User talk:Colonial Overlord

November 2014
Hello, I'm Rrburke. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Loss of supply with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Premiers_of_the_Australian_states. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * I note you have asked for assistance elsewhere please allow that to occur and an uninvolved admin will assess whether there is consensus for the changes you want, please self revert you edit. Gnangarra 07:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally you have made 6 reverts in 3 days while not breaching the actual numbers of WP:3RR you are definitely breaching the spirit of that. Gnangarra 07:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Split-ticket voting, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Family First and Balance of power. 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) 08:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Tas
Her majesty's loyal opposition and the opposition leader is Labor and their leader. The Greens are on the crossbench. We work with facts, not media characterisations. Please do not re-add Greens to the opposition as they are not. Timeshift (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's the other way around: we work with media characterisations (i.e. what the sources say), not facts (i.e. original research). "Verifiability not truth" and all that. Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No we don't. See here soon enough. Timeshift (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=641205509 your edit] to Premiers of the Australian states may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Australian states political.gif|thumb|left|Political parties in government from 1945 to 2007.

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Next Tasmanian state election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preferential voting. 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) 08:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

hi
I already requested a protection of that page. My advice to you is: Don't get into edit wars again. It is always bad for everyone Tetra quark (don't be shy) 02:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My only edits were restoring the page to the status quo until consensus is achieved per wikipedia policy. How can I deal with violations of WP:CON without reverting the violating edits? Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Your recent editing history at Social conservatism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. N o f o rmation Talk  07:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Australia. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Two days ago you were asked to take this to the article's talk page, and to respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. You have done none of those things and I note that you've picked up a warning for edit-warring at another article. Edit-warring at one article is bad enough, edit arring at multiple articles is unnaceptable. Please do not continue edit warring at Australia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't understand the meaning of edit warring. A constructive series of edits, in which the edits are altered each time to accommodate the concerns of the other editor, is the very opposite of edit warring. I also note that you have not started a discussion on the talk page yet to explain what your objections are, and why you couldn't simply follow my suggestion and change "notably" to "successfully".
 * @AussieLegend
 * Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple revrsions of other editors is not "A constructive series of edits". That is the very essence of edit-warring. Per Edit warring, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion." At no time did you attempt to discuss the edits, as you were requested to. Also per Wikipedia:Edit warring, "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable". As the editor seeking to add the content, the burden is on you to convince others that your edits should be incorporated. It's not up to me, or any other editor, to start the discussion for you. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The first time was a reversion from another editor with no explanation. I'm hardly going to put in the effort of starting a discussion with an editor who can't even show the courtesy of providing a reason for their reversion. Once a reason was provided by a different editor (in the form of a citation needed tag) I replaced the tag with a citation. The editor restored the tag saying I needed a reference saying a particular thing. I provided such a reference. Hardly an edit war.
 * You are the one with objections to my edit. I don't see what other reasons I need to provide for the edit beyond the citations already provided. Are you saying you want me to start a discussion saying nothing more than "OK aussielegend, what are your objections?" before you will say what they are? Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reasoning, or lack thereof, for the first reversion is irrelevant. It was uncited and therefore was subject to reversion for that alone. It's still up to you to convince others why your edits should be included and I am clearly not the only one who objects to your edits. Editors don't need to, and shouldn't have to, restate their opposition each time you revert. We have WP:AN3 to resolve that sort of activity. I've already explained my opposition to your edits. It's now up to you to address the concerns previously expressed in edit summaries. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt the lack of citation was the reason for the reversion by Andreas as that user has shown on other pages that he/she doesn't care about citations. But I take your point about uncited being enough for a reversion, especially on featured articles. I just didn't think of that as the reason given the nature of the user who reverted originally.
 * I also addressed the concerns of Mark Marathon so the only one objecting at the moment is you.
