User talk:HappyWaldo

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

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, HappyWaldo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

L Scott Pendlebury[edit]

I've just edited Andrew Pendlebury, an Australian musician, and notice there is an article on his actress sister, Anne Scott-Pendlebury, but nothing on their visual artist parents. His father, L Scott Pendlebury, seems to deserve an article but I'm very weak on Australian artist's biographies. He appears to have been an entrant for national art prizes including finalist for the Archibald Prize, winning the Wynne Prize (four times?) and the Dunlop Art Contest. Would you be willing to collaborate on such an article? If so, I'm about to incubate it at one of my sandboxes: here. If tempted, jump in whenever you like.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've started with some basic info. See how I go.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
L. Scott Pendlebury now ready and moved to mainspace.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar...[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Your work at Tasmanian Gothic has been excellent. Great work! Stalwart111 22:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Shrine of Remembrance[edit]

Hi, I understand we also have an image of it in the infobox, but we also have two images of the skyline in the article as well as the infobox. Plus, one is at night, the other is day, and it's not such a drastic change either and it highlights an important part of Melbourne's culture. Bibzy (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The skylines show different buildings, and some sections demand an image of the skyline. Different stuff can go in the culture section. If a building needs to be shown at day and night, it's in the building's article. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HappyWaldo. You have new messages at MikeLynch's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MikeLynch (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Popular sports in Australia[edit]

*babbles* If some one wants to nominate it for deletion under whatever criteria, that's fine with me on some level. The problem is the content organization is fundamentally non-neutral and an RfC on the article said the organization for Sport in Australia as it stands without those sections was acceptable. The sections for Popular sports in Australia tend to end up with lots of fanboyism promoting particular sports. (The historical version of Sport in Australia had the AFL section and the NRL section both saying there were the most popular code in the country. The current version forces a more fact based approach so this popularity argument could not be used.) As it kept getting put back in despite all these issues, I just content forked as the easiest solution to this problem. The information should not be Sport in Australia. --LauraHale (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with that problem. Popular sports is so completely subjective. I would have a hard time rating any sport other than swimming as a popular individual sport. But golf, tennis and motor racing are some of the big individual "money" sports despite low participation rates. Walking and yoga are listed as some of the top sporting activities in the country, but they almost certainly wouldn't go in the article despite that measure of popularity. The original article before the reformat had a section on I believe Underwater hockey. No way should underwater hockey be given equal weight to Australian rule football. Just annoying problematic, and most "Sport in COUNTRY" type articles should be rewritten to not include specific sections on sport. Beyond the NPOV weighting issues, they pretend that sports exist in complete isolation from each other when they do not. --LauraHale (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Um! HappyWaldo, this is bemused Amanda.
Your last edit comment on Culture of Australia is just a little odd. State funerals for Sportsman are just a wee bit uncommon; who but Bradman has received a State Funeral, in Australia?
And you are correct, the use of the term "Sir" does imply that he was knighted. He was knighted. Another honour rather rare among Australian sportsmen.
Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that the info was put back. I agree that such details are not essential in article. I was simply registering my surprise at your comment. Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Here's cheers! Amandajm (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please provide a summary for your edits. It is not too much to ask. That is what is expected from all editors. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Wills[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tom Wills you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Roisterer -- Roisterer (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Australian rules footballers and cricketers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Melbourne Football Club (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) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Block[edit]

My block had little to do with edit warring, it was to do with copyright images and sock puppetry. The edit warring may have been a contributing factor, but it wasn't the original reason. You are the one edit warring by clicking undo constantly, why are you so rigid with edits, particularly when they are constructive? Ashton 29 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Wills[edit]

The article Tom Wills you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Tom Wills for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Roisterer -- Roisterer (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: DYK QPQ[edit]

Hi HappyWaldo, you only have to review someone else's DYK after you've submitted 5 of them. See the eligibility criteria #5 :) Sam Walton (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Wills[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Montage[edit]

