User talk:Mdw0

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


Capitalization of titles[edit]

In response to your question about capitalization of Latin titles, I assume that the English rules apply, as the Romans had no lowercase letters and therefore no capitalization rules. The rule in English is that titles remain uncapitalized except when they're attached to a person's name (Barack Obama is a senator, so call him Senator Obama). You could do the same for Roman titles, but it seems that Romans are generally referred to just by their names ("Senator Cicero" sounds a bit superfluous, doesn't it?), except sometimes when referring to emperors. A. Parrot (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Friendly fire[edit]

None of the online sources make the claim about white flags on all the ships, but the unreliable source did. Either way, it is a rather "major" detail (if true), so I didn't want to be accused of sanitising what text was left by removing it immediately. I am currently working through some of the print sources that have been suggested, but there is only so much time in the day, and I have my honeymoon to get through next week, for one thing. Presumably if Jacob805 has actually read all the sources they listed, the {{fact}} tag woud have alerted them to the need to come up with another one in this instance. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian inventions[edit]

It is a nice article, indeed. I have nominated it to be featured on the Main Page as a DYK feature in the next week. For it to qualify, the one thing we need to clean up is the citation format. All of the citations have to be in proper format -- no bare url's. I'll continue to chip in where I can. 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for List of Australian inventions[edit]

Updated DYK query On 17 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Australian inventions, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian Inventions[edit]

I'm sorry, but your article on Australian Inventions is extremely false.

Some of the sources you provided don't mention the invention they're referencing and inventions claimed such as 'powered flight' and the 'refrigerator' are blatantly false. I suggest you make the list less ambiguous, i.e. make each invention very, very specific, because although a component of the fridge was invented by an Australian, the overall invention was not, or I will go through and remove them myself. Taifarious1 06:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the referencing is pretty good - if you have specific examples I'd love to see them. Regarding powered flight and the refrigerator, I think you might need to re-examine your pre-conceptions. Just because Hargrave didn't invent the fixed wing aeroplane doesnt mean what he created wasn't powered flight. Also, a large room that uses vapor compression to create ice inside is definitely refrigeration. Just because its not the device used to chill food in your kitchen doesnt mean its not a refrigerator. Your arguments are welcome, but I think you'll need to come up with something more concrete than your own idea of 'ambiguousness' which can be highly subjective. Mdw0 (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well going by that logic, New Zealand invented Nuclear Power, Nuclear weaponry, the Nuclear submarine because Earnest Rutherford split the atom. We laso invented the Trafalgar Class submarine and contrary to your claim that you invented the torpedo, false thanks to Hamilton's jet, the torpedo belongs to us. We also invented that egg beater so that must also mean we invented cake! Just because you invent something that has had a small bearing on later inventions, such as the Wright Brothers, who are the true pioneers of flight, doesn't mean you invented every subsequent achievement. Don't be naive. Taifarious1 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose its up to you to back up those claims, then, isnt it? Looking over the article again I'm comfortable with the claims - the article doesnt say Hargrave invented flight, or the aeroplane. The claim is for powered flight, which is fairly specific, as per your request. The Wright Brothers have the fame, but you'll find there are lots of claimants of various types of flight before them. There are many supporters of the Wright Brothers in these matters, but the other claimants have their supporters too. If you can find someone who invented powered flight before Hargrave, lets hear it. I'm more than happy to adjust the text if I'm proven to be wrong. And the refrigerator really is a refrigerator - what makes you think it isnt? Mdw0 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually you'd have trouble with the nuclear claims primarily because you'd need to argue Rutherford was technically a New Zealander and not an emigre when he split the atom. He may have been born in New Zealand and done his undergraduate schooling at Christchurch, but let's face it, once he started at Cambridge he never lived in NZ again. All of his inventive and theoretical work was done in England and Canada, well after he left. If Rutherford had been born in Sydney I'd never claim such overseas inventions to be Australian. Mdw0 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well in that case I suppose Heath Ledger wasn't really Australian because the vast majority of his films were American. That sort of logic is totally absurd. A person doesn't stop being a nationality because they live or work in another country. Taifarious1 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
What nationality Heath Ledger felt he was might be one thing, but no-one could claim the films were Australian. If someone emigrates for good and spends their entire adult lives away from New Zealand you'd have to make a case for their still being a New Zealander, but any work or discoveries they'd made in England while working in a team of English people and funded by English backers, would surely have to belong to England, not New Zealand. Mdw0 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah ha, because Macau stole the Sky Tower and made it slightly bigger so ours is now the pathetic version of theirs. And i'm not saying hos movies can claim to be Australian, i'm saying that since he lived almost his entire life in the US, couldn't, going by your logic, Americans claim him as their own. Taifarious1 01:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC) - And Oman isnt on there because it just seems like on of those places that you go to and someone detonated a bomb outside your hotel or something, stereotypical sure but not really a stretch of the imagination in this day and age. And the UAE is on there for 2 reasons, first, its a completely revolutionised country, tough on crime, big on investment, its like the Arab version of Singapore, the clean, safe part of the region, and secondly cause I had a friend that went there, said it was fantastic.
As I said the nationality of the person post-emigration may be debatable. I think Ledger bought a house in Sydney and came back often enough to qualify - someone like Rupert Murdoch you could say is now American. Reading over Rutherford's history I'd have to say he emigrated for good and wasn't a New Zealander by the time he'd split the atom and theorised neutrons. However, what I was saying is that you'd struggle to claim Rutherford's inventions or theories as New Zealander because he'd done all the work in England with an English team and English backing.
OK, Macao makes sense now - its a bit puerile and parochial but so are some of my motivations. But why is Mongolia no good while China is OK? You might want to watch out for the UAE - the terrorists really hate the moderate, open Muslims they see as collaborators, making Dubai a particular target. And if someone had a similar glowing revue of Oman, and their more welcoming attitude was publicised, might it come off the 'never' list? Never seems a bit extreme - you know what they say - never say never. You don't need to put all of Israel on the never list - I get sick of the militant Israeli attitude but I went to Jerusalem last year and it was absolutely magic. Mdw0 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why I don't like Mongolia, I remember years ago I saw this video of like these really poor people in Mongolia and I think that may have had something to so with it. And I didn't put Israel on there cause of all the conflict with Palestine etc. I put it on there cause of the Israeli-NZ spay scandal, the fact that they tried to spy on us made me really dislike the way they conduct their affairs. Same with France, sure it may be a really great place to visit, and I would love to go, cause I can speak French, but the Rainbow Warrior bombing really put me off, I mean, how many Americans do you see travelling to Afghanistan after 9/11?? Taifarious1 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I would never question why a New Zealander would have a problem with France. Still, maybe this should be a like/dont like list rather than a go/never go list. Sometimes contact means discussion and presentation of views, and in all these countries there are groups with differing views. A lot of French people have never heard of the Rainbow Warrior. The only contact they have with Australia and New Zealand is via the rugby teams. Mdw0 (talk)
Mmm. Yes, good idea. I also don't like their belief in their 'superior civilization' really urks me. But I like the fact that people can believe whatever they like, Not anyone's place to tell them that what they believe is wrong =] Taifarious1 02:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure it is - especially when no-one else has the nads to do it. Nothing wrong with a bit of dissention. Belief should be questioned - that's what makes it strong. Mdw0 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ha. Thats rather refreshing, But the French civilizations' belief in their culture resulted in the Vietnam war, as did America's belief in Democracy over communism, telling someone their beliefs are inferior is no way to win friends, and certainly not allies Taifarious1 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Would like to discuss the section I added (1966 - Advertising Agency [Strategic] Account Planning Role) which was removed twice, the second time for vandalism. This is a valid invention and there were reference links provided to other Wiki pages ( where the Australian invention of this is recorded ("In Australia the course of history was different. The inventor of the role in 1965 was David Brent, a senior researcher at Unilever who had served as a senior para-military police commander in a long, major counter-insurgency jungle war in Asia and in the national secret service followed by ad agency account service, creative writing and media management. These qualifications, skills and experiences led to the launch of the new role in a Sydney agency in 1966.") as well as to external web pages linked to from that article, such as which clearly describes the invention of this in Australia.

