User talk:Ashton 29

Brisbane Montage

When you say a "house" isn't worth having in the Brisbane montage, you're completely neglecting the fact it's about the architecture of the house. Queenslanders are a unique part of Brisbane's identity and technically the only style of archictecture native to Australia, which makes it of international importance. The new look of the montage is also terrible, perhaps instead of a house there could be a row of houses? --Fiftyfires (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ashton 29. 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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ashton 29. 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)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sydney edit

Hey Ashton. I had to revert your edits on Sydney's article. First of all, you removed/reverted most of the content and substantial changes I made in the page. Please, edit the page manually. Don't revert, as you got rid of my recent, important changes, such as on geography, which I moved some of its contents to the geography of Sydney article. If you want a different image here and there, just click edit and change that image to your desire. Please do NOT revert to earlier edits and spare a thought, as I spent hours revamping the page (as you can see from the contribution history). Above all, you have to ask AussieLegend about adding images. He didn't approve of some of them as the page had breached the image limit. Thanks. Meganesia (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pyrmont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bronwyn Donaghy

added links pointing to Drug use, The Advertiser, Ultimo, Tamworth and Lismore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Carey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (The River Ophelia) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The River Ophelia, Ashton 29!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your new article on the book "The River Ophelia".

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ashton 29. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sydney montage image

What on earth is going on on the Sydney page? Why is the montage idea so controversial? I'm really at a loss over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CashythedogNovember (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shopping centres in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 876426911 by Ashton 29 (talk)

Hello, I'm Databoi. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

File:The River Ophelia book cover.jpeg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Victorian Major Events Company

The article Victorian Major Events Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westmead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Port of Melbourne, 1980s.jpg

Don't just revert to a clearly inferior version - that's not helpful in the slightest. If you think there's a different improvement that can be made then my talk page is open, so talk to me. Your ownership of images is irritating, and there's a long saga about how you handle that badly.

Break the habit of a lifetime, eh? You never know how much better that might end up making you feel - and you might even gain an ally... Don't you think that after all this time being the "annoying person" who everyone loves to revert this might be your opportunity to join us and become part of this team trying to improve the encyclopedia? If you do, you know where I am. -- Begoon 14:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Sydney. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Year's Eve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenelg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive image editing

Back in 2015, in a discussion now archived here, you proposed adding File:Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg to Australia after your addition of the image was reverted by HappyWaldo. The obvious consensus of that discussion was that the original image was preferred. Despite that, you added it to the article in February this year,[1] and indicated that you remembered the discussion when you edit-warred the image back into the article.[2] That I reverted you then was clear indication that your assertion in your edit summary that "that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know..." was incorrect. Ironically you also said "plus, this image is more populated with people", which was one of the issues that editors had with the image. Trying to sneak it into the article tonight,[3] so soon after you were given clear indication by two editors that the image was inappropriate is completely unacceptable. You have been around long enough to know that such edits will be instantly noticed and it would be wise not to do this again unless you have consensus to overturn the results of the previous discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Sydney. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. AussieLegend (✉) 00:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The timing of these edits makes it fairly clear that your attack was retaliatrion for the warning that I left above and HappyWaldo's reversion of your edits at Australia and Hobart. This is now the second time that I have had to warn you about attacking other editors.[4] If it happens again we will be discussing this further at WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Sydney. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:RPA, "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.". That you chose to restoreyour personal attack is reprehensible. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks. AussieLegend (✉) 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sydney; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• You know very well that the burden is on you to justify inclusion of the image. Don't keep edit-warring, which is a ridiculous thing to do when you are the subject of an active ANI report. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Sydney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AussieLegend (✉) 17:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am goig to let the ANI discussion play out but if you continue to edit disruptively you're going to continue to get appropriate warnings. You know very well that there is no consensus to add a montage because you have participated in the discussion. If you want to add a montage then propose it there. You won't get any support if you keep editing disruptively. I'd strongly suggest that you participate in the ANI discussion instead of deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ashton 29! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Historic preservation that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 15:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You've really crossed the line into harassment and wikistalking this time, Legend. Cjhard (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your post indicates that is exactly what you are doing. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend's manipulation of votes