What on earth do you have against change? Is there an image so particularly unappealing that you cannot fathom seeing it used in the montage I replaced? I don't understand the rigidity. A lot of the images I chose were superior to the ones in the current one. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see you ignored me here about the exact same problem. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Whoops! Hadn't noticed the shenanigans going on. Just dropped in to fix a few links. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Have YOU learned anything?[edit]

Wikipedia is a collaborative website and there is always room for change. Whether the current montage "looks better" is subjective... if you think that cloudy, dull and low resolution images look better then fine. But your rigidity - this constant opposing of any type of change regarding images, is beyond frustrating. You ruin the editing experience for those who have innovative ideas and so on. As for notable buildings, what isn't notable about St Peters Anglican Church (one of the oldest churches in the town), or the Bridge Hotel (an iconic red brick structure)...or how about Craig's Hotel, perhaps one of the most distinctive Grand Hotel buildings in the Victoria... they aren't notable? Your definition of 'notable' must be quite skewed, then. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Iconic" and "notable" buildings have Wikipedia articles. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well no, not always. I still disagree. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yarra Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Argus (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) 08:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nicky Winmar 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:
  • |}
  • booksandartsdaily/basil-sellers-art-prize/5613874 Basil Sellers Art Prize: where sport meets art], ABC Radio National. Retrieved 4 August 2014.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Australia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • The Implementation Costs of the GST in Australia: Concepts, Preliminary Estimates and Implications [2000&#93; JlATax 23; (2000) 3(5) |journal=Journal of Australian Taxation 331|publisher=[[
  • <ref>[http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/discover-art/learn-more/australian-art/ Australian art], [[Art Gallery of New South Wales. Retrieved 27 August 2014.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance and diligence on the Melbourne page[edit]

Will move the update from Conde Nast to the Tourism in Australia page. Keep up the Melbourne-page monitoring :-) Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No[edit]

I'm not going to reopen a discussion on the talk page because its generally just you and your Wikipedia friends chiming in on a fruitless debate about irrelevant 'problems' that leads to nowhere constructive. The purpose of Wikipedia, or the illustration side of it, is not to remain in stasis but to evolve. That montage is boring, it's been there for more than two years. What about the remodelled montage doesn't contain significant buildings? Everyone of the photos contains a significant structure and that's why I carefully selected them. I said to myself, "right, I'm going to select only images of buildings that are significant to Melbourne and its history and if HappyWaldo rejects the edits, then he's looking for reasons beyond what he says to dislike it." So your objection really clarifies that you have personal problems with any type of change relating to that info box montage and I do not understand why. I've never had problems doing the Brisbane montage, people there have accepted my changes but your odd and seemingly relentless rigidity makes Wikipedia an uncomfortable place. This is not an attack nor is it an insult, but I really do dislike the fact that you oppose everything I do. It's quite unfair. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Live at the Royal Albert Hall. 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) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nick Cave[edit]

1) WP:NEUTRALITY is one of the rules of wikipedia. "Gothic" is one of the adjectives that critics have always used to describe Cave's music. There are WP:RELIABLE SOURCEs that support this information. If this information was edited out once again, an administrator would be contacted.

2) All the gothic artists dislike this label and it is not relevant to mention this in the body of an article. Had a style section existed in the bottom of the article, this might be added. You can use The Cure's article as a model.

2) WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is also a rule to follow. Nick Cave has never stated thaat he "detested" or hated or resented the gothic genre. He stated in 1982 that he "rejected the honory title of forefathers" to the goth scene. That what Smin magazine related in 1989. However, Cave helped spawn the goth scene as it was related many times. Wikipedia has to reflect all opinions from critics, however an article is a Hagiography. Woovee (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sidney Nolan[edit]

Although you claim "clear copyright violation" you are 100% incorrect.... and it is unclear HOW you reach this strangely blunt conclusion. The picture is in the Tate Gallery in London, and (as in most UK galleries) public photography is permitted subject to using no flash... What world do you live in ??--Stephencdickson (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Photography in the main galleries is allowed for personal, non-commercial purposes only. It is the visitor’s responsibility to ensure no copyright is infringed." - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ned Kelly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Carey. 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) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Ned Kelly Page[edit]

