User talk:Skyring/Archive 4

Australian head of state
WHY did you just revert my Afd? GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. I restored the redirect you inadvertently destroyed, leaving your template in place. Perhaps you are going about this the wrong way. Why not chill out a bit and/or seek assistance from someone happy to help you? --Pete (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just notified one of my mentors that I've pulled back from that article & Head of state. My dispute with your ongoing agenda in those areas, tends to distract me from my gnome duties. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * May I direct you to the comfort and wisdom found here and here? --Pete (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Read up on WP:TENDENTIOUS - food for thought. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would remind you both of 3RR, a rule you have denied before Pete.   Djapa Owen (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)    Djapa Owen (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing cycle
Your revert warring indicates that you might not be familiar with the Wikipedia editing process. Please have a read of WP:BRD to understand the cycle.

As you are desiring to change wording that has been stable in the article since 9 March 2011 (the status quo) and your attempt to change it was challenged, the onus is upon you to leave the status quo alone until a consensus to change it has been reached. Please use the article talk page to outline your proposal and supporting argument and discuss with other editors.

You may want to also keep in mind the dispute resolution process.

Thanks. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Was that intended to stir me up? I suggest you be more open in discussion. When you fail to respond to polite questions about your sources, it gives the impression that your position is weak. The quote from Barwick - which you supplied, remember - quite demolishes your position. I'm happy to work with you to find a mutually acceptable wording, but I cannot support your current preference, which is vague and misleading. --Pete (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The intent is to get you to stop revert warring.
 * I responded to the relevant points you raised. There are other editors participating at the talk page; though, it doesn't seem clear what their relative positions are regarding wording. Then again, you haven't really attempted to start a focused discussion on the composition of the sentence you're challenging.
 * I remind you again of the dispute resolution process; you may wish to pursue it further. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Your intention is to stop me edit warring. But you are doing this yourself. Perhaps you should think about what message you are really sending here. You may think you have responded to the points I raised, but I found your responses evasive and empty. For example, you have not outlined your position in response to the quote from Barwick. Australia's longest-serving Chief Justice utterly demolishes your position and you don't see this as relevant? You are sending me a clear message here, and that is that you prefer to edit war rather than discuss the relevant points. I would prefer a little more fair dealing, thank you. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I addressed your point about Barwick: (second paragraph).
 * Again: if you're having a hard time with me, engage other editors.
 * This is the last I'll be saying about this here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing about Barwick in the diff you provided. I see evasion. Continued evasion. Again, the message you are sending - and it is a pattern I have seen before - is that you are on unsound ground and bluster rather than discussion is your preferred tactic. That is hardly an admirable course to choose. Please reconsider your approach. --Pete (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you see nothing? You must have confused deeming something irrelevant with evasion, then.
 * It would be much easier to throw at you accusations of deliberate obfuscation by way of long-winded, misguided theorising on tangential or irrelevant matters. But, one is supposed to attack the content, not the author. So, my advice is to follow your own advice. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can go on too long. mea culpa. Let me instead allow Sir Garfield Barwick to speak:"There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion."Seventeen years as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. His views on the "reserve powers of the Crown" must carry more weight than yours or mine. But you see them as irrelevant. You are unable to respond. Why is that?
 * I think it is because you somehow see his remarks as wrong. Not because they are, but because they conflict with your deeply-held opinions, and you are unable to accept that your core beliefs on the matter are incorrect. I think you see the constitutional powers of the Governor-General as belonging to the Queen, who may exercise them without advice, who may withdraw them any time she sees fit. I think you should study up on this, try to find any competent authority who supports such a view, because it is simply not the case, and High Court judge after High Court judge has stated that the Governor-General's constitutional powers are his alone.
