User talk:Ernest the Sheep

Pavlova
Here on Wikipedia, there is a thing called due process. If you believe that the article is so biased, why don't you contact another editor to review the article, preferably a sysops. If you do not wish to do this, you are more than welcome to do the editing yourself. Just let it be noted that your changes, unless substantially referenced and proven, will be reverted immediately. Also, please try to remain civil on the Pavlova talk page. Thanks! Matt (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Wake
Why are you removing references and information from Nancy Wake? The ref you removed is certainly relevant. The information about the 2003 heart attack and being wheelchair-bound is unsourced but rather likely to be true; you are within your rights to remove it under WP:BLP but asking for a citation might be more appropriate in this case. A quick glance shows that User:KizzyB is making useful edits.- gadfium 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to the rsa.org.nz article, as well as the comments on her health as I deemed them worthless. At the grand age of 95 frailty is a fact of life. It may of course have some relevance, but in the context of what is a rather sparse article such details add nothing, in fact they can detract. If contributors want to improve articles then I would suggest proper research of her life story would be better than piece meal offerings of stories and links obtained from internet searches. The rsa.org.nz item was quaint, but there is no good reason to include it ahead of numerous other links to be found on the internet.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have better references, please add them. I think the RSA website is an excellent reference for a statement that the RSA gave her a medal. I have restored the content.- gadfium 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I Couldn't agree less. The fact the RSA gave her a medal is not in dispute. The reference is therefore unnecessary. I've now removed it.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the reference. Removing it is vandalism. Please consider this a formal warning.- gadfium 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman
Please see the article's talk page and request for comment, and add your views. Please do not revert again, but discuss on the talk page. Continued reversions will result in a block. Thanks,Swampfire (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetting
I thought i would let you know I have expressed concern to you using 124.190.91.146 as an IP address to commit vandalism and avoid the three revert rule. I am not sure of this though, as you repetitivly claim to be a New Zealander and the IP is an Australian one (although you usually edit from an Australian POV, and use alot of Australian expressions. For the benefit of everyone however, could we clear this up quickly? Either sign out and reply to my talk page with an IP address, or i will request a checkuser. Best, Matt (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning:3RR
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.. Matt (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Wake
Please provide sources for your assertion that Wake is Australian and only Australian. She was born in New Zealand, and has lived in several countries. She is quoted as saying that she has a New Zealand passport and considers herself a New Zealander. To change to another nationality will require at least as strong evidence. You say that you consider the NZEdge article biased, but you also are on record as believing the RSA (of New Zealand) is a poor source. It appears that you are not willing to consider a source to be reliable unless it backs your point of view. However, until you present your own sources, the relative quality of claims cannot be debated.- gadfium 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My sources are the books written about her, including here own autobiography, her own words and those of others, and a little bit of common sense. The NZEdge article and the RSA source which you mention are merely anecdotal, and yes, I'm afraid to say, biased. As I have previously said, it is bordering on disrespectful to try to slant her words, as the NZEdge article quite clearly attempts to do. I've not seen the 1994 newspaper article, but my guess is that whatever she said would more than likely have been said in jest, given the audience. Anyway I would not think a single NZ newspaper article from 14 years ago should be given priority as a source. You might also like to check out the Froggie edition of Wikipedia, see what they have to say about her. BTW, have you in fact read any of the books about her? The book by Peter FitzSimons should be easy enough to obtain a copy of.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please substantiate your comments. Until you do so, please do not edit the article.- gadfium 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just did, what is your problem? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming she is an Australian Citizen? If so, please cite the page number of Peter FitzSimons' book saying so. You keep asserting that she is Australian despite a source to the contrary, and you have refused attempts by Wallie at a compromise wording. I recall you edit warring on other articles over similar issues. This doesn't mean that I have a problem. Perhaps you should reconsider your behaviour.- gadfium 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're just being pedantic now. Given she stood as a Liberal candidate in an Australian federal election I'd guess that she was an Australian citizen, but I don't know that she is for sure, but it's irrelevant anyway. The relevant facts are that she grew up in Australia since before the age of 2, and quite obviously identifies as Australian. Check some of her comments after being awarded the Order of Australia if you like. I do hope you're not planning to appeal to arguments based on the technicalities of citizenship to try and fudge the issue? I believe I am correct in my comments on this issue, so I'd suggest you leave things us they are for now, at least until you better acquaint yourself with the relevant information. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Does Australia have a law that federal election candidates must be citizens? (New Zealand has a law that MPs must be citizens) If so, then I accept the argument. That still makes her both a New Zealander and an Australian, and that would be an appropriate thing for the article to say.- gadfium 05:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the exact law is in Australia, it is irrelevant anyway. Although this is clearly a difficult concept for you and your friend Wallie to comprehend. You both appear to be rather ignorant. Indeed, are you even sure about her status as a New Zealand citizen? Why does the New Zealand Labour government not think she is eligible for an NZ honour? Bottom line is that, even if she is still technically a NZ citizen, she grew up in Australia since the age of 1, and clearly identifies as Australian. So how about showing a little bit of respect instead of trying to twist the facts, or is that too much to ask? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you find so disrespectful in the RSA and NZEdge sites? By the way, you have now reverted the article to your preferred version four times in less than 24 hours. You should be aware that this is a blockable offence, as you have been warned about the 3 revert rule before. You can avert such a block by undoing your last edit.- gadfium 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've no real objection to the RSA article, other than it being fanciful thinking. My problem with the NZEdge article is that it attempts to infer that Nancy has somehow abandoned Australia, or that she never really considered herself Australian in the first place. Given that she has often spoken or being loyal to her country and people, it is very disrespectful to suggest otherwise. The entire NZEdge website is for the sole purpose of glorifying New Zealand. I have no problem with that in principle. It is afterall a website for New Zealanders. Just be aware of that fact when quoting it as a source. Wikipedia on the other hand is a website for everyone. The NZEdge article about Nancy is located in the section dedicated to New Zealand heroes. Again I've no problem with them including her there, it is their website. However the authors of the article clearly felt that some extra justification was needed, how else do you explain the reference to a single obscure NZ newspaper article from 1994, which they have included in their reference section. It clearly gives the impression of being contrived or forced, which is a pity given the rest of the article is not too bad. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds as though you dislike the article because it says something you find unpalatable, and has the poor taste to back it up with a reference. This is not normally considered a good reason.


 * I note that you failed to remove your fourth revert in 24 hours.