I notice that you have reverted the addition of photo's to the Ned Kelly page. Most of the photo's have been there for some time but in you latest slew of edits you have decidied to arbitrarily remove them with no justification. I also see that you have a history of this type of behaviour. I have simply put them back, and put them in a spot more relatable. For instance, the photos of amour, in the armour section. It's good for readers to be able to see actual photos of the armour, as no amount of text will ever be able to properly describe them. Also, relating to the photo of the person in armour, this was added some time ago for a reason. The reason being is that photo has been used by the popular media in the past, but they would say that it was Ned Kelly himself. This is obviously incorrect, and so it's good for Wikipedia to give the real situation. You are unaware of the history, and delete the images with no justification. I have also added photos of historical areas of interest as they appear today so that others who are interested in Kelly may seek to find them for themselves.

Now I know that you are not a fan of Trove, with your edit comment 'why is the Burra Record, an SA newspaper, singled out as a publisher of excerpts of Kelly's letter when numerous VIC and NSW papers got there first? this is the problem with using Trove', but I did not single out the Burra Record, someone else added the 'according to the 'Burra Record comment. (But I respected the changes) You then replaced that with just 'press', but did not provide any other citations. There was no reason to remove that section of test, and was in place because another editor found the original text confusing. By just deleting text with no justification, you are ruining the history.

Just show some respect, and leave the images in place. I may not agree with the images that you have added, especially since you have not provided any in text attribution, but I respect the changes you have made and would not engage in an edit war with you just because of my own subjective opinion. Unless the images breach copyright, you have no real justification other than 'your subjective opinion' to remove them. I think the more images that can be added to enhance the article the better.

DYK for Tom Wills portrait[edit]

Harrias talk 12:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Terrace[edit]

Why does the image have to depict a typical Melbourne terrace? Surely an unorthodox style is more noteworthy, especially when those Melbourne terraces in the image you favour could exist anywhere in Australia. The one I proposed is on the heritage register, surely that is something of note. Ashton 29 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You can't just remove an image because you don't agree with it. Ashton 29 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The section is about dwellings of Melbourne residents as a whole, so it makes sense to show the typical terrace. There are far grander and more "unorthodox" heritage-listed terrace houses in Melbourne than the one you're proposing, but those would also be a poor representation. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

University Match[edit]

I don't know, and I don't know how one could find out. I must admit that I thought that "never matriculating" just meant that he never completed his course, but checking in my dictionary I see that I was totally wrong about the meaning of "matriculate". That obviously makes it much more notable than I had thought, and if you want to restore it I won't object. JH (talk page) 10:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culture of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Kendall (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) 08:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Jock photo[edit]

Hi there, I did see that McHale image online, but couldn't find a date of original publication. If it was taken/published after 1946 it can't be on Commons, due to American copyright law not regarding it as public domain, but can be here, as long as it was taken before 1955. You'll need to add a licence to it, either way. Also, personally, I think most of the statue photos are very poor, due to the silhouette effect, I think the colour one is much better of Reynolds. The-Pope (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheila Chisholm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SBS (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) 08:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Wardill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everton (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) 08:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

William Delafield Cook (older)[edit]

Seems to have a few onbituaries http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=%22william+delafield%22+cook Paul foord (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince of Darkness (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) 09:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom Wills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Household name (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) 09:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Convicts in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hirst (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) 10:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realize that there was such a thing as reference overkill[edit]