Just thought i'd let you know that the reason why editors were missing from the "support" heading in the talk page for the montage, is that AussieLegend has repeatedly been removing them. I have included editors that have voiced their support for the montage but it seems that AussieLegend doesn't seem to want to accept the fact that more editors support the montage than those who oppose it. Now he seems to want to engage in an edit war - Cement4802 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't lie. I only removed two editors who have NOT expressly indicated support and I did that precisely once. Nor have I edit-warred. You did that when you restored the editors, instead of discussing your opposed edit per WP:BRD. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sorry about that, I've fixed up the link now. It wasn't on the edit warring noticeboard but I see youve figured that out. Thanks -Cement4802 (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802, why don't you amend your latest contribution to the Talk:Sydney page where you said you support RFC with this: "Should the infobox display the montage shown at permalink (diff) rather than the current image?" I think that way, it is more to the point, and it gives the reviewers an idea on what montage/images they are going to be selecting as Cjhard pointed out. Happy editing, guys, and let's hope we come out of this war with a nice montage highlighting Sydney's best! Ashton 29 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Newcastle, New South Wales

Since you disagree with the image change that I made, I have reverted per WP:STATUSQUO. Please discuss your proposed image on the talk page and gain WP:CONSENSUS for the change but please do not edit-war. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 18:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Newcastle, New South Wales; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 11:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ashton 29 is back from his block and hasn't learned a thing.. AussieLegend (✉) 12:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

And look what that did. It got you blocked too. Perhaps now you'll see that you're just as guilty of edit warring yourself. Seriously, please don't come to my talk page with smart Alec remarks. Your behaviour is bordering on stalking and bullying. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel I have been unfairly blocked. I never engage in acts of vandalism, I always strive to improve articles with citations and illustrations/imagery of high quality. I have had some very difficult times with an editor on Wikipedia in the past month, and I feel as though I have been baited. It says I was edit warring - I don't see that. I have made a constructive edit on the Newcastle page, only to have it continually reverted by AussieLegend. Surely he is just as guilty of edit warring. He constantly prattles on about achieving consensus, but as others pointed out, he's hardly capable of it himself. The Newcastle talk page hasn't been edited since January, yet he acts as though he's reverting based on discussion?! What a joke. He never discusses. He just reverts my constructive edits and uses the guise "please seek consensus". How hypocritical. He opened up a complaint about him that amusingly got him blocked too. I really do not see my edits as being edit warring, a discerning Wiki editor should notice every time I make a constructive change on a page he frequents, he almost immediately undoes it and asks me to take it to the talk page. It's not because he wants consensus, I believe it is more because he simply does not like my edits based on his personal whim or taste. I do not play ownership of articles, that is absurd, I try to challenge those who do.

Decline reason:

I've extended the block to a month due to logged-out block evasion. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1 month is drastically punitive.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for one whole month, for one single edit while logged out on somebody else's IP? This is absolutely punitive. I am being treated like a troll or a vandal. Wikipedia is becoming more of an unfair place in my eyes. I have battled for months with an editor who just flat-out refuses to compromise and consistently undoes my editing because of his own personal tastes. This feels grossly unfair. Before I ever got into this fiasco with said user, I kept myself, made constructive edits, tried to get some articles to Featured Article status, sourced hundreds upon hundreds of images for articles without visual representation and here I am, the bad guy in the ongoing war between myself and AussieLegend. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Composing rationale. I type slow --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I cannot unblock you. You used the word "battle" and the word "war" in this request. That troubles me. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Bellicosity is not a trait desirable in a collaborative environment.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means and how you will conduct yourself.

However, you continued to edit war after being blocked for edit warring by evading your block. You went so far as to edit "while logged out on somebody else's IP". That tells me you have no intention of ceasing from disruptive editing. It would be foolish to unblock anyone so intent on edit warring.

Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not an admin and I'm not offering any advice on how to get unblocked. However as an IMO neutral third party observing this, I'll make 2 quick points which will if not help you with an unblock request, at least hopefully help you when you return to editing in a month.

One is you don't seem to understand the implications of the talk page not being edited since January. Yes it's IMO a completely valid criticism of how AussieLegend responded. However, you criticising AussieLegend for it completely falls apart because it also means you have not edited it. In fact, under the conditions of that dumb edit war, there was a greater onus on you to begin the discussion, so you complaining about it is just completely silly. And while I don't think AussieLegend posting above asking you to take it to the talk page counts for much, and them posting to ANI was just silly, yet in some ways it means they were actually trying to resolve the dispute in ways that did not involve simply edit warring. From you, all I see is edit warring. Assuming you did edit from that IP [5] which I now assume is likely the case given your most recent socking this makes it even worse since if I'm reading your block log correctly, you were blocked at the time.