This invention would seem to be far better supported in the literature than some others that appear on the page.

Please let me know what specific issues there are with having this listed on this page. Stevenbrent (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This belongs on the talk page, not here, but in short - its not an invention. It can't be listed as an invention because its not technological in any way. Its a thought bubble. The entry describes the inventor rather than the invention. You can't seriously think every possible job description of every possible job is an invention. Did he invent advertising? No. A type of media that delivers advertising? No. The most generous I could possibly be might include an entry for a type of accounting called brand health, something so obscure it doesn't even warrant a Wikipedia article on its own merits, but he didn't even invent that. Giving a jargonistic name to a corporate lackey is not an invention. And also, given the obvious similarity in surnames, cheerleading a relative doesn't do much for your NPOV. I mistakenly labelled one entry as vandalism because I assumed that anything to do with 'David Brent' and advertising must be related to 'The Office,' but that appears to be an unfortunate surmise on my part. Mdw0 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the Wikipedia article I referenced above which specifically covers the Account Planning Role? Yes, an entire article on that. And it is that role that was the invention. And another non-technological invention listed - Australian Rules Football - also has its own article. Stevenbrent (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, every job description is not an invention. Also, you can't use other Wikipedia articles as references. But having looked at that article, there is nothing in there to say David Brent was the inventor of the process or even that it is a process, more a shift in thinking. If I shift my thinking from What am I going to have for breakfast today to What am I going to write today, that is not an invention, no matter how important the egotist might consider his own thinking to be. Like I said, its a thought bubble, not an invention.Mdw0 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Metal Storm[edit]

Yes I would, most 'modern' inventions were/are redesigns of previous concepts, a good example would be the Helicopter based on Da Vinci's Aerial Screw. But i would probably label it something like "Metal Storm stacked projectiles" but being sure to highlight that it is a modern technology on the concept of historical stacked projectiles. Its still an invention though.