Sorry, when I placed the citations in the statement in the garage rock section of the Punk rock article, I didn't realize that there could be such a thing as overkill of sources--I am not an expert on Wiki policy--I am mainly a writer and who is interested in music history (and I have done my homework--gathering those sources was a lot of work). I did so because I thought that some people would find the statement hard to believe, though it is factual. I felt that having as many references a possible would be best in that situation, but you are right that there were definitely too many--in retrospect I can see that you have a good point. However, there is now only one reference left, and that may not be enough: it may leave the statement vulnerable to those who are doubtful of its accuracy--sometimes it is necessary to show corroborating references to back up a true statement that people may have trouble with. Just because we cite one single writer who said a certain thing, doesn't necessarily make his/her statement true--it can be seen by some as merely an opinion. So, to establish factuality, other references sometimes need to be invoked. As you are aware, the topic of punk rock tends to be contentious (look at all of the edit wars at that site). So, this is the kind of statement needs corroboration in order to be accepted by readers as factual. I should, therefore, be able to reinstate, maybe, two or three of the other references that had been there, without going into overkill. That would be a fair request. I have often seen three or four references used in other articles, that were approved by master editors. Three or four would not be overkill, but necessary corroboration (and fair). I would be sure to avoid using references that appear later in the etymology section, to avoid redundancy. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you or your message on my talk page. I was wondering if could I reinstate a reference from one of Lester Bang's books, because he is one of the most famous rock critics and is widely read. His books are published by a major company, Anchor Books (a division of Random House). Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gts-tg (talkcontribs) 18:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gts-tg (talkcontribs) 19:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

Rather than just undoing my edits to the Melbourne Football Club page, have a look at the edits.

  • The previous edit made by me didn't change any information, it just added further clarification.
  • I accept what you say about it being the oldest football club, but it originally said it purported to be the oldest football club in the world, when it is known for fact that it is the oldest Australian Rules club, so that original edit was clarification to the use of purported. So you've contradicted yourself by originally saying the club purported to be the oldest football club, then go onto saying that they are in fact the oldest football club.
  • The wording of 'The club's origins can be traced to an 1858 letter in which Tom Wills, captain of the Victoria cricket team, calls for the formation of a "foot-ball club" with a "code of laws"' and 'An informal Melbourne team played that winter and was officially established in May 1859 when Wills and three other members codified "The Rules of the Melbourne Football Club"' suggests the codes were created twice and is worded as a reiteration, it's just been reworded to provide clarification.
  • The club was not established in 1859, it was established in 1858 (see the MFC talk page), so by saying the team was established after the informal team played gives the impression that was when the club was established, so formed is better wording.
  • Competition is spelt incorrectly.

So rather than edit warring (which you have received warnings for in the past) and deleting whole constructive edits, make small tweaks which are constructive (I accept what you say about the dash). Flickerd (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, Sheffield F.C. is in fact the oldest professional football club in the world, therefore, "oldest Australian rules football club" is necessary. A very small amount of people in the world are aware of Aussie Rules, so by saying it is the oldest professional football club in the world, means people who are unaware of the Sheffield fact and Aussie Rules and stumble across the page, would assume it is the oldest club across all codes which are known as football. So the clarification is needed. Flickerd (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick Cave[edit]

Both NME and Simon Reynolds are excellent sources, recognized as such by everyone. They are perfectly valid for an encyclopedia. Cave was a singer of Birthday Party, a band that music historian Simon Reynolds has qualified as "goth". Cave as the lead singer of the Bad Seeds has also been dubbed as gothic many times, by the NME and many others. Wikipedia is not a fansite when fans can reject things that they don't like. If perfectly valid points are reverted once again from this article, an administrator will be contacted right after. These 2 things have been reverted by an user who has clearly an issue with certain adjectives: an encyclopedia like wikipedia has to be wp:neutral and reproduces all the opinions from famous critics, regarding a subject. Woovee (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose this version:
  • Prior to this, he fronted the proto gothic band Birthday Party, which achieved renown as one of the most extreme and violent post punk groups of the early 80s.
That is a suggestion. In his book, Reynolds has opposed them to the Cure's mild version of Gothic gloom, saying that a song like "Zoo-music Girl" oscillates violently between devotion and devouring, sacred and profane. It is still better than Billboard's description in 2003.
The NME's quote is apt as it uses the gothic adjective positively, like Rolling Stone did it in their album guide. This nme's quote is good compared to Mojo's here for instance. Woovee (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Bauhaus, The Banshees, Killing Joke and TBP are all proto-goth according to Reynolds.
Historically, they are all only post-punk and they should only be referred under this genre. However, their music has got gothic overtones. Gothic is an excellent adjective and it has nothing to do with the goth genre that came a few years after. So for all these acts, one has to mention it in the lead as this is what is supported by many reliable sources.
So, concerning the sentence about TBP, the gothic adjective has to appear somewhere next to the post punk genre because they were also inspirational in the creation of the gothic rock genre that came a few years after their beginning. Woovee (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Back to basics and wp: STICKTOSOURCE. Simon Reynolds qualified them as proto-goth which means that their music had sometimes gothic aspects months/years before the emergence of that scene. No matter that they retrospectively despised that genre. You have to include the gothic adjective in the description of TBP while insisting they have to be considered as post-punk. Woovee (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree to compromise and I'm fine with what you said but let's go back to the initial version for TBP with the words "one of the most extreme and violent post punk bands of the early 1980s": it is more neutral [all these post-punk bands have inspired plenty of musicians from different genres]. I let you make the changes as you accept to put the NME quote. Woovee (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince of Darkness (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) 09:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rust belt[edit]

