User talk:AusLondonder/Archive 4

My AFD Vote

Is there a reason you struck out my AFD vote on the Sweden murder? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't. AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean, mark as duplicate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you have written keep twice AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware of how an AFD works? It's not counted by a robot. They don't just count the words. You need to read. I didn't vote twice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fully aware thank you. However, you still de jure !voted twice. AusLondonder (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't vote twice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Advaitam NITA

Hi AusLondoner. I apologize for not getting the CSD tag right on Advaitam NITA. I did tag it A7, however, as it's a non-notable event. It's been CSDd previously a couple of times. FYI, I've re-tagged it as db-event (rather than db-corp) - looks like Twinkle got the best of me there. If you'd like to re-evaluate it with the correct tag, please do so at your convenience. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind, Huon got it.. Sorry for the trouble.. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, User:Chrisw80. AusLondonder (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Hello, AusLondoner. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this User:Spirit Ethanol. I can't believe that editor. AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for input

2016 Ohio machete attack Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents.

I hope it's the last time I say it to you because it's the second time you"ve done this. West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza have no flags in the list and are under no country, regardless of the de-facto sovereign in the territory. (Like the Duma village in the Palestinian Authority sovereignty)--20:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding flags or any hint of sovereignty of any country on the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. It is a long standing consensus that solved a long dispute and you seem to be the only one who violates it repeatdly. No hint of sovereignty is given for any place in these territories and there are no exceptions, including Hebron. If you want to change it, start a discussion in the article's talk page before you choose to ignore the consensus for the forth time--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Fast Car

Congratulations. You have successfully made yourself look a complete idiot by reverting back to two articles. Have you bothered to check how much support you have for your version of how things should be? Absolutely no support whatsoever. Looks pretty much like snow to me. So have your moment of disruptive editing. It will be one article after the required seven days in any event. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this kind and constructive note. What a shame we can't spend more time improving stuff rather than wasting so much time as you do trying to reduce the number of articles. Why the hell does it matter to you so much? Don't you have anything slightly more interesting and entertaining to do? AusLondonder (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the point. Having every cover version in separate articles, each being little more than a discography entry is not an improvement. Anybody who wants to read about a song wants to find out every notable fact about the song. Not have it hidden across several article namespaces. How is that beneficial to a reader? I know NOTHING about this "independently notable song" other than it sold a few copies here and there. It might be notable but there's nothing encyclopedic there about your precious Jonas Blue version of a song written by Tracy Chapman. Everybody but you seems to understand that. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Richhoncho:. No, not every cover version is independently notable. I never suggested so. I have illustrated why I believe this version is independently notable according to WP:NSONG. You say that you know nothing about this song - I think that's pretty evident. It peaked at Number 1 in several countries and 2 in the UK. That's more than "a few copies here and there". I think you're letting your own musical likes and dislikes get in the way as well to be honest. AusLondonder (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Also please reread WP:NSONGS at no point does it suggest that a notable song should have a separate article. The reason that "normally" is used regarding cover versions is because there may be other issues, i.e. WP:SIZE. You are mistakenly reading things to suit yourself. I notice this at the incident page you set you with your last post. Please be more careful. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

PS. Please also note that the Jonas Blue stuff is still in the main article and has been happily edited there by other editors. With your reversion of the Jonas Blue article we now have two articles covering Jonas Blue. I do suggest you revert your very pointy and pointless edit. I also suggest it is time for you to move on and note that you have no supporters and will have even less now you have brought to everybody's attention that you consider you have ownership of the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I just want a fair discussion and consideration of the points I have made. I really have no idea why you are so obsessed with this and why you appear to think that you WP:OWN the Fast Car article and indeed all music articles. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Quit Bludgeoning editors

When an editor disagrees with you as an editor did at in your effort to delete Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis, stalking and harassing that editor who as here:[1] is a kind of WP:HARRASSMENT intended, I presume, to drive away editors who disagree with your political commitment to POV editing on immigration and Islamist terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Are you for real? You have routinely replied to and criticised every editor you disagree with at every AFD I've ever seen you at. How can you criticise me for doing it once?!? The very first editor !voting delete received a reply from you at the very AFD you are accusing me of hounding! You said "User:Mrschimpf's is Not a policy-based comment". You have replied to practically every delete comment. For you to accuse me of POV editing on Islamist terrorism is frankly laughable. No one likes a hypocrite. Especially not such a blatant one. AusLondonder (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Again the bludgeon [2]. Please try to WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What the actual hell? You ask ME to assume good faith after you falsely and maliciously accused me of harassment and stalking? AusLondonder (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Name calling

Please do not call other editors "disgusting liar" as here: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Picking fights

• It is uncollegial to pick fights with other editors as part of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attempts to use Wikipedia to enforce your political beliefs. As here:[4]. Please try to play nicely with the other children.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing.