Hope that helps =] Taifarious1 06:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Concept vs Conceptions[edit]

A lot of your argumentation was fallacious, using irrelevant (red-herring) argumentations. This isn't a big deal, but since you want to make it so:

As demonstrated by Anthony Eden, the correct usages of the terms:

Concept and conception are applied to mental formulations on a broad scale: You seem to have absolutely no concept of time. "Every succeeding scientific discovery makes greater nonsense of old-time conceptions of sovereignty" Anthony Eden.

In other words, the word "concept" can be plural, but tends to be used for referring to ideas that can be numbered and divided. When referring to an ovelapping and sum-total set of ideas, "conceptions" is the correct term: that is what it was invented for. Even the pronuncation of "conceptions of race" is different than "life begins at conception." Ironically, when referring to the fertilization of an egg, the word is rarely used in the plural. Context clues abound here, there should be no issue.Ryoung122 14:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of non-free images[edit]

I note that you have restored a number of non-free images, that were removed, to User:Mdw0/List of Indian Inventions Please note that non-free images are not permitted on user pages for any reason. Refer to WP:NFCC#9 and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions for more information. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your dilemma as I have had the problem myself. What I normally do is uncomment the images while I'm editing so the layout can be checked and then once I'm finished I comment them out again so they're not ever seen outside article namespace. If you want others to be able to view the proposed layout when you're not editing, there are a couple options open to you. Edit your page (User:Mdw0/List of Indian Inventions) and save it with the layout as desired. Then edit it again and comment out the images so they're not seen in your userspace. Then point everyone to the proposed layout rather than the current version. Alternatively, you can do the same thing to the article itself, as I've done as a demonstration. This is your proposed version while this is the article as it currently exists. Also, when you have been advised that you have done something wrong,[1][2] don't immediately revert to the version that is in breach of policy, as you did here. Play it safe, leave the page as is and discuss it first. Otherwise, you can end up in trouble, possibly even find yourself blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool - I'd thought about putting the alternate layout in the history of the article but didn't know how to link directly from the text. Mdw0 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it[edit]

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For productively working with others with civility and patience even in case of clear disagreement I award The Teamwork Barnstar to Mdw0 JSR 0562 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The month that you spent patiently has not gone unappreciated.

Personal Message[edit]

I am going to be out of major editing at least for a while so my plans for division of History of Science and Technology in India or splitting/expansion of List of Indian inventions are on hold. I may be around to make a few random edits but would prefer to be off Wiki till Feb end due to job commitments. I might take long to reply till then.

I have taken the liberty to copy/paste the barnstar to your userpage. I hope you don't mind and please take it down if you wish to.

Sincerely, JSR 0562 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Message from JSR[edit]

The education in India article, a top importance article under WP: India, has recently been rewritten by me. Though the rewrite is is no way complete I invite you to take a look and see, and if possible contribute. Sincerely, JSR 0562 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Put them back in any manner that you consider best. I noted some inconsistency while dealing with commas in different sources so thought would harmonize them later. Thanks for your efforts and many corrections in the article :) JSR 0562 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation in Place Names[edit]

I've had a look across Wikipedia including the Manual of Style and other places, including the Geographical Names Board of NSW and there is NOTHING to definitively say NO punctuation in place names. Only the bureaucratic Names Board advises to AVOID using diacritical marks in road names and seeks to eliminate posessives. Such marks - especially apostrophes where places names are named after people with O' at the front of their name - are used across the nation, and the argument is far from done regarding possessives. Even the most common elimination, that of the full stop after St for Saint, is only about 50-50 - check St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney. Its NOT a reason by itself to be renaming entire articles without consensus. Mdw0 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So what do you have a problem with exactly? J Bar (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It WAS you that renamed the St George Stadium article, right? And who remarked 'punctuation not used in place names'? Mdw0 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It was me that made that change. I make lots of edits every day to many articles, so I don't keep track of every edit, tha why I had to ask what you were refering to. The Geographical Names Board of NSW may be a bureaucracy to you but it is the OFFICIAL reference point for place names and that is what wikipedia editors are using as a reference for wikipedia articles. Recently in the UK, they have decided to follow the Australian initiative and will drop punctuation from place names too.
St George is a region and the place name is listed without punctuation. St George Stadium is named after the region and not a church, so it makes sense that it should not contain the punctuation too. In fact, that's the way it has been listed in other reference material such as Street Directories. It's no big deal anyway. If you feel that strongly about holding onto the antiquated punctuation marks, then move the article back to the old page. I don't see it as a major issue, especially since the stadium is now closed anyway. J Bar (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Bureaucracies are always official - thats what gives them their power. That dosent make them right. They follow the policies of a government or a high-ranking official, policies which can be changed. In this case they are going against common usage, so they've got an uphill battle, and for no reason that I can see other than they dont understand how to use punctuation correctly. I agree one full stop really isnt worth fussing sbout, but it was the attaching remaerk and in your replies that no puntuation at all is used in place names that needed correction. Not even the Geographical Names Board says that. Punctuation is most certainly used, especially apostrophes. Punctuation isnt any more antiquated than spelling. It indicates certain unspoken information that is important. And the stadium is most definitely still used - when I find out by which groups I'll edit the article. Mdw0 (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not a case of them not understanding how to use punctuation correctly. The decision was made to avoid mistakes that were constantly made in the past by everyone. The decision to drop punctuation happened in NSW over 30 years ago and has progressively been adopted across the rest of Australia. I don't think it's an uphill battle. There is no battle at all. Place names without punctuation is in common usage now because councils and government departments all follow the rules and you will struggle to find any new signage out there today that still uses it. As is the case with many things, there's people that don't like change and will fight anything. For example, we have had many people constantly changing the title of the suburb aticle in wikipedia from Brighton-Le-Sands to Brighton-le-Sands, because that's teh way tey remember it. Even though it was officially changed in 1970, people keep using old reference material to try and change it back to the old way with the lower case 'l'. The fact is, we need to follow some standard and the naming boards are the standard that is used. J Bar (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