 * I have marked the article with a dispute tag. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. If we can achieve consensus on the talk page, then the tag can be removed. If you remove the tag unilaterally, I will consider that to be vandalism.- gadfium 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of discussing this on the talk page. I consider it to be undignified to do so. I am disappointed, and a little amazed that this could become such an issue. Nancy Wake is Australian, whether she also qualifies as a New Zealand citizen or not is irrelevant. She grew up in Australia, and quite clearly identifies as Australian, a fact which you would be aware of if you'd read any of the books on her life, which quite evidently you have not. I believe you could be confusing the technicalities of citizenship with cultural identity.

Why have you ignored the sources I have referenced in my previous posts on this topic? Do you not believe me? As for the NZEdge article you keep referring to, as I have already said to you, it is written with a clear agenda. The reason I dislike the article is that it attempts to mislead, clearly it has you fooled. I could quote passages from any of the books on her life in which she identifies as Australian. The reason I have not done so is that I find the whole business to be ludicrous. It is unfortunate that the NZEdge article has become a standard internet reference on Nancy, because it is misleading on this one aspect, which is a pity. One of the functions Wikipedia can perform is to serve as a counter balance to incorrect or misleading sources of information that can be found on the internet. This is why I made the change, to correct the record, so people who know nothing of her can be properly informed. Perhaps you need to honestly reflect on your motivations in opposing this viewpoint, and make sure that it is not ego or pride that is leading you to persist in opposing me, because you are likely to end up embarrassing yourself if it is. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you are not willing to discuss the matter on the talk page, and you cannot provide any material showing the source indicating her commitment to New Zealand to be false, you should not continue to remove the sourced material from the article. I see that three editors now have reverted your edits, but you continue to remove any edits which deviate from your opinion. At this point it becomes clear that your edits are vandalism, and will be treated as such.- gadfium 09:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're taking the piss, surely? Perhaps if you had defined the parameters of the debate in an acceptable manner I would have participated. I certainly had no interest in participating in a discussion as to whether Nancy Wake qualifies as an Australian! I assume you must be a Kiwi? Come on mate, don't you think that was a bit rich, really? Until a decade ago Nancy was almost unknown in New Zealand. In Australia she has had a public profile at least as early as the 1950s. The first book on her life written by Russell Braddon was published in 1956. I have a copy of it, as well as Nancy's autobiography. I see you have obtained a copy of the Fitzsimon's book. That's good. Perhaps you will get a better feel for the subject. As for the NZEdge article you keep referring to, it has clearly been written with an agenda. If you want a first hand source then I suggest you try to obtain a copy of the 1994 newspaper article. I've not seen it myself, and I'm sure you haven't either. You must be aware of the importance of seeking out original sources rather then quoting them second hand from other works. It's a fundamental principle in essay writing. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to the Evening Post article; I think that would be available only in Wellington, and articles from that long ago are not available online. However, I have provided citations from The Age, and The Dominion. I have read the articles in question. The Dominion article is quoting an interview with Fitzsimons. The evidence that she is a New Zealand citizen is clear.- gadfium 20:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you could obtain a copy if you tried hard enough. This claim that she was considered a NZer by the Australian government is conjecture only. I've seen no credible evidence to back it up. There are other plausible reasons as to why she may have been overlooked for an Australian honour, as you well know. Of course whether the Australian government considered her a NZ citizen is irrelevant. It would however seem unlikely that they would have made such an error. But repeating such a claim appears to be a tactic adopted by NZ slanted articles about her. The dominion article is fanciful thinking at best. The edit I made was a compromise, you should have had the good grace to accept it. I shall revert to my previous superior edit. I believe you will find that the compromise I proposed has precedent on Wikipedia. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at Nancy Wake
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. . You obviously know the source of the material, but you continue to remove it without discussion on the talk page, and without providing any contrary evidence. This is vandalism.- gadfium 09:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your patronising tone is duly noted. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. - gadfium 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop it please, you are behaving like a spoilt brat. You have not adequately responded to any of the points I raised. The edit you propose is clumsy and worthless. Your so called sources are so obscure it would be an effort for anyone not living in NZ to attempt to verify them. It may well be true that Nancy Wake still holds NZ citizenship. The point is whether this fact is of sufficient importance to appear in the opening sentence of the article. As far as I can tell, primarily based on evidence from books I've read, the answer is no. It would also seem that she is known as Australian by the French, the country in which she carried out her deeds. Her public profile in NZ was non existent as little as a decade ago. I believe you will find there is precedent on Wikipedia for the compromise I proposed. But if you feel so strongly about it then by all means include that she still holds NZ citizenship in the main article. Now please, enough with the threats. Here's an idea, how about blocking yourself from editing for a while? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Wake
Hi. You do raise some good points. The best way forward is to discuss the points on the discussion page. If you believe, as I think you do, that the article is or was POV as far as New Zealand is concerned, it does not help to have the article turned around to be biased even more heavily towards Australia. It is also best to not revert articles, as this is a waste of time, and the other side will do the same and invoke all sorts of rules like the 3RR. I have noticed that these things normally sort themselves out, and the truth, whatever it is prevails. If you are unhappy, and you have every right to be, you can make your points, and others will listen, if your points are valid. So - back to the discussion page... Thank you. :) Wallie (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Phar Lap
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. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Phar Lap edit
I've reverted your edit here. The anon was right, it does read strangely to go through his life backwards. I think we've already had a conversation on this. Unless you think something as childish as what order the countries are put in indicates any importance, i'd ask you to stop reverting this as there is a logical reason it is this way. Thanks, Matty (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The previous edit had stood for a considerable period of time until the anon edit. I'm sure we've had this debate before, check the discussion page. There is no logic to insisting on a chronological order. Let's not beat around the bush, Australia is mentioned first because it is the more important country as far the Phar Lap story is concerned. It is where he did his racing, and where he captured the imagination of the general public during the depression years. It is usual practice to list things in order of importance. The wording in the article simply reflects that, even though it might appear to go against what a lot of Kiwis have been taught to believe. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lovely, more anti kiwi bullshit from you. Their is no order of importance, referencing a statement first does not make it more important in anyway. It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, it just makes it easier to read as things should follow chronological. There is no difference in saying Australia and New Zealand. Mentioning Australia first does not make it more important, and vice versa. Please stop your childish reverts that are unsubstantiated before this gets out of hand, and discuss changes you that don't "meet your agenda" on the talk page. If the text had been there since 2002, it wouldn't make it any more substantiated than text added a minute ago. Matty (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What anti-Kiwi bullshit? Mate, you're paranoid. The edit has stood for some time as I said. Check the discussion page, you were involved. Now, after this time you want to resurrect the debate, a debate in which you failed to adequately respond the first time. As has been pointed out to you the story of Phar Lap is more closely associated with Australia than NZ. You may not like that, but unless you can provide a coherent argument to the contrary I would hope that you would act in good faith and refrain from editing. Thanks. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well i'm not the one that got blocked for edit warring. Mentioning Australia or New Zealand first does not make either one more important and suggesting so is childish. We are going by chronological order, and unless you can come up with a reason other than your perceived "measure of importance" I would ask you to not revert any changes, or you will be reported again. The fact that four editors have reverted you must be some sort of indication that no body but you thinks that listing a country first makes it more important. We are simply following chronological order. If you'd check the talk page, you'll see that you haven't responded to my comments about this anyway and are simply blinding reverting anything that doesn't say what you want it to say.