Two, I don't really know what to make of this "one single edit while logged out on somebody else's IP" (emphasis added). At first I thought the "somebody else's IP" meant you were trying to deny it was you. Assuming it is you, this is silly but hey denying it is them is something a lot of socks do so meh. But then it occurs to me you explicitly said "logged out" which seems to be an admission it was you. So if you weren't trying to claim it wasn't you, why on earth did you say "somebody else's"? It's not more acceptable to sock while blocked if you made efforts to avoid being caught. If anything the opposite.

I do think you for any contributions you've made. But if you are going to continue to edit here, it doesn't mean you can simply flout all our norms. So you cannot sock e.g. using an IP to edit while blocked. You do have to engage in discussion, including initiating it, when there is a dispute. And stop the personal attacks too.

P.S. I find it fairly rich for you to be talking about a refusal to compromise in this case. AussieLegend did actually agree with you on replacing the image of the church with one of Whibayganba. But they chose a different image. This is part of a process of compromise. You obviously did not agree on their compromise proposal. That's fine. What should have happened is both of you took it to the talk page and tried to come up either with some you both agree with that is a further compromise, or failing that get consensus for either of your proposals from the wider community. This wasn't happening because neither of you actually took it to the talk page each waiting for the other person to do so. I was the first one to open a discussion. And I've never been to the area, never heard of Whibayganba/Nobbys Head before yesterday (or that specific cathedral, ChristChurch Cathedral being something else completely to me). And heck I admit I actually still have zero real idea where Newcastle is in Australia other than in NSW and I think possible not that far from Sydney. And actually my Australian geography is so bad that if you gave me a map of Australia even one with state border lines on it, I think I'd completely fail to come anywhere close to Sydney when pointing out its location.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But when it comes down to it, AussieLegend just does not seem willing to reach compromise with me. It goes back years. Looking back, I see there are some things we have agreed upon. But I still feel like he puts up a block every time I attempt to edit something, or breathe new life back into an article re: imagery. The biggest grinding of my gears was the constant rejection of a montage for Sydney, even when User:PhilipTerryGraham put forward a really great one with high quality images of (mostly) well-known landmarks, back in January.

Of course that was an admission it was me, hence the "while logged out". "Somebody else's IP" refers to the fact that I was on a friend's shared computer, which I should have elaborated. So it's not the IP I normally use. But yes, I was logged out. It was me. I'm not denying that, never did deny it. I find it troubling when I see errors or messiness or general sloppiness on Wikipedia and I cannot edit or correct it because I am blocked. But anyway, I guess I'll just have to wait it out.

Tip: If you're ever trying to point out Newcastle on a map, point to Sydney, then drag your finger up slightly towards Brisbane, Queensland (if you know where Brisbane is!). Oh, incidentally, just for the record, what image of Nobby's Head do you prefer? Ashton 29 (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock attempt three

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been thwarted from editing for one whole month. I find this over the top. Yes, I edited an article on somebody else's computer with their permission, while logged out. Yes, this is classified as block evasion and yes, I understand this is wrong. In order to continue being an editor here I will make sure I avoid such a mistake in future. But there is a very important milestone at Talk:Sydney regarding a montage, an article I have significant interest in. I am in full favour of a montage, to the chagrin of some editors. There was a Request for Comments made for a third party overview, because I could not compromise with one particular editor. I cannot make any contributions, comments or notes here as everybody else engages and has their input in deciding on Sydney's montage. AussieLegend, in particular (who was blocked at the same time as me for edit warring) seems to have successfully become unblocked at very perfect timing - so he can wield his influence on the montage discussion. He does not want a montage, and promptly reverted every attempt I had made at getting one. I'm sure he's very pleased that I remain blocked at a time when such an important discussion is had. As the external RfC editor noted, he has "power" and "influence" on Wikipedia, something I've been trying to communicate for months now to no avail. At least someone who has no interest in the Sydney page can see this, can see that it has been unbalanced, and slightly unfair. What I want, basically, is a chance to be unblocked so I can go on editing Wikipedia in the contributive, constructive way I had previously done until I got into this edit warring affair with AussieLegend. I do note that lately my editing has become more fervent, only because I was at my wits end trying to see eye to eye with somebody who basically undid everything he did not like for whatever personal whim. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't find your assurance that you won't engage in further block evasion convincing, and the bulk of your statement deals with the behavior of someone else and the fact that others are involved in discussion(if you want to be involved, don't get blocked). I'm also not clear on what your "significant interest" in the article on Sydney but you will need to dial back your passion in this article and approach things more collaboratively. I am declining your request. If you make another, it should focus only on yourself and not others. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Talk:Sydney discussion