Remarks such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:91C8:BD89:C688:82F7 are simply bullying and not helpful. If you don't agree with a move request, feel free to state that. Making a move request on a reasonable policy based motive is not unconstructive, rather, it is helping to unite and make a more uniform, helpful and useful wikipedia. Please try to realise that not everyone shares your apparent disdain for any variants of English other than your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.206.211 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

More unconstructive editing

Auslander, a month ago you nominated January 2016 Paris police station attack for deletion. The day after the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination) closed as Keep, you proposed a merger against consensus reached in the AFD. Using merge as a remedy for an AFD the conclusion of which you DONOTLIKE is unconstructive and uncollegial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sotirios Zarianopoulos

The article Sotirios Zarianopoulos has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GAB^Hello! 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Per WP:BEFORE you should have looked for sources for this inherently notable person, especially as someone who desires adminship. AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. Thank you, GAB^Hello! 04:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

GAB Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. Thanks for your reply in good faith and sorry if my initial reply sounded unnecessarily confrontational. A friendly word of advice regarding admin-ship from me as an observer. Next time don't accept a nomination from an openly fascist and neo-Nazi editor as that will raise alarm bells for others. AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I understand, it's justified on your part -- I am taking more care these days to avoid aggressive tagging. The RFA (and any future aspirations) is not really on my mind, as I am now more intent on constructive work that doesn't really require the tools. Furthermore, I admit I made a poor decision there, although I probably wouldn't have accepted had it not been for the co-nom offer from a respected admin. Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful reply. GAB^Hello! 22:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mumbai Harbour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle Ground. 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) 11:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Politicians convicted of sex offences has been nominated for discussion

Category:Politicians convicted of sex offences, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Emily Temple-Wood

Throwing around accusations of "pointy nominations"[5] does not promote collegiality in the project. In fact, it is just as bad as sexism. I suggest you withdraw the accusation. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I feel it's a reasonable observation for me to make, regardless of whether you believe it was your specific intention. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Synchronized swimming categories for Brazil, China

Moved these to a full discussion. Hugo999 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, @Hugo999: AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBATC discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This pertains in particular to casting unsupportable aspersions about editors you disagree with on style and naming matters, like psychologically projecting onto others that they have "nationalistic spelling obsessions", as you did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy [6].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry @SMcCandlish:, are you trying to make some kind of point here? I certainly wouldn't accept that the "aspersions" are "unsupportable". They are supported by your constant and consistent criticism of WP:RETAIN and WP:STRONGNAT for example opposing a move from Category:Indian skeptics to Category:Indian sceptics on the grounds "sceptics" is a corruption (as is "labor" and "center" for that matter). Your latest justification of removing British spelling being we should use ize instead of ise in the Western Hemisphere is utterly bizarre given that the United Kingdom is partly in the Western Hemisphere. AusLondonder (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE is where you'll need to offer these rationalizations and whatever "proof" you think you have to back up unprovable aspersions about other editors' mental states, if this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior doesn't stop. (And your belief that you have some kind of dirt on my personally will not help you, when you make blanket accusations of that sort about everyone who opposes your viewpoint, as class; you can't prove it about all of them, can you?)

It has nothing to do with whether you have your linguistic, or geographical, or policy facts correct (which you do not, on any count); it's entirely about an anti-collaborative, hostile behavior pattern. I don't even have anything against you personally; it just a simple matter that, per WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded and various decisions and enforcement actions since then, there is a very, very low tolerance for any ad hominem, bad-faith-accusing, motive-projecting, or uncivil/attacking behavior in WP:AT- and WP:MOS-related topics, in any namespace, because of years of WP:LAME and disruptive WP:DRAMA surrounding these policypages. I know you've received an ARBATC notice in the past; if I had a serious beef with you, I could have simply taken the matter directly to AE for enforcement. This was a reminder – so that such draining process need not be invoked – that this stuff doesn't fly here, at least not in any discretionary-sanctions topic.