 * For the record, I agree that Phar Lap is more an Australian horse than a New Zealand one. What I don't agree on is your awkward phrasing of the sentence. There is no difference in mentioning either one first, and even you must admit it makes more sense the old, current way. I don't really care what you do, bold Australia in that sentence if you like (although i'm sure someone who knows about the WP:MOS will come and revert you) but the sentence is worded better this way, and if you don't like it present your case on how you think mentioning a country first makes it more important or you'll be blocked again for edit warring. I hope some of that got through to you. Matty (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah right Matty, it was nothing to do with you, but you'll report me again will you? But it's okay Matty, I'm not too bothered about it. It was only three editors who disagreed though, let's not include the anon editor in the number. Anyway it does not imply that I am in the wrong just because three dimwit editors lacking in basic comprehension skills decide that I should be blocked.
 * As I explained to you below, it makes no sense to insist on a chronological order to that particular sentence. It is however a complex, and perhaps awkward sentence, so once my block has been removed I intend to change it to something along the lines of "... Phar Lap was a champion race horse who became a much loved national icon in Australia and New Zealand. Foaled in New Zealand but trained and raced in Australia ... ". You will note that the order of countries listed is ALPHABETICAL, then CHRONOLOGICAL. I hope that you will support me in such an edit, as you have already admitted the existing edit is awkwardly phrased.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The current sentence is fine, makes sense, and doesn't need to be changed. If you feel that strongly about it, try to think of one that makes more sense than the current one, but remember discuss any controversial changes on the talk page first or you will be blocked again for disruption and edit warring once again. I couldn't care less if you have to put Australia first for whatever reasons you have, just try not to degrade the quality of the article doing it. I'm more than willing to collaborate with you if you just act civilly and stop this game you think you're playing. You were blocked by an administrator that observed you were being unconstructive and edit warring. You're bordering on WP:POINT and WP:NPA. I'll be honest, i'm getting sick of having to deal with your agenda. You know my stance, and you know what the consensus is. If you chose to go against it, so be it, but you're more than likely going to be blocked for your point pushing. Please be aware that I am watching your changes and will act on them as you've gone on long enough causing disruption and conflict on these issues, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Matty (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of civility, what is it with the threats to stalk my contributions Matty? I'm sure Wikipedia must have policies against harassment. Perhaps I should be reporting you Matty? The new wording for the lead sentence I proposed says exactly the same as the existing one, only it is a lot less wordy. How could you possibly object to it Matty, assuming you have no agenda yourself? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free, I haven't done anything wrong and anyone would really be able to see that. I'd assume you'd want to keep administrative attention off your account anyway. I take it from your last comment you have no intentions to collaborate, so i'm not going to continue this little discussion because I can see you're just toying with me. The sentence you propose is more awkwardly worded than the first. I find it a little insulting that you have the audacity to say I have an agenda, judging by your rather colourful contribution history. I only told you I reported you for clearly breaking the rules as a courtesy. As I said before, if you want to make the changes discuss them on the talk page without your personal attacks and WP:POINT attitude. I couldn't care less if Australia gets mentioned first because I know it doesn't matter whatsoever. What I do care about is you butchering the sentence to do so. May I suggest only placing "Phar Lap was a champion race horse who became a much loved national icon in Australia and New Zealand."? I could support a change like that. Theres my collaboration, if your reply doesn't at least contain a response to that you wont get another one from me regarding this issue here because im rather annoyed about having to constantly battle with you to achieve nothing but animosity between us. You're obviously a wise person, but it's shrouded in the fact that you continue to only edit and push your point of view (and lets be honest, you do edit with only a point to discredit New Zealand and I think you can admit to that). If you were a little more neutral and a little more willing to work you would be a great editor. Matty (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Matty, I'm sorry that you feel that you have to constantly battle with me. However if you go back over this latest incident I believe you will find that it resulted from an edit made without any prior discussion. I realise it was not you who made the edit, but you were very quick to jump in and support it. As I have already said on the discussion page I believe that to claim Phar Lap to be a "much loved national icon in New Zealand" is to significantly overstate his status here. As I also pointed out the substance of the article on Phar Lap does not appear to back up this claim either. The only reason I let that edit pass was because I could not be bothered arguing the point, so long as Australia was mentioned ahead of New Zealand in the lead sentence. Contrary to what you might believe Matty, order is important and does reflect a degree of importance. Your claim that I only edit to discredit New Zealand is a false one. It is true that my edits tend to focus on articles where New Zealand appears to be claiming more than they are entitled to. As a New Zealander it is my right to do so, I consider it to be a form of patriotism.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I found your recent edit a step in the right direction. However, I must say I am confused at why you left New Zealand first as that seemed to cause of the problem and what you had been debating towards. I hate to say it, but someone reverted your edits. While i'm not sure if there is any basis for it, i've left a note on his talk page about our conversations and have asked him to chime in here. Please can we not start up an edit war again? I am more than willing to look at this from a broader perspective than when we first started. I hope we can work everything out. Thank you, Matty (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * C'mon on Matty, edit wars are fun! If you don't want to participate then just watch from the sideline. As you say my edit was reverted pretty quickly, which I suspected would happen. It's a pity because I would have liked others to have a chance to comment on it. I thought it had a lot more to offer over the previous version, and I would have welcomed suggestions to improve upon the wording. The excuse given by the silly bugger who reverted it was rather pedantic I thought. The funny thing was that the excuse he gave was contradicted by his own preferred version and he had to change that as well. Hopefully he'll think about how pathetic it makes him look and be man enough to change it back.