 * As for the sources I deleted, they are of no consequence. The self-published Spadijer book is the equivalent of a blog, and a poorly-sourced, opinionated one at that. The Thorpe case, as even a glance at the transcript reveals, is quite irrelevant. When the discussion revolves around whether a first year law student can afford the enormous costs of a High Court appearance and the "Queen of England" and Prime Minister are nominated as heads of state, Kirby's offhand remark carries little consequence, and certainly not the conclusive definitive judgement that "LJ Holden" seems to give it.
 * We can talk about it - Kirby is a man I respect most highly, but his findings are often at odds with other members of the High Court.
 * And on that note, I invite you to talk about the points raised. You may find evasion more convenient, but when you do that, it just tells me that you are in the wrong, but unable to admit it to anyone, especially yourself. --Pete (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have yet again misread a source. Barwick talks about whether or not the governor-general has reserve powers (and concludes there are none; the governor-general either has "express power given him by the Constitution" and/or power that must be carried out with "the concurrence of the ministry"), not whether or not the reserve powers belong to the Crown or to the governor-general (as though the two were separate). Hence: not relevant to the matter of the two words you disputed. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Here is the wording in the article:"The governor-general may use the reserve powers of the Crown as prescribed by the constitution, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975."Where are "the reserve powers of the Crown" (or their usage) prescribed by the Constitution? The term does not appear in the document and we must therefore turn to other sources. Barwick says that they do not exist. There is no room for any such notion, as he puts it. The "notable example of their use" was the exercise by Sir John Kerr of the power in s64 to appoint ministers. Was that the use of a "reserve power of the Crown"? Clearly, if your interpretation of Barwick is correct, our article wording cannot be, and I invite you to correct it to your satisfaction. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to challenge the claim the governor-general has reserve powers to exercise, start a discussion about it somewhere; perhaps Talk:Governor-General of Australia (the result may have wide-reaching effect, since a number of Wikipedia articles talk about reserve powers of the Austrlian Crown). It is a separate matter. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, OK. Let's move back to the article. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR
Just a warning: You are at your WP:3RR limit at Governor-General of Australia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check which portions were changed and count again. I also suggest that your Bold edit was Reverted and you should Discuss it, rather than edit-war and remove sources. --Pete (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Block
I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring at Governor-General of Australia. Please use the unblock template if you wish to request an unblock. Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian HoS dispute
Your recent editing history at Australian head of state dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Moxy (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Crowned monarch of UK, and monarchy of the realms
Pete, it is not for me to join the discussion, but may I ask you about ''The (Oz) Constitution allows the Queen to use power by defining the situations in which it may be exercised. The Governor-General can hardly appoint himself, sign the Queen's name to legislation after referring it to her, nor disallow legislation already assented to by himself - or herself in the current instance. Those are functions which must be performed by the Queen, the Constitution was drafted with these exceptions to the specifics of Section 61 in mind, and the circumstances were explicitly defined.'' To my mind, that results in the Queen being ultimately head of state, but GG acting as head of state (like a regent) for most day to day practical purposes (including those concerning UN and other diplomatic protocol), and also in a crisis. Isn't that how it is? And if so, in an article words and phrases that depart from that are to be avoided so far as any commentator can? Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One might ask why there is an article at all. There is one because opinions in Australia are divided, and when even the government cannot say who is the head of state from one year to the next, sometimes one day to the next, often different branches holding different views at the same time, then the situation is dire. It is up to individuals to make up their own mind, and opinions are often very strongly held. After the 1999 referendum was over, one respected political commentator predicted that monarchist Prime Minister would move towards passing legislation explicitly stating that the Governor-General was the Australian head of state. That didn't happen, and the debate continues.