cinema of India[edit]

I have just managed to put together a rewrite of the cinema of India article. You're invited to take a look :) JSR 0562 10:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That Barassi Line[edit]

My problem is with the straight line and specifically the bit that runs through Qld and NSW. The uninformed reader would deduce from the drawing that there is some part of Queensland where AFL is the dominant code. Is this your assertion ? And the uninformed reader would deduce from the drawing that in almost 1/2 of NSW, AFL is the dominant code ? Is this your assertion ? I am absolutely arguing the accuracy of the line and therefore the accuracy of the drawing. -Sticks66 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And since you ask I have a problem with the two sections of the article titled The Future and Current Situation which lack citations, lack logic and read like someone's opinion. But my comments on these are on the article talk page.-Sticks66 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


The difference between the Greek and Chinese models of flamethrowers is actually quite substantial. The Greeks used a metal furnace to provide the necessary heat for the oily mixture of Greek fire shot from a siphon attached to a single-piston bellows. This would produce a single spurt of flame on a periodic basis (i.e. each time the bellows were deflated). Instead of a furnace, the Chinese used an incendiary gunpowder fuse to light the flame shot out of a siphon attached to a double-piston bellows. Thus an upstroke was followed immediately by a downstroke, providing a continuous flame, and a function not apparent in the Greek model. Yes, both employed siphons, pistons, and an oily mixture. You could argue that a spurt of flame is still a flame, regardless of whether or not it fires in a continuous, non-stop stream. However, an even greater key difference between the two is that the Chinese invented a new gunpowder-activated weapon with a fuse, whereas the Greek model is representative of weaponry in Europe before the age of gunpowder. I think the passage at List of Chinese inventions should stress this fact just as much as the continuous stream of flame and double piston bellows.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The originality lies in the fact that the Chinese flamethrower is in fact a gunpowder weapon, while the Greek flamethrower is not. The delivery systems are completely different. I'll give you another example to make this point clearer. Ancient crossbows in China were used to shoot not only arrows with long wooden shafts, but also round metal bullets. Chinese crossbows even had hand-activated levers, much like the earliest forms of the matchlock rifle. Would you suggest that since the matchlock rifle—a gunpowder weapon—merely uses a gunpowder blast to fire off metal bullets instead of tension as seen in the crossbow, it should thus be considered only an adaptation of a crossbow?--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


I thought you were changing the effect of the statement to say that Caesar had achieved that which he had been described as threatening. On re-reading, I see that I had misinterpreted the previous text, which suggests that your copyedit was doubly justified. Mea Culpa. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


I am contacting you because you commented on this topic a while ago.

Following a recent RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Your vandalism of my comments[edit]

Stop hand.svg

Your recent edit to Talk:Fascism, modifying my comments, was deliberately unconstructive and has been reverted. If you persist in vandalizing Wikipedia, then you will be blocked from editing. —SlamDiego←T 02:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I admit my deletion of a stupid argument that contained vitriolic shots at me was deleted. I agree that vandalism should result in blocks. Guess what - I dont agree one is the other.Mdw0 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War[edit]

Is there some reason you've dated your {{fact}} tags July 2007? Bazj (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Copy and paste disease

Foundation of Republic[edit]

Hi there. On the reversion of my cites, fair enough. I tell people that all the time. It is in fact different. It does in fact need work. But, now that we're showing our poker hands, I am not in fact working on this article right now. Strictly speaking the cites belong in there; that's the policy, de jure. I'm not required to fix it just because I cite it. You invite me to do some work. I can't fault you for a technique I often use, inviting other people to do some work. I am putting the invitation on the back burner. I will have to get to it, the whole article, not just that. I suppose one might say Wikipedia often lies in court; in fact, I see many of these total lies and I can't see how anyone could take the place seriously. But, we owe someone, don't we? The public? So I defer this for now and I will let you get away with it. No need to reply; this is a courtesy. I will be taking you up on your invitation at some later date. Ciao.Dave (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Barassi line[edit]

Ah mate you obviously take it quite seriously but the bias I was referring to was the overall tone of the article not just the rugby league part which was quite negative. Here's an example: the Melbourne Storm won the comp in their second year (without cheating the salary cap like the Sydney Swans/Brisbane Lions) and have won it twice since whilst averaging crowds in excess of 13,000 which is better than many NRL clubs. Ps, don't start me on AFL crowds v NRL crowds. If that is your definition of struggling then you need a new marker. Adelaide too actually had decent crowds and left the comp because of other reasons all together.