On the pointless side matter you've raised yet again: You need to quit beating the extremely dead horse that I took a position you don't like, about one word, several years ago – something about which I've already told you at least once I've changed my mind. You have no business calling other editors "obsessive" when you will not let go of inconsequential trivia, and are trying to built up shitlists about people for being on "the wrong side" so long ago no one remembers but you. I absolutely guarantee that if this stuff does go to a noticeboard, this behavior on your part will look quite damning. Just drop it, move on, work with other editors. Stop looking for WP:GREATWRONGS to right and new enemies to make. It will not get you anywhere (good) here. I have no interest in arguing with you further about this (though I'm always open to calm discussion about moving forward; consider my talk page open, and I'm not stalking yours), and I hope that's the end of the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I never suggested you are "mental". That just isn't true and is an awful false allegation to make. On what "linguistic" grounds am I wrong? Maybe I'm wrong that organisation is overwhelmingly used in the UK, India, Australia etc? Check the Western Hemisphere article by the way. The evidence certainly appears to back up my views. I'm not battling nor harassing. I assure you I have no desire to talk to you. You keep this going on and on by pinging me everywhere and posting here. If you don't want to discuss, that is more than fine. That would require you to stop pinging me and posting on my talkpage. AusLondonder (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Threatening to throw your toys out of the pram and try and get me sanctioned for disagreeing with you seems like pretty poor form to me and quite contrary to the values of harmonious editing. AusLondonder (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply here, and you don't seem want me to, yet you do, and you're making a case like you want me to, and asking me questions, so I'm not sure what you actually want. Up to you.

Substantive response if you want it; I won't be offended if you just hat or archive the entire thread.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, only labeling groups of editors you diagram with as having "obsessions", a negative aspersion about mental state, which you cannot prove, being neither a psychiatrist nor a psychic. Whether you and I agree about what you meant by that is irrelevant; AE admins all know what the word means and implies and have dictionaries if they have doubts; they definitely would take it as aspersion-casting in contravention of ARBATC, so our agreement is a moot point. There are no toys, and there is no pram. I'm threatening nothing; I'm giving a warning that admin tolerance for AT/MOS-related personalization of disputes is at an all time low, and is answered with topic bans and blocks. Darkfrog24 was topic-banned in Jan., then blocked, and indeffed in Feb. Francis Schonken just got a one-week block. Take this seriously. Argue your point without calling names or making snide insinuations about others' motives which you cannot possibly know without alien mind probe technology. Linguistic: See link added above (-ize is also British/Commonwealth English, and is a largely the preferred spelling in formal/academic writing, like ours). Geographic: See link added above; there is nothing unclear about "the fourteen British Overseas Territories (BOT) are territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but not part of it" (emphasis added). Moot point anyway; what "strong national tie" means is not dictated by this kind of nitpicking about jurisdictional definitions. I even supported the notion (you apparently missed that) that BrEng is the EngVar to use for territories like BVI. Policy: See link added again; it does not matter if the external evidence you're cherry-picking and doing original research with seems to support your opinion in your own mind; WP:CCPOL applies to article content, not the category organization naming conventions, and article content and title guidelines do not apply to category namespace except in limited ways, and not at all when the rule in question explicitly states it dos not apply to groups (e.g. categories) of articles but only to the content within a particular article that is Start-class or better, and only when consensus fails, and even then only if the change would be arbitrary and have no other reason but "I like it". And so on. The arguments you're making I've already refuted, but you haven't cogently rebutted. Please, stop trying to WP:WIN. I'm here (at your talk page, I mean) to try to get you to choose a different path than the one you're one. Even if you end up convinced I"m a jerk/idiot/whatever, use reason and persuasive argument, not ad hominem character assassination, to put me in my place. I'm here in the broader sense because this project may be the most important so far in human history. I care about your recent out-lashings and policy hand-wavings because we're losing too many editors. If I had it out for you, it would be easy to goad you into more and more accusations and incivility until you got banned, and I wouldn't be here writing this, I'd be pretending to be hurt, and whining to AE or ANI about you already.