 * One thing that did bother me was a previous remark you made that I might be toying with you. I am not. All I have been doing is replying to messages you have left on my user page. I apologise if some of my comments over stepped the mark, but you would have to agree that they were not made entirely without provocation.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
As a consideration, I am notifying you that I have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard for repetitive edit warring. You have been warned twice already, and have performed 4 reverts within 24 hours without discussion on the talk page. You obviously have a very biased opinion - practically all of your edits are either removing mentions of New Zealand/New Zealand heritage in articles. Please consider WP:3RR before blindly reverting without discussion. Matty (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Matty, you're pricless. Given the circumstances I find it very difficult to assume that you are acting in good faith. As was pointed out to you on the discussion page, Phar Lap's notability is as a result of his racing career in Australia, his place of birth is of lesser importance, except to Kiwis of course. It makes no sense to insist on a chronological order to the lead sentence. It is admittedly a rather complex sentence, but what it is basically saying is that Phar Lap is a much loved national icon in Australia and New Zealand. The extra information attached to each country is merely to give a little more context to what is an obviously contentious issue. If the intention of the sentence was to say the Phar Lap was foaled in NZ, raced and trained in Australia then you might have a point in insisting on a chronological order. However that was clearly not the case, and I'm sure you would agree, if you are honest with yourself. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
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. again please use the article talk page before makeing any more edits thanks Oo7565 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2009 (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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Phar Lap
I noticed your latest edit and was very pleased with it. It recoginzes that both Australia and New Zealand are involved. You may think I am being pro-NZ and anti-Australian. However, this is not the case. Much earlier, the article said that Phar Lap was a New Zealand racehorse, and people were trying to bring Australia into the picture and were being reverted. I didn't like that either, as it was heavily biased towards New Zealand. I pointed out that while he was born in New Zealand, he did his racing in Australia and was much loved in both places. I do think that there is an element of gamesmanship on both sides. The classic examples are Tulloch and Gloaming. Tulloch is a national hero in Australia. The New Zealand public wouldn't know him. Even though he was born in New Zealand, he is not an icon there - certainly not. To my mind, putting Tulloch so soon in the New Zealand Racing Hall of Fame is a windup. The Australians did the same with Rising Fast. Crazy! With Gloaming, he is probably more revered in New Zealand, even though he was born in Australia. The old timers in New Zealand worship Gloaming and Nightmarch. With Phar Lap, he is equally revered in both countries. What really interests me is that the Americans owned him, and have never laid claim to him. I personally don't like gamesmanship, as it means the person who playes the game best wins - not a good result for the truth. I think we can both try to get a good balance, particularly between Australia and New Zealand, and prevent the bias going one way or the other. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, you seem like a nice bloke. But very little of what you say makes sense. Tulloch is not a national hero in Australia. Whether Phar Lap was owned by an American is not really that important. When I suggested that you might need to also correct the articles on Makybe Diva and Efficient I was speaking in jest. But I see that you have taken that as a serious suggestion, which is disappointing. I noted in one of your replies to Cuddy Wifter on the talk page that you claimed that no NZer would say Gloaming was a NZ horse. Yet in the Horse racing article you made just such a claim. So you can appreciate why I might have some suspicions regarding your motives. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True. I did mention Gloaming in the horse racing, as he is connected with New Zealand. I later removed him from the list, as he was born in Australia, which makes him an Australian horse. Part of the problem is the culture of Australia and New Zealand, as you probably know. If you are born in New Zealand, you are New Zealander for ever, unless you renounce the country, in which case you are definitely not. In Australia, it seems that if you live there and are successful, you become an Australian. The classic example is Mel Gibson. He is considered to be Australian. If he had lived in New Zealand for the same time, he would be considered to be an American, as he was born there.  Wallie (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But you seemed so definite when you proclaimed that no New Zealander would call Gloaming a NZ horse. Yet you did just that. Seems to me you are rather flexible in your viewpoints, and more than happy to change them should it suit you. There’s a word for that sort of thing, but I won’t use it as I’d very likely be blocked again. The rest of what you say is drivel, as is usual for you. Where was Sam Neil born? Where was Anna Paquin born? Where was Roger Donaldson born? Where was Bruno Lawrence born? Where was Keisha Castle Hughes born? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When did I call Gloaming a New Zealand horse? I think I called him a New Zealand hall of fame horse - that is different. He is an Australian horse.
 * I do try to be straight. I think the word you were looking for was "shifty" or maybe a "big liar", but that is not my intention. I would never call for someone to be banned, if they were genuinely upset with my behaviour. Sometimes also, people get the wrong idea - that happens.
 * All the people you mention are born outside New Zealand. Anna Paquin is a Canadian, for example. Mel Gibson and his father are certainly Americans. People are sometimes careless. Some people may say Roger Donaldson is a New Zealander. All you need to do is correct this to Roger Donaldson is an Australian, as he is. No dispute from me. Wallie (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right here is where you called Gloaming a NZ horse . If you genuinely believe that Anna Paquin is Canadian then why have you not edited her article? I note that you edited the Nicole Kidman article to call her an American, so why not the Paquin one? Go on, do it now and prove that you're not just a big pretender. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As you guys are both here, I have an off topic (sort of) question. What do you think of Australasia? I had never heard of this term.  Is it ever used in the horse industry in your part of the world? - Josette (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my impression is that the term is widely used. Probably more so by NZers as the Australian racing scene rather dominates, certainly the biggest races are staged over there. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Australiasian is a very bad term for a New Zealander. It is similar to an American calling someone Canadian a "North American". Wallie (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry I asked. (typing while laughing out loud!) - Josette (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Warring
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. Matty (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not made any reversions, they were all new edits. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

diff, diff, diff, diff. Simply removing the "undid revision" part of the edit summary does not excuse you. The fact of the matter is, regardless of your new edits (which are very similar to your prefered version even if not exactly the same (which is still not allowed)) you have reverted the material. Please read over WP:3RR again and revert your edits until we can come to consensus - you have still not rationalized your edits on the talk page and have not attempted to discuss them, instead choosing to attack certain editors and accuse others of bias when they make the article more neutral. Matty (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you refuse to revert them out of good faith, I will bring this up at the edit warring noticeboard again and let the reviewing admin decide if you are in breach. It is getting tiresome that you continue to add controversial material without discussion and then expect to be able to discuss afterwards. Thats not how we work, ok? Matty (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF is controversial about it? Look at notes (2) at the bottom of the article. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Phar Lap
Please understand that it was a mistake when I reverted your edits, I started editing before you made your changes and by the time you were done I saved it. Just because I did though does not give you the right to revert my fully sourced improvements at all - you have reverted parts of the article you were not even editing. Here you go - ill substantiate my edits:

I added information on his owners in the lead. This is perfectly acceptable, fully sourced, and much more relevant than some of the stuff in there.

I removed the "but was trained in Australia" part, because the "but" was unneeded.

I added a citation for his Agua Caliente Handicap win.

The tag stays as the sentence contains weasel words, sometimes implies that he is occasionally called it and occasionally not with no rationale as to why.

