As well as can be expected now living on sandflat - and recently on the Brookton highway, as well as the playing with verges Brookton to Pingelly, sheesh what a botched job.... sats08:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
same again - need to say - its a great relief when you're in your white hat and in your shining armour, you come over the hill, and descend into editing again... sats23:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how folks 'talk' on talk pages Moondyne - don't know if they edit an existing conversation or start a new heading? Sincerest apologies if I've stuffed up your talk page - (I will learn). I need any help I can get :) What's the 'Wikisource' you mentioned in the post you made which I'm responding to? Calamity Hill (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard and fast rules about 'talk' protocol. My preference is to almost always reply on the same page as is the immediate conversation I'm replying to. (thats bad sentence structure but I hope you get the drift). If you ask me a question on my talk page, I assume you'll watch my page to see the reply. Others prefer to always reply on their own talk pages and send the other person a {{talkback}} message. And others do as they feel. Your choice and not a big deal whichever way you go. Generally we only start a new heading if its a new topic, but again no hard rules.
Wikisource is a sister project to Wikipedia which aims to develop a library of free and open source documents. Old books is its bread and butter. Users there transcribe and proofread such sources which are then available to all. See s:Magic (Ellis Stanyon) for a sample. There's lots of collaboration as well as opportunity to potter away in the corner at your own pace depending on your want. Moondyne (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nah will have to catch up on iview if it is there. the story about her is a bit too, how can I put it, close to a number of people of whom I have known or still know. Not specifically, but, complex things like that sort of make our city the ultimate location for the people in things like that to end up here. I think it means we need to have that lunch, before christmas! satusuro08:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Alec Bannerman.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
I actually moved it from my sandbox to the mainspace - only to find the reason it was in my sandbox was because there was a nomber of copyvio that I hadn't dealt with - so I tried to move it back to my sandbox but it would allow it because of a double redirect - so it got moved to a draft - who figures? Dan arndt (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just started a discussion at WP:AWNB about standardising the formats we use for historic buildings articles around the country, and with the work you've done in the area, I'd love your thoughts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
good to see you still around for spot fires... satusuro 09:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
hahah with ipad and wikipedia - not worth it - one of my more major bad edits of 2013 because of that :( satusuro13:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
obviously the long talked about lunch of 2 years standing is needed soon - nah come back more often, the buggers here are more and more cretinous - your style is sorely missed... satusuro13:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough - but the julie support is one thing - harry's hell be back inference does have a certain sense of the old dog is not down yet... and yeah reckon it should have an ip block on it too... satusuro01:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and reverting the text of what i had inferred would have been enough - the story of bishops support is in fact a good item to balance...an otherwise over-critical article satusuro01:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
also when are you gonna launch your masterpiece with fin... it is such a brilliant hard worked on table - I miss your masterpieces - when ya gonna launch it? satusuro01:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Wacalogo.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).
The media file you uploaded as File:Wagroupsettlement.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source),
or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media
clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Moondyne/Archive 20}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template.
If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
Hi, just dropping by since you are both an old hand at WP, and a member of the Oz literature project. I came across problems at this article and have taken some fairly firm editorial action, and raised a sticky issue at the talk page. I don't really want to get involved, but i was concerned about some of the sourcing etc. It'd be great if some other uninvolved eyes were on this just in case there are problems. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Following your recent revert on this page and the block you have correctly placed on the banned editor who is unquestionably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft, can I please point out that Johnlp's talk page is perceived by Daft to be a "safe haven" and so he is a frequent visitor, helped by Johnlp's reluctance or refusal to do anything to protect the page. As a result, non-admins seeking to revert Daft's inputs using WP:BMB, WP:DENY, etc. risk getting into an argument with Johnlp himself about his "right" to let anyone use his page, even someone who is subject to site-wide WP:BAN like Daft. May I suggest, therefore, that this safe haven is summarily closed by means of semi-protection, regardless of Johnlp's views as he cannot be allowed to facilitate Daft's usage of the site. HCCC14 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Cricket NSW requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. -- Aunva6talk - contribs15:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Art of Cricket, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from , and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The Art of Cricket with a link to where we can find that note.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:The Art of Cricket saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thanks for uploading File:Artofcricketcd-rom.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Perth Tramways.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).