 * For my part, I accept that there is no definitive source, but I am quite sure that with each passing year the support for the monarchy position diminishes. Not that delight in the royal family is ever likely to fade, but because we want our head of state, like most other nations, to represent who we are to the world, The very English Queen cannot do that. Likewise, if we want to accord honor and respect to our head of state, then I think we prefer to honor and respect one of our own above all others. We are an independent nation, after all, and it is up to us to make up our own minds.


 * So when foreigners declare that our head of state must be this person or that, we think it a little presumptuous.


 * Returning to the Constitution, let me observe that it is a very old document, rarely amended, and then only with immense difficulty and expense. It describes a Victorian nation, one that predates the Statute of Westminster, one where an "Inter-State Commission" is mandated to resolve disputes (there is no such body, hasn't been for twenty years, and even then it was a moribund committee), one where there is apparently no Prime Minister and the Federal government has very little power and that only in a few areas. Treating it as a contemporary statement of the Australian situation is a perilous pursuit. --Pete (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Oz constitution as you describe it seems as peculiar as UK's, which everyone knows is riddled with more anomalies than have ever been accounted, and is even now generating another by purporting to proceed with the repeal of part of the Union with England Act pased by the parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland, and most of the few who know about it would prefer to leave forgotten and one can see why. Certainly let Oz debate and settle such questions its own way without others presuming to know better. The UK looks set for yet more fumbling at the next demise, which will probably result in the other realms making the decisive difference, as before in the 20c. That's the Windsor way. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather like herding cats. I love the way that one goes poking around constitutional history to discover all these little frayed threads. Pull on it and open up a can of worms. Somewhere in a drawer of Government House in Sydney is a Bill passed by Parliament but never sent on for the King's assent. Buckingham Palace asked if there had been a postal strike, but the Bill was never sent on as it would have put the monarch in a tricky situation. So the problem was resolved by ignoring it. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Menugate for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Menugate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Menugate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Slac speak up! 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC on boat arrivals image
Good morning Pete. Since you are heel bent to stifle any discussion of the POV issues on File:BoatArrivals.gif I have issued an RFC. Please do not continue revert warring and deleting content on that article.   Djapa Owen (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Chill out, brother. Seems to me that you are in breach of 3RR as of some time ago. --Pete (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I did make that mistake, and Surturz has raised an ANI on me over it. Removing the POV tag while a discussion is ongoing still is not kosher.   Djapa Owen (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither is creating sock puppets. You've been warned about this previously. This looks pretty clear to me. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about - I have been warned? When and by whom? Show the diffs or stop the baseless allegations.
 * I agree that This looks suspicious, particularly his involvement in the page deletion discussion, but I have never sock puppeted and I would appreciate it if you refrain from making baseless allegations. If you have reason to accuse me then do it properly, otherwise stop the slander brother.   Djapa Owen (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm
I saw this marked in respect of an edit you made "TharkunColl...(That was your 3rd revert. No one disputes that Southern Ireland was a dominion.) That particular editor doesn't even know that (i) "Southern Ireland" was never a dominion, nevermind a realm; and (ii) that the list was one of former realms - not former dominions. But either way, having integrity on Wikipedia doesn't matter. They will try to ban you if they can. Be careful. Don't get caught by that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try to play by the rules. We all manage to coöperate to build a useful encyclopaedia and the procedures have proven reasonably adequate and robust. I wasn't going to quibble over "Southern Ireland", which is presumably the complementary region to Northern Ireland. Your point is being discussed and debated and so far it seems valid to me. Thanks for helping to not only improve the 'pedia but provide an interesting exercise. Beats my usual morning sudoku! --Pete (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570241229 your edit] to Royal Navy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * class landing platform dock|'Albion class]], and HMS OceanOcean, but never in the numbers of the ships that they replaced. As a result the RN surface fleet

Talkback
N2e (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiLove?
Pete, I gather there is not a lot of WikiLove between you and that other editor. Are your comments going to help? If not, then I'd advise to drop it. – S. Rich (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think I'm on the up and up here. But I'll drop it. I trust someone will look after Collingwood26. --Pete (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pete, a while ago I asked you not to post again at HiLo's talk page, with no indication that my request had a time limit. And yet you were back there poking him with an entirely predictable response from HiLo which was (excuse my bad faith) I suspect exactly of the sort you hoped for. I have no problem with HiLo's block - indeed I'd have blocked him myself had someone not beaten me to it. But you were quite wrong to poke a stick in a place you had been politely asked to keep your stick out of. So now to be clear, please do not post again on HiLo's talk page under any circumstances. If procedure (eg notification of an ANI report) requires you to contact HiLo, get someone else to do so on your behalf. I will regard any post of yours on HiLo's page as disruptive and would block if it occurred in the future. I'm sorry to be so harsh-sounding but it seems better to be absolutely explicit as you weren't clear about my earlier, more politely worded request. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * --Pete (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well then...

 * ! Very kind in you, sir! My experience has been that if there is ever a problem, getting more eyes on it and following wikiprocess will generally sort it out. As to winners and losers, I commend to you the words of Swami Brahmananda Sarasvati, whose wise observation illuminates my path. --Pete (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Robin Spielberg
There is no rule that says things must stay up while notability is being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatpedro (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Brake/Break
The wikipedia shooting-brake entry starts with "Shooting-brake, shooting brake or shooting break..." which maybe speaks for itself. The reason I prefer "Break" in the context of a French car (ie the Peugeot 504) is simply that "Break" is the word Peugeot use. Otherwise, I have no reason to favo(u)r one version of the spelling over another.

I don't think any of this is important enough to get into a p**sing contest over, but I felt this irresistible urge to share what was in my mind.

