User talk:Supertask

Statute of Westminster

I'm addressing this here, rather than at Talk:Australia because this is a more appropriate place for this discussion.

I directed you to WP:DEADHORSE and quoted a specific section[1] to which you responded "Yes, I read that, it hasn't happened." It's an interesting statement to make because, like your arguments at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster, it ignores reality. Other than you and me, the only person to join in on the discussion was Gazzter and he made only one post, over 3 weeks ago. My only responses to you in those three weeks[2][3][4] have been as a result of your demands on my talk page. More than just the community losing interested, it was never interested to start with. So yes, it has happened. Accept it, drop the stick and back slowly away. This is my final word on the matter. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page.[5]

"WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in WP:DEADHORSE, ie:

“ If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing ”

As you are well aware, I posted that quote at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster[6] but, like every other response, you just ignore it, or misunderstand it, and come back with the same old arguments, just as you've done on my talk page. To be quite frank, it's more than just annoying and gives nobody any incentive to discuss things with you.

"If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation" - There is nothing in the template to state that the date is to be the date it was formally adopted. One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8] What you claimed is not true. Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 states the date of royal assent as 9 October 1942 and the date of commencement as 3 September 1939 so these are obviously the important dates. In the amendment that I made to Australia after you raised your concerns,[9] which you might note I explained by creating Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster[10] and which was not opposed by anyone else, I have clearly explained the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Act. There is therefore no reason for you to change anything as your apparent concerns are completely and accurately covered by what is written. I pointed this out at Talk:Australia back on 21 May 2008[11] and you haven't made any attempt to explain why what is written does not satisfy you. Instead you've just continued on about legal technicalities and how it was actually adopted on 9 October 1942, which is explained in the note any way, making it impossible to know exactly what would please you and what exactly you find wrong with the current article. Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.

All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits. Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely, then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8]

Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent which I wasn't, apart from that I still have questions that haven't been answered, the argument continues but you want to block me out.

AussieLegend: All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits.

There is no definition of a status quo in Wikipedia policy you just made it up. There is no consensus because no one has supported your point or mine and I have already said this. There is no policy on Wikipedia which says those defending the status quo get a boost of any kind.

AussieLegend: Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely

I wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed. You have not answered some of my points properly and are now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'. Your argument is not the default because it's the status quo, they are still equal, you only supporting yours openly and me only supporting mine openly.

AussieLegend: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing.

It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.

AussieLegend: Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.

What about this as a compromise: I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence so what if rather than saying: "- Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 (commenced 3 September 1939)" it said: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)"--Supertask (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered the Australian adoption acts official name is Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (emphasis mine).--Supertask (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way (it hasn't shown interest in showing your point of view either) and WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't. If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation because this is when it made its dent on history 9 October 1942.--Supertask (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page.[12]
• "WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in WP:DEADHORSE, ie:

“ If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing ”

AussieLegend: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8]

Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent which I wasn't, apart from that I still have questions that haven't been answered, the argument continues but you want to block me out.

AussieLegend: All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits.

There is no definition of a status quo in Wikipedia policy you just made it up. There is no consensus because no one has supported your point or mine and I have already said this. There is no policy on Wikipedia which says those defending the status quo get a boost of any kind.

AussieLegend: Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely

I wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed. You have not answered some of my points properly and are now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'. Your argument is not the default because it's the status quo, they are still equal, you only supporting yours openly and me only supporting mine openly.

AussieLegend: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing.

It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.

AussieLegend: Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.

What about this as a compromise: I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence so what if rather than saying: "- Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 (commenced 3 September 1939)" it said: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)"--Supertask (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically your saying you want to leave the discussion because it is your opinion that it has come to an end, but I can't change anything anyway because the community hasn't commented. When I said there is no Wikipedia definition of status quo I meant there is no policy on it - you are putting your argument on higher ground by saying that if the discussion stops (despite the fact your the one stopping it) your view automatically stays just because it is the status quo - you could have saved loads of time if you had only responded to me once, then flashed WP:DEADHORSE and said "actually I think the discussion has come to a natural end and you can't edit this article because my view is the current status quo" - show me anything like a WP:Status Quo and OK.

