User talk:WWGB/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LRB refs needed[edit]

I'm still wading through the article, my focus is on their general history at the moment. However, could I get your help finding better sources for:

  1. "They have sold more than 25 million records" (total was last updated in 2007): The onlymelbourne ref is not reliable for charting or sales data.
  2. ""Reminiscing", written by Goble, was recognised by BMI as one of the most frequently played songs in the history of American radio, with more than five million plays. "Lady" has also accumulated more than three million plays. Goble is the only Australian songwriter ever to win a Five Million Air award from BMI.": O'Connor ref is not reliable for air play data.

If we can't get an RS for either of these then they should be removed from the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaidar cuebiyar: I have tagged most of these with reliable sources. The problem is Reminiscing's Five Million-Air Award, which is mainly sourced to Goble's website (a primary source?) I'll keep looking ... WWGB (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see you're doing well – thanks for those. I'm muddling through the late 70s stuff.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Take It Easy on Me"[edit]

LRB were already in conflict with Birtles, Goble and Shorrock not getting along too well over "Cool Change" and "Reminiscing": read Kruger, here. Their internal politics is convoluted and difficult to simplify for clarity and concision. Much of what you say about "Take It Easy on Me" corroborates the turmoil extant between various members. I suggest putting a brief note in the main article, more in the album's article and the quote you've found in the single's article.

Currently I'm up to We Two Pty Ltd of 1987: which I believe to be the kernel of the future legal, media and emotional battles. I hope to maintain a neutral tone and present the various sides of the issues in an even-handed manner.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

  1. Aren't the RIAA Awards already in LRB's discography as certifications?
  2. Do you know anything about the BMI Awards? See here, they have ten songs awarded there but I can't see when or in what categories. Are these the same as the air play awards?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaidar cuebiyar:

  1. Fair enough, I will remove the table and just add a hatnote.
  2. I have never found a comprehensive list of BMI Awards, including Million-Air Awards. They seem to be scattered throughout BMI news items. For example, here is a reference to the Three Million-Air Award for "Lady". May have to rely on secondary sources, where they exist.
  3. Is it worth including that "Lonesome Loser" was nominated for a Grammy? WWGB (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yes, put it in a table with the other awards. I remember seeing that but then I got distracted elsewhere.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More charting?[edit]

I've expanded the related discography article. Some of the additional charting (Europe & NZ) may be notable enough for the main article but I'll leave that for you to decide. I'm moving on.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in October 2012[edit]

Per this edit, I'm having trouble figuring out why you removed the cause of death and removed the {{cite news}} template. Your edit summary was not sufficient. Jolly Ω Janner

@Jolly Janner: I restored the cite but not the cause of death: "natural causes" is not a specific cause of death like heart attack, stroke etc. WWGB (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair enough reasoning, but we should probably have a way to inform readers or (more importantly) editors about this. Would save people such as yourself a lot of time cleaning up after other people's mistakes. It definitely wasn't obvious to me. Jolly Ω Janner 10:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trax[edit]

I don't want to get into any edit war. I wrote the original article, but upon your edit decided that where the model is made is important and moved it to the lead paragraph. Where models is made IS important (e.g. they are not made in Australia ! ).--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And additionally, I did not remove informative material from the body of the article. I reorganized it. The only bit leftover stated that the models were "detailed" which is covered later anyway.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I see you started the article, though I think I have more edit space on it. I apologize.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "Edits by User" tool says I've written 71 % of the Trax article.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gursewak Singh[edit]

Gursewak Singh is a martyr in India's fight against terrorism. He lost his life battling against terror attack on India's air force base at Pathankot near India-Pakistan Border. He really deserves an article on Wikipedia. Atrebute PokeFan (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He took a bullet doing his job. That is neither martyrdom nor notable. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of rollback[edit]

Hi there and thanks for reverting a recent series of my edits, which I know might have looked odd. But I think that mass undoing of edits (with sensible edit summaries), by using rollback and without giving an edit summary is odder still. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I flagged the first two reversals of Peter Austin as inappropriate,[1] [2] after that I figured the point had been made that you were making unwarranted edits. You need to move a page before you start making redirects. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, not moving the page first was a bit inappropriate of me. But still, I think it was clear that this was going to happen. I don't really know what the point was of reverting it all. What I object to (and that's why I'm wasting your time with it) is the unquestioning assumption that editors are being pointlessly silly. Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I'm wondering whether pre-emptively disambiguating a link even without the intention of moving the target is a bad idea after all. Especially for common names. Why should this be a bad idea? Why should it be "inappropriate" to make sure there are fewer wrong links or links to disambiguation pages in the future? Sorry if there are guidelines about that – I haven't come across them yet. Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing answered SPERs[edit]