I elaborated further on his trip to America and what happened with his ownership, once again fully sourced.

I changed "When news of Phar Lap's death reached Australia and New Zealand, many grieved." to " 	When news of Phar Lap's death was reported by the media, his supporters grieved." This should be an acceptable compromise. I understand it doesn't mean your particular point of view but to say that only Australians grieved is incorrect, not every Australian grieved. It was his supporters, and he had many from many countries - he was an international horse that had just won the biggest race of his life.

It seems acceptable to mention other inductees into both countries hall of fames, but if you really need to remove this then the sentences no longer make sense (but you did fix this in a future edit, albeit without rationale).

The see also section is relevant.

I hope you try and understand that these edits were not an attempt to blatantly revert you but were in fact improvements to the article. If you revert my fully sourced edits again, I will bring this to an administrators attention and they can decide who is in the wrong. Matty (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept that it was an honest mistake on your part Matty, but you should have had the good grace to just add them back in rather than start another edit war. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Please don't be so obtuse
Your recent edit to the New Zealand section of the horse article removed the names of Phar Lap and Tulloch. When I restored those names in the edit previous to yours, my edit summary said "Read two paragraphs above - "The bloodstock industry is important to New Zealand, with the export sale of horses". That includes Tulloch and Phar Lap". And yet you still reverted by eliminating those two horses, leaving the edit summary "Will it never end?, LOL". You didn't give a reason for the revert. All you did was disrupt wikipedia. I have reverted to the version which includes Phar Lap and Tulloch who are both products of the New Zealand horse racing stud  industry. Read the cites. Where they later raced can never preclude them from being part of the NZ horse industry. So please don't revert again.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm obtuse? that's quite funny coming from you. Phar Lap was purchased for a rather paltry amount. Your excuse to name drop him and Tulloch in that section is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Anyway that particular list was added quite recently by a certain bewildered user, I'm surprised that you would be so keen to join in the silliness. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed Makybe Diva to the format that has been in use since this project was started. And, after hundreds of horses have had articles created based on that presentation, it is unacceptable for anyone to come along and just change one or two to some new formula they suddenly like. If such change is made, then someone else will justifiably change some other part of the article and we wind up with a mess. There is a reason for uniformity. And, every article has the birth country referenced at least twice: on the introductory birth line if alive, in the racebox and the Category. Handicapper (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Australian racehorses bred in New Zealand
I have nominated australian racehorses bred in new zealand for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bencherheavy (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Incivility
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Pavlova (food). 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.

From Civility: 1. Direct rudeness (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

XLerate (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't follow. Where have I made any comments that could be construed as personal, racial, sexual or religious slurs? If anything what I wrote might be considered to be slightly on the humorous side, especially as it was true!! Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we start with your inference that all New Zealanders suffer from an inferiority complex, at Talk:Pavlova (food)? That is a clear derogatory reference based on nationality. Please, Ernest - where there is clear indication of evidence on an issue, that evidence should be in the Wikipedia article. It's perfectly fine to say that there are suggestions that Pavlova may have originated in Australia, and that it's a major Australian cultural item. Both of those are undeniable. However, it's also true that the evidence points to it having first been created in new Zealand. This is the evidence as it stands, and until further evidence is found supporting the Australian case it too needs to be stated. There is nothing wrong with stating (for example on the Australian cuisine and Phar Lap articles) that some Australian cultural icons may have has a New Zealand origin, any more than there is for saying that New Zealand's most popular ever prime minister was born in Australia (which he was), or that that staple of Kiwi cuisine Vegemite is of Aussie origin. Please accept that where there the best available evidence points to one origin, that needs to be made clear on Wikipedia; where there is controversy, that also needs to be mentioned. Simply resorting to "Kiwi-bashing" is bad wikiquette, and removal of references simply because they contradict your viewpoint is vandalism. Grutness...wha?  00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting all NZers have an inferiority complex, but a lot do. Judging by your recent actions perhaps you are one of those that do? Why did you revert my excellent edit of the Australian cuisine article back to a clearly inferior version? It was my understanding that the use of weasel words was something to be avoided, but obviously you known better. In fact your very statement above that the pavlova is a major Australian cultural item would appear to contradict the edit you seem so keen to push. As for your claim that evidence points to the pavlova being created in NZ, I would direct you to the book by Helen Leach, page 29,second paragraph. I will give you a little time to revert the article back to my superior edit. Please, don't attempt to rewrite it, my version is adequate enough. Hopefully you are man enough to admit that you are wrong. Otherwise I shall have to do it myself, which will be disappointing. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "removal of weasel words" removed one phrase by taking out a whole paragraph including several important references, all of which are valid and important additions to the article per WP:Citing sources. that isn't a simple removal of weasel words, it is vandalism. There is nothing wrong with reverting obvious vandalism. There is, however, something very wrong in your repeated breaking of the three-revert rule in order to repeatedly remove valid references from an article. In any case, in this instance, the use of "some" is not a weasel word, as is made clear at Avoid weasel words. Grutness...wha?  22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph I took out was garbage, I replaced it with something far more worthwhile and dignified. Those weasel words I removed were indeed "weasel words" in the context that they were being used. I would also take issue with your contention that the references were necessary to support the claims in the article. It is my opinion that they do not support the claims. For example a casual reader would get the impression that ANZAC biscuits were invented in NZ, yet if you bother to read the reference it says nothing of the sort. Indeed, that particular reference appears to suggest that the prototype of the ANZAC biscuit first appeared in The War Chest Cookery Book published in Sydney in 1917. Clearly it is a complex situation that cannot be summarised in a single sentence. Hence it would be far better to allow readers to follow the links to the relevant Wikipedia articles and make up their own minds rather than to be subjected to such shameless Kiwi propaganda. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''You know, we're actually trying to help you.. try not to be so negative.'' A8  UDI  03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not showing good faith?? Shouldn't showing good faith be a 2 way thing? Certain editors with an agenda who I shall not name have been harassing me and undoing my edits. These editors have no interest in debating the issues with me because they know they will be defeated. I have no chance in an edit war given their teamwork. If it to be accepted that power in numbers is allowed to prevail on Wikipedia then it's a pretty poor show really, IMO. Would you suggest that I not bother editing any further? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the delayed response. Can you please explain further? Please name the user and any diff links and I'll try to help you out. Thank you A8  UDI  03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a number of users involved, I will not name them, but one in particular has made a number of very petty revisions to my edits. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. XLerate (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ernest, you need to look at how you can work with editors from other backgrounds and take into account their points of view. Otherwise, you might end up getting blocked. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi dude, there's no need for you to get involved. I'm not an Aussie, I'm a New Zealander. In fact, to date, I've never even been to Australia. Neither have I operated a sock puppet account on Wikipedia, ever. This is just more of the usual silly paranoia eminating from the Kiwi clique. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - gadfium 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to suspect that you may be operating a number of sock puppet accounts yourself.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.
 * LOL! Ernest the Sheep (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2009 (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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Reconsider !  09:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continually edit-warring and reverting on multiple articles despite three previous blocks. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene talk 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, you know, that's pretty pathetic really. Before jumping in it might be an idea to at least attempt to get some idea of how the blame for this situation might be shared around. Because I can assure you that that it is not all down to me. BTW I can still edit anonymously anyway. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Ernest - what's up? I don't know the background about this block but you and I have edited together before without any real issues so if you would like to talk... or feel free to email me. - Josette (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Josette –thanks, yes it appears that I have been blocked indefinitely. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but if they think I’m going to grovel to get unblocked then they’ve got another think coming. If the block isn’t reversed I’ll just have to set up another Wikipedia account. I don’t really want to do that, but if it is my only resort then I will do so. Quite frankly, it’s a disgrace what has been happening. Clearly there is a double standard operating here -the block is both unjustified and shameful and that is why I am calling on Wikipedia to launch a full commission of inquiry into the circumstances behind it. In particular I would like to see an investigation into the conduct of the following editors, User:Gadfium, User:Grutness, User: XLerate.