BTW - most people in the ACT and South Western QLD do not have the slightest interest in AFL.

Babri Mosque Please Help[edit]

Thank you for making corrections this article. I wrote the architectural section of the article which I found vandalised. My article had been there for four years withouth change and had stood the test of time. But then somebody keeps removing paragraphs. Please keep an eye on this work. I have restored it to the point 22:43, 26 November 2009 which are the last of my three edits. I have also put back a photograph of the Mosque. I do not get involved in the politics of the dispute but as a architect I am only intrested in architecture of monuments. I would be very grateful if you can keep an eye on my article and revert to 22:43, 26 November 2009 which is the original for comparison. I originally wrote the article (architectural section) in 2006 and it keeps getting vandalised only in the past four days. Of Course I welcome and would be very happy if the section was improved by a fellow wikipedian with an interest in architecture of religious monument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Babri Mosque[edit]

Thanks - Somebody took away the Photograph of the Piller with the Hindu Motifs - i have replaced the photograph and restored the missing sections 00:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mallee Cliffs National Park[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Mallee Cliffs National Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JulieSpaulding (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mallee Cliffs National Park[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mallee Cliffs National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


While the article may require reductions in length. Do you really think you won't get blocked if you go about things in this way?- Wolfkeeper 03:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour[edit]

Thanks for asking. To answer your your query, the article is currently correct in saying that Sydney Harbour and Port Jackson are not the same thing. To say that they are the same thing is wrong. (Sorry for being blunt.) Port Jackson contains Sydney Harbour, Middle Harbour and North Harbour. Look at a map and you will see three arms to Port Jackson. Only the southernmost is Sydney Harbour. The article used to have authoritative references to back up what it contains. It look like someone has stripped them out. (Some people think all those essential numbers scattered about articles make them ugly, so they just delete them.) If you want to put the references back in, here they are: [3], [4]. The "Decription" field in each of these references answers the question "why"? Best wishes John Dalton (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mallee Cliffs National Park/GA1[edit]

Hi there. I've added a comment at this GA review. In my view, the article is too short, lacking in detail, and not correctly structured, and should probably not be passed at this stage. I've left a few more specific remarks at the review page. What happens next is up to the original reviewer, but thought I'd let you know. Despite all that, thanks for your contributions, esp. making your own map. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kamakura, Kanagawa[edit]

About your revert, I won't start an edit war, but I disagree with you. Your sentence doesn't imply submission. Mine did. And your sentence is not at all clear. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian culture - Sports, gambling and horse/greyhound racing[edit]

See Talk:Culture of Australia#Sports, gambling and horse/greyhound racing for comments/discussion on your recent reversion of my edit. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Chinese inventions[edit]

Hi, Apologies for reverting your edit but the current content looks fine (even if the article is too long). Philg88contact 23:53, 20 July 2016 UTC [refresh]

Edit Warring[edit]

I asked editors to provide sources for the claims in the article on American Imperialism. I gave clear reasons why the [citation needed] links have been added, and listed specific violations of V, NPOV and WP:WEASEL with the ideological use of words as currently found in article. Your response was to undo my edits here [5] & here [6]. First, both your edits removed my requests asking for a simple source to back up these claims, and were hence unjustified; second, the sections have no citations or those listed do not support the statements; third some of these claims concern "living persons"; fourth you've started edit warring WP:EW with your undo's. Please understand that verifying claims is not optional:

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question" & despite your incorrect claim "The sources of this statement are all the way through the rest of the article - does it really need to be captioned here?" [7], Wikipedia says: "This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons."