Hey there, saw you removed many answered SPERs from Talk:Deaths in 2016. Can I ask why? I understand there are quite a few, but butchering the talk page history seems inappropriate. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threads are archived after one month, so there is no need to delete the entries. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Allthefoxes:. Before I address your specific concern, let me make a couple of comments. First, I am well aware of the archiving process, having edited Wikipedia for almost 10 years. Second, if you plan to work collaboratively with other editors, it is not helpful to accuse them of "butchering" a page. I take exception to your use of that term to describe my actions.
With regards to removing completed edit requests, there are precedents for such actions. At Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: Revision history you will see that editor requests are routinely removed once the issue has been addressed. I see no benefit to the project to maintain an edit request when it has been addressed and resolved satisfactorily. Regards, WWGB (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A pages talk page is not the same as an administrative noticeboard. In general, talk pages should not be deleted, but archived ala WP:TALKCOND. SPERs are still discussions, and they should be preserved. Declined requests are still valuable for those who might be interested in making the request valid, and again, they are still a discussion. I apologize if I was rude. --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Leadon[edit]

If he was only a guest, how do you explain his page stating he's a founding member ? The Eagles page also list him as a founder. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Founding member yes. Current member no. No evidence that the Eagles consider him a current member. Randy Meisner is also correctly described as a founding member, but is not a current member. WWGB (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit to Hajnal Ban[edit]

Hello, I have a question about the change you reverted on Hajnal Ban. The article title has "cms", which should be "cm". I have been fixing incorrect SI notations (kms, k.m., kgs, cms, etc.) on many pages, but in this case I added the [sic] notation because I did not believe it was appropriate to fix the typo, since it is the title of an article. After reviewing MOS:QUOTE, it seems it would be appropriate to simply fix that typo without using [sic]. Which approach would you recommend? Thanks! Just a guy from the KP (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anything must be added, I much prefer changing the title to "cm" rather than adding "sic". Really, I think the "error" is so minor that correcting it seems a little pedantic. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles (band)[edit]

I have reverted the edit on the Eagles article because it is not an official announcement. We should not make a definitive statement other than what is said, which is basically just an opinion (I don't think...) expressed on the day in an interview, and may well change on a different day. Hzh (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Agreed, good call. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are treading on a sensitive subject[edit]

There are several places in Wikipedia about China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan/Archive_23#.22sovereign_state.22 is one. The dead were from the People's Republic of China, hence the flag. However, the word "China" is in dispute because the People's Republic of China has had a decades long crusade to rid the internet of the Republic of China and wants to call them Taiwan.

It is not my fight but I simply want to be a good and neutral Wikipedian and not a stooge of either government. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is called China. That's good enough for me. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinese_civilization/DiscussRM

Also see the top of the China article. It says for the Republic of China, see... Again, this is not my battle, but I merely know that it is contentious. Whiskeymouth (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting that material twice in a short period of time, you appear to have breached the 1RR sanction that applies to that article. You may want to reconsider ... WWGB (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Selim Mehajer[edit]