I've been saying for years that ArbCom and AE have no business enforcing anything on internal matters like policy formation and debates, because it's a separation-of-powers problem, but they don't listen, we're stuck with it, and they're enforcing in harsher and harsher ways all the time. Don't be another casualty. I've seen people sanctioned even when the other party didn't think the one receiving that should have. Under discretionary sanctions, admins can impose pretty much any "remedy" they want, without community input, and it's very, very difficult to appeal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your substantive comments @SMcCandlish:. We should probably agree to disagree regarding -ize vs -ise. I have, I think, shown that in many countries -ise remains overwhelmingly preferred, in the same way labor and center have gained acceptance in the US. Regarding categories, I have seen long-standing consensus at CFD, CFDS and in the category trees that WP:TIES does de facto apply to categories. I think saying "arguments you're making I've already refuted, but you haven't cogently rebutted" sounds a little arrogant, especially when I have tried repeatedly to provide evidence regarding use of -ise vs -ize. The Western Hemisphere issue seems puzzling to me, as I don't perceive geographic facts to be in dispute. You stated we use American English for the Western Hemisphere even though part of the United Kingdom (not just overseas territories) and Ireland is located in the Western Hemisphere. I do want to be clear I never suggested or intended to suggest that I believe you are mentally ill. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed to disagree:: Fine; I'm have no interest in browbeating you about spelling. There's no question that -ise is more common in many of those countries, just not in all publication types; the more scholarly it leans, the more likely it is to use -ize. That's all. I don't think anyone's making a case that -ize will replace -ise in the UK or .au any time soon, if ever.
I agree TIES is essentially a valid argument, by consensus, at CfD and a few other places; the concept translates well enough. The RETAIN one doesn't, because the whole point of it is a local consensus at one article only, tied directly to its editing history. I suspect a lot of times if no one says anything about a RETAIN arg. in CfD it's because they're assuming it really meant a TIES argument; people get parts of ENGVAR mixed up.
WH: Unless I wrote in an unnecessarily summarative way in one spot and just forgot to say it, what I "always" say about TIES and the WH is that we generally default to AmEng for WH topics, absent a strong tie to Canada or the UK (e.g. for BVI, the Falklands, etc.) Some editors insist that Barbados is written in Barbadian English, Jamaica in Jamaican English, etc., though direct observation shows these claims to not often be demonstrable; in their written, formal forms they're not distinct enough to identify unless they used some local word, which most editors would replace per MOS:COMMONALITY. Anyway, for something like Nicaragua, we'd use US English. An argument could be made for doing Cuba in Canadian English because .ca has had open trade relations with Cuba the entire time; it is Canadians' #1 vacation spot, and CanEng is better known there today than AmEng, except via TV reception or whatever. Our only claim to a STRONGNAT is a walled off naval base, and lots of immigrants from there, at this point. <shrug> I would never seriously say AmEng is the default for all of NAm. Just the default for the non-English speaking ones; I'm hard-pressed to think of an exception.
On the final matter, no worries, and I apologize for being tooth-gnashy on the matter. I don't really get too personally offend even if someone does mean something like that. It's just that it attracts "hungry shark" admin attention to the whole topic area when anything that looks like name-calling starts, even if it wasn't meant that way. Anyway, happy editing, hope to get along better!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-American spelling differences

• Auslander, Do not use Anglo-American spelling differences simply to further your penchant for the WP:BATTLEGROUND hounding of editors whose opinions you dislike by interrupting discussions with snarky remarks like this : [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note E.M.Gregory is referring to their decision to change the spelling of the British Labour Party to Labor Party which I simply pointed out was incorrect. This isn't actually a spelling differences issue per se; it's about using the correct name of a political party. Changing the name seems WP:POINTY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Or you could simply WP:AGF, that it was a simple and obvious error, and move on; there was no need for your gratuitous WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
      • That's fine. I didn't nor am I accusing you of acting in bad faith. This happened around five days ago so I can't see the relevance right now. I didn't mention the issue more than once in passing. To be fair, you spent the entire AfD commenting on others comments, which some may consider to be WP:BATTLEGROUND AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Iskra Mihaylova

The article Iskra Mihaylova has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. JDDJS (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE. This individual is inherently notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