Hi mate. Yep, I keep poking my nose in occasionally but am mostly over at WS these days. I thought this project would be finished by now! ;) All the best for another year. Where's that lunch you owe me? H. would be in for sure. Moondyne (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree File:St Bartholmews East Perth.jpg
Please consult edit request on article's talk page following procedure you asked for. Needs actual correction. No interest in anything other than correction of errors pointed out already in posts to talk page of Harold Pinter article. Please check the IP talk page where you made procedural request. The template for edit request is posted in good faith. Thank you. 66.66.27.196 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and the other guy, whatsisname, - the spread of sections of notable residents in disparate locations looks suspiciously like the remnants of a training session somewhere that is not acknowledging as such, the session here in perth is worth mentioning at that lunch... satusuro 08:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC) fyi - would rerallhy like a comment [2]JarrahTree08:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you protected this article several years ago, but can't really figure out why. I wanted to unprotect it, but there's a note that says that it was protected because of "office actions" and should not be unprotected without discussion. Could you have a look at it and, if appropriate, perhaps unprotect it? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't know about office actions, but I do vaguely recall protecting it due to persistent abuse by a banned user. I cannot see any reason for it to remain protected now. DoneMoondyne (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used in cricket (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not reverted by multiple editors regarding that particular comment. I was reverted for adding them as nicknames in the nickname box, which I agree wasn't the consensus, and I stopped doing that.
The new edit I made was to the actual article. There is no consensus against this. Please see User:BlueSquareThing's edit [3] where he requested sources, and said that he wasn't against adding this to the article. I subsequently notified him on his talk page that I added it, and he seems to be in agreement (or, at least not in disagreement) as he hasn't reverted my edits following inclusion of sources.
I am adding this back. I don't see how you have the right to be condescending and revert my edits with a "minor tag" and then claim that you are better than me, in that somehow I have to explain myself on the talk page, rather than you explaining yourself as to why you are in opposition to this edit. As I said before, no-one is in opposition to this at the moment (they were only opposed to the nicknames section). Please take the time to read the situation carefully before jumping to false conclusions.
Also, the principles are not the same. I'm not claiming those are nicknames of Voges; I'm just claiming that pundits are referring to him by those names. Which is true and there is a large volume of recent news articles to back this up. As I said before (and will repeat), 2 or 3 out of the 4 involved did not disagree with the edits (i.e., either agreed, or were ambivalent). E.g., please see my talk page and BlueSquareThing's comment before yours. That is not a consensus against including the edits. The only user who was against it strongly was User:Pope.
It's clear that you are misinterpreting the situation/not taking the time to read it carefully (at least the comments by other involved editors). There is not a strong opposition to my edits. Thus, I plan on reinstating it. If you have a problem with it, then you should raise it as a discussion or discuss it with other editors.
thanks, it can be better, there are things that the tinkerers seem to have no knowledge of, will get added down the line I hope... JarrahTree12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I always took the view that something is better than nothing, and articles generally improve over time as more eyes land on it. Just making a start is a good thing. Thanks JT & Mitch. Moondyne (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good of you to be optimistic, the problem is that tinkerers usually never add refs or content, just tinkle. As for the mane with an accent that is not ours, I think it will get scuttled, the way things look, or otherwise handed for a peppercorn, maybe the empire up north, if darwin is any guide as to where things go for $ JarrahTree15:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find your message on my talk page highly offensive. Threatening to block someone because they have a different opinion and you want to silence them is censorship and an abuse of power. Wikipedia is free to everyone to edit, and I have been trying my best to do so constructively.
You state that my addition of pundits' opinions is against Wikipedia policy. Please explain to me why so many articles of living people on Wikipedia have such opinions expressed. I can give you numerous references if you wish. (I feel like I read such hyperbole in almost every Wikipedia article about a living person, mostly with no references.) Policies should be evident from the situations in which they are applied, or else they are meaningless. Whenever anyone is considered notable for something (e.g., a great cricketer etc.), it is the opinion of pundits. There is no other meaning to that statement. Or, you can argue this point based on someone's objective record (e.g., their batting average), which is what I have done for Voges.