Ashton 29, if you wanted to participate in the discussion at Talk:Sydney then you shouldn't have evaded your block. It's really that simple. That's all I'm going to say on that. If you have thoughts on what is being discussed on the talk page, post them here and somebody may participating in the discussion may notice and convey the information on the page. I'd really like you to have the option to participate constructively, even if it's via a third party. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, Thanks for considering me. I appreciate that. The biggest thing that jumped out at me in the recent discussions was User:HiLo48 saying "the only iconic images for Sydney are the opera house, the bridge, and the harbour itself". I'm not sure I agree with that. In fact, when I really think about it, I don't agree at all. Is Bondi Beach not iconic? Sure, plenty of cities have beaches, but even a foreigner is highly likely to have heard of Bondi, and the probability of him of her having visited it while in Sydney is high. I don't think it looks like just any beach either. So I'd like to counteract his opinion that the only recognisable things about Sydney are all concentrated within Port Jackson. What about the QVB? Every Sydneysider is familiar with it, a little like a Melburnian would be familiar with Flinders Street Station. ANZ Stadium, the Anzac Bridge, Fort Denison, GPO, Central Station are all other contenders. The thing that sets them apart from other buildings from the same era is obviously the distance Sydney sandstone that they were built in. Even the Dr Chau Chak Wing Building in Ultimo has made a name for itself in terms of notability. But including that one might be a stretch.

Then you have HiLo48 saying the discussion was about finding a single image not a montage. If so, what was the point of the RFC? Are we trying to find a single image that will be in opposition to the montage suggested months back? If so, I really don't see why it's an improvement over the current single image that's there. I thought the objective was to find suitable images that everyone agrees upon, then including those in a montage, whether it just be three or six. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that while singularly it's a great image, this looks very bare as a standalone image, in an infobox for an article about a city. It almost looks like a representation for an article about the harbour, OR the two landmarks, than it does as a solid representation of Sydney on a whole – let's not give readers the impression that Sydney is simply a harbour with a bridge and an opera house. Unfortunately, that is all that image does by itself. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, since I cannot contribute at Talk:Sydney, I'd like to add my input that "Permalink five-image montage from 31 July 2019" gets my vote. The only objection I have to it is that the image of the GPO (second row, right, under top pano) does not sit plush next to the image of St Mary's, it is skew-whiff (i.e. white border is thicker/more prominent under the image on the right making it uneven). So that obviously would have to be fixed. The bottom daylight pano of Sydney's skyline is alright, but perhaps a pano of Bondi Beach would suit it better if there's already the evening pano of the skyline at the top? "Permalink two-image montage from 9 May 2020" looks incomplete, and a single image of the Opera House (image three) would look ridiculous, the page is about Sydney as a CITY, not a bridge and an opera house alone. Ashton 29 (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please desist. The only appropriate use of your user talk page while you are blocked is to request unblocking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashton 29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like my block reviewed and lifted, so I can demonstrate my previous constructed editing ability. I admit lately due to a fraught debate over a montage on Sydney's page, my editing had become more erratic and less civilised due to frustrations. Being blocked for edit warring recently only made me more upset. I did unwittingly edit a page on another PC, without even considering the weight of the action, leading to me being blocked for block evasion. I have no intention of doing that again. I have many edits I'd like to make, insights I'd like to add, and would like to return to a civilised manner with the editor who I have been involved in a spat with, recently, so we can reach an agreement or compromise. I must say the past day has brought a bit more clarity to the situation, and peace, as I've poured over the RfC at Sydney's page. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No answer to the actual question surrounding block in 10 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Given your block history, why do you think it's appropriate to edit logged out on a regular basis? This is a violation of the sock policy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot recall the last time I was blocked, nor the reason it was for. Obviously now I understand the implications. I raised a RFC at Sydney's talk page and I feel I cannot contribute to something I started because of this block. It's likely the RFC will close and my input will be nil which totally defeats the purpose of me raising the discussion. I guess I should have considered that, but as I pointed out, my editing became more and more impatient when I got into tenterhooks with another user, who had also been blocked. I want the opportunity to be civilised and not critical of other editors particularly AussieLegend. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question and your block log is right here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to add fuel to the fire but I think you should look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ashton 29 before answering DeltaQuad's question. I'm sure that she has. Good luck. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How ridiculous that they're all supposedly me. Many of those accounts haven't been active in years. But whatever. Ashton 29 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How many of them ARE you? HiLo48 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I note first off that I do not know whether you have socked, or to what extent it may have been. But, no-one ever wins by trying to play the sock game. Some just get away with it longer than others. That game is particularly self-destructive if it's to get around a block. I've been here since 2006 and never seen it work in the long run. I do know that if you take a break for the block period and take the medicine, so to speak, when you then come back it will all be OK. You're a dedicated editor and wikipedia needs that. Go and embrace real life during your block. And if you want to get ready for wikipedia, spend the time researching (which is more producitive than arguing over montage vs. single image - advice for all of us!). And write/expand articles offline. Go take some great photos for wikipedia. Then come back more awesome than ever. Just don't play the sock game. (and for what it's worth, i think "montage" will win at Sydney, so relax. And even if it doesn't, there's bigger things to do on wikipedia.) Enjoy your time off. :) --Merbabu (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Merbabu, thank you! That is sound advice. I am doing just that actually: reading, writing, researching. Letting the Wikipedia issues roll right off my back for now, anyway. There's nothing I can do. Not until June at least, anyway. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Hay Street, Sydney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hay Street, Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay Street, Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DannyS712 (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sydney photomontage RFC