'-ize' is part of British English

Your edit here is a good one because it standardizes the use of '-ize/-ise' across the article, but '-ize' is perfectly standard British English. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers:. No, it simply isn't as the article Oxford spelling makes clear "Oxford spelling is best known for its preference of the suffix -ize in words like organize and recognize, versus the -ise endings that are more common in current British English usage". Oxford spelling is effectively archaic in the UK. It is not used by the media including quality publications such as The Times or The Guardian. It is not used by government or business. Please also see the section at American and British English spelling differences dealing with this topic which compares usage of -ise vs -ize in the UK. AusLondonder (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dimitris Papadakis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Committee on Foreign Affairs. 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) 12:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed AusLondonder (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP

I'll block you if you re-add that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: No idea what you're talking about. I do know that you are abusing your administrative tools by making abusive threats against people conforming to policy. On a side-note I notice your userpage says "semi-retired" which is basically some kind of get-out-of-jail free card. "I'll come back every so often and unilaterally threaten to block editors in good standing without warning". "People" like you give administrators a bad name. AusLondonder (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Learn to write more than three word replies. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Content creation

Quite right. I must admit, when I think of "content creation" I automatically think of AusLondonder. Cassianto^Talk 06:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Righto then. Whatever. Sarcasm. The lowest form of wit. Obviously the fact you have created 25 pages since 2009 whilst I have created 230 since 2015 has passed you by. I think the fact you felt the need to come here, be a prick, and try and start an argument exposes your sort of editing behaviour very well. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If me questioning policy consistency (not even involving you) causes you such outrage you may need to start meditation AusLondonder (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And you may need to get laid. Then maybe you'll chill out and stop being a wanker. Cassianto^Talk 07:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, the irony of a classical music and old-car enthusiast from Essex telling someone else to get laid. Still, I love your sense of self-deprecating humour. I'm sure you get laid all the time, your credit card account with all those transactions in Soho is evidence enough. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A Little Bit of Cucumber "The song is chiefly about a working-class man who enjoys eating cucumbers and who compares them to other types of food, before eventually deciding that it is cucumber he prefers" #quality #inspiring AusLondonder (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If your ancestors weren't all bloody criminals, maybe they would have stayed here and been inspired by it. Cassianto^Talk 07:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, as much as I like waxing-lyrical with you, I really must get on. I won't be responding any further. Cassianto^Talk 07:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If your ancestors hadn't illegally invaded, occupied and plundered half the world then I'm sure I would have been inspired by a song about taking cucumbers up the arse. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

About Women

Hi AusLondonder. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

International Chandramauli Charitable Trust

I'm a little surprised you removed my PROD from this article saying you found another reference, but you didn't add that refererence. You mention the Times of India in your edit summary. I'm not highly impressed by the TI of late years (compare this comment by an admin who's highly experienced in these matters), but of course I'd like to see the specific reference. What was it, please? Bishonen | talk 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I don't believe this article meets the criteria of WP:PROD as an "uncontroversial" deletion. Secondly, if you believe the Times of India is not a reliable source in any circumstances then I think that should be discussed at WP:RSN. The source is here. I believe the sources already at the article make it a close call. AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, obviously. Also the sentence you found in TI looks like a passing mention to me — by no means significant independent coverage or recognition. Anyway, I'm afraid I got tired of waiting and took it to AfD, and I see you have commented there, so I'll reply there. If you have faith in your Times of India reference, I don't understand why you still haven't added it to the article. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC).

I apologise for having things to do outside of Wikipedia and not replying instantaneously. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't apologize. What you're doing is trying to make out that I was criticizing you for taking a brief Wikibreak. I was not. Wikipedia is not compulsory and you're free take as long/many breaks as you like. However I believe I'm in my turn free to take an article to AfD without waiting indefinitely for a mystery hint about TI to be clarified. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC).

I wasn't specifically taking a break. I visited a friend with wine and premix vodka on the weekend, that's all! You said "Anyway, I'm afraid I got tired of waiting and took it to AfD" which sounded to me like criticism for the delay in replying. I guess I have to apologise again now for misinterpreting your comment haha. Regarding the source, I found it using the Indian English Newspaper Custom Search. I don't object to you taking it to AfD. I had assumed you most likely would. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaken about speedy tags

You seem to be under the impression that speedy tags cannot be re-added once removed.[8] That's not the case, so please stop removing speedy tags with this rationale. New users who have created a promotional article are more likely than not to remove the speedy tag, in my experience. They're asked not to, but I guess they don't know what else to do, and that tag should certainly be readded if it was appropriate to begin with. You're probably thinking of prods. They can't be readded once removed, no matter the circumstances. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