Happy day Charles01 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! As I read on, I discovered that "Break" had been used as a model name. Clever. I'll change it back - it just looked like a typo at first glance. I don't recall the "Break" name making it down to Australia, though certainly the vehicle did, where it attracted a strong following. I myself owned a 505 in the 80s, and although it had any number of electrical problems, I've never had another car that went round corners quite so nicely. --Pete (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I never actually owned a Peugeot, but my father had a 504 at some stage, and I certainly had huge respect for Peugeots (as far as I remember) in the 50s/60s/70s.  Lots of gallic engineering ingenuity/commonsense/flair and an unshakable commitment to making the cars properly.   After the economic traumas of the '70s I sometimes think the bean counters became too powerful at Peugeot, with rather too many obvious signs of cost cutting, and some of the engineering etc flair went into hibernation.   Then again, the business has survived while others have not.   I'm delighted the 505 went round corners - though my experience of renting a couple of Falcons somewhere near Adelaide around 1990 makes me think that maybe in Australia...but no, that would be an unkind thought. I'm glad the 505 went round corners, but you are not the first Peugeot owner I've come across in recent decades to have suffered with dodgy electrics.  I think they might be coming back a bit these days, but of course the competition has moved on too, and with Volkswagen group doing a pretty good job at cleaning up, there's somehow less space for the other mass-market European automakers just now.  Ach, but all this is almost certainly outside wiki-scope.  Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I accepted your clarification in the article. "Break" is rather a clever name, but it confused me. I loved my 505 and admired the three rows of seats in the Famiale model, a very useful arrangement for larger families in the days before minivans became widespread. I've kept a keen interest in the marque since then, looking at every model to come out - I recall my excitement at spotting a 308 in a carpark at Pointe du Grouin before the car was released in Australia - but I've hung back from buying another Pug because the reviews in the motoring press have not been as resoundingly positive as they were for (say) the 205. It seems that the engineering has grown more staid and the design less elegant. I drive a Golf VI now and love it for the same reasons I loved my 505. But yes, getting away from the wiki now. :) --Pete (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

IBAN, Talk:Operation Sovereign Borders
That was a foolish mistake, Skyring: while it is entirely possible that your change to the heading was made in some good faith, it was foolish to get involved even with a minor edit in one of HiLo's conversations and you're pushing against the boundaries of even this admin's patience. Please let this not happen again. Stay out of that conversation and any others started or participated in by HiLo. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, Drmies. I made myself aware of the wikipolicy and deliberately followed it. These rules evolve because they work, and if individuals take it upon themselves to vary the terms according to their own unique interpretation, then we may as well not have rules.


 * On that note, I quote from the text at WP:IBAN: Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other…


 * Could I have your confirmation that you are following wikipolicy in your directive above? I'd like to be quite sure in my own mind that we share the same understanding. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On another point Drmies, how safe a haven is your talk page for continued personal attacks? Nobody likes having their thoughtful contributions described as crap. Now I'm happy to live with a few honest mistakes - from all parties - while the limits of the envelope are explored, but after a while it strains credibility. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pete, you didn't avoid the "other editor"--you changed a header they wrote up, and you took up the argument in their thread. My talk page is a pretty safe place, and "crap" is a comment on your edits, not on you personally. I have no opinion on whether your comments were crap or thoughtful, and no interest in figuring it out--I just note that your carelessness has pissed HiLo off and put me in an awkward position, since you broke the rules and I am just not enough of a hardass to block you for it, this time. But I strongly suggest you cease exploring the contents of the envelope. I don't even see an envelope: I see an IBAN and you need to stick to it. It's really quite simple. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies, It seems we have different ideas of what an iban entails, hence my use of the term "envelope". If both parties are "allowed to edit the same pages or discussions", then where is the breach? I was responding to Canley, on a topic where we both have an interest. I am happy to follow the rules, but if the rules are interpreted differently by two editors, then misunderstanding and disharmony must inevitably arise.


 * I'm not talking about the section title change. It was a mistake on my part, you've chipped me for it, I accept the warning, I'll be more thoughtful in future. If it happens again, even if I didn't mean it, I'll regard a block as a fair thing. End of that story.


