User talk:Xlh

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

the worst oz
Yup - a good read of the intro and youre welcome! to help improve the article that is SatuSuro 10:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Moti article
Thank you for your edits, but in future I'd be grateful if you didn't jump to hasty, insulting and ridiculous conclusions. There were absolutely no grounds for you to suggest that my phrasing was intended as "Aussie-bashing", or, for that matter, that it was in any way POV. I've lived in Australia, I've always found Australians to be very friendly, and in any case I would never use Wikipedia as a forum to push a particular POV (as my contributions should indicate). If you're aware of the recent history of bilateral relations between the Solomons and Australia (under the Sogavare and Howard governments), you'll know that Sogavare has made a number of statements alleging ulterior motives for Australia's involvment with RAMSI. Although I tend to be highly sceptical of Sogavare's views (rather than the reverse!), I am definitely not trying to say that he's correct or incorrect in his allegations. What I wrote was merely recording the fact that he made those allegations, which is noteworthy because he has a history of making such statements. I'll thank you in advance to be more cautious in future, and not to make allegations that are utterly unfounded, insulting and downright absurd. Aridd (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies Aridd, I didn't assume Good Faith and thought it was other users playing funny buggers again with this article (Which has happened beforehand). That being the background, it's still no excuse for my not assuming good faith on the part of the edit - misquoting happens all time completely innocently and I should've assumed it was an honest mistake. You have my unreserved and complete apology for any offence I may have caused you - I can assure you that was never my intent... I should've just made the edit, noted that the quote omitted the reference to the RSIP and left it at that. Again, I'm very sorry and will make that apology public if you wish it so. For the record, I've always found your edits to be very sound, reasonable and balanced, and a welcome contribution to an article that has had some "problem-contributions". Xlh (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, of course. There's no need to "make it public". And I'd like to thank you for your edits and contributions in general. Aridd (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The additional material is fine; a bit of a glitch has arisen in the setting out of the chronology, but correcting that is merely a matter of shifting text around somewhat. I can't entirely agree that Mr M isn't in a state of limbo: innocent till proved guilty is a fine piety but he's been indicted and bailed for the better part of a year, unable to travel, unable to return to work, his personal reputation and his professional standing in tatters, but yet to have his day in court. No one in his right mind apart from the remarkably intrepid David Marr would be so imprudent as to speak out on his behalf, since allegations of paedophilia to all intents and purposes give rise to a reverse-onus situation -- in the courts of public opinion, at any rate -- and everyone naturally wants to steer very clear of attracting sidelong glances by standing up for pariahs. This could of course change when it comes time for mounting a tort claim for malicious prosecution. Masalai (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:10th Light Horse Regiment badge.gif
Thanks for uploading File:10th Light Horse Regiment badge.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pacific
I have replied to your comment on the removal of the word 'erroneously' here. Please respond on that page with your opinion. Thanks. F orenti talk 11:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)