Selim Mehajer is extremely notable. He's the deputy Mayor of one of the fastest growing LGAs in Sydney, gained national notoriety for his lavish wedding and appearing on television with a pitch to become PM, is currently under investigation by the Australian Federal Police because it is alleged that he committed electoral fraud. He is widely reported by reputable and mainstream news media within Australia, once was accused of threatening the father of one of the Sydney siege victims, was in the news for appearing in court over three seperate matters over the course of three weeks and there have been allegations of corrupt behaviour. What's not notable about that? - Letsbefiends (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel you have misapplied that speedy deletion tag. It is very clear that any concerns about notability are contested, given I explained myself already on the talk page. I woudn't be adverse to you taking it to AFD, but I think you'd have a hard time justifying deleting this on CSD notability grounds. Besides which, you can see I'm editing the article - I only stepped away from my computer for 10 minutes to take my kids to school, continued editing and then you had added a speedy deletion nomination!
I mean, did you even do a cursory Google search for this guy? I mean, I sure hope you weren't basing your judgement on WP:ARTN... Under the guidelines for notability I note that it's inappropriate to have too much information about Salim on the Auburn City Council article as he would take up an undue amount of space just to cover the things he has done, and would entirely unbalance the it. So he needs an article that provides further context about his life and deeds. He is mentioned extensively in very reputable Australian news sources, multiple times for multiple issues, with some issues some more serious than others.
Which all goes to show that Salim Mehajer has had significant coverage in reliable sources of information which are independent of Salim or anyone directly associated with him. Of course, the presumption will fall apart if there is no substance and he is a temporary Australian phenomenon, like an Australian Idol winner - but the fact is he's not an example of this, he was a high-ranking elected representative who became deputy Mayor of the City of Auburn who is facing serious allegations of electoral fraud, bullying, conflict of interest and even credible allegations of corruption! Aside from the fact that he appeared on national television to pitch becoming the Prime Minister of Australia, had an extravagant wedding that was widely reported across all Australian media, and is very much considered a notorious figure to most Australians. - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Please don't setup the redirect to Salim Mehajer to Auburn City Council#History, because good practice is to point spelling redirects to the most specific article available at the time of redirection. Your speedy deletion is being contested so until the article is deleted, there is no point redirecting that article to the Auburn City Council history section. Thanks. - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page - Selim Mehajer. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show where the consensus was gathered[edit]

... before you start reverting. Tony (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you've belligerently reverted them ... you must be the owner then? WHERE IS THE CONSENSUS for what I suspect is your home-grown preference?? Tony (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been an established guideline for more than a decade, as you full well know. Quit shit-stirring or at least don't act shocked when you're reverted for brazenly trying to get around a tens-of-thousands-of-articles-convention for kicks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts[edit]

Hi WWGB, I really appreciate you copyediting but I think we are stepping on each other's toes. I'm currently editing the page, and unable to properly contribute if you continue to edit whilst I am updating the information.

Would it be possible to allow me to edit for a bit and later on do your copy-editing?

Also, a few requests: when you have done some edits you have referred to as copyedits, you seem to have removed specific and pertinent information from the article. It doesn't really make it flow any better to remove things like the fact that an accident happened on the crest of The Boulevarde as this gives context to where the issue occured, and to say it was a "traffic collision" is inaccurate as there was no traffic. It's also not necessary to change it to "hit", but instead it is best to call it "run over" because that's what happened and what was reported in the press. [3]

Could I also suggest that whilst I really appreciate you adding that infobox [4], it's really presenting your POV when you imply that he is solely known for a "lavish wedding".

Furthermore, the following edit summary is incorrect - you cannot say that his insurance company came up with settlement, only that they paid it out! [5]

Unfortunately because of the wide number of edits you are doing I'm finding it hard to add any material. I realise you have the article on your watch list, but given that you have submitted it for deletion twice already, accused me of deliberately editing the article with the wrong spelling, put an NPOV notice on the article even though it wasn't necessary, and seem to make edits very shortly after I update the article I would like to request that you might take a step back from this article so that other people can be given a fair go at updating it.

That said, thank you for edits but I would really like to have an opportunity to contribute to the article. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will pause my edits for a few hours. After that, if you want a little peace, I suggest you add {{undersonstruction}} on top of the article while you are actively editing. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I appreciate it. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anka Lambreva[edit]

This page you prodded for deletion appears likely to be a hoax as Harriet Quimby appears to be the "first woman in the world to fly a plane over the English Channel", not Lambreva. 220 of Borg 10:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

Please read it. Next time, you'll be at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTH are you on about? It is shorthand for adding the title that you constantly omit. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is! Nice try. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Deaths in June 2013. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:User:Lugnuts|User:Lugnuts]] ([[User talk:User:Lugnuts|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User:Lugnuts|contribs]])

Yeah, right. So sensitive but you can write condescending crap like [6] and [7], which is solely intended to demean other, more conscientious editors. Shame on you. I know you can write a correct reference, I have seen you do it in cricket biographies. You are apparently too lazy, arrogant or unco-operative to do it properly in other places. How about losing the chip on your shoulder and trying instead to work collaboratively? WWGB (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have WP:OWN issues, so keep up the crying act. You can thank me later for adding all the missing people to your lists. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KMA, Stungul [8] [9]. WWGB (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means, but it's probably another lame personal attack from yourself. Shame you can't converse like an adult. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meow. WWGB (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct title of an article I hope is deleted"[edit]

Thanks for that unhelpful and unconstructive edit summary. I have moved to mainspace, please feel free to try and get it deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sheree Beasley 25th anniversary[edit]

The 25th anniversary of the Murder of Sheree Beasley is less than two weeks away. The Herald Sun has said it will devote extensive coverage and The Age is expected to follow suit. I'm looking for someone to give Beasley's wikipedia article some love and care. Can you be that person?