Just for your info, there's currently a redrafted RFC going on in the Sydney talk page for the photomontage. Would be great if you could drop some comments - Cement4802 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about the whole block situation my apologies. Would speaking on behalf of you be a better option as mentioned above? - Cement4802 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't speak on behalf of a blocked user. Ashton 29's block will expire before the RfC is closed. Cjhard (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the three image montage AussieLegend proposed here. If Bondi Beach is really so hard for a non-local to appreciate or recognise in a montage, then so be it. Is there a better or more recent daylight image of the skyline, though? Ashton 29 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Just to clear things up, is representation via a third party allowed? Was actually first proposed by AussieLegend (surprisingly) and it doesnt seem wrong on the surface. So which options are your preferenceAshton 29? The three image montage or the 5 image montage you mentioned above? - Cement4802 (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no hope for the 5 image montage, nobody wants it, so I'll vote for the three image one when my block has expired. Edit: it appears the 5 image montage has gained a vote. I'm tossing up between it and the 3 image one. I just know that a single image of the bridge and opera house looks ridiculous, the article is about Sydney, not the harbour, the bridge or the opera house. Ashton 29 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on what jpgordon said on this page,[6] I believe my suggestion was inappropriate, even if well meant. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, there have been some very well written arguments against your stance on the no-montage in the last few days. AussieLegend, I do think you need to rethink your stance. What those users are saying is exactly what we've been trying to tell you for years. Something stood out was how a user pointed out that you claimed "nothing in the Madrid montage screams Madrid", but you also confessed not knowing any Madrid landmark. It is beginning to sound like hypocrisy, sure you are not intending this. Right? I'd like to know if your stance has changed, or if there's a montage that has been proposed that you would accept? You simply cannot keep slamming users attempts at a Sydney montage in their faces on the basis of you not liking the chosen photos. It's clear that it is not the photos or landmarks selected that is bothering you, but the montage itself. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As Cjhard mentioned above, the block will be over well before the end of the RfC and Ashton 29 is welcome to post their views then. The advice that user talk pages should not be used to give content opinions is correct. That's not a problem because there is no rush. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Launceston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tourism

The topic of the section is tourism. QVM is "the most popular single visitor attraction in Victoria for international visitors". It's the logical image choice, and you are giving serious undue weight to Pellegrini's, which is significant only at the local level with a spike of attention overseas due to a terrorist attack. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on Pellegrini's, image caption included, amount to 84 words. I don't think another building or institution mentioned on the Melbourne page has been given that amount of coverage (the NGV for example is covered in 18 words, caption included). That's what I mean by serious undue weight. You seem to struggle with the concept of notability, and how the coverage of something should be proportional to its notability. In the context of this article, Pellegrini's might at best merit a few words. Also there are thousands of Victorian properties listed by the National Trust. It's not that remarkable. Only twelve Melbourne buildings are on the National Heritage List, and QVM is one of them. As usual, take it to the talk page if you want to pursue this further, and ask for input from other users. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD, unless you want to risk getting blocked indefinitely. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Architecture of Melbourne