I recognise that speedy tags cannot be removed by the creator of said article, however the tag was removed by another editor. I also removed it because it was clearly not appropriate. I believe that should end the speedy process. The article is about a major regional company listed on a stock exchange. Incidentally, the company is in the Global South. I certainly can't imagine a speedy deletion tag being placed on an article about a New York Stock Exchange or London Stock Exchange company. The article has been taken to AfD and not a single editor has recommended deletion. The editor who placed the speedy tag should be trouted, because according to WP:SPEEDY "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion" AusLondonder (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please put the real reason for edits into edit summaries, not made-up policy-sounding principles, as that is likely to mislead less experienced users. You may think removing the tag should end the speedy process, but that's merely your opinion. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC).

So your belief is Editor A could place a speedy tag. Editor B could remove the tag. Editor A could place a speedy tag once more. Editor B could remove the tag again? And that continue endlessly? That doesn't sound like WP:COMMONSENSE to me. Maybe editors should consider not requesting speedy deletion for clearly notable companies. That's confusing to me. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2015

Thanks for the thanks... care to weigh in at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Lead infobox? Timeshift (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Timeshift9: No worries have done so AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician)

As a participant in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, you may be interested in participating in the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician).--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Down (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret Ritchie. 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) 10:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed AusLondonder (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Please show me a diff which demonstrates my removal of your comment. AusLondonder (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I did this. I wanted you to know since I changed an edit of yours, but I have presumed that is what was intended! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: Oops! Thanks for fixing that up. To be perfectly honest, I simply copied the current category name intending to change the "z" to an "s" before saving. I think I need more sleep (or maybe just try and slow down a bit!). Anyway, thanks again. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Extremely displeased

I am very disappointed in your decision to immediately remove Austin Petersen (politician). It doesn't bother me that there was a suggestion for deletion, but the fact that several users were actively debating on keeping the page when the page was deleted really does. The comment was made that Petersen hasn't gained any more notability since his last page was deleted, but this is untrue. Some users agreed that his participation in the Libertarian Party's first televised presidential debate makes him a notable figure. Ghoul flesh (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Ghoul

@Ghoul flesh: Firstly, I understand your disappointment. Articles I have created have been deleted in the past. I recognise it is a disheartening process. However, the article was not actually deleted by me. If you look at Austin Petersen (politician) it says up the top who the article has been deleted by. However, I did request speedy deletion. I requested it under WP:G4, a part of the WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. This article was eligible to be deleted under this criteria because "This (criteria) applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". This page was deleted only a matter of weeks ago. I suggest waiting some time and seeing if his notability increases. I personally believe unless he is elected to a statewide or nationwide office he is unlikely to ever be notable. WP:NPOL is a detailed notability criteria for politicians. It states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Meanwhile, if you have skills in article creation, why not get involved in broader content creation for notable subjects? AusLondonder (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Sorry for not adding to the ANI post. I was asleep. I see the editor has been blocked for 31 hours, hopefully that will send a clear message. AusLondonder (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Just wanted you to be aware, mainly in the case that you bump into similar edits by them in the future. TimothyJosephWood 12:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Non notable reactions

It is highly inappropriate to revert my trimming without discussion with me or anyone else. There has been plenty of discussion including many editors that wanted to ax the entire topic. You did not justify your revert at all. To your question about Bosnia vs Brazil - one country is a European country with Muslim residents in the path of the migrant crisis that is related to the Syrian Civil War while the other has absolutely zero connection to ISIL activity, the Syrian Civil War, Iraq, migrants, terrorists and is outside Europe. Legacypac (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate to engage in such "trimming" without discussion (with me or anyone else). You did not justify your edit at all, nor your POV-based selection of countries. You appear oblivious to the fact a large portion of editors wish to keep all of the national reactions. You have been blocked for your fanatical obsession with this topic. Take a step back. Breathe. AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I think you should self-revert that edit-warring immediately. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you just said is not true. Also you cite WP:GEOBIAS which I encourage you to actually read. GEOBIAS has nothing to do with this issue. Reactions of involved countries are far more notable then reactions from uninvolved countries in every event, regardless of where the countries are located/languages spoken etc. Togo and East Timor are not involved in this story, so if their leader expresses condolences, so what? Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

House Of Hiranandani

This is complete bollocks and I think you should know it by now. This place is rife with promotional material from Indian companies and individuals - please don't encourage it. - Sitush (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What part is bollocks? There's no way that meets speedy. Look at all these sources. AusLondonder (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you even know the difference between a reliable source and a press release? - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If you need help ...