I thought the Australia act was more important because it's when the Statute of Westminster 1931 actually took effect, and it would allow the infobox to display both dates. My point on legal technicalities vs actual dates is that the actual date that act had an actual effect on Australia's independence can't have been your date because the act hadn't been invented then. In addition, even if beyond that you say they are equal dates, both being in the document of the act, then which one should be picked? Well the one which has a being on physical reality would be the one. The act that Australia used to ratify the Statute of Westminster, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is even Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (emphasis mine). You mentioned earlier that not showing the backdate would be excluding relevant information, so please accept my compromise which will show both dates: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)".--Supertask (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: "No, I'm saying the conversation did come to an end a long time ago. You just won't let it die until you want it to and keep insisting that I continue this pointless discussion. It's pointless because the concerns you raised in your edits back on 5 and 6 May were addressed in an edit made on 8 May, as I've already mentioned, and provided diffs for. You're arguing about something that was fixed for you a month ago. I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."

It's just your opinion it's ended, they weren't addressed on 8 May, just put at the bottom of the page, the date it actually happened it important enough to be in the infobox. Just putting "did" in italics still doesn't make it anymore your opinion.

AussieLegend: "I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."

Immature insults don't help a discussion.

AussieLegend: "You've only raised the Australia Act in the past day or so. Until now the thrust of your arguments has been about the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Australia Act is not relevant to the discussion that we've been having. Why the sudden change of tack?"

What?! I can't believe this, I told you its so that both dates can be displayed easily! I'm fine to have it list the date of the Statute of Westminster 1942 and the date it was adopted, but to have both our dates on it would need more space and so we could use the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 isn't relevant at all other than to display both dates and reach a compromise.

AussieLegend: "I'm really not interested in going over the same arguments over and over and over and over again."

No, you just want to back out without continuing the discussion because you can't be bothered to continue.

AussieLegend: "That information is already in the article. It has been there since 8 May 2008 in response to your concerns. I've told you that and provided diffs to it. I'm not sure that there is any more I can do to point it out to you."

The 9 October 1942 date is put at the bottom but it is not a side note it is the main date so this is not sufficient. In addition you misrepresented my argument at the bottom by saying "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 received royal assent on 9 October 1942" how many times do I have to say my argument for listing it with that date has nothing to do with royal assent? Even if royal assent was on a different day, I would still support the 9 October 1942 date because thats when it came into operation, thats when it actually started being enforced so that is when it affected Australia. Anyway basically the 9 October 1942 deserves to be in the infobox.

AussieLegend: "you've ignored my requests to explain what exactly you find wrong with it"

I noticed this but didn't bring it up because you haven't used it up until now, all you've been using is the 'ahhhh! stop pestering me with your discussion (but I still want to enforce my view)' argument so this is a new tactic.

AussieLegend: "I'm starting to think that you're arguing for arguments sake."

Yes, along with that I'm pestering, and that your really glad your not my mechanic, what more rhetorical gems of simple slander will you throw my way? I'm starting to think about what the next one will be.--Supertask (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: "This goes back to my statement about you ignoring reality. You keep saying that the discussion hasn't ended but if you didn't pester people to respond it would have ended a long time ago. The community has no interest in continuing so it did end, just as WP:DEADHORSE says. You just won't let it go."

The community hasn't shown interest in either of our views so there still on equal ground, again you still pass silly judgements "ignoring reality" yet I have responded to this before and you keep bringing it up so it seems to be you who is ignoring the reality that I have already responded to this.

AussieLegend: "There's only so much information that you can put in the infobox. That's why the statement is included as a note, which isn't just at the bottom of the page. It appears when you roll over the note tag in the infobox. There's no way anyone is going to agree to a whole sentence appearing in the infobox. That's not the way it's done. What has been added as a note is far more accurate and descriptive than just adding a date. It expands on what is in the infobox in such a way that nobody reading the article could misinterpret what is written."