The inquiry would also need to address the following issues/points of concern.

1. The edit war that occurred over at the Liz Taylor article. My improved edit was continually undone for no good reason. The present Liz Taylor edit is not even the original edit, so I find it difficult to comprehend why my edit was undone, other than for reasons of bad intent on the part of the person doing it. My version of the edit is supported my both Encarta World English Dictionary and MacMillan Encyclopedia, so clearly it had some substance to it.

2. The edit war at Kiwi (shoe polish).

I fail to see how the description of William Ramsay as an “Australian-based Scottish-born inventor” is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. What exactly is supposed to be inferred from the phrase “Australian-based”? According to his Wikipedia article he moved to Australia at age 10, and is described as an Australian shoe polish manufacturer. His bother Hugh Ramsay ,also Scottish-born, is described as an Australian artist. Again as with Liz Taylor, my proposed improved edit appears to be trivial, but again it was continually undone for reasons that do not appear to be obvious.

3. Edit war at Australian cuisine.

I again fail to see how the sentence

“ANZAC biscuits and the pavlova are considered by some as Australian national foods, however the oldest recipes for these items are from New Zealand”

and the allegedly supportive references included can be in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Not only is it a contentious and misleading statement, it is also an irrelevant inclusion and a clear example of the use of weasel words. Some obvious questions that follow from such a statement, as suggested at Avoid weasel words, are

Who says that? How many is some? What kind of bias might they have? Why is it of any significance?

When I put this to an editor I was told that there was an exception to the rule: for example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats" would not be weasel words. Well, I’m sorry but the words “considered by some” as used is clearly in the territory of weasel words and it is an insult to the intelligence to suggest otherwise.

Other points of dispute involve the Buzzy Bee and New Zealand humour articles, which I might elaborate on later. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an Admin but I will take a look. In order for you to get unblocked you will have to ask - nicely. You will have to agree to edit in a collegial manner. This might mean backing down for awhile even when you know you're right or agree to ask someone for help. Making a new account is not really an option if you continue editing in the same manner.  This is a website that anyone can edit, even idiots, you have to learn to compromise. I think you have a lot to offer - if you can agree to change I will see what I can do.
 * p.s. Wikipedia is like a game - the only way to win is to play by the wiki rules. - Josette (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC) (I know you know all this, but it's good to be reminded)
 * Nope, I'm not going to beg to get unblocked, that's not going to happen. In fact I've just realised that the reason for my block is supposedly Disruptive editing. That is a total crock and in my opinion it is an abuse of Wikipedia procedure. However if someone can explain how my actions fit into the definition of disruptive editing it would be much appreciated. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about begging - but you do have to make an unblock request and explain yourself.  - Josette (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:DISRUPT, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." Most recently you had been edit-warring on a number of articles (Buzzy Bee, Australian cuisine, Elizabeth Taylor, Kiwi (shoe polish), and New Zealand humour), and some of the edits you were fighting about were non-neutral, without reliable sources, and pointy. You weren't the only one at fault; I warned the others involved (and even reinstated one of your edits more neutrally), but you have a history of edit-warring and disruption and I saw no reason to believe you wouldn't continue. I got the impression that you believe yourself to be battling against what you see as New Zealand nationalist POV. What I actually saw, though, was you trying to "burst the bubble" of other editors by inserting non-neutral inappropriately-written text where you had a source, or actually inserting text that contradicts the sources used where you don't like them. You're exhibiting the classic behaviour of a POV edit-warrior, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. There are a number of non-confrontational policy-based solutions, such as those listed at WP:DR, that you could have tried... but you didn't. To top it off, after I blocked you, you then stated that you could evade your block, and promptly did so; more evidence that you either can't, or won't, abide by Wikipedia policy. If you honestly can't see any problems with the way you handled yourself, I don't believe an unblock is likely. EyeSerene talk 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow what you are saying. My edit of Buzzy Bee is non neutral? How is it any less neutral than the following sentence appearing over at pavlova_(food)?

"All currently available research suggests the recipe originated in New Zealand, and as for the Anzac biscuit, the earliest known books containing the recipe were published in New Zealand."

C'mon now, fair's fair, looks like another double standard to me.

My edit at Australian cuisine lacked reliable sources? I don't really know what you mean. The Wikipedia links Pavlova_(food) and ANZAC biscuits served as the sources. If we're going to follow that logic then there are a lot more claims in that article that lack reliable sources.