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your edit summary. If your problem is that the sources don't say "notably" then why didn't you simply follow my suggestion in my previous edit summary? And if the problem is that you think the first source contradicts the second (although "main" is not the opposite of "minor") then why not simply remove the first source? Colonial Overlord (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The other editors have not made further comment so you can't claim that their concerns have been addressed. Mark Marathon reverted you after you added the first cite and then added fact when you reverted him, so there still appear to be issues. I made it quite clear in my summary that the sources you added contradicted each other. "Successfully" is not mentioned and is a subjective appraisal. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I have replied at the article talk page. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balance of power (parliament), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Lang. 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) 09:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing on Social Conservatism
Hi. First of all, I'd like to thank you for helping work on the article. Now, I was wondering if it would be possible for you to agree on some sort of compromise? Clearly, you have strong beliefs about the topic, and I respect that. However, according to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is neutral on all topics. So yeah, just hoping for some compromise. What do you say? Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever beliefs I have on the topic are not affecting my editing; I'm just trying to keep the language neutral and in line with common use. It would be very helpful for me if you could explain exactly what you're trying to change with the article. Many of your changes seem strange to me, but if you explain what you thought was wrong with the original terms and why you made the changes you did that would help a lot. Also I apologise if my edit summaries were rather dismissive or rude, but there are a lot of trolls, vandals and POV pushers around. Now I see that you're interested in constructive editing. Colonial Overlord (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm simply trying to reduce the article's heavy bias. I think the version right now actually does that quite well, actually. Earlier, the article was too pro-Social Conservative, which of course was unacceptable. Then, I admit, I did overcompensate for that in my first few edits last month and that somewhat skewed the bias in the other direction. I'd like to thank you for helping me balance it, and sorry if I came off a bit passive-aggressive earlier. :) Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how the original version was pro-SC. Could you give examples? As far as I can see, pro-SC would be "social conservatives support traditional marriage and oppose efforts to redefine it", anti-SC would be "social conservatives oppose equal marriage rights for gay people", while neutral is "social conservatives oppose same-sex marriage". Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Examples in the original (as it was on the 7th February 2015) would be bits like: 'Social conservatism is a political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values.' or 'the notion of preserving traditional values was seen by many social conservatives as an ideal that had been gradually eroded', and terms like 'family values'. Also, when you wrote '80% of the population saying that homosexual acts are wrong', the connotation of the term 'wrong' does carry a political bias. You're right about the source, but in this context that actually defeats the purpose of the source (which appeared to me to be critical of social conservatism). :) Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Christian right, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Prhartcom (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is something you're missing here: most of my edits were reversions of a previous recent editor, where I changed the material back to long standing content matching the sources. The exceptions are my removal of "biblical literalism", which was unsourced, and my removal of libertarianism and classical liberalism, which do not appear in the cited source. That last source is online, and would have been very easy for you to check before knee jerk reversion. I am restoring my edits. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I was missing that, my apologies; the current version of the article is an improvement and a return to the more established version. An exception, however, is the "Role of government" section; what is your opinion of the opening sentence, which has recently changed from the established version? P.S. Feel free to create your own user page. Prhartcom (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, it is incorrect to describe a movement that supports banning many things as libertarian or classical liberal. Colonial Overlord (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Overly long plot of MJ II
You plot summary is ~950 words, while WP calls for summaries of 400-700 words (with a film of this type, length, and complexity perhaps requiring 550-600). In short, given that it is a sequel (with characters known from previous films), the summary is far too long. Since you did the original edit, can you self-edit, to shorten to WP standards? And remove the section tag (which was placed by another, and not me, making two editors having the opinion I share). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the same time, the vagueness of "Snow is left to the mercy of the crowd" (in an otherwise explicit, spoiler-rich summary) could be made clear. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Animated GIF update required
Hey there, regarding, as you uploaded it, can you please update 2015 to show QLD changing to red, and include 2016? Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Funcrunch (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Funcrunch (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Be careful
Even though I agree with your wording on the leade, your arguments are definetly going into battleground territory, especially with the "it's in the dictionary " remarks. Please remember this is a very sensitive area, everybody has an idea of what should be here and what shouldn't be here, and waving around a dictionary won't endear you to anyone. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak  17:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Trans_man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwoman (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you about this, but can you add some comments to the RfC that I have created? Trans Man RfC Userwoman (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:World marriage-equality laws.png


The file File:World marriage-equality laws.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, use updated version File:World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg instead."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)