User talk:C.Marsh b.Lillee

Asylum seeker rejection rate
The WP:POV was appauling (and the courier ref doesn't help). Balanced it. Timeshift (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand this message.... c.Marsh b.Lillee (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rudd
Your lack of talkpage discussion is disturbing. There is a long discussion occurring. Timeshift (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Now it all makes sense! You can't help but come back time and time again huh? Timeshift (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The cloak has been removed, and we see who it is underneath.-- Lester  05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS
I find this edit inappropriate. If you don't like the citations per WP:RS request further cites but deletion of the material was inappropriate in my view.--Matilda talk 06:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what the guideline is. However my objection to your edit was you removed material that was referenced. And you did it again without noting that above I had suggested request further cites but deletion of the material was inappropriate in my view. The references were deemed insufficient by you - in which case you can tag them as dubious and request more.  Do not remove material that is referenced if you have not discussed it first - you made a major removal!  Furthermore the two authors of that material are notable - ie Paul Sheehan (journalist) and Ross Gittins .  WP:RS is a guideline and in the instance you are citing the context is biographies of living persons.  Their material is probably good enough for the purpose but I am b happy to find addtitional references to back up the claims. --Matilda talk 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the policy relating to opinion pages is a basic requirement of wikipedia, it is not just related to BLP's. c.Marsh b.Lillee (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly it is not a plicy - it is a guideline - secondly the tag you were looking for was dubious to add to the refs already given - there is not reason why those authors should not be cited - they are notable. --Matilda talk 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you editing contrary to wiki guidelines? Find the stats from a reputable scholarly RS. Do not degrade the encyclopedia with opinion pieces. c.Marsh b.Lillee (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The opinion pieces can stay - they are important for context- and every number in that section has now been sourced with a publication that would fully meet wp:rs. You are degrading the encyclopaedia by removing referenced material.  Moreover you are in my view interpreting the guideline too literally.  --Matilda talk 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Matilda talk 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. 3RR violation, per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)