Please rescind your block warning (I don't see how you have any right to block me, in any case, I've done nothing wrong, and I don't believe someone like you has the power to do so, given your very aggressive choice of wording when communicating with other people). You have previously been condescending toward me. Instead of acting tough, hiding behind a computer screen and forming a gang of three to bully me, please try to engage in a debate about this. I've been arguing only with Jevansen and The-Pope. Other users have not gone against my claims. Experience is valuable but should not be used as an overriding reason in an argument. As I stated before, Wikipedia is an open encyclopaedia. I look forward to a detailed reply. 96.248.68.27 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your message on my talk page, as I find it offensive and has no place in a civilised discussion between two equal people. By threatening to block me, your are putting yourself in a position of power over me, which is morally incorrect, especially in the context of a fair debate with regards to an open encyclopaedia. If you post such a message again on my talk page, then I will not hesitate to report you. Polite messages engaging in a debate, however, are always welcome. Please reply here instead of on my talk page. Thank you. 96.248.68.27 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'm going to leave Wikipedia for some time. I'm dismayed by how I have been treated here with little effort by people to arrive at some middle ground between my edits and theirs (which is what I thought the meaning of consensus is from my real life experience, yet people consistently accuse my edits of going against consensus, when their edits do the same). Now, I'm being bullied and blocked. I don't want to be a part of this kind of toxic environment. You were aggressive and rude to me. I'm sure you are a good person in real life, but I found the way you behaved with me here to be offensive and impatient. Otherwise, I wish you all the best, and bid you farewell. 96.248.68.27 (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. While "Wikipedia is an enclopaedia anyone can edit", your participation is a privilege which can be removed when you don't comply with our established policies and guidelines and the consensus of other editors. No-one wants to do that, including me. The choice is yours. Moondyne (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do intend to leave, but yet again, you give a vague response. You didn't respond to my claims, which counter what you are continually saying. I have dissected your "established policies and guidelines" and explained why "consensus" is being misinterpreted. Although I don't intend to be here anymore, I would like to see some kind of response to my message above. Thank you. 96.248.68.27 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Firstly, I have not been here a week. I have been here for a month. How much cricket do you follow? Everything I have said is considered true in the cricketing world. I spend a lot of time reading cricket news etc. Regarding the George Bailey edit, he is in fact commonly considered a nice person in Australia cricket. How is it bad to insert that? See [4] where it is written that "Aaron Finch and George Bailey are considered two of the good guys in Australian cricket". This view is actually commonly expressed and you will probably agree with it if you see how he conducts himself in interviews and on the field.
I also think you are misrepresenting the situation. Firstly, many articles have nicknames. So, my addition to Adam Voges was not out of the norm. I agree that I was a bit strong on that, but I did discuss with editors on numerous occasions. Also, it seems not to matter what I insert in the article: see, e.g., [5], an unfair reversal of my edit, which was subsequently reinstated: [6].
For Usman Khawaja, are you keeping track of Usman's batting recently? His run of scores is incredible, as is his timing (most recently on a difficult Indian pitch) and many believe him to be batting as good as anyone. I cited this (Mark Waugh, Michael Slater, Mark Nicholas, all cricket experts, have gone out and said this in the media, as well as others). Why in articles such as Sir Vivian Richards or Sachin Tendulkar (albeit somewhat extreme examples), is it mentioned something along the lines of "considered by many to be greatest ..." Is that encyclopaedic or simply the opinion of pundits? Why isn't that removed from the article? Why are my edits instead singled out for removal? This is the inconsistent application of policies that I mentioned.
For Nathan Lyon, my edit was in fact not reverted. GOAT is an established nickname; if you watch Nine's coverage of cricket during the summer, you will hear him being called this nickname all the time. My edit was kept, but only slightly changed because the reference I provided didn't support everything I said. Please see [7]. However, everything I said was true, just difficult to reference without literally taking audio recordings of people.
My edits have not been undone multiple times except in a couple of occasions (most notably Adam Voges). I "edit warred" because I felt the same editor was going against my edits repeatedly. Why isn't he also responsible for edit warring? Why don't you post a message on his talk page too? It seems unfair. I felt that I was being singled out and no matter what I inserted, my edits would be undone. And I don't think I reverted them more than once or twice except in Adam Voges.
