User talk:Supt. of Printing

Good work :)
See you popping all over my watchlist and fixing my errors - good work :) It's one of the downsides doing stuff on Melbourne from Perth. Orderinchaos 11:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rail terminology pages
Hi. I saw your good work on the general rail terminology page, and the new page for Australia. I have tagged the latter for WikiProject:Trains.

I notice that on the Aus. page you have enclosed the glossary links in a box. I had previously thought that these should be combined into a neat navi-box to be popped onto each of the glossary pages (in place of the rather verbose list we have at present), but haven't got around to doing it yet. With the arrival of another glossary page, the need is becoming more urgent!

Just a suggestion in case it's something you fancy trying...

EdJogg (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 Victorian storms
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 Victorian storms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Eucharist
Hi! I really liked the changes you made to the lead paragraph of Eucharist. I just wanted you to know that I edited it to de-capitalize the pronouns referring to Jesus (Him and He). Per WP:MOSCAPS, we don't capitalize pronouns referring to deities. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of Christianity! Cognate247 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Help!
Hi there, I need help. These non-believers are ganging up on me and bringing their bias into the Bible article. Please stand up with me. Please help me work for consensus about a statement for divine inspiration in the lead. God bless you. WalkerThrough (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just added a suggestion in the Bible talk page that goes back to what I think we were agreeing upon earlier. Your comments would be appreciated. WalkerThrough (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Maybe other bios need to change"
If you want to discuss possible changes in the way infoboxes are formatted and filled, the place to do that is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. In the meantime, it seems clear that your interpretation is in the minority with regard to the infobox in the article on Martin, and I'd advise you to drop it until we get some added clarity. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  17:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Creation Science
Your edit which removed a category has been reverted. The Creation Science article actually states that it is considered pseudoscience and this is backed up by references, so it is hardly controversial to include pseudoscience as a category? RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

American and British spellings
Regarding this: I most certainly did give a reason for my revert in my edit summary, which was 'WP:RETAIN". American spellings have been used in the article since its inception, and policy says we should retain the existing variety.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Andrew Bolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Project (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wattle Glen Station
I have posed a question on the talk page. Care to comment? WillE (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Added comment on talk page. Supt. of Printing (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Fielder railway station, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of Baptize
I was looking at recent changes to the article on infant baptism. I was surprized to see that you had changed all the occurrences of baptize to baptise. I accept the second to be as valid as the first, but since the first was already in use, I think it would be better to have left it as is. Which is why I have not just changed them all back. I did, however, change a number of them back because they were within quoted material and to spell it "baptize" would be to misquote the material. I, myself, prefer the z. I am sure that it partly because I am an American and it is more familiar. However, in this case, the z is more natural also as it is closer to the Greek zeta it represents. Sterrettc (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally support the practise of using the spelling that the article is started with or predominantly uses. I noticed that the article started with the British spelling and used it extensively, so I made the other changes for consistency. However, I do support the spelling from the source of a direct quote (having said that, quotes from the Bible could be either, as there are American versions and British versions of the Bible!). On the other hand, if the article is about a subject which is predominantly British, or American, or Australian, the spelling should reflect that of the country in question, irrispective of the spelling used when the article was written. Supt. of Printing (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RE Comparison with other varieties of English
Hi there,

I won't attempt to re-add real estate agent to the article, but I wanted to ask is it possible that you grew up in Britain or had British parents? Because honest to God, I have never heard any Australian use the words 'estate agent' (real estate agent), 'bangers'(!!!!) for sausages, 'drawing pin' for thumb tack. While rubbish bin sounds just as normal as garbage bin, 'rubbish truck' is one even that I haven't heard used. Could you be South Australian, where there is a strong British influence on the language, maybe? I won't argue if you're sure these are used regularly in Australia -- maybe it's a regional thing -- but if anyone around here (Brisbane, Qld) went on about 'estate agents' they would likely get a blank stare, and as for 'bangers' for sausages or 'sweet' for desert -- it sounds to me like somebody trying to do an exaggerated mocking caricature of the British with a "toad in thee 'ole gunva'" Cockney accent! Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I grew up in Victoria during the 60s (I am in my mid 50s now). Rubbish was always used in reference to bins, trucks, etc. including just rubbish itself. We ate pudding after mains, although dessert became much more commonplace in later years, with sweets to a slightly lesser extent. I never knew what a thumbtack was until years later, it was, and still is drawing pin. I never used the term bangers for sausages, it's probably more colloquial in reference to "bangers and mash", so not widely used on its own. I have always heard the term estate agent on about an equal usage as real estate agent.
 * Hope this all helps. Supt. of Printing (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