 * I don't want to be a pain over this. I'd just like the existing wikipolicy clarified so I know where I stand. Perhaps my understanding is incorrect. My understanding is that the words of the policy mean what they say and that editor X can edit the same pages or discussions as editor Y, so long as there is no interaction between the two. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One can argue over what is considered "avoiding", but surely commenting in the thread started by the other editor is not avoiding. If you deem a section title they came up with incorrect (or not neutral, or whatever), you just have to let that be: it's one of the unfortunate consequences of an IBAN. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Perhaps I'll do some research, find other examples. I think your interpretation is rather more narrow than the wording implies, but I'll get my ducks in a row before taking it further. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you could ever argue that changing the title of a thread they started and commenting in that same thread could count as "avoiding", and that's all I have to say for now. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Forget the title. That story's over. The koan of Tanzan and Ekido may yield illumination at this point. I see that I am shedding - or finding - no light here by myself, so I may take this on. WP:BANEX allows me to ask necessary questions about the scope of a ban, so I shall. Thank you for your time, and I mean that sincerely. --Pete (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Pete, thanks for the note, glad I guessed right; thank for the essay, however, send them a can of oil or something.  Maybe I can answer your question, while I'm here.  The interaction-ban policy is purposely fuzzy, so that admins like Drmies have discretion when enforcing it.  See also, the definition of WP:EW, which has been under a cloud because some editors wanted a hard-n-fast technical definition of "revert".  Thankfully, the definition of revert has *remained* fuzzy, at least so far.  If it had a hard definition, it would have (inherently!) some loopholes, some security flaws that would allow savvy adversaries to exploit the firmness.  The  fuzzy flexible definition of revert is a win-by-yielding approach.
 * Similarly with the interaction-ban. "The purpose... is to stop a conflict... from... disrupting the work of others.  ...edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way."  That's the whole policy.  Period.  The examples you can ignore.  Commentary you can ignore, essays, interpretations, ignore it all.  Just focus on those key central phrases.  The rest of the stuff you can ignore.


 * *All that matters* is whether you and HiLo47 disrupt the work of others. When you changed the title, it was an innocent mistake, but because grudge-o-pedia, HiLo48 noticed it and was rightfully angered by it.  They disrupted the work of other editors, in this case Drmies and talkpage stalkers thereof, by complaining about Pete this and Pete that and so on.  But they had a good reason to complain, this time -- you violated the interaction ban.  Which part?  The part about As Long As They Avoid Each Other, and the subsequent consequence which resulted in Disrupting The Work Of Others.
 * So here's the deal. Just like the fuzzy-flexible-revert-definition, where wikipedia follows the strategy of  win-by-yielding, the interaction-ban-definition is fuzzy-and-flexible.  If you and HiLo have some "interaction" that leads to "complaining/warring/whatever" which is itself "disruptive" to others then you and they both screwed up, no matter who "started it" in kindergartenese.  Having become enlightened about the policy-definition, you should also now be enlightened about your correct strategy for surviving your interaction-ban, and for keeping the high moral ground.
 * You must win-by-yielding, or you lose. If there is a case where HiLo is doing something, and you feel you have to change what they wrote, reply to what they wrote, comment to someone else in the discussion with them in a way that touches on what they wrote... you *may* have just pushed the envelope, and if disruption-to-others-results, then you end up holding the bag.  So win by yielding:  don't push the envelope.  Be as conservative as you possibly can.  If you see a bug in an article, check the edit-history before you fix the bug, and use the wikiblame-tool make sure HiLo wasn't the one who wrote what you are about to mess with.
 * If they follow the exact same win-by-yielding strategy, as I'm suggesting that you follow, positively guaranteed there will be no further disruption, right? Right.  What if they don't follow the strategy?  What if they notice you yielding, and see it as a sign of weakness?  What if they start going where you go, and editing the same articles?  What if they comment in discussions where you were commenting, and you have to leave, as part of your win-by-yielding strategy?  What if soon you cannot edit anywheres?  Well, quite frankly, if all that happens, *they* will be preventatively-sanctioned for violating the ban, and you will have maintained the high moral ground.
 * I haven't noticed *your* work before Pete, but from reading Jenova's talkpage (also in WP:RETENTION), I know something about HiLo ... they are a wee bit touchy about systemic bias, I hope they won't mind my saying... and due the the WP:IBAN, being as this is your talkpage, I won't be pinging them (and HiLo if you happen to read this and want to interact with myself feel free to visit my talkpage anytime). But the *reason* I understand HiLo, is because in real life, **I** am touchy like that... but on-wiki, I have learned to maintain an iron grip on my touchy-ness, and really really WP:AGF, which is nicely encapsulated in WP:IMAGINE.  See  also.  Sometimes, perhaps even often, that is exactly the correct attitude, but only if you in practice achieve a zen-like nerdvana of serene behavior from the 'tude, rather than a consequences-schmonsequences aggressivity from a slightly-differently-interpreted-'tude.