The date the act was passed is important enough to be in the infobox. It's amazing you are telling me no one will agree to a whole sentence in the infobox - what do you think I was talking about when I said we needed to save space and proposed my compromise which would show both dates in minimal space?!

AussieLegend: "It's not an immature insult. It's an analogy based on the way you've handled this. You raised issues at the beginning of May and what you wanted included was added to the article soon after. Here you are harping on about it a month later with still no sign of accepting that what you wanted in the article was included so you've got nothing to complain about."

"I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic." is just a quip and doesn't help the discussion. You are constantly passing false judgments on me with these silly statements yet I have not done the same disservice to you.

AussieLegend: "The Australia Act is irrelevant to displaying the dates. That's already been done without any hint of the Australia Act."

But the actual date the act affected Australia is not displayed on the infobox.

AussieLegend: "No, we don't need any more space. That's why we use notes, references and wikilinks."

While I'm trying to reach a compromise you are declaring by fiat that the 3 September 1939 date is more important.

AussieLegend: "It's not a discussion when you're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything."

Because you suddenly pulled out I am trying to get you to answer some of my points and defend your point of view.

AussieLegend: "It isn't the main date. Previous editors of Australia obviously disagreed with you and so do I. We've been over this before. The Act backdated itself to have effect from 1939 so that is more important, regardless of whether or not you think it's a technicality."

We have 2 dates, I argue mine is the main date because it is when the act actually took effect on Australia, when Australia was allowed to fully self legislate (yes, it had legislated itself before but it didn't have the independence of the British government to do this fully without the possibility of intevention, so don't bring that up), I have elaborated on this point a lot earlier. You, however, are just declaring by fiat that your date is the main date, regardless of the fact the act confirming the Statute of Westminster 1931, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is: "Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942" and regardless of the fact that my date is the one when the act actually effected Australia, as explained earlier. Now you are using the strange tactic of calling on the support of the original editor who inserted that date, again it is part of your unfounded notion that the status quo is automatically a stronger argument than objections on Wikipedia and that objections must overcome this advantage. I have already said all this, so now who's "rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything".

AussieLegend: "I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month."

No they weren't, I am referring to your edit which put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom.

AussieLegend: "We're clearly getting nowhere so, unless you can come up with a much better suggestion and some new material there I don't intend continuing this."

Fine, but don't then have the arrogance to think you can ban me from editing that date.--Supertask (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end. You haven't justified your desired change so it will just have to stay out. The simple fact is that even the Act states that the beginning of the war is the important date, and it does so in its long title:

“ An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany ” — Long title, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is 3 September 1939. I've pointed this out previously. Don't say I didn't, as you are wont to do, because here are the diffs. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 may have come into operation on 9 October 1942, when it received Royal Assent, but it immediately caused the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted as from 3 September 1939. Whether you think that's a technicality is irrelevant. Australian law says that 3 September 1939 is the date and if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour."

The act also says it comes into operation 9 October 1942. So which is more important, adoption or operation? Well, as I've pointed out before, the date it actually came into effect would be. It is convention that acts have the date they started in their title, again: Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.

AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end."

Where I repeat stuff it is only because you haven't responded or have missed the point. For the record, you repeat stuff too.

AussieLegend: "if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour"

I wondered before what the next bit of simple, immature slander you'd throw would be, well here it is as predicted.

AussieLegend: "This is not the first time that you've claimed that I haven't said something that I have and you've done it even after I've provided diffs to the change. The edit where I "put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom" was here at 06:10, 8 May 2008 UTC. Your first complaint at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster was here at 00:23, 9 May 2008 UTC so the edits "were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia", 18 hours and 13 minutes before to be precise. It would be nice, just once, to see you actually acknowledge that you've made a mistake rather than ignore the fact that you did."