The term isn't confusing itself, but the article leads to Americas rust belt. For someone who doesn't know anything about the term, this may be misleading. 101.103.158.115 (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

ATTEMPT AT CONSENSUS on SYDNEY>ENTERTAINMENT[edit]

Dear HappyWaldo, considering that the lockout laws ARE now a major feature of the night-time ENTERTAINMENT situation in Sydney, since they entirely GOVERN *ALL* situations in which locals and internationals engage in entertainment in the traditional entertainment districts of Sydney, what is your proposal for at least MENTIONING the basics of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talkcontribs) 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you bother reading the discussion at Talk:Sydney you'll see that there are already proposals for handling the content. You just haven't bothered reading them and instead have concentrated on edit-warring. --AussieLegend () 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Wills[edit]

Do we really need to do this again? We have both previously agreed that Melb FC was established in 1858, and there is a court case ruling in favour of the club being established in 1858, not 1859, and the way that the Tom Wills page is written is that the club was established in 1859. I left it open to you to reword about the establishment of MFC because for whatever reason, it is near impossible to edit anything you've written without you reverting. There are references about the club being established in 1858 on their page. Remember in the past I recommended you make small tweaks rather than reverting, because the way I did the edit was left open to you re-writing it however you liked, but saying "The Melbourne Football Club officially came into being on 14 May 1859", suggests that was the day of their establishment. I don't care how you re-write it, but as it currently stands, it's incorrect. Like I said on the MFC talk page, the 1859 proceedings is up to interpretation, but people saying that's when the club was established is opinion, and I'll always refer back to that court case over the established year, it's a third party intervention without bias making a ruling that the club was established in 1858, therefore, all information on wikipedia must reflect that, and Tom Wills' page doesn't reflect that. Flickerd (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I will come back to this, I'm just dealing with something outside of Wikipedia at the moment, and I just need a break from any disputes. I didn't want to appear rude by not replying for a while, so I'll come back to this soon. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Melbourne". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Scorch (talk | ctrb) 04:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


Sport in Australia[edit]

Hi, just regrading your view on not having sections of individual sports on the Sport in Australia page, it's really the best model. For example there is a lot of information that doesn't belong in the history section, and the way the article is structured now. For example information like