My proposed edit to Kiwi (shoe polish) is pointy? I don't know that is supposed to mean. Seems like you are clutching at straws here. I hope this is not the result of some sense of solidarity you feel you have to show to certain editors? Look at the edits to Elizabeth Taylor again. In my opinion that edit war was the result of certain other editors personalising the situation. Exactly the same thing occurred at Kiwi (shoe polish). Yet you claim that I am behaving like the classic POV edit-warrior. Rubbish. If another editor were making edits I disagreed with one thing I would not do is jump in on an article of no particular interest to me and undo edits just for the sake of it. Have another look at the Liz Taylor history, I have similar edits there going back a long time. I would like someone else to adjudicate on this matter, what is the process I need to follow for this to happen? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As a neutral party in this I can't get involved in editing the articles in any meaningful way and still act in an admin capacity. However, I completely agree with your point about the sentence at Pavlova; the second part of that sentence ("and as for the Anzac biscuit...") has no business in the article as it doesn't relate to the article subject. That was also my problem with your text for the Buzzy Bee edit - not the source, which supported your main contention, but the additional text padding the edit that didn't relate to the article subject. Your edit to Australian Cuisine was taking out two apparently reliable sources that supported the previous edit, without replacing them with a better source (in fact, if you have a source for your edit, it should be added in addition to - rather that in replacement of - the text; ideally we present all the information and allow the reader to make up their own mind). Re "pointy", I was referring to WP:POINT, although I linked the wrong diff. I meant to link to Elizabeth Taylor, but I obviously had too many browser tabs open and mixed myself up.
 * As I said above, the main problem isn't your content changes, which to some extent I can understand (although I think you were perhaps overcompensating by replacing one perceived POV with another), but the way you handled this dispute. Edit-warring always results in blocks and the three-revert rule is a bright line. This can mean that one vs. many disputes seem to give an unfair advantage to the many, but that's why we have the other steps listed at WP:DR. To request an independent review, you can use the unblock template, or if you like I can ask for a review at WP:ANI. EyeSerene talk 09:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, a problem is that the circumstances involved are not straightforward and it would take a lot of time and effort for someone to sort through it all. Even then I think it would be difficult for someone with little knowledge of New Zealand culture to get a full grip on the situation. However my main issue is with the accusation that I am a disruptive editor. I can wear the 3RR or incivility, but cannot accept being named as a disruptive editor. That is why I do not feel I should have to request to be unblocked, rather I first want further clarification of the charge. If I were to make a request to get unblocked, with no attached explanation, could I be guaranteed a positive result? I don't really want to get into a long and tedious explanation as to why the original block is unfair. How long approximately is indefinitely? I'd be happy to wait it out. I can see on reflection that some of my actions were badly thought out. Some edits were indeed partly to make a point to certain other editors, but obviously the audience includes lots of other editors who would have no idea about the dynamics of the situation and could easily take umbrage at what I said. I realise that you are only doing your best to be fair in ruling on this, and I apologise for any comment I have made suggesting that you have not attempted to be anything but fair and unbiased. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, no need to apologise to me. It's understood that editors will be annoyed by being blocked, so a bit of visible frustration is understandable. Where you can't afford to do that, though, is on articles or article talk pages :) The block evasion was definitely a bad idea, but as far as I can tell you haven't continued to try to sock so again I put that down to the heat of the moment.
 * Second, an indefinite block is exactly that - one with no definite expiry time. It means that you're blocked until someone unblocks you. Many editors misconstrue this as 'permanently blocked', but it isn't (although many indefblocks end up as de facto permanent blocks simply because no admin sees a reason to unblock).
 * Third, the effect of your edit-warring has been disruptive in that it's prevented discussion that could have resolved your content issues with the other editors. I'm not accusing you of, for example, manufacturing sources or engaging in other intellectual dishonesty, because I don't believe that you have, but the overall battleground behaviour has been disruptive.
 * Fourth, to clarify the "charge", what I was saying with the indefblock is "extrapolating the trend of your previous incidents of edit-warring together with your current edit-warring, I believe that the pattern is likely to continue so I'm restricting your account until convinced otherwise". You've gone some way to addressing this already in your posts, particularly where you acknowledge that you could have handled things better. Civility I hadn't mentioned, as personally I think one finds offence where one looks for it and thin skins are as much a liability on Wikipedia as in real life, but it's true that you have on occasions manufactured ammunition for other editors to use against you in an "icing on the cake" sort of way.
 * Last (and apologies for the length of this post!), given your above I think we're making some progress towards a possible unblock. If I can make a suggestion, if you'd be willing to accept some voluntary restrictions, I'd support unblocking your account. I've been in contact with Josette, and she suggested mentoring (possibly with her as the mentor); would this be acceptable? This isn't any reflection on your knowledge or competence, but an alternative to more formal measures by making an experienced and respected Wikipedian available who knows our policies and procedures, and who can advise in handling disputes and perhaps administer a friendly kick up the backside if it's needed. Unblocking terms will also probably involve a formal reverting restriction with attached sanctions if it's broken, such as WP:1RR, on Australia & NZ-related articles. This wouldn't prevent you making edits, but it should encourage discussion instead of edit-warring where those edits are resisted by others. Your thoughts? EyeSerene talk 10:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you EyeSerene, for your very thoughtful and reasonable response. I especially appreciate your comment on civility. If Ernest agrees to your terms I will agree to mentor him although as I said before I might not be the best choice. I assume there would be some time limit.
 * Ernest, in my opinion, your acknowledgment shows how reasonable you can be too. I guess the balls in your court now. - Josette (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes I promise to behave in a more dignified manner if given another chance. Now that I know that an indefinite ban is a possibility I'm sure I will be far more considered in my actions. Before I was not too worried about the possibility of getting blocked because I thought it would only be a temporary thing and I was happy to wait it out -but this incident has been a good lesson and I now know better and will not want it to happen again, ever. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Ernest, thank you for your helpful and considered response. I'll unblock your account on the understanding that:
 * you have agreed to mentoring from Josette (with the clarification that this is a purely voluntary arrangement between the two of you, and while Josette has made herself available to offer help and advice when appropriate, she cannot act as your advocate if you dig yourself into a hole)
 * you agree to abide by a one revert rule on Australia and New-Zealand related articles on anything other than obvious vandalism (if you're not sure about the status of a edit, leave it in place and get a second opinion). This means that if you make a change which is then reverted, you move immediately to discussion (focused on the edit, not the editors) rather than reinstating your change. Similarly, you make no more than one revert on any change made by other editors before moving to discussion. If you feel you're not being given a fair hearing when you open discussion, you can ask Josette for advice or turn to the measures listed at WP:DR to get more eyes on the situation. If you do get into a revert war, it's likely you'll be reblocked without further warning.
 * I think the main thing to take away from this is that in content disputes there will be times when you'll get your way, and times when you won't (even when you think you should). Wikipedia isn't about "winning" and "losing", and if consensus goes against them we expect editors to accept it with as much grace as possible, just as they would if a decision does go their way. I believe you've shown in this thread that you can be as reasonable and communicative as anyone else here, so I hope that if you can just hang on to the moral high ground and operate within our policies and guidelines, you'll be making valuable contributions for as long as you want to be here. All the best; I'll head off to unblock your account now ;) EyeSerene talk 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done. There should be no active autoblocks remaining in place, but any problems, just shout. EyeSerene talk 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Ernest the Sheep (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could I have my right to 3 reverts back please, User:Wildhartlivie is already undoing my edits? His edit to the Frances Alda article would appear to be an instance of stalking behaviour as he has no history of any previous edits to the article. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ernest, I don't think you are being stalked. Wildhartlivie's edits and comments are perfectly acceptable considering your history. Please chill...
 * Wildhartlivie, how about giving Ernest and I some space to talk this through? It's a big wiki. - Josette (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got a little over excited there. I apologise to Wildhartlivie for the accusation. However I do think my edits should be treated on merit, my prior history should be irrelevant. Given the circumstances Wildhartlivie should have explained why he undid my edit to the Frances Alda article. Then I might not have jumped to incorrect conclusions.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Stalking behavior?" Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and more pointedly, WP:Wikistalking, which states "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." You are not being "stalked", which is a volatile and serious accusation. It is extremely common for editors to check the other edits of someone when they are misapplying some policy aspect, such as your contention that the MOS:BIO clearly says that the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead of an article unless it is related to their notability. Thus, after I reverted your edits regarding that to Nicole Kidman and Bob Hope, I checked other recent edits you have made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

