User talk:OzWoden

Sydney Suburbs - Commercial Areas
G'Day OzWoden I've noticed you've started changing the headings in a lot of the Sydney suburb articles, particularly Commercial Area to Central Business District. Can you please reconsider this action?

Almost all the articles for Sydney suburbs use the heading Commercial Area as it is a standard heading. The reason we use Commercial Area rather than CBD is that some suburbs have more than one commercial area. Also, CBD is usually a term that is applied to cities rather than suburbs. It may be appropriate for big suburbs such as Parramatta and Campbelltown but does not make sense when applied to a suburb with a handful of shops near the railway station, as is the case with many suburbs in Sydney. That is why we believe that Commercial Area is a more appropriate heading for this informatiom and it has been applied to almost every article. I hope you agree and keep using the standardised headings. Cheers J Bar (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Suburbs - Commercial Area
Thankyou J Bar for your comments.

I might note that I have not changed "the headings in a lot of the Sydney suburb articles, particularly Commercial Area to Central Business District.". I only changed the one heading for one suburb.

I disagree with your assessment regarding the use of the phrase Central Business District - which refers to the main (central) place (district) of commercial activity (business) for any place, be it a town, city, village, etc. If there are two "commercial areas" (as ex Sim City users prefer) then the CBD refers to the main one of the two.

I will however leave it as is. :)

Also, who is the "we" in "...That is why we believe that Commercial Area is a more appropriate..." - is it the royal "we" or the "we" of a particular interest group attempting to dominate the language style on Australian wikipedia pages? ;) (This is rhetorical) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OzWoden (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * G'Day OzWoden,
 * I understand CBD can be used for suburbs but it's usually reserved for cities. Can I refer you to the wikipedia article on Central business district: A central business district (CBD) (equivalent to a 'downtown' in American English and 'the City' in Australia & India and in the United Kingdom) is the commercial and often geographic heart of a city.


 * The 'we' in my message refers to the WikiProject Sydney. We are not a particular interest group attempting to dominate the language style on Australian wikipedia pages but wikipedia editors who are providing contributions to articles about Sydney. Of course, anyone is free to edit the pages of wikipedia in whatever they like, but we're just trying to improve all the articles in wikipedia. If you have a look at a few different articles, you will see that setting some standards also makes it easy to compare and contrast information across these articles. You might be interested in having a look at some outstanding articles that have been created for Summer Hill, New South Wales, Ashfield, New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales and Parramatta, New South Wales. If you have a look at what some editors have alreday done for these suburbs, it might help you expand some of teh info for the suburbs that you're familiar with. Cheers J Bar (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. utcursch | talk 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the references provided by you back up statements like "Part of the school's focus on student welfare involves awarding those students who regularly misbehave". Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original research. While your statements might be factual, they can't be incorporated in Wikipedia articles, unless they are backed up a reliable source (such as a newspaper). This is especially true with statements that are possibly defamatory or libelous.
 * If you're want to express views that have not been published by newspapers or other reliable sources yet, you may choose to do so using another medium, such as a blog or letter to a newspaper editor. "No original research" is a core policy of Wikipedia.
 * If you find any "puffed up lies" in the article, please feel free to question them using templates such as fact. But, please don't add unsourced negative statements to balance such statements. utcursch | talk 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Humour
Thank you for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ingleburn High School. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  01:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I took off the warning. sorry about that. I am going to check the page if that's true if they have been doing that -- Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I got my reason now. First of all you removed the stub template and second you used information about school graffiti.-- Antonio Lopez  (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * this is an example of a stub template.
 * the graffiti part was removed because it's original research. read WikiProject Schools for a more appropriete.-- Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * hold on. can I move your messages that you left me to your talk so it can be easier read and be more organized.-- Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * wait regard that last message. I think it will be safe to remove that warning the previous user made because he put a lv-3 and your edit were good faith, again I apologize-` Antonio Lopez  (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * wait. I am not the right person to remove the warnings. Let just wait until they respond.-- Antonio Lopez  (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 copies of your messages from User talk:Antonio Lopez