I have reverted your edit the 1st time "to enforce certain overriding policies", and this "is not considered edit warring" on my part because "on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required." Policy allows me to do it again, or simply remove the offending content. I cannot say the same for your insistence on making unverified claims. If you revert my request to have sources added again, I will contact administration for comment. You've ignored my comments on the talk page [8] & here [9]. Policy is clear: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."Ebanony (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, it may be a mistake to attempt to use logic against such an overblown accusation, but I'm certainly not scared of being proved wrong.
I have NEVER said citations are not needed or not important, and I agree that the 'lacking citations' banner here is appropriate. My deletion of the individual 'citation needed' notices is not saying that the citations arent needed. It was done because it is redundant to have the individual notices when there's a banner that covers the whole article. If there is a banner at the top of the page saying the whole article requires citations, then how is it relevant or sensible to also have individual citation needed notices all through the article? Answer - it ISNT relevant or sensible. Once the banner is there, that presupposes the need for citations all through the article. The removal of the individual citations is a natural extension of YOUR edit of the banner inclusion. You are now insisiting on having both the banner and the individual citation requests. Does that mean you want two citations for that line? Please choose between the banner and the citation needed entries on the lines - having both is not just overkill, its logically falacious. I've also NEVER insisted on making unverified claims. I just thought that the controversy was obvious and didnt need a source to say so - that the various opposing legitimate sources did this for themselves. However, that mental connection is a bit difficult for some, and insisting on a source saying the sky is blue is sometimes required, so when my assumption was challenged, I acquiesced. For now.
Since you like to link to the edit warring page so much, you might want to have a little perusal of that article yourself, especially the opening paragraph about what an edit war actually is. There needs to be repeated reversions, with a triple undo needed to be considered a problem. I reverted one of your deletions once, but following your reversion I didnt put it back in because I didnt have the time to go through the citations to find one that makes the declaration of a controversy that would satisfy you. As I said, I acquiesced for now. A single reversion on both sides is not an edit war by any means, but you can have an administrator verify that fact for you if you like. If you're so sensitive and precious that you want to call a single revert an edit war then I'd hate to see what you'd call a real meaty debate.
You also need to be careful about taking the 'instant removal policy for unsourced material about living persons' too far. You might want to investigate the difference between material that is a BLP - a biography of a living person, and material about the work of a living person because they're far from the same thing. When a writer or essayist or journalist writes something for the express purpose of disseminating an idea or opinion, then they are inviting it to be read and acted upon and commented on. Comments about that work does not have the same protection and duty of care as details about the individual's personal life. My position is that the material is this article is NOT a biography or biographical, it deals almost soley with poltical commentary, so the instant removal policy has no special merit over and above the normal Wikipedian's right to edit anything. Thats also something you could check with an administrator about.
Since you also seem to be making judgement regarding NPOV, you might want to check the NPOV page too. Just follow your own links. A page about power and politics that attracts different viewpoints cannot possibly be neutral in every sentence. What is required is that all significant views must be represented fairly. How do we know a viewpoint is significant? Answer - There are citations of significant adherants. When those citations are in the text and reference list, then it takes a lot more to stain an article as non-NPOV than you have presented. Your 'NPOV' section in the discussion complains about certain factual errors and a lack of citations, but there's no evidence of an article-wide bias. You also seem think that being named as a communist or left wing is necessarily bad, some sort of slur, as opposed to welcome and sensible and often also a declaration by the writer themselves. I agree that the listing of names should be deleted, not because its a shaming, but because it is more like a listing of cheerleaders. Your weasel word link also shows that 'controversy' is not a weasel word unless it gives a fringe viewpoint undue weight or lacks sufficient backup describing what the controversy is about. The backup in this article is extensive, and the viewponts range across the political spectrum. Again, check with an administrator if you like. Good luck with that.
However, despite your incorrect assumptions and accusations regarding mny edits, I have absolutely no problem with most of your other contributions whatsoever. My only small issue would be that you seem to be one of those people who wants citations for every single sentence in an article, rather than looking at a paragraph or a section as a whole. The sentence introducing the material in the paragraph and describing the debate, that you've deleted, is one of those I'd leave in. Rather than deleting it, just rewrite it without the 'should.'
Happy to discuss any of these issues. Mdw0 (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Babri Mosque[edit]


The Yahoo News reference you have cited [10] seems to be a dead link, so the issue of political rally/hindu extremist rally is not settled. On the other hand, the source I used (Mark Tully's article for BBC) clearly says that it was supposed to be a religious ceremony. (See para. 2: "...they had given a commitment...that it would only be... a religious ceremony"). Could you please provide a better source which confirms your wording? Otherwise I think we should go with what is said in the most reliable source we have.

Cheers, SPat talk 00:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you check the Tully article, he writes there was a commitment to the courts and government was that there was only to be a religious ceremony. Your edit says that this is what happened, but this did not happen, this was only what was promised beforehand. Tully then goes on to describe a political rally, with flags, colours and speeches, which developed into a riot that was at first resisted by police. This is what the Babri Mosque article describes - a rally and a riot. Trying to describe these actions as a religious ceremony could not use this article as a source.
If you wanted to add a detail about the promise of a religious ceremony then the line could read 'despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that they were planning a religious ceremony and the mosque would not be harmed.' but I would consider this excessive detail, making the paragraph less readable and inferior to what is there now. I was actually trying to use the Tully reference as the source for the reverted paragraph, but obviously messed it up. I'll fix it shortly. Mdw0 (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. My wording confused between what was planned and what actually happened. On a related note, is the lead line of Demolition of Babri Masjid good in this regard? Thanks, SPat talk 06:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think the article Demolition of Babri Masjid should be deleted because there is nothing here that isnt written in the Babri Mosque article. But in answer to your question - No, as we discussed, its not good in regards to the describing the event as a religious ceremony. Since most of the rest of the information in that article is a direct lift from the Babri Mosque artricle, a copy and paste of that section would probably be fine. Mdw0 (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative methods for selecting a president[edit]

Hi, I moved (i.e. didn't delete) this paragraph to the Republicanism in Australia article, because it really belongs there. While you're right that Wikipedia isn't paper, that doesn't mean information that should be in other articles should be repeated either. --LJ Holden 07:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Indian inventions and discoveries[edit]


You might remember me as user:JSR from two years ago. I am posting as an IP because I forgot my password. It has been too long since I voluntarily retired due to work pressure.

