21 if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you.

Inclusion of Assistant Ministers in Infobox[edit]

It is not my decision that Assistant Ministers are not included in the Infobox, it is long standing consensus that Parliamentary Secretary positions are not to be listed in the infobox, as the Assistant Ministers in the Turnbull Ministry are simply title changes this rule continues. The reason Fiona Nash, Luke Hartsuyker, Stuart Robert etc have Assistant Ministries listed is they were junior ministers. If you want the Turnbull Assistant Ministers, and by extension part Parliamentary Secretaries included in infobox's you will need to take it to the Auspol talk page and convince others to change consensus. I'm not married to either side of the argument, I'm simply enforcing long standing agreement. I respect it as should you until it changes.The Tepes (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

North Sydney by-election, 2015‎‎[edit]

It could be argued it is "absolute nonsense" if the text said something like "these events marked the end of Malcolm Turnbull's honeymoon", but it is absolute fact that "some News Ltd journalists opined Malcolm Turnbull's honeymoon to be over" when it's backed up with News Ltd refs that opined Malcolm Turnbull's honeymoon to be over. Do you know the definition of opined? A honeymoon end can only ever be a subjective opinion, not an objective fact, which is why it's clearly stated that "some News Ltd journalists opined". The para does not argue the point, it simply indicates and provides the mainstream coverage in neutral wording. Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we up to 100 me, 0 you yet?[edit]

Polling at Next Australian federal election. Isn't it interesting that when it comes to me and you on this site, I happen to never have been wrong and you've been wrong each and every time? Statement of fact. Is that sending a message yet that maybe you should post on the talk page rather than edit war? I'd say maybe you should double-check your work first, but been there done that many times. Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Zika[edit]

Hi Andreas! It looks like you were around helping make the Ebola outbreak pages happen . . . we sure could use some help with Zika virus outbreak (2015–present), Zika fever and Zika virus, if you have any spare time, or know someone else who could help! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I know how difficult you find it[edit]

But just try learning for once. "There remains no consensus to have their ideology/position added. Andreas needs to realise he needs consensus to have them added, not removed. I fail to understand why Andreas still fails to understand such a simple concept despite his experience. Being able to be referenced does not automatically qualify something for inclusion, there are many aspects to inclusion, which based on his revert current edit summaries, Andreas still fails to understand. It means he will be given very little chance before disciplinary action should he decide to begin another pointless edit war." Is it too much to ask? Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Coincidence. Surely. Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Please do not make speculative edits as you did at Division of Paterson.[1][2] At the time that vote counting stopped last night, the seat had not been officially declared and Meryl Swanson did not have 50% of the primary vote. Names should not be changed until such time as that occurs, in any seat. Doing otherwise falls under WP:CRYSTAL. --AussieLegend () 05:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Liberal National Party reverts[edit]

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edits on Liberal National Party of Queensland. I expect this was due to the change to a dark blue colour, which I anticipated would be controversial. Unfortunately, your edit does not actually fix the change of template colour, if you revert the edit I made at Template:Liberal National Party of Queensland/meta/color, that should fix it for all pages. JackWilfred (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian party colours reverts[edit]

Hello, could I ask why you are reverting my edits to the Australian party colours templates? These are not changing many of the colours, but have in fact been done to keep these templates and the official party colour templates used on most pages the same colour. JackWilfred (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"No consensus" reverts[edit]

I find issue with your assertion that a consensus is needed to change the templates for party colours. I advise that you read WP:DRNC. No consensus is needed for such small changes, especially considering I am taking these colours from official party logos and branding for accuracy, and changing the templates for consistency, and there is no major disagreement beyond "no consensus" that would require a discussion and a consensus to be built. Furthermore, I have edited party colour templates for political parties around the world, and I have not yet been asked to seek consensus for changing them. JackWilfred (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)