March 2014
Your recent editing history at Creation science shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you need a self revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Stott&diff=prev&oldid=616615674 Clearly links to MOS:ELLIPSIS, which your edit violated. So not only was it explained, it corrected your mistake. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puffing Billy Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakeside railway station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 12:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Crowes railway line
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Crowes railway line&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Novarupta (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

DS alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment
I gave one to myself too, awhile back. They're FYI notices for people editing in DS topic areas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Climate change denial
In an edit summary, you asked why a talk page post I removed is inappropriate? Per the WP:TPG posts at article talk must be intended to improve the project. Generalized discussions, including indictments of particular view points are examples of WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX and can often be classified as a variant of trolling. Restoring reverted trolls and soapbox comments, devoid of any WP:RSs or specific article improvement suggestions, is an inappropriate use of talk pages under the WP:Talk page guidelines. In this particular instance, you are restoring a long rant about climate science and concluding with a generalized swipe at other Wikipedians. "Can't we dispense with the party line propaganda just this once?"  This is a violation of WP:Assume good faith. See also the Principles in the ARBs' US politics case.

If you want to criticize the approach the article takes and suggest a new direction, that's fine. But you need to be specific and provide the RSs you propose we include to provide WP:Verification of whatever changes are made to the text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for pages regarding pseudoscience

 * I'm sending you this alert because you have recently edited Creation science. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC).

Pseudoscience on Wikipedia
Since you already have a relevant notice above and that it has not been archived I will not re-issue it (DS/Alerts are yearly-renewable), but this is a reminder about the special dispositions in relation to these topics on Wikipedia, as well as of WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. This formality aside, I would like to wish you a happy New Year, — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

''My previous question wasn't answered, so have reverted until an answer is provided. '' Not how it works, especially since Jimbo Wales didn't die and leave you in charge of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, here you go, question answered. --Calton &#124; Talk 11:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Creation Ministries International. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''"...a young Earth creationist organisation that promotes the concept of young Earth creationism" is a tautology. In addition, you accidentally removed the descriptive term "pseudoscientific". bonadea'' contributions talk 12:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Creation Ministries International, you may be blocked from editing. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wattleglen vs Wattle Glen
I am aware of the discussion from 2009 on Railpage Wattleglen station (in the suburb of Wattle Glen). While there is conflicting spelling of Wattleglen or Wattle Glen, it's spelling should be taken from the current spelling used by the operators (Metro Trains Melbourne & PTV) "Wattle Glen". -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To say that "it's spelling should be taken from the current spelling used by the operators" is an assertion with no more validity than me saying that it's spelling should be taken from the current gazetted spelling of VicNames. Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate an error made by the operator. This has always been my position and always will be. Supt. of Printing (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a position as to which spelling is correct, but surely we should be using the spelling that the article title uses. If you want to change the spelling we use on Wikipedia, initiate a requested move. Steelkamp (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The coordinates of Wattleglen Station, according to the gazette, is north of Wilson Road. But Wattle Glen station building and platform has been south of Wilson Road, as far back as 1969. This demonstrates that even the Gazette has errors, and slavenly applying from the Gazette, can lead to trouble. Techie3 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Senior Wikipedians
WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older has been inactive for some time. The following three proposals may help invigorate this project.


 * 1) Change the name of this project to WikiProject Senior Wikipedians.
 * 2) Open membership in this project to users who are at least 60 years of age and have made at least 50 edits in the past year.
 * 3) Open supporting membership in this project to users who are less than 60 years old but have made at least 50 edits in the past year and support the goals of this project.

Suggested goals for this project:


 * 1) To support collaboration and communication among members for the advancement and improvement of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement.
 * 2) To encourage older people, retired people, and soon-to-be-retired people to participate in Wikipedia both for the advancement of the encyclopedia and for their own personal enjoyment.
 * 3) To encourage older people to share their experience and expertise for the improvement of Wikipedia.
 * 4) To encourage older users to use their experience and expertise to help younger and less experienced users.
 * 5) To encourage participation in local and regional Wikimedia events.
 * 6) To sponsor Wikipedia meetings and classes at places where older people gather.
 * 7) To advocate for the elimination of ageism and sexism in Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement.

Please add your suggestions for this project at Senior Wikipedians. Thank you, Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't wish to receive any further information about Senior Wikipedians, please remove your username from our . Thanks.