Having had similar experiences with "rigid, unilaterally unconstructive interpretation" of BLP from our John, let me know if you need support ----Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Snowded: Thanks for that :) I literally can't believe his arrogance sometimes. AusLondonder (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep all "I'm right you're wrong" and even after he got little or no support on the RS forum he was still issuing threats. Kept his page on watch since in case of repetition ----Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Frankly an admin should know better. He deleted my reply from his talkpage. Didn't even have the guts to justify himself. AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of London mayoral election, 2020

The article London mayoral election, 2020 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia does not create placeholders. As this election is 4 years off and there is nothing to say about it yet except speculation it does not belong here. Recreate it much closer to the time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unmesh Desai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Biggs. 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) 10:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Presidential transitions

• If you have serious objections [[9]], take it to Creating Category talk:United States Presidential transitions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney

Your accusations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney are neither collegial, productive nor accurate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: What about your accusations against Ken Livingstone that violated WP:BLP? What opportunity did Livingstone have to respond? Also, I didn't make any accusations. I said it was close to canvassing. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you sprang, like Athena, fully formed and obviously experienced, onto the pages of Wikipedia without disclosing whence came your fluency with the system and advanced wikilawyering skills, you have been hounding me with the intention of pushing me off Wikipedia. It grows wearying, I grant you that. I edit less and less and your political sway over the project, and that of those relentless wikilawyers those who agree with you politically, grows while honest editors are banned. I don;'t know where you find the time. But I do grant that your methodical, nasty, POV wikihounding (concealed behind myriad brief, minor, edits is highly effective. Ciao.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: You have the brass neck to complain about my (non)allegations. Yet you come here and make serious false allegations against me. I gather you edit less due to the community restrictions placed on you due to your POV-pushing in relation to terrorism/multiculturalism/Arab-Israeli issues? Yet you again have the hide to accuse me of POV pushing. I may be an idiot saying this but I don't wish to see you depart. In fact, I think editors are too often banned. You may have noticed despite our history I did not comment when you were at ANI (which resulted in you being topic banned). Please stop levelling false allegations against me and other editors with no evidence and please stop the insults. AusLondonder (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

TIES

From the point of view of encyclopaedic usage, there is effectively no difference between British English and Indian English. While there is nothing inherently wrong with flipping it per TIES, as you did here, it does create more work for others and is probably the sort of gnoming better done when making a more substantive contribution to the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush Please explain how it creates more work for others? AusLondonder (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A trivial edit lights up the watchlist. It has the potential also to hide a more significant change (as, coincidentally, it did on this occasion). It burdens the bot. And it simply isn't really necessary for the reason already given: to do is A Nice Thing but it changes nothing in practice.

I am not getting into an argument about this: you really seem to dislike Brits and you love an argument, so there is no point. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: "Burdens the bot"...Hahahaaha lay the fuck off buddy. I have no fucking idea why but you've had a vendetta against me from the moment we first interacted. I've copped endless abuse from you such as "stop you dimwit"..."don't be fucking stupid"..."I'm out of here for a while now due to meds but, believe me, my interest in your antics has suddenly grown immensely. That does not bode well."..."stop being a twat"..."Dimwit"..."Perhaps we have a problem with the English language here? That would explain a lot".

Your block log shows the consequences. You are nothing but an aggressive, argumentative bully. For you to say I'm the one wanting an argument after you come here with you snide, smart-arse bullshit ("sort of gnoming better done when making a more substantive contribution") is pretty fucking galling. To say I hate Brits because I added a Use Indian English tag to an article about India is fucking retarded paranoid bullshit. I'm part-British and I live in London for Christ's sake. Of the 291 pages I've created many have been about British topics and I make edits on British topics enforcing British spelling. I want absolutely nothing to do with the likes of you. Guess how we can avoid an argument - don't post petty shit on my talkpage. Don't bother replying I won't read it and will revert without reply. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)