I see that you added a LOT of text about various historic buildings that were demolished in the 60s and 70s - Im thinking thats too much detail for an article that meant to be about the full gamut of architecture from go to whoa. But its all great stuff, so how about a new article that specially about all the lost buildings ? or at least the major Victorian ones dem 60s- 80s, the only ones you havnt covered are Fink's Building (1888–1967), Victoria Building and Queens Walk Arcade (1888–1960s), the Fish Markets - APA Tower (1888–1967) has its own article so easy to add. I can research those if you like, or rather i already have a lot of info, i used to work at the National Trust. I have already put yuor text in my sandbox.

Rohanstorey (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. It depends on how much information there is for each building, because to create an article you need to source it and detail it extensively, but it also needs to be significant enough to have a standalone page and I'm just not sure that any lost buildings, beside the Fish Markets, Federal Coffee Palace and APA Building are notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia. It's worth a try if you are passionate enough about particular buildings and have adequate sourcing. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Manchester Unity

Hi. The section's too small for a third image. There's no way to accommodate it without causing excessive MOS:SANDWICH and intruding on the section beneath it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Tsiolkas

Hello. I have nothing against Tsiolkas, but I reverted your addition because he isn't in the cited sources. It doesn't qualify as a minor edit either. I actually think the whole sentence should go because it's an invitation for people to create a shopping list of their favourite authors. What's the criteria for a "renowned" author anyway? How do you "reliably" source someone's renown? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably bordering on mere conjecture, but I think most Australians familiar with our culture and a handful of people overseas would have heard of Tsiolkas. The Slap was notable enough to be adapted into a US television series. Jury is still out on this one. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edits to Sydney

Hello there

I reverted your edit about the metropolitan area of Sydney because it looks like original research. That is, you are combining three different sources to say something that none of the sources says. The Topography section of the article gives the ABS figure for the area of greater Sydney. But this isn't necessarily the metropolitan or urban area: it includes huge hunks of national park and non-urbanised areas. I don't think it can be meaningfully compared with other cities which have different (often administrative) definitions of their boundaries. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have again reverted your edits because they are original research and aren't comparing like with like. They are original research because you can't combine three different sources to reach a conclusion which isn't stated in any of the sources. WP:synth. Apart from that, the three different sources are probably using different definitions for the boundaries of their cities. Many cities such as New York and Paris, have contiguous urban areas which are arbitrarily divided up for administrative or statistical purposes. In order to meaningfully compare the size (in area) of different cities you would need a proper study with a standard definition. Also Sao Paulo and Tokyo seem to have been arbitrarily selected by you for comparison. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not see this until now. I had just posted a response on your talk page before I came here. The sources for São Paulo and Tokyo's areas are widely accepted boundaries of the Greater Area of each city, they weren't arbitrarily selected. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Montage image sizes

Hi there, the four central images in the Melbourne montage are all cropped to a ratio of 16:10. I used the CropTool, which allows you to crop to a ratio, if you want to do this for an image to get it to fit you just need to use that ratio. It creates a new cropped image but it points back to the original it's extracted from so it's still properly attributed. When I first created the current montage I used this image of Flinders St, which was at some point replaced by a day image. I don't love the overcast image, but also the one you added recently doesn't have the station's recent repainting, so always searching for the perfect Flinders St photo! Gracchus250 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hi Ashton 29! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne

Please join the discussion on the Melbourne talk page, before another edit war kicks off. Also, you need to stop marking all of your edits as "minor", when they're not. I see you've been warned about that many times in the past. GraziePrego (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Going forward

Hey, I regret being snarky on the Melbourne talk page. Sorry about that. I think we both care about similar topics on here, so going forward, if we run into a disagreement over content, i'll try be civil about it and reach out to you first at talk page, rather than run on emotion and edit war. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Bendigo

Hi Ashton 29, I have recently joined WikiProject Bendigo and I am currently recruiting more editors to join also. I can see that in the past you have made edits to various Victorian-related articles, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in joining the project, as there are still a number of Bendigo articles that need improvement. Please let me know what you think. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)