Evidence for Jakarta Intercultural School[edit]

Hi! About this edit

The school is jointly sponsored by the Australian Embassy and other embassies. I also included schools that are/were sponsored by Australian embassies.

BTW International School of Beijing was jointly sponsored by the Australian embassy (among others) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overseen by Australian embassy is quite different to being an Australian international school. Aust schools teach the Aust curriculum. JIS does not. WWGB (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing twas that the Beijing School was partly formed by a merger by the American Embassy School and the Australian and other embassy schools too, so at one time the Australians did have a school directly operated by their embassy. I am not sure what the name of that school was... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sizwe Mashinini[edit]

Hello WWGB, I have nominated Sizwe Mashinini for speedy deletion per WP:A7. I recommend you use speedy deletion tag next time since this article was recently created. Your tag is still on the article, so I recommend you add again if speedy deletion fails which I'm very confident it won't. Thank You & Happy Editing! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Slice[edit]

It does sound a bit weird, but this paper won twelve Pulitzers. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:54, July 5, 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fired vs Shot[edit]

Re: this, I'm not sure there's any objective way in which "shot" is the "correct term". And at any rate it is stylistically awkward as "shot" is used already in the prior sentence. TimothyJosephWood 22:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NM. I just noticed the absence of "of". TimothyJosephWood 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When a door is locked and you use a bullet to open it, you are said to "shoot out" the door. That is absolutely correct WWGB (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I actually put the wording in. For some reason my brain saw "out of the door". TimothyJosephWood 23:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Peter Johnson is not listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Johnson. Dont assume that a search was not done. You know what happens when you assume...

But really- thanks for the follow up.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

plusieurs fois[edit]

Hello. You used the word dubious in your edit summary, but did you check the source? There is no debate about what was in the interview. In my English translationof plusieurs fois I would now prefer "repeatedly", i.e. the adverb rather than the adjective. In French there is no difference. The sources for the article are the Nice-Matin video of the interview.[10] which is contained at the end of the cited text article[11] entitled VIDEO. "On a entendu plusieurs fois Allah akbar", les témoins racontent après l'attentat de Nice. In my translation that reads "We heard Allahu akbar repeatedly" or "many times".

There is a written transcript of selected parts of each interview.

For the eyewitness in question, Nice-Matin write: Pépé était chez lui, sur son balcon, lorsque le camion a percuté les corps sur la promenade des anglais. "On a entendu plusieurs fois Allahu akbar, trois fois", détaille-t-il. J'ai vu qu'il prenait le volant à droite, à gauche, dans tous les sens, pour viser un maximum de visite. C'était horrible, il y a avait des enfants par terre, en morceaux, des femmes, des personnes âgées... Ce n'est pas évident, ni à vivre, ni à raconter".

So he said, "We heard repeatedly Allahu akabar, three times. I saw that he was taking the curb on the right, on the left, every direction, aiming at a maximum number. It was terrible, there were children on the ground, in pieces, women, old people ... this is something that is not easy either to live through or remember."

He didn't use the word shout ("cri") but the French use that when referring to this interview on the French wikipedia and in the press. This is exactly the same citation that appears in the article. That is why I used the word "plusieurs fois" in my edit summary. Unsurprisingly the French article is far better than ours. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jones[edit]

Alan Jones Woolworths donation was stated below, but I realised that was made by the representative Simon, not WW. And yes, the radio companies have stations, not channels, my English... ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 01:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in July 2016[edit]

If no one does the changeover within 12 hours, I'll do it at that time. I'm not on a big screen till then. — Wyliepedia 02:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: Thanks Wylie, I was just moving the Talk since it is easy to do, and the main talk page was looking quite cluttered. I'm happy to leave the archiving of names to you as you always get it done very efficiently. Cheers! WWGB (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB:  Done! — Wyliepedia 05:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diet promoters[edit]