On how Cricket is an important part of the Australian culture.
On how people think that playing England in Cricket is way of avenging past a perceived wrongs from the former imperial force.
On how Cricket is that important in Australian culture that it has been described in jest that the captain of the Australian Cricket team is the most important job in Australia after the Prime Minister.
A reflection of these Cricket community perceptions I just mentioned, three Australian cricket captains have been named as Australian of the Year; Allan Border in 1989, Mark Taylor in 1999 and Steve Waugh in 2004.
On how unlike other sports international Cricket is played all year round, not just a few yearly one off games.
On how the State of Origin series is even more popular, and is regarded with more importance than International Rugby league.
The Grade structure in sports in Australia.
On how to get drafted to the major sport leagues in the country.
On how the popularity for Basketball was very high in the 1990s, but in the last decade popularity for the national league has waned. And in recent years the league has come close to folding.
On how the NBL used to be played in the Australian Winter, but switched to be being played in the Summer so it didn't have to compete with the countries big Winter sports.
That Australia has been very successful in the Swimming at the Olympics, having won the second most amount of Gold medals and medals.
On how Australia have been very successful in Tennis sport, having the second most amount of Davis Cup wins, and being ranked second in coming Runner Up.
On how the Australian national Cricket team is the most popular national team.
On how the Heartland of Australian rules football is the State of Victoria.
On the biggest rivalries in the major sports.
On how Australian rules football is so popular in Victoria that the game has been described in Victoria as a Religion.
On how many players in the AFL have been drafted the unconventionally route through the Rookie Draft, and by playing in secondary level State leagues.
Naming the most notable and famous athletes in history in the major Australian sports.
On how at the start of every season the two Premiers of the National Rugby League & the Super League from the previous year play off in the World Club Challenge, to determine the World Champions.
On how the AFL Grand Final is arguably Australia's biggest sporting event.
On when the seasons are in which sports are played.
On what days of the week the major sports are played, and what days the biggest games are played.
And more.

These types of information don't belong in a History section, or any other of the sections on the page. Also just having the information that's in the history section now on the sports you have to read through the whole article to find all the information on one sport. This way all the information on every sport is in one place, it's more practicable. I think this is a better option.SportsEditor518 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Convicts in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Carey (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) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Renaming of categories[edit]

You can propose the renaming of categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.--Grahame (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon Blay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hangman (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) 11:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hobart Town chain gang.tif For services in recapturing missing convicts
Thanks for your work on List of convicts transported to Australia Kerry (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wake in Fright[edit]

Hi!

I don't think the refs do support it being "widely regarded as one of the greatest Australian films ever made". Certainly some people do, myself included. I'd prefer, "some critics regard it as...", but I leave the decision in your capable hands.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melbourne Football Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jerry Bryant (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) 11:07, 17 November 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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

'== Garage rock article just went GA! ==

I've been working on a big expansion of the garage rock article, and I have some good news. It just went GA! I think you'll particularly like the new section on Australian 60s bands in the article. Enjoy! Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Haitian Revolution[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 are 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. Caballero//Historiador 00:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the hurry? What makes you think I will abandon this article or the discussion? Moreover, I have clearly explained to you the use of the term "slave revolt." Please, bring that back to the text that conforms more closely to the scholarship. I will resume the discussion soon, at the most convenient time. Thanks. Caballero//Historiador 04:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the changes, but you are welcome to stay focus on the discussion. Do, please, follow the link above for a follow up. Caballero//Historiador 23:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rasputin[edit]

Mr. Waldo, you don´t have a profile, which is suspicious. If you have special knowledge or capabilities you are welcome, but I am not impressed with what you did. Any kid can delete. Besides you seem to get involved in edit-wars regularly. The lay-out of Wikipedia is bad, pictures differ in size and the sentences are too long for easy reading. All the rules that existed in printing for ages are gone, since internet came up. Please mind your own business, Australian sportsman/criminals/rock stars. I would not dare to change something on a subject I have no knowledge of. One of the reasons Wikipedia will not survive, looses confidence. Regards,Taksen (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Melbourne hatnote[edit]

Since you reverted the addition previously,[1] Could you please comment at Talk:Melbourne#Intro line? --AussieLegend () 17:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Melbourne governance...[edit]

The Parliament House is the only building mentioned but the section does make note of Melbourne's 26 cities, of which the City of Port Phillip is included, thus the South Melb Town Hall is pretty relevant as far as illustration goes. Architecturally and aesthetically, it's a great representation, and I'd argue a little bit more notable than the current building at least as far as grandeur goes. Just a suggestion... 58.166.244.49 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"I'd argue a little bit more notable than the current building at least as far as grandeur goes" irrelevant. Parliament House is a better known landmark regardless and is Melbourne's most important government building. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)