Thankyou for your reply. First, what is the stub template? If i know what it is I will know not to remove it. Secondly the school graffiti is not vandalism. I did not do the graffiti. The graffiti is an artwork that the school got some of the art classes to do a few years ago. Also what about the marketing style comments of the other users such as about excess demand to go to the school and "a truly comprehensive school"? surely those statements are vandalism.OzWoden (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And since i dont know what this stub template is, then according tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism : Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. my accidental removal of the stub template (which i did not realise i had done, nor realised what a stub template is) means i have not vandalised. OzWoden (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it in one page, so it could be more organized and so the other users can reply in one page. Don't worry I will be watching this page, so you can respond here.-- Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it I can add back my edits apart from making sure I don’t get rid of the stub and not including the graffiti info?OzWoden (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * sure do what you have to do.-- Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ingleburn High School
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. CIreland (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Stolen Generation
Why did you replace text in the article Stolen Generation with "###############?" I don't understand your intention. For creating test edits, please use the sandbox. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear it was just a computer error -- I had no intent of patronization; rather, I find that the sandbox comes in handy when trying to understand formatting problems. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ceasing your pointless crusade regarding the validity of the word 'stolen' which is a far more broader debate than wikipedia. Per Naming conventions (common names) and this, metaphorically speaking you were beating a dead horse. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

reverting sexual assault material
Please note the Reverting page of the Editor Handbook. It includes the following guidelines :
 * Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute
 * Do not revert good faith edits

WP:EW states: Edit warring is an unproductive behavior characterized by repeated, combative reversion of others' edits.

Rather than reverting, it would be more helpful to change the text so that it is, in your view, more accurate. Sexual abuse was mentioned in the report and your actions in deleting this information seem intent on denying this. Wm (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3rr
In all fairness you hit the 3RR rule just as Al-Andalus did. It wouldn't be right for me to report him without also reporting you. Please have a look at WP:3RR and report yourself, saving me the trouble. Michael talk 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll report in half an hour if you do not. Apologies, in all honesty, but I've been through the 3RR crap as well and everyone needs to play by the rules. Michael talk 06:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What you reverted was not libellious, nor was it unsourced or poorly sourced. Most people adding biased commentary to articles back it up on the basis that it is "fact" or "sourced" but sources do not determine something's relevance and fact is quite different from opinion; fact being objective, opinion being subjective. If you look at my own block record I was blocked for 3RR once. It sucks. I was angry. And since I both want to play by the rules and avoid having to type up the little 3RR form, I'm requesting you, in good spirit, do it yourself. Reverting back won't fix the issue, reporting yourself allows you to be back in the game after 24 hours. Michael talk 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Macquarie Fields
Okay, these anti-aboriginal edits are starting to get annoying. I don't have a problem with you removing blatantly biased or incorrect material or correcting poor writing. That makes articles better. But deleting factually correct material without attempting to make worthwhile additions or corrections only makes it worse. If you want to write a good Macquarie Fields article, do it. I won't mind if it makes no reference to the original inhabitants of the area if it's substantially better than the current job. For example:


 * The opening paragraph of the history section says James Meehan named it Macquarie Fields while a later paragraph states it was Jason Snowden. Don't you find that incongruous?
 * The transport section, which you did some editing on, could be better written and had no references until I added one for the bus routes. Surely if you were concerned about all the aboriginal facts, you would want that properly referenced too.
 * The schools section just lists a few schools as bullet points with no reference. A better schools section would give some idea of when the schools were established, whether they're public or private etc.
 * The Sport & Recreation section offers a vague and grammatically awkward "There is also a number of sporting fields in the town." Again there are no references.
 * There is no description of the commercial area.

Now, getting back to your points about the aboriginal history, you're right that reference doesn't mention Macquarie Fields. I have found no good references for the aboriginal history of the greater Campbelltown area but I have included a reference from Liverpool Council stating that the Georges River was considered the boundary between the Darug and Tharawal which then means Macquarie Fields is in Darug land. I don't consider that original research. The other reference describes the huts the Darug built, the tools they used, etc. which were the facts you previously questioned in that section. The references together support what is written.