Your just using a simple mistake of mine to turn into as if I've been decietful all along, part of your false judgement thing earlier. I'd like you to show me the other times I've misrepresented you and these times I'm ignoring making a mistake. You have made mistakes before and I haven't passed judegement, such as this one "Because, by backdating the effective date of the Act the effective date that the Act came into operation became 3 September 1939. It's not rocket science." even though your own cite of the act itself says it came into operation on 9 October 1942, you choose to say that adoption makes the operation 3 September 1939.

AussieLegend: "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 makes it quite clear in both the long title and the preamble that it causes certain sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted from 3 September 1939"

This statement makes no sense in our universe, how can something in 1942 cause something to happen in 1939? Again a mistake you have made and I can't believe you fell into it because I've been pointing it out all along.

AussieLegend: "You know that because the evidence has been presented to you a number of times over the past month. Your interpretation that the date is 9 October 1942 is WP:OR"

You sure are good at flinging accusations, but here is a change of tactic WP:DEADHORSE stops working so now you switch to WP:OR? It's all in the act, the act gives a date, it actually came into effect on that date, therefore the act originated on that date, I've elaborated on this a lot earlier.

AussieLegend: "If you insist on changing the date of adoption to 9 October 1942 it will be reverted and an appropriate warning will be placed on your talk page. If you continue to change it the changes will be treated as vandalism, for that is what they are."

Back to threats now I see. Ones you can't carry out, either.--Supertask (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Australia, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. As we discussed over the period of a month, the appropriate Act is the Statute of Westminster, not the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act. There has been no consensus for your change. AussieLegend (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The original research ploy is a complete lie that you have only recently started using because it's a buzzword which labels a users contributions as bad, rightly so. Though I have never once resorted to my own hypothesis or evidence, only using the act and what it says and history to support my side. I have used the act itself as my source and you have no consensus either.--Supertask (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You've made your own conclusion which is different from what is actually written. That's WP:OR so it's not a lie. It has been the case all along but I haven't used it until now because I've been trying to get you to see reason by pointing out all of the flaws in your arguments. After a month of pointless discussion I see no problem pointing out what you should have realised from the beginning. I don't need consensus because I'm supporting what was in the article to begin with. You're seeking to change the article and you've been opposed so you need consensus. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability which states:

“ The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ”

I suppose now you'll tell me that WP:V doesn't apply. --AussieLegend (talk)

22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest I have done research just because I have reached a different conclusion to you, if you want to push this, you must show how my interpretation is original research and yours is not. You vaguely say that it's because I made my own conclusion different from what was actually written, the article mentions both the 3 September 1939 and the 9 October 1942 date so you must show specifically what part supports your argument but contradicts mine. You didn't do this and just threw an accusation out there as your argument so far has been dotted with useless slander, I guess I should expect it. The quote you have taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability was part of a greater statement about needing citation. It didn't say that information that had been there for a long time (the 3 September 1939 date) somehow needed less evidence than information trying to be introduced, the burden of proof was on whoever put in the 3 September 1939 date as well as on me.--Supertask (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please at least pretend to read Wikipedia policies before replying:

“ Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. ” — Wikipedia:No original research

Regarding the burden of proof and the 3 September 1939 date being there a long time:

“ Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. ” — Wikipedia:Consensus

and

“ Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it. ” — Wikipedia:Silence and consensus

On a slightly different matter, regarding the way you've been formatting dates. eg [[September 3|3 September]], I suggest you familiarise yourself with MOS:UNLINKYEARS. In short, you only need to type [[September 3]] or [[3 September]]. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend:

“ Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. ” — Wikipedia:No original research

Great, you quoted what I already read. I haven't done any of that. You are saying that simply because I disagree with your view it is my original research, you are putting your view as the standard and everything else is original research, but this isn't true and is simply arrogance. You haven't answered my question as to if this isn't just a tactic why didn't you mention it the moment I stated my views? I used the act itself, in your cite 11, to support my views.