See "He is currently co-director of Sugar-free Smiles, an organisation raising awareness of the health impacts of high sugar diets and advocating for the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.[6]"

I think it is in the article that he is a diet promoter.[12] This source might be helpful. Thanks for your consideration. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP[edit]

I have declined a CSD you placed on Sai Internatinal School. Please do not tag schools for deletion per A7. This is a policy. If you feel a school should be deleted please use another method but first get up to speed with WP:NPP and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPP discussion about terrorism[edit]

There is a VPP discussion about distinguishing between terrorist attacks and non-terrorist attacks, if you would like to participate. Parsley Man (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birtles&Goble.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Birtles&Goble.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Atma Ram Lakshya, WWGB.

Unfortunately Marvellous Spider-Man has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hi, I am unreviewing this page, as I can't find any reliable sources. This page was created by someone related. Thank You.

To reply, leave a comment on Marvellous Spider-Man's talk page.

Sydney Meetup next Thursday evening[edit]

You are invited to the Sydney Meetup!

  • Thursday 15 September at 6PM at Petersham Bowling Club.
    (a) accessible by train - Petersham station
    (b) has some nice draught beers
    (c) has some nice food
    (d) has some quiet areas outside and inside...so people can chat without getting a hoarse voice by shouting over 100 decibels of muzak etc.
    (e) accessible by car with straightforward parking nearby
This message was delivered to the invitation list - to opt out of future invitations please remove your name from the list. 04:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs[edit]

Hi WWGB, thank you so much a lot for not putting back that deletion template & spending your time removing those bare URLs that I have made! :)

My sincere apology if I may sound a bit agitated yesterday as I was barely trying my best to defend myself after how shock (and horrified) I was seeing that proposed removal template. I have to give my credits to Arjayay for taking his time to explain the rationale behind his removal of that reddish template and he have also told me. Since I do not have much experiences with Wikipedia editing, please excuse and forgive me for any of the silly mistakes that I have made so far. Arjayay have told me to create an article using my sandbox (which I've never used before) and only upload it onto a new page when I'm about 40 = 50% completed. The addition of improper references are unintentional, as I do not wish to give a poor impression to other editors that I am heavily relying on primary sources (and not secondary and tertiary sources); which is totally not true. Arjayay told me that it can be very troublesome & inconvenient to other editors for removing improper references as it can be a big headache and annoyance to them.

Once again, sorry for any misunderstanding that we had yesterday and I cannot be more grateful enough that you have respected my rationales just like how much I respect you for your opinion even if I can't agree with you. I have asked Arjayay more about the excessive referenced I've made & he will explain to me soon. Have a nice day & thank you so much once again; God bless you! :-)

Revert[edit]

I see you're still being disruptive and offer no real rationale to revert a sourced addition. ANI is calling your name. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once a fwit, always a fwit! WWGB (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain that thinly-veiled personal attack? I have no idea what you're talking about.Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't! 'Nough said! WWGB (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. Please explain what that means. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's fixed. Reverted a sourced addition is not clever, nor is resorting to personal attacks. There is no obligation to follow any particular format, the reliably sourced addition was easily converted to the format "required" on that page, better to do that than to remove it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

[13] 58.111.120.18 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Complaint.[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 71.222.37.253 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singersinger[edit]

What, you never heard of those? Haha. — Wyliepedia 02:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User group: New Page Reviewr[edit]

Hello WWGB.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, WWGB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter[edit]

Hello WWGB,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 811 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Congratulations for over 100000 edits[edit]

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

- CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops[edit]

Heyo! Just wanted to point out that you readded vandalism on this revert. No big thing, just figured I'd mention it. Cheers! =) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Fox: Sorry about that! It was totally unintentional. Put it down to my fat fingers accidentally hitting rollback on my tiny iPhone screen. WWGB (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2[edit]

Hello WWGB,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

LaMia 2933 notability[edit]

I had added this text with two references that state that the co-pilot was "well-known" or "famous", but you removed the text stating it lacked notability:

  • Sisy Arias was reported to be well-known as a model in her native Colombia;[1] she had recently switched careers and served as the first officer of her first commercial flight[2]