I have reverted your deletion and if you continue making destructive rather constructive edits, I will just revert them without attempting to accommodate your views. I would rather accommodate you but you're not helping your cause by being so narrow minded on this issue. Crico (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Campbelltown / Eschold Park
Please refrain from making poorly thought out accusations of edit warring.

Another user continually vandalises the Campbelltown, Eschol Park and other Sydney suburb pages with information that does not belong in the suburb articles. My reversion of such vandalism does not constitute edit warring. Good day. OzWoden (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment was made in regard to the number of reverts from the same editors, on a number of suburb articles regarding History, in particular Aboriginal history. If you have a problem with the facts in the articles, then I suggest you make your point on the discussion pages, rather than just delete them. If others editors agree that the information does not belong in that particular article, then the information can be removed. If you have a problem with references not being provided on a particular paragraph, then I suggest that you tag it, so that references can be provided. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I am mainly interested in improving the pages related to the suburbs of Sydney and in particular western Sydney. Much of what you have been deleting and I reinstating wasn't written by me in the first place. I merely searched out references for what you had tagged as unreferenced. When all's said and done, I don't mind if a suburb article has a one sentence description of the area's original inhabitants, a one paragraph description or no mention at all. If you look at the History section I added to Rosemeadow, New South Wales recently, there is no reference to the indigenous people. When I rewrote the History section of Leumeah, New South Wales, I though the indigenous history was relevant because of the origin of the name and the relationship between John Warby and the Tharawal. I understand you have a point of view that this isn't relevant to the suburb. I disagree but, if you were prepared to be sensible, I wouldn't object to a private agreement between us where I wouldn't revert your deletions on certain suburbs if you agreed not to delete material from others. In all honesty, the material in Ambarvale, Blair Athol, Blairmount, Claymore, Eschol Park and Kentlyn doesn't really appear to be specific to the suburbs in question but the material in Bow Bowing, Ingleburn, Leumeah and Minto Heights appears relevant to me. I am intending to rewrite Menangle Park in the near future and I think its indigenous history is relevant because of the name. I thought my revised version of Campbelltown was fine before someone else added the Aboriginal History section back in. Which brings me to my final point. Even if you were amenable to this as a solution, there are plenty of other people with differing points of view out there in wikiland. It's up to you. Crico (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with sentences that are NOT facts, but since factuality is an irrelevant concept in Wikipedia my point of issue is firstly with the lack of references. As Jimmy Wales suggests, I am being bold by not simply tagging every bloody thing, but instead by weeding out the rubbish. Secondly I have a problem with references which do not support the statements for which the references refer to. And lastly I have a problem with information (referenced correctly or otherwise) which does not relate to the article at hand. If I were writing an article about you (which I wouldn't since you are living and biographical content of living persons is discouraged) I wouldn't include a paragraph or two about the culture of the people who used to live at the house where you grew up. Why? - because it is not relevant.
 * Also I have tagged many a sentence that required referencing - it gets a tad boring when they are not tended to properly. And if you bothered to look at a number of the discussion pages (eg. Macquarie Fields) you would notice that I did attempt to explain the irrelevance of the information a certain editor was providing. It was fruitless since their response was to visit almost every suburb article for the Western Sydney area and begin defacing those articles as well. OzWoden (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't think your example makes sense. of course a biographical article on me will obviously not be related to who lived in my house. However, these are articles on places and the history of a place don't just begin 200 years ago with European Settlement. Sure it wasn't a suburb before that time, but the place still existed and had a history. An article on Italy will probably mention the history of the Roman Empire in the same location and not just the history of the place since it was named Italy in more recent times. The same goes for places in Australia. Just because the suburbs have only existed in the last 100-200 years, do we ignore any history of the place before these last two centuries? No. You can't just deny any Aboriginal History for these places. The information needs to be accurate, I agree, so if you have a problem with the accuracy then discuss it on the talk page. You keep deleting the Aboriginal History from all these articles and others keep restoring it. That's why I said you have been edit warring. If you have a probem with the information being restored by other editors then I suggest you seek mediation from the administrators. Cheers.J Bar (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the indigenous history of an area is relevant to a suburb article is a matter of opinion not fact. Your opinion is that it is irrelevant but most others appear to believe it is relevant. To then describe that information being included in an article as "vandalism" is ridiculous and betrays your true motives. I have tried to accommodate your views but without reciprocal accommodation I can't see any point continuing the discussion. Crico (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