November 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Breaking agreed 1RR, as you did at Joan Hammond. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth: I fully agree with the edits by Ernest the Sheep at the Joan Hammond article and I think that the repeated reversals by XLerate were not well considered. Hammond, according to her own words, "was conceived in England, born in New Zealand, and raised in Australia." This is properly reflected in the body of her article; that she was born in New Zealand, 6 months before she and her mother followed her father, who had left for Sydney even earlier, does not belong in the lead (or be the basis for any categorisation, which thankfully it currently is not). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. - Josette (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked the blocking admin for comment. --Stephen 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a wider pattern of disruption. I first saw this, then this (both of which have been removed by others) and then this, straight back disruptive editing and attacking others. We've heard promises before but it looks like lip service to me. XLerate (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Xlerate: Now that you draw my attention to the Nicole Kidman article, I agree with EtS that her being born in America should not be mentioned in the article's lead – it is not significant; see Madeleine Albright. BTW, the case of Frances Alda is more complicated. It's not clear to me that EtS' edits are more disruptive than Wallie's. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that per WP:MOSBIO "country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability", Ernest is the one who is correct, all the others that keep reinserting the irrelevant birth place are in the wrong and they are the ones being disruptive. Ernest is adhering to the applicable guideline. - Josette (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether the particular edits which Ernest the Sheep repeatedly reverted were good ones is of very limited relevance. The 1RR meant "one revert", not "one revert unless you are right". If this were an isolated incident I would be very much inclined to take the line "well, this was perhaps a minor slip, and we can give him one last chance". However, it is not an isolated incident, but rather part of an extended pattern. He has already been given "one last chance". He has repeatedly indicated contempt for Wikipedia's methods, including indicating that he sees no reason to accept any restrictions to a greater extent than he is forced to. XLerate is perfectly right in saying "We've heard promises before but it looks like lip service". He has long ago established a sufficient history of disruption to lead to an indefinite block, which was lifted on certain conditions to which he agreed. Giving one last chance on a condition, and then deciding that breaking the condition doesn't matter, is rather meaningless. Incidentally, I am surprised that Ernest the Sheep forgot about the 1RR restriction, considering what a considerable amount of attention was given to it, including Ernest's asking for it to be lifted. What is more, this reversion was not an unconnected edit which just happened to technically breach a restriction imposed for other reasons: it was very much on the same subject as edits which led to the 1RR restriction in the first place. Finally, Ernest the Sheep's original indefinite block was not just a result of edit warring, there were other issues too. Recent edits include this one which continues the old pattern of incivility to other editors, and arrogantly instructing another editor what to do or not do, rather than showing an ability and willingness to work collaboratively. This edit in itself is fairly minor, as was the reversion which, when repeated, was the immediate cause of the present block. However, they are not to be looked at in isolation: they are both continuations of the patterns of disruptive editing which led to previous blocks. I would have declined the unblock request, but since the blocking admin has been asked to comment I have preferred to wait, but to give this detailed explanation of my reason for thinking it should be declined. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no view on the blocking or unblocking of Ernest the Sheep, but I wanted to express my opinion that the edits discussed here, including the one mentioned by JamesBWatson, seem perfectly reasonable to me – in fact, more reasonable than their reverts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfectly reasonable to tell someone that making a good faith edit you think was mistaken "only makes them look foolish"? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Those good "faith edits" get old and tiresome after awhile, so I don't find that diff to be particularly uncivil - if at all. The diffs in general do not show major disruption or incivility; no reason to indef. Ernest had respected his 1RR restriction for almost a year until now - it is probably time to reevaluate. - Josette (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I support an unblock and expect that this 1RR restriction should be discarded... or re-applied to the passel of editors that seem to be pushing a New-Zealand-POV. Ernest *is* right here, and the others need to review MOS:BIO. Most interested in seeing what comes of User talk:EyeSerene. G'day, Jack Merridew 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This was reported at WP:AIV as a breach of the 1RR - I checked the page history and found the report to be true, and applied the block. I have not examined the whole long history of editing to have any particular opinion at this stage - if any admin is happy to unblock, then that's OK with me.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ernest; feel free to ping me if you run into further difficulties. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes -I am back on Wikipedia!! I would like to thank the various administrators for taking time to consider the circumstances of my case and allowing me one more chance. Hopefully, as long as I can maintain my discipline, there will be no further problems. I must also give a big thankyou to those who contributed messages of support. It was obviously this support that swayed the decision in my favour. Thanks to all of you!! Ernest the Sheep (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As Jack said, welcome back :) No issue with the original block - it was simply an application of a current restriction - but I think unblocking is reasonable in the circumstances. I'm mostly undecided on removing the 1RR, but on balance I think it probably serves no useful purpose any longer. I would certainly not like to see it used as a mechanism to remove an editor who was correct in his application of policy, but is opposed by a larger group. However, one or three reverts is still edit warring, and that's specifically against WP policy as a means of resolving content disputes.
 * My gut feeling is that Ernest should try to stick to one revert no matter what (obvious vandalism excluded), and contact another editor (is Josette still mentoring?) if he believes he's being railroaded by other editors working together with their higher available 'quota' of reverts. This would avoid any impression of edit warring and help to get uninvolved eyes on the situation as soon as possible before anything gets to the blocking stage. EyeSerene talk 09:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still available, just give me shout ;) - Josette (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll still try to abide by the 1RR restriction. What went wrong in this case was that I got a little over excited when I realized who the editor was who'd opposed my edit. I realise it's bad to take anything personally on Wikipedia, but sometimes it's hard not to. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)