Recently there has been an endless title debate on this article. A "South Asia" title was proposed and even though consensus was not reached a List of South Asian inventions and discoveries article was forcibly bought into existence, drawing universal condemnation from all quarters of Wikipedia, and attracting the attention of this retired Wikipedian.

I have since then intervened to conclusively discredit the flawed "South Asia" hypothesis. The arguments have been well received. But I am not sure on how to act on the excellent advice given here on how to rid Wikipedia of this copy/paste article. Things are harder for me in the capacity of an IP who does not wish to open a new account all over again. If someone else could follow it up then it would be of timely help.

My other request to you is to participate in the move process on the page. Choose what you will but do participate, for your participation will help bring the title dispute to an end.

Good wishes, regards, thanks in advance, and apologies for burdening you with new and uninvited exertions, (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (formerly user:JSR)

Post Script

To be up to speed on the developments of the page:

Sock Puppet investigation[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the poorest investigation of potential sockpuppetry yet. This other fool cant even spell or punctuate correctly. I have one account and thats all. Mdw0 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You re-added material that is incorrect based on the same source the sock puppet used and that is a potentially a WP:BLP violation. I would have presumed an experienced editor is well aware of the problems with WP:BLP. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was reverting a line that said actions were accidental, which was contrary to the source, and I mentioned that in the notes. It was careless of me to revert the other bit as well without investigation. However, it was equally careless of you to infer that such a reversion meant I was some other user's sock puppet based on a single event without even bothering to ask me about it first. I'm an experienced enough editor to judge that one line mentioning the actions of 'an Australian pilot' is hardly a biography. Very little BLP rules apply here.Mdw0 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mdw0. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vote on article name[edit]

Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone signed your name[edit]

As of this revision someone put your sign in a 'Gordion knot vote' comment section. Please verify. --nafSadh did say 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mdw0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

UOJComm (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Henry V (play)[edit]

I have suggested on the article talk page that your pattern of edits seems to approach disruptive editing. You may wish to discuss the point there, rather than continuing to insert your uncited WP:NOR into the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is wrong. Mdw0 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Husayn Pasha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (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) 11:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Geography of Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Sydney (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) 14:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Tasmanian devil[edit]

Re this edit, marsupials are in fact mammals. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I stand corrected. But the reference cleary states the survey was of land predators. Mdw0 (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Friendly advise[edit]

Archive yer talk pages automatically with misbot, or do it manually, sometime within the next two years. Why I'm really here is to offer the thought that any wording you put on an edit summary should follow the talk page guidelines, and not get personal; as in what if the person who's material you are removing reads an edit summary, which says "the material is <insert inflamatory remark>?" They get upset. I know, I know, it's better than being ignored. So, happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 05:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that being not 100% perfect, I occasionally feel the need to give it to someone when I feel they deserve it. At least I understand that this behaviour must be curbed. But it is also 100% correct to say I hope the person who makes a bad edit reads my response. Any examples of truly personal responses I've made so I know what you're talking about? Mdw0 (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You are 100% correct about imperfection. And I'm glad you ask for an example. I know of no offended party, but because a harshly critical edit summary shows up on watch-lists (probably, automatically added to the original editor's watchlist) both the original editor and all the watchers including me (as well as the history page readers) might have to see it. Then, when I saw how similar our Wikipedia careers looked, I could not resist sharing the advise I give myself ala "to increase the odds that my edit is accepted, don't offend the original editor" :-)
But the part of your response ala "One should hope the original editor is informed about a bad edit", should apply only to vandalism. Else (assumming good faith on all parties including ourself) we follow the guideline—see the last bullet on Help:Edit_summary#How_to_summarise. I believe that an edit summary should avoid subjective judgments, because (1) judgments set a tone finality (whereas objective edit summaries invite discussion) and hence (2) harsh judgments necessarily set that discussion's tone to defiant. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 20:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think comments regarding a bad edit are OK. Otherwise, how is an editor to know why it has been rejected? I do assume good faith, but obviously good faith doesnt always translate into good edits. There is often a wide gap between intention and outcome. Some people aren't as skilled in the English language as they think they are, or they dont understand NPOV, or they have a deluded opinion of their own writing skills, or they are just wrong about something. I like to think my response to such edits is proportional. My first reaction is always to assume the editor is trying to make the article better, but if someone is arrogant or deluded they can expect a more abrupt judgement. I would expect nothing less in return. I should definity curb an inclination to go nuts when I make repeated edits of my own pet peeves across various articles of the same thing, such as fixing sentences cruelled by parentheses, or giving orders to readers to see this or to note that or not be confused by or to understand things. Mdw0 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha. Thanks for expl. that. To answer your question: "but how are they to know?", filter at that last part behind the dash in the external link I sent you about the particular details we can probably agree upon. — CpiralCpiral 03:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


The information your removed in this edit was partly restored. I apologise for the misleading edit summary I used when I did so, you were right in that there was duplicated info. Cheers.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion====Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mdw0 reported by User:SummerWithMorons (Result: ). Thank you.