Can you tell me whether your reasoning is due to the lack of her notability only in the United States? Does her notability in Colombia not matter? Thank you. --73.93.140.158 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Tributes to co-pilot and model Sisy Arias killed in Colombia plane crash". 1 December 2016. Retrieved 18 December 2016.
  2. ^ "Tragic video shot inside plane just hours before crash reveals hope and pride from those on board". 2 December 2016. Retrieved 18 December 2016.
Let's keep this discussion in one place and keep it on your talk page; my IP address will most likely change after my next reboot. Thank you. --73.93.140.158 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section, and my reply, transferred to Talk:LaMia Flight 2933#Co-pilot notability. WWGB (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect performed by you[edit]

  • WWGB, you created page 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash half an hour after Missing Russian flight TU-154 was created and the moment news broke out of the plane crash, you copy+pasted content from Missing Russian flight TU-154 and redirected it to the new page rather than performing page move. With someone of your experience, I don't need to tell you about the difference between redirect and page move. I am restoring the content to the original page and will then perform the page move to desired page name. Please avoid edit conflicts. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is right! You keep creating more and more page names for the same article. Do you know what you are doing? WWGB (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was gong after swap but due to your interfering edits, I had to stop and ask for admin intervention. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 2016_Russian_Defence_Ministry_Tupolev_Tu-154_crash a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Additionally, I find it reprehensible that an editor of your standing would say that the actual author only wants "It seems the above editor wants creation rights." 100K edits and you still don't understand copyright. The move button isn't hard. v/r - TP 21:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: What I find to be "reprehensible" is the use of such a pejorative term by a so-called "admin" against another editor. You had neither the decency nor the common sense to seek my input or appraise yourself of all the facts before launching into a personal attack. So much for "Tis the season of goodwill to all men". More like a kangaroo court. Shame on you. WWGB (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is copyrighted. Attribute the author just like you'd expect someone to attribute your work.--v/r - TP 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB, for someone so concerned about process and sourcing, the very fact you added copyrightable material in that manner is very curious. - 1.144.96.155 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hillel Oscar was a notable enough umpire in cricket, I have articles from around the world proving it. In case you are looking for any validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, WWGB![edit]

Happy New Year!

WWGB,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wyliepedia 08:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Toni Prijon[edit]

Oops. Thanks for that. My bad. Ref (chew)(do) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE Richard Machowicz[edit]

Hey, Happy New Year. Came across this. Is it of any value re article updating IYHO? Yours Quis separabit? 07:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in January 2017[edit]

Heads up this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_January_2017&oldid=759113390 - checking with you whether this is consensual or not. Requested by an editor at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/759091113. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 08:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Refsworldlee:. Wow! Thanks for your prompt intervention. Editors getting involved in a project they do not fully understand, could have been a disaster. Regards, WWGB (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant admin got "whacked" and asked to revert. Thankfully, he did. Have also been trying to get a longer protection with another admin who protected 'our' page until the end of January. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 10:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Melbourne car attack[edit]

Hi, WWGB. It seems relevant to include references to the Perpetrator's alleged heavy Methamphetamine dependence in the article. You've removed the quote from the unidentified "close friend"; can you think of a better way to include that information in the article? — JEREMY 04:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC) (On reflection, the Police quote re. illicit drug use is probably sufficient.)[reply]

Also, you've reverted my capitalisation correction twice now, apparently preferring the inaccurate quote in the Daily Mail to the photographic reproduction of the primary source which they include in their article. This is a minor issue, but imho the inaccurate quotation may bias readers' conclusions about the Perpetrator. Can you help me to understand your thinking here? — JEREMY 04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:At the risk of appearing a bit obsessive (aren't we all? :) I note your edit comment re. the removal of the friend's quote is "not in source given". There are actually two separate Daily Mail articles used in constructing this section; you removed the reference to one which included that quote when you removed the line about the Perpetrator's ice usage. Would you object to restoring both quotes if the two references were included together at the end of the relevant section? — JEREMY 04:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC) (On reflection, restoring the quote is probably lending undue weight.)[reply]

If you'd prefer not to discuss these matters here, please engage in the new section on the article's talk page. — JEREMY 04:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dailymail[edit]

Dailymail is not a reliable source. I added another source and neutralized the section. Ferakp (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He also claimed to be a follower of Yazdanism, which I have re-added. I note your editing history on that topic. WWGB (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dailymail is not a reliable source. Yazidism has nothing to do with Islam so think twice how can someone be Islamic and Yazidi.. Ferakp (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2[edit]