History
I do not wish to "deny" any particular view of history - I wish to categorise information correctly. Perhaps you ought to begin an article on the pre-settlement history of the Sydney region or similar. By the way, by definition, history begins with written records - I will let you dwell on that one. Cheers :) OzWoden (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be your definition of history but it is not the only one. According to the Macquarie dictionary, History is the branch of knowledge dealing with past events. Yes, there are other definitions also given that mention written records but History is not limited to those. You say that you don't want to "deny" any particular view of history but your actions in regards to these articles, say otherwise. Anyway, why is it is so important to you, to remove any information in these articles about pre-European settlement? Cheers. J Bar (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And according to anyone with a few active neurons, history cannot be recognised as such without (proper) evidence - generally primary or secondary sources. Not emotion-fuelled chinese-whisper style conjecture that is not written down for decades or even centuries. If it is not properly referenced then it is little more than superstitious nonsense - whether popularly believed or not. But that is all beside the point...
 * To answer your question, as I have mentioned in probably all of my messages on this matter, the information in question should not be in the suburb articles because pre-European settlement is irrelevent to an article about something which did not exist until post-European settlement. If pre-European settlement is so important to the article for you, why do you not include a yarn about the formation of the mountains and a little bit about plate tectonic theory and perhaps the different flora and fauna and how they evolved? (this question is rhetorical - the obvious answer is again because it is irrelevant to the suburb articles) OzWoden (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is not irrelevant at all. As part of the wikiproject on Sydney Suburbs, we have guidelines and headings that help people provide information on these subjects. They follow a standard wikipedia format and we try to follow those as closely as possible. These are: History, Politics, Demographics etc... History is divided into a number of sub-headings Aboriginal Culture and European Settlement being the two most important. All editors are asked to follow the guides but they are not completely strict, so alternative headings can also be included. And as matter of fact, Geography is another heading that can be used and the information you suggest can be included in that section if it significant. The wikiproject is a serious collaboration; it's not just me making this up. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Indigenous Australians
Hey if editors went in and reverted spaces of articles because of inactive/not acted upon unreferenced tags - whole parts of wikipedia would vanish tommorrow :)

If you feel you are following a specific wikipedia policy - please feel free to cite it very specifically at the article talk page at the - and try to consider whether such wholesale removal of material from an article might not need some warning first - also you need to wait for a while because there is no guarantee that editors will respond in a short time on such an issue.

Please feel free to discuss at the article talk page - and where possible please indicate where such removal of material ideas come from SatuSuro 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Campbelltown, New South Wales etc.
Your constant deletions and reverts of information regarding anything to do with Indigenous Australians in so many articles including Sydney suburbs of south-western Sydney are desruptive. Your snide remarks at other editors in the Edit Summary are not helpful either. J Bar (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First point; I do not engage in vandalism.
 * Second point; Which edits are you (wrongly) suggesting are vandalism and why?
 * Third point; Why are my edits "desruptive"?
 * Fourth point; My so called "snide" remarks were merely there to enlighten other editors.
 * P.S. You may concentrate any response on the first and second points.

OzWoden (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I first note that in your abrubt response on my Talk Page that you did not address any of my points or questions that I posed above.


 * Also, in response to "If you wish to delete information, you should discuss it on the talk page first." - I did.