November 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Space Shuttle. 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

History of rugby union[edit]

I'm not going to get into an edit war. But you reverted both the edits I reverted, but only referred to one in the edit summary. The home team is generally listed first (hence why I reverted that) -- this is a convention in most sports, not just rugby. The other reversion is more complicated. The Notable tours section is a bit dodgy as is, but if we keep adding everyone's favourite tours from the last 140 years of rugby, it'll get a bit out of hand. At the moment the Lion's tours that are in the list are pretty notable, firsts (1971 first victory in NZ, 1974 - invincible tour, 2001 - first Aust. victory in over a century). The 2009 tour isn't listed (even though South Africa hadn't won a tour in several decades), nor is the 1888 tour (the first ever). May be better to discuss this on the article talk page next time rather than having to do this, but my reverts weren't arbitrary. If you revert these edits back I won't edit war, however I'd like for you to start a discussion on the article talk page, especially regarding the England-Scotland thing - because I'd rather establish a consensus before altering that particular convention. -- Shudde talk 07:55, 26 December 2013 (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 List of Australian inventions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kernel (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) 08:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also aware...[edit]

you have a personal problem with Adam Smith's politics not his antiquity. That is a personal attack. Please can you refrain from such comments in future? Solomon7968 08:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? You'd call that a personal 'attack?' If so, its the mildest, weakest attack imaginable. Anyone who can't handle that sort of comment really ought to keep away from Wikipedia where much more meaty debates could inflict severe phsychological damage on such a person. Its more an observation than an 'attack'. I cannot promise to never make such a mild observation on the behaviour and viewpoint of a fellow editor in the future. I notice that the truth of the statement has not been questioned.Mdw0 (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember interacting with you in Wiki, so there is no chance that you can be aware of my problem(s). I am improving the references of the article and you came out of nowhere and singled out one of my (many) edits and reverted it. I have no idea of any background between Clive and Smith, but I am aware that a painful lot of such British Raj era biographies are full of junk material from the 1911 Britannica and/or the still earlier DNB. Your actions however contrary to development, sorry. As always discussing on talk page is pointless if only two editors are interested. Solomon7968 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I interpreted a political bias merely from the dismissive attitude to Adam Smith displayed in this one exchange of views. That may have been a step too far but I don't think I'm wrong, because you've consistantly referred to The Wealth of Nations as junk material. I don't mind people having a go at Adam Smith, politically or morally, but if you lead with a dismissive epithet you can't really complain when someone makes an observation on bias.
I changed only one of your one edits because that's the one I had a problem with - I dont understand the complaint there - Do you WANT me to delete the others too?
I understand that citing old sources can be problematic when the bias of that time is applied to a modern topic, but you cant possibly say that applies here because the reference is used to show the existance of a contemporary contrary argument. Its existance rather than its validity. And none of Wealth of Nations is quoted or even paraphrased.
So far you haven't presented one reason why this reference should be deleted. Its not a primary source, its not being used to further an outdated argument. Its only crime appears to be that because Smith is a famous, ruthless and often objectionable British writer and his name is included in a 'Raj era biography' then the reference must automatically be no good. If that's true, then there is a prevailing anti-Smith bias here. If its not true - then as I said, What's the problem? My actions aren't contrary to development as you claim, because I'm not the one trying to delete a relevant reference. And discussing on the talk page is not pointless at all, because sometimes consensus is reached, and even if it isn't, at least it becomes clear that editors are prepared to stand on their dig and not compromise. Mdw0 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Its only crime appears to be that because Smith is a famous, ruthless and often objectionable British writer and his name is included in a 'Raj era biography' then the reference must automatically be no good. Again I have absolutely no idea, what background you are referring to. I was researching for the article Rulers of India series and found none of the pages linked are sourced to modern works. So I tried to "fix" the more longer pages (Clive, Cornwallis etc.) by sourcing from the references cited by their respective modern ODNB bios. In case of Clive, not just Adam Smith, all of his major biographies (Malleson et al.) are junk, removing 250 year old sources is just part of the improvement process. Solomon7968 03:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So here you are admitting that you're biased against Adam Smith, but when I say you're biased against Adam Smith, that's a personal attack. And now you're saying you've deleted references on spec without even bothering to check what information is being sourced. I think its time to wrap this up. The Smith reference is appropriate and stays, especially since the only argument you've managed to present against its use is that all Adam Smith's writing is "junk." Mdw0 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Too much paranoid? Where in my last post I admitted to be biased against Adam Smith? Seriously please refrain from such ill-founded accusations in future. I am de-Watchlisting your talk now, no more interested here. Solomon7968 14:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
A simple fact: If you call someone's entire work 'junk' without even checking what the work says, then you're biased against them. Mdw0 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Outback gothic[edit]

Hi there. I see you recently reinstated a paragraph about Australian horror films. I can't recall the reason it was removed, but I acn see several reasons why that might have been the case. I'm raising it on the article talk page. You might want to engage there. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Australian rules football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby. 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) 08:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compulsory voting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandate. 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) 09:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1975 Australian constitutional crisis 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:
  • Representatives|House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate|Senate]], together with the [[Monarchy of Australia|King or Queen, represented by the [[Governor-General of Australia|Governor-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earthsea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Inglis (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) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"as well as"[edit]

FYI, WT:WikiProject Grammar#"as well as". --P64 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)