Hello WWGB,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3[edit]

Hello WWGB,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 811 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Westminster attack[edit]

Hello. You [reverted] my edit of 2017 Westminster attack with an obscure comment of "read the hidden message". There was a hidden message - <!-- Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, neither the article's title nor related text appears in bold.--> which had prompted me to make the edit in the first place. What had I done wrong to cause you to revert my edit? Bazza (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You re-wrote a contrived lead just to include and bold the article title, when this is against MOS:BOLDAVOID. The "hidden message" advised editors not to do this. Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really contrived, just recast (as other similar articles have been in the past). The "hidden message" was ambiguous and could be interpreted as either a statement of advice (as, reading your comment above, it seems to be in this case) or (as I read it) inviting an edit to provide some required bold text which is not present. There's no mention of MOS:BOLDAVOID which might have made things clearer. Bazza (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest additions in Honor killing[edit]

Initially, I want to post a notice at WT:WikiProject Death, but it seems less active. Then I saw your username at the WP:WikiProject Death/Participants. Therefore, I want to also ask you about recent additions made. I already notified at WT:WikiProject Islam ([14]). One question: are the recent additions good? --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hails, Deaths in 2017[edit]

OK. Sorry for the confusion, and I'm really not being obtuse about this. How about the edit I just made - hopefully that will make it clearer, while still retaining the popular colloquialism for a player in Britain? When supported by the following link to Peterborough United FC, I think it's clear enough to most people then. Thanks for pointing out my contextual error in good faith. Ref (chew)(do) 12:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Hey, why are you changing my edits back? I've been talking about the problem with the nsw parliament page here. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@122.108.141.214: Sorry, I did not realise that {{404}} was an alternative to {{dead link}}, my apologies. WWGB (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this, ping doesn't work for people without accounts. Thanks for fixing it. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet[edit]

Can you tell us if you edit under any account other than this one? I note your sole activity is reverting changes, participating in deletion discussions and removing material that you believe isn't sourced correctly. It seems unlikely an account with the name "wrong way, go back" has been created for any other purpose and it's fairly likely you are a sock puppet to another account. Please advise. - 1.144.96.155 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You pathetic little anonymous troll, your mindless rant is unworthy of a response and is treated with the contempt that it deserves. Go and get a Wikipedia account (and a life). Kma, WWGB (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union/Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia/Saarland etc[edit]

Now these not exist, and normally we wrote Czech or Slovakian, depend of their nationality and František Brůna wasn't Slovakian. And in brackets indicates which team he played. In this case - a Czech who played for Czechoslovakia national team. Something similar, f.e., with Herbert Martin, who in Deaths in September 2016 is marked as German fotballer, not Saarland (but never played for German). The same history with former Yugoslavia: their former representatives inscripted as Serbians, Croatians etc. --Noel baran (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MadMelBeatles.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MadMelBeatles.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

@GSK:, @Elephantpink: as this applies to you as well. I'm reading through my edit summaries and talk page posts and I've yet again became unnecessarily aggressive and needlessly dickish in my comments. Seeking to verify this as well as combating people telling me I'm full of shit because the Mediamass site (which is a gossip site that posts daily articles similar to that hoax article that simply just update the date so it's looks new) said it was a hoax. No excuse, you two didn't say that to me, you did not deserve the frustration I felt towards it. I'm personally starting to feel like I'm full of shit because at years start I told myself I was going to drop the combative edit style I had taken on throughout the years but yet I still do it. Civil discourse is a two way street and if I want a civil discussion I have to give it back. So I'm sorry for being a right asshole. Rusted AutoParts 03:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why are you hounding me???[edit]

BernardZ (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BernardZ: What the hell are you talking about? Examples please. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten is not direcvtly involved whereas Turnbull as prime minister is. If we follow your logic every Australian should be mentioned. BernardZ (talk)
@BernardZ: The attached reference states Australian leaders react to the car rampage. It gives equal representation to Turnbull and Shorten. If a reliable source acknowledges both leaders, then we follow the source. If you think that the Leader of the Opposition is just like "every Australian" then you know very little about politics. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouth, I just said that Shorten for wiki purposes is not directly involved. The state premier would be acceptable.
Also why did you take out the section about the perpetrators motives? BernardZ (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WWGB/Archive_12&oldid=1203404467"