 * You first "warned" me on 03:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC) and then posted another "last warning" on 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Both warnings were in regard to the Indigenous Australians article.
 * I will draw your attention to the fact that my last edit to the said article was on 11:44, 27 June 2008. Your first warning was subsequent to this edit and your "last warning" was subsequent to your first warning without any edits to the article by myself in between.
 * Please explain your actions!
 * Further, on what authority do you warn me? OzWoden (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OzWoden, You have received warnings from other editors for disruptive editing in the past. You don't need to receive four warnings from one editor to be blocked. It's four warnings in total and then on the fifth you can be blocked. You have actually received FIVE warnings now. I am following the wikipedia warning procedure. You have already received three warnings from other editors regarding your vandalism of Ingleburn High School. I gave you a warning for Campbelltown, New South Wales and included Indigenous Australians in the title because I was aware of your previous vandalism on that page. Your further vandalism of Indigenous Australians on June 27th was reverted by other editors, so a further warning was issued for that particular vandalism. Your deletions and vandalism in Stolen Generations and other Sydney suburb articles such as Macquarie Fields, New South Wales, Ingleburn, New South Wales etc. have also been reverted. If you believe your deletions are justified then I suggest you seek mediation on the subject. If you continue to vandalise the articles, you will be blocked. J Bar (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians
Your constant deletions from articles such as Indigenous Australians are vandalism. If you wish to delete information, you should discuss it on the talk page first. J Bar (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to talk page item
I am not further interested - it was a suggestion of a way of looking at things - you have misinterpreted the intent of the earlier messages and as far as I can see you not have taken up the suggestions made - cheers SatuSuro 12:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I am no expert on Wikipedia but I am inclined to agree with you that, based on the Wikipedia guidelines, none of the edits you have made constitute vandalism. However, as someone who has been annoyed by some of your edits, I have noticed you approach your edits in a very confrontational way with a dogmatic mindset that invariably raises the hackles of others. I don't understand why you don't find references to support your view on a matter instead of just criticising other people's lack of references. For example, a dispute about whether the name De Vere should be filed under the letter "D" or "V" should be able to be resolved fairly simply without making unpleasant comments about people who hold the opposite view. The same applies to your other pet hates. If you're capable of finding a good definition of what constitutes vandalism in Wikipedia you should be capable of finding references to support other edits you wish to make. Crico (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't find references to support your view on a matter instead of just criticising other people's lack of references. The issue was with my deletion of others' unreferenced material. Deleted material needs no reference since one cannot reference something which is no longer there. I do hope that brings some understanding for you.

For example, a dispute about whether the name De Vere should be filed under the letter "D" or "V" should be able to be resolved fairly simply without making unpleasant comments about people who hold the opposite view. I was not in a dispute over the matter. I made a point about correct grammatical practice and implemented it. My comments were not intended to be unpleasant - rather they were to educate. If those users, who the comments were intended to educate, felt belittled, that is more a result of their own shortcomings than others pointing them out. Also I am not sure it is possible to hold an opposite view on basic grammatical practices. For example if I said that 'I think sentences generally end in full stops', I do not think that someone else could reasonably hold a view for example that 'sentences do not end in full stops'.

If you're capable of finding a good definition of what constitutes vandalism in Wikipedia you should be capable of finding references to support other edits you wish to make. I am quite capable and do so with all my edits which add material to articles. As stated before, removal of unreferenced material does not require a reference itself.

OzWoden (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unwaranted warnings
 Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Bar#Unwaranted_warnings on 13 July 2008.

Please identify when these other warnings were made and by whom.

I have not vandalised any pages. If you believe I have, please identify the particular edits (with links) that you believe are vandalism.

I do not believe my deletions of unreferenced material and addition of tags is vandalism.

Please note the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism:

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.

Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism:

If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

OzWoden (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC) OzWoden (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please identify when these other warnings were made and by whom.

I have not vandalised any pages. If you believe I have, please identify the particular edits (with links) that you believe are vandalism. OzWoden (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reviewed your previous warnings from other editors and can see that some of the warnings were for edit warring rather than vandalism. You have followed the guidelines with your recent deletions by deleting only information that has been fact tagged for quite some time and I hope you continue to do so. I've taken Crico's advice above and removed my vandalism warnings.


 * I never intended to prevent you from editing articles but I am still concerned about your deletions from so many articles and your comments on edits aimed at other editors. I'm not convinced that all your deletions are in good faith and are being done for the good of the articles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. J Bar (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ihs_graffiti.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ihs_graffiti.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2008 (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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)