Finally, contrary to what you seem to be implying, I am trying to reach a consensus and discuss with other editors. Almost each and every time my edit is reverted, I go to the relevant talk page and engage in discussion. In these circumstances, I find it incorrect that you should threaten to block me. I accept your apology, but I hope you will consider trying to be a little less confrontational especially when you are not directly involved in the matter. Let me and The-Pope and Jevansen discuss this without threatening to block me. 96.248.68.27 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for history removal is at WP:CRD - we'd need a fairly good reason for doing such a thing. It is not possible to remove the history page from public view. Moondyne (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Tony Cozier - 50 years of Test Cricket.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Tony Cozier - 50 years of Test Cricket.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Tony Cozier - 50 years of Test Cricket.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).
Byford being a railway connected location, and woodman point likewise will probably end up in some way in some sort of article, but most of the material I have about woodman is all WP:OR or primary, unfortunately - interesting some aspects of byford were still intact in mid 1960s... JarrahTree15:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moondyne. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
10 years ago you were editing Vosper - and Hesp came along and lost the Sunday Times connection...[[8]] and it never has been put back in, despite the dubious lead to the sunday times... weird and weird JarrahTree10:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. when i was looking at the article about Vosper, I could not find any reference to his founding the sunday times in the current recent format of the article - I went back to the edit of 2006 and that is where it seemed to be the loss of any reference to the sunday times.. as far as I read the diffs. JarrahTree14:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of International cricket families until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jack | talk page14:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Hi Ian, you may or may not have seen the activity at that article, but his daughter Leigh has tried to make some corrections to it and they've been reverted. See the sections entitled "changes to article Arnold Cook" and "edit to Arnold Cook article" at User talk:Oshwah. I think you'd be best positioned to handle this, if you have the time and inclination. I'll leave a message at Leigh's talk page. Graham8715:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham. Apologies for not responding sooner. I've been completely offline for several weeks due to some health issues (which are now resolved). From a cursory look it appears that the matter of the article is in hand. If not, please feel free to deal with it as you think best. All the very best to you and your family. Ian. Moondyne (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moondyne. 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.
Hello, Moondyne. 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.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
your patience and style is sorely missed - we need a good floods article for wa - the current wa floods is not even anywhere, and the 1926 never got written up - bah, give us your time why dont you!! JarrahTree00:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:JohnGerovich.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).
You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks JarrahTree06:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moondyne. 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.
As a member of the "WikiProject Australian rules football" it would be good to hear your opinion on a current debate occurring on the 2018 AFL season talk page.
The debate centres around whether or not a third column should be included in the club attendance table to display "home state games vs. interstate opposition".
The main justification is that Victorian clubs play on average 7 home derbies each year compared to non-victorian clubs who play only 1 home derby each year. This provides an average home figure for Victorian clubs which is inflated as their home games have the fans of other Victorian clubs attending.
Please provide whether you support or oppose this proposal for AFL Club attendance tables.
I suspect a lot of this is B/S or "interpreted". There's daily readership vs monthly readership vs actual sales and so on. Plenty of vested interests. Would be interested to know how the data is collected and verified but that'd be commercially sensitive no doubt :). Moondyne (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moondyne. 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.
Hi! I noticed you categorised on 24 January 2011 Len Roberts-Smith as an Old Haleian. However, the article mentions only his education at Saint Ignatius in Adelaide. Do you have any information on Len's education at Hale, or was it a mistake based on both his sons attending Hale? Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
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.
I fear you may be correct: Percy Trompf died in 1964 and copyright for such works only expires if author died before 1955. Good luck. Moondyne (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
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.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australia Test wicket-keepers 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Martin (artist) 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.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Hi mate, all good. Hope you're keeping well also, while avoiding the worst of the heat. I don't seem to come here too often these days due to life. I retired a couple of years ago and the days seem to fly by. Its weird. Moondyne (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am currently new to Wikipedia editing, having taken up a university course where we are encouraged to work on a stub article and turn it into a B- or C-class article. I have noticed that you are relatively active on here, and are a member of the Australian history WikiProject. I have chosen Peter Nicol Russell who was a Scottish/Australian engineer and philanthropist in the 1800's. If you had the chance, would you mind assisting me with providing some advice on the article via its talk page? I'm also looking for someone to review and grade the article per the Australian history WikiProject or the Biography WikiProject guidelines if you (/you know anyone who) can help Many thanks!! Chasseur99 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Richie Benaud's Greatest XI.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).
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.
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
My first edit was on 28 October 2003; I've been here for 10 years today. Moondyne (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. Lets see how it goes. Moondyne (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Like Moondyne (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Obituaries
Template:Timeline history of international cricket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.