AussieLegend:

“ Please at least pretend to read Wikipedia policies before replying: ”

I've read that before so please don't mangle normal Wikipedia policies to win an argument.

“ Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it. ” — Wikipedia:Silence and consensus

I am the voiced disagreement, this still doesn't say anything about edits that have been around for longer being more immune to criticism because there is no such policy. Your argument from there is no community support for my argument falls apart because there is no community support for yours either, anyway Gazzster has taken an interest.--Supertask (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Great, you quoted what I already read." - You may have read it but you clearly do not understand it. Your statement "I haven't done any of that" proves that. By deciding that the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster should be 9 October 1942, rather than 3 September 1939 as stated in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act you've done exactly that.

"You are saying that simply because I disagree with your view it is my original research" - No, I'm saying that because you are pushing a position that isn't supported, without citing anything that supports your position, you are engaging in WP:OR.

"you are putting your view as the standard " - My view is the standard because it's exactly what is stated in the Act(s).

"You haven't answered my question " - And yet again you accuse me of not doing something that I have done. This is really tiring. Please read this. You don't have to look far. It's only a few lines up on this very page. Granted, it was said yesterday but you should remember reading it.

"I used the act itself, in your cite 11, to support my views" - Yes, but there are two Acts involved and that refers to only one and it's not the one that really matters.

"this still doesn't say anything about edits that have been around for longer being more immune to criticism because there is no such policy." - Consider the time that the edit has been around and the number of people who have edited the page. Now compare that to your attempt. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people have edited or read the article and of all of them, only one person has opposed what is written. Your edit was immediately opposed.

"Your argument from there is no community support for my argument falls apart because there is no community support" - Clearly you have either not read the policies or not understood them. "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident" That edit has been around for a long time without change or opposition so there has been support for a long time.

One final thing, please do not quote so much. You only need to quote relevant portions of what you're replying to. Quoiting almost the whole lot makes your responses extremely difficult to follow. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

“ By deciding that the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster should be 9 October 1942, rather than 3 September 1939 as stated in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act you've done exactly that. ”

Massive hypocrisy occurs here. I have never said that the adoption date was 9 October 1942. It was you that made this mistake earlier and said the date of operation was 3 September 1939. I have not done original research and have unlike you stuck strictly to what the act says and that is that the date of adoption is 3 September 1939 and the date it came into operation is 9 October 1942 (and that is also the date it entered Australian law and actually started affecting Australia. It is actually you who is more slanted towards original research, but I will not accuse you of it because your not doing original research yet and again unlike you I'm reasonable enough not to try every underhand tactic to further my agenda.

AussieLegend:

“ I'm saying that because you are pushing a position that isn't supported, without citing anything that supports your position, you are engaging in WP:OR. ”

Obviously you have been ignoring the support I have been arguing for it this entire time. You have no evidence your position is any more supported than mine, just a supreme amount of arrogance.

AussieLegend:

“ My view is the standard because it's exactly what is stated in the Act(s). ”

Please answer this and don't ignore it: I have always only said what is in the act, 3 September 1939 is the date it was adopted, 9 October 1942 was the date it came into operation and the date it entered Australian law. However, you made a blunder and said that the fact it was adopted in 3 September 1939 meant it came into operation in 3 September 1939, showing that your 'I'm just doing what the act says' tactic is a sham. You have dumped all discussion and evidence and are shouting wild accusations. You still haven't answered this even though I have asked you to: why did you not originally call my views original research? More evidence this is just an underhand tactic.

AussieLegend:

“ Please read this. You don't have to look far. It's only a few lines up on this very page. Granted, it was said yesterday but you should remember reading it. ”

You still haven't answered my question: I have only said what the act said and that it came into Australian law on 9 October 1942. Other than that all I have said is the 9 October 1942 date is important enough to be in the infobox. If you can't point out which part of that is original research please cease you tiring smear campaign.