 * Anyways, perhaps you should request confirmation from User:Drmies, on whether I am leading you astray here. My advice sounds good to my ears, but Drmies has seen such things before, and can set you straight.  In a nutshell, my advice is this:  read the two-sentence-policy.  Understand it is a win-by-yielding policy, both in how it is implemented/worded, and in how you can best follow/exemplify it.  p.s.  Because, in talking about the details of your IBAN, there has been some mention made of HiLo... you should please NOT reply to this message.  If you agree with my advice, great, put it into action, and stop worrying about what HiLo does, just concentrate on perfecting your jujutsu-mindframe.  If you *might* agree, get Drmies to verify.  If you disagree, of course, you can always continue on your former path, and use WP:BANEX as a tool to seek enlightenment elsewhere.  Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia, even when the going gets tough.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like very sound advice, in more diplomatic phrasing than I could muster. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

SES
Hello Skyring,

Here's to let you know I'm writing to you on the discussion page at the SES article about your last edits. -Roberthall7 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban
I have requested that action be taken regarding a violation of an interaction ban, see here. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. An inventive, but incorrect interpretation. Suggest you check my contributions to the last RfC. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope: Johnuniq's is the standard reading of the standard IBAN. That the conditions in WP:IBAN were broken is quite clear. You have been blocked for a week. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course none of this helps
However, I've been taken to AN/I twice now on grounds of absolute hypocrisy, blatant embellishment, and one sided nonsense... I'm more than a little wound up. As a general course of events, anyone who has been dragged through all this nonsense from beginning to end would be. Purely as a discussion of my position, it has been absolute crap... --Orestes1984 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree. Just suggesting that you don't have to be as poorly behaved as others. Take a moment, ignore the baiting, keep it coherent and on-topic.


 * Advice I should follow myself! --Pete (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Soccer in Australia
Please strike your talk page comments on Soccer in Australia; you are currently interaction banned from HiLo48 NE Ent 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pete, I'm sorry, but you cannot go around making suggestions of HiLo making personal attacks as found in the history of anything--that is precisely the sort of thing that falls under y'all's IBAN. It's a narrow discussion, and you have only a narrow scope within which to argue. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread
Pete, no doubt you have seen the closing of the ANI thread. The warning is clear: attempts to lawyer around the IBAN will be followed by lengthy blocks. No specific measure was agreed upon regarding Soccer in Australia and soccer/football articles in general; however,, , , , , , , , and all agreed, in varying measures of strength, that your edits to that and other soccer articles were disruptive and/or baiting, and many if not all of those editors supported a topic ban for you from those articles. was not for it but seemed somewhat in the middle, and was the only one against it, as far as I can tell. In hindsight, and now that I add it all up, I think could have easily decided to enact such a topic ban, whether specific or general, but they closed it and we just have to accept that, for now. Given that pretty broad support for the idea that a. your edits there were disruptive, baiting, and/or an attempt to circumvent the IBAN since they were in an area that HiLo has frequented for a long, long time (and you haven't) and b. that you really should have been banned from that area, I am going to assume there is consensus that any admin will have broad discretion to block you if your presence there is deemed a violation of your IBAN with HiLo. There's a couple of admins in that list, and perhaps any edits that are deemed violations should be reported to them, just in case anyone has doubts about my impartiality in this matter. It is still my hope that at some point the two of you can come to terms, but until that time you are both (and is hereby also notified) on a short leash when it comes to the IBAN. I hope that statement is really redundant since it's not new, but what I hope to make abundantly clear is that you are strongly suggested to stay away from the topic area. That is all. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My strong suggestion is to go back and read the comments of . He alone came closest to the mark. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the benefit of being able to comment without going back and reading what I wrote. I stand by what I said there; I saw your actions as uncharacteristically dumb, not uncharacteristically disruptive. It's a matter of simply being more diligent about the topic areas where you edit. Football (with all its fan-boy nonsense and edit-warring) should be easy to leave alone anyway, surely? That said, you suffer from the fact that people know you're not an idiot so idiocy sticks out like a sore thumb. As far as I can see, Drmies is (in his usual diplomatic way) simply suggesting you not be an idiot. It's good advice. Perfect time to find a whole new area of interest - the Fringe Theories Noticeboard is always a fun place to start. Ha ha. Stalwart 111  00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! Normally I'd let this slide through, so the roboarchiver can tidy my talk page. But let me tell you a story instead.


 * Years ago, before I became a taxidriver, I used to get angry at the behaviour of other drivers. They were rude, disobeying the road rules, not being considerate of others. Going for a drive was like fighting a battle. And then I found a new way of looking at driving, when I was on the road for thirteen hours a night, six days a week. Some wanker would cut me off or give me the finger and I'd feel myself start to get angry and upset and I knew that if I let that happen, I'd be stressed and snappy and my passengers wouldn't smile and be happy, and the whole shift would feed off the negative emotions. It would be a disaster. So I just "clicked" a mental switch. It wasn't important. Give the other guy a smile and a cheery wave. There's so much I can't control. Maybe they were running late, maybe they'd had a fight with the missus, maybe their mother had been scared by a taxidriver. Whatever it was, was it worth giving up my happiness for?


 * No. I let them go on their own way, full of stress and bad manners, and I cranked up Mozart or Miles Davis or Jeff Buckley or whoever I had on the playlist. My cab was a clean cab, a happy cab, a comfortable cab, and I enjoyed my shifts.


 * Nowadays, I'm a retired cabbie, and when someone upsets me and I see that I could escalate it with shouts and rude gestures or angry words, I stop and I think, do I need the stress and unhappiness? No. I "click" the switch and let them be. It's not important. It's not worth giving up my happiness. I can maybe say a few words, explain my position, give them something to think about - like a Zen koan, the answer isn't obvious, but it gives the mind something to chew on and maybe it will see the light. Those who want to see will see. Those who know everything will ignore it.


 * There's no point in deliberately upsetting someone else. There's a few words of wisdom on my user page that mean a lot to me, and best of all is the prayer beginning, "May all be happy…"


 * "May all be happy." What a lovely ideal. And, you know, that "all" includes me. It's not Bentham's Utilitarian maxim of "The greatest good for the greatest number," because that just means that someone gets the short end of the stick every time. And it's usually the same people getting the short end of the stick and they are generally the ones who deserve more than that.


 * So no, I don't set out to rile someone else up. That would make two people unhappy. They and I. I can do without the stress and the anger, thank you very much.


 * But, well, some people are self-riling, as it were. They take offence where none is intended, they put themselves at the centre of the universe and if someone holds a different opinion, it is a personal affront. It is a matter of winning or losing every little battle, every traffic light, every merge lane, every little thing in their self-focussed lives.


 * That's no way to live. It's a short cut to high blood pressure and an early grave, and there's too much joy in the world for me to go there just yet.


 * It's not a matter of being stupid or dumb. I'm neither. Naïveté, maybe. Maybe it's just that I took those words at face value, "…editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other…" Actually, there's no "maybe" about that. That's exactly how I interpreted the statement, and it puzzles me to find that others see it as having a different meaning.


 * But hey, that's their lookout. I can't control how other people think. I'm not going to get upset over things I can't control. And when you think about it, there's not much we can control. Not unless we kid ourselves. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thus, "uncharacteristically". You've made my point better than I ever could. Whether it makes sense or not, the result is what it is and fighting it isn't worth it. Like a badly signposted no-stopping zone. Stalwart 111  22:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Who's fighting? I'll always find a way to be happy. It would be even better if others would take the same attitude. Hence the Zen reference. One passes on what one has learnt. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not list all 140 charges individually?
An infobox which is intrinsically ludicrous benefits no one at all. Your "warning" is of not a hell of a lot of value -- especially since I recall a few times where I defended you at the drama boards. Do you really want a two hundred line infobox just to show how evil those damn labourites are? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of ludicrous...