AussieLegend:

“ there are two Acts involved and that refers to only one and it's not the one that really matters. ”

lol, well the one you consider that "really mattered" was passed in 1931! Again an arrogant assertion with nothing to back it up. Also one that actually supports my view, it is just the 1942 act that says it was adopted in 1939, people actually acknowledged the application of the 1931 act on Australia in 1942.

AussieLegend:

“ Consider the time that the edit has been around and the number of people who have edited the page. Now compare that to your attempt. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people have edited or read the article and of all of them, only one person has opposed what is written. Your edit was immediately opposed. ”

It was immediately opposed by only one person. All over Wikipedia wrong edits are overlooked by thousands of people. Maybe they don't have time, more likely they don't look into it. It doesn't say anything about the 1939 date being a backdate in the infobox, many would have thought that was the date the act actually took effect.

AussieLegend:

“ you have either not read the policies or not understood them. "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident" That edit has been around for a long time without change or opposition so there has been support for a long time. ”

I have already said that I am the voiced opposition, you have ignored this.--Supertask (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible resolution on Australia infobox issues

I proposed a solution at my sandbox that I hope you will find acceptable. It Adds the Adoption act and uses both dates. -Rrius (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to own the talk page at Australia

Hi, I see that you've endured a certain aggressive stance by this user. You may be interested that this person has now removed my rejoinders to his postings, and refuses to reinstate them, thus destroying the thread for participants and newcomers. I have apologised to him for not knowing the recommendation against interpolating comments, and received an abusive note on my talk page from him (which I have removed) Talk:Australia#a_few_little_things.

Seems like an unpleasant atmosphere at that article, dominated by a single person who resents anyone who doesn't agree with him. Tony (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He sometimes used crude attacks and kept trying to avoid the issue - wikilawyering by wrongly applying a Wikipedia essay and policy and making up his own terms for the debate. With the help of others a compromise was eventually reached. I guess editors of the Australia article may simply have a hard time.--Supertask (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Gruffudd ap Llewellyn

I have reverted your changes (and to Wales) with a reliable reference from the most authoritative history of Wales. Please do not revert again unless you can provide a justification which is not simply "It's well known that...", as you stated before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional city-states in literature

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional city-states in literature, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional city-states in literature. Thank you. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ...

Hi there. Sorry I reverted your edit to the United Kingdom article without giving a reason - I've now reverted again but this time provided a reason! This may be an issue for talk but my view is that we have an article that outlines the steps that led to the formation of the United Kingdom which covers the Union of the Crowns. The Treaty of Union of 1706 agreed the details of the new state created in 1707 and the Acts of Union of 1707 brought this new state into being by ratifying the Treaty. The Union of the Crowns did not create a new state and need not have led to the creation of the United Kingdom - therefore, I do not think it can be included in the way you propose. Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the reply. At present, the infobox includes details about the Acts of Union of 1707 as well as the Act of Union of 1801, as I believe it should. The date of formation of the UK is something that is disputed between those who argue for 1707 and those who argue for 1801 - the easiest way for us to resolve this in the United Kingdom article is to include both. (Personally, I think that the fact that the original Treaty of Union referred throughout to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' does lend support to the view that though the original UK was formed in 1707 with it growing in 1801 and shrinking again in 1922!) Whatever our views on that point, if we agree that the Union of Crowns in 1603 was not the date of the formation of the UK, my view is that this means it should not be included in the infobox. Cheers for now. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point about 1801 and realise that there is evidence to back it. However, I'm afraid I do not see that the personal union of 1603 should be included because later political unions are. After 1603, England and Scotland remained separate states until the brief period of Cromwell's commonwealth after which the former situation was restored. Over the century up to 1706, attempts to bring about political union failed, so it was not the fact of the union of the crowns that led to political union rather than the political and economic conditions of 1706. Anyway, that's my view - you may wish to bring this to a wider audience by raising the issue on the UK talk page, though I doubt there will be concensus for change. Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Supertask. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)