 * I'm just saying that discussion is ongoing, I see no urgent need for change, and you hold the minority position according to the ongoing RfC which you started. Is there any particular reason to circumvent the process you began? I'll go along with whatever emerges from discussion, and I've already made some changes to Rangasyd's infobox. --Pete (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Pete
It really shouldn't be like this but I have to mind my Ps & Qs, if you'd like to talk about anything else feel free to visit my talk page some time --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Hi Pete, and thanks for your contributions at the Australia sports naming debate. As has been pointed out by User:Drmies, your interaction ban as discussed here prevents you from taking part in the discussion. I will take no action for your participation thus far (though another admin may, if they feel you have knowingly breached your ban), nor will I remove your contributions. But I would ask you not to edit there again, pending a successful appeal or clarification of your ban. This may be made at WP:AN/I. As you have mentioned, Arbcom would be another possible avenue. I am sorry as it does feel counter-intuitive in a way to restrict a good faith participant from the process, but it's impossible for me to read the topic ban any other way. --John (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying a bit more based the discussion on Drmies's talk page. Another way for me to have said the last sentence in my closure statement would be "that the IBAN extends to any issue which one party is already involved with". As HiLo is already involved in the naming issue you aren't permitted to be involved in it. Hope that clarifies a bit more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. If I wanted to be a mean bastard. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested
That you might the sort of a candidate for looking at Troy Buswell and Colin Barnett articles - as they are both very close to worthy of NPOV needs reviewing tags - and as they as BLP and LP - your name was raised in suggestion. Cheers. satusuro 08:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's a certain vital factor missing on this one. Interest. --Pete (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A xxxx  xxxx  deleted the laughter yoga page so I cannot link you to a gut wrenching interest increaser, sorry satusuro 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * :) The things I find fascinating are generally not those of mainstream folk. It's often the details that are interesting, and why people care so much. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Aerial pic
Hi. Something I just came across which may be of interest. Go to this page and search down in para [121] for '17 Use of cameras etc.' Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Go to this page - Google Maps - and compare. Google has a better and clearer photo than my effort. I also note that our article links, through the latitude and longitude to a page containing links to various mapping and imaging services. Yahoo Maps probably has the best of the bunch for clarity. I've just checked these, and I checked them years ago before I put my photo up on Flickr, which has been up for nearly six years, and has been, as I say, the number one downloaded image of my uploads. Looking at a Google Image search, I can see various aerial photographs, including this in a book by Desmond Ball. Qantas was not penetrating the prohibited airspace above the facility and I don't think my little point and shoot effort from ten kilometres up represents a greater risk to the defence effort than Google or Yahoo or Mr Ball.


 * My image is one that we can use under the CC license and I think it illustrates the article better than the previous image which is a low-angle oblique shot, presumably taken from one of the nearby ridges.


 * Thanks for the heads up. I think I'm standing on solid ground here. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, sure, looks as if you'll be OK! Best to be sure, though. Anyway, I'll turn up and help demonstrate outside the court when you get your turn after Assange, Snowden, etc. ;-) Bjenks (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most kind... Makes you wonder about mobile phones, considering the sheer volume of radio transmissions that must have been vibrating through our jumbo flying over all those domes. If flying over Pine Gap during a world crisis won't make a plane fall out of the sky, then my iphone is probably okay. --Pete (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)
Hi again Pete. As we discussed a few weeks ago your interaction ban precludes you getting involved in a debate in which HiLo is already taking part. However per the wording of WP:IBAN I think it would be ok for you to record your view at the Responses (2) section. I do not want you to get involved in the threaded debate section though, as we previously agreed. Does that make sense? If you do decide to record a response there, can you be especially careful not to comment on other editors in your rationale? --John (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted the above before I read the specifics of your topic ban which prohibits you from taking part in RfCs. So you may not comment there at all. Sorry for the confusion. --John (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for one month
I have blocked your account for one month due to this violation of your interaction ban with. I clarified at the beginning of March that you are not permitted to participate in any discussion in which one party is already involved, you have done this very clearly in this case. In the ANI discussion I closed I stated that the suggested block length is a minimum of one month block as such I have blocked you for one month. See also this discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I had a bit too much wine on Sunday night and described the situation to a few friends. I know who made the edit and they won't do it again. I think someone with check user access might pick up an anomaly or two. Nevertheless, I think it's high time ArbCom delivered an opinion about IBANs and RfC participation, and I'd like to appeal there. Being blocked just means that the process is going to be difficult for all parties. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And given you've suggested sockpuppetry you might want to publicly disclose those accounts. Regarding appealing to ArbCom, just a suggestion, they generally only hear appeals if you have already appealed to the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested sockpuppetry. That's your imagination at work and I reject it. I have raised the matter of the wording at WP:IBAN several times on AN/I which is why it's time to go further. The wording there and discussion is very much against one editor staking out his turf by being the first contributor so as to eliminate an opposing opinion. --Pete (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom appeal
I'll be using the section below for drafting an appeal to ArbCom. Kindly do not modify it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to say...
Tread carefully and wisely :-) the panda ɛˢˡ”  11:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) You may be right that they're a WP:SOCK - in which SPI is appropriate
 * 2) However, they may also be a WP:CLEANSTART - in which SPI and any further attention is tremendously inappropriate
 * 3) Both are only problematic if they are indeed making problematic edits
 * Thanks. I'm pretty sure I've had dealings with this editor before. The style rings a bell. Not to worry; there's plenty of editors playing their own games for their own amusement, and if they don't damage the project, that's fine. Just seemed to be a puzzle, that's all. I like finding out how the loose ends of the system link up, but I don't need to know the answer to every question. --Pete (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)