User talk:AusLondonder

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Yeah, I saw that. I'm looking into it right now, including a sockcheck. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BeaverTails18, if you want to add a comment or anything. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Islamic Relief, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you..--Bali Makmur (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who just dropped into this talk page and was a little surprised to see the above claim, it doesn't take a lot to see that the accusation of disruptive editing by AusLondonder is nonsense. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Indeed this editor seems to have a bit of a record of poor behaviour. They have edit-warred, used misleading edit summaries, removed sourced content and failed to follow WP:NPOV repeatedly. This template (from an editor with 108 edits) is about my removal of a "terrorist" category from an article about a British Islamic charity. AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as you've seen I decided to take the category to CFD because of the major potential for misuse AusLondonder (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_States Ironcurtain2 (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonie Cooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist society. 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) 09:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have not voted yourself in the corbyn beauty pageant, if you were going to vote ... the amusing thing is i sure Corbyn himself would not mind which picture it was :) -- BOD -- 22:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodney: I'm sure he'd be horrified by the very concept, to be quite honest! I think the current pic is certainly not the best. But I'm not convinced entirely on what picture is the best replacement. I'll probably make my mind up in the next couple of days :) AusLondonder (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on your proposal re Category:Ports of Nepal Hugo999 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugo999: Thanks for pointing that out, I have replied at CFDS. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikolaos Nikolopoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Achaia. 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) 13:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Legacy Development Corporation, 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) 09:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :)

I'd just like to point out a few things regarding the draft you just created:

• Under British English (which should apply given it's a British event), an assassination has to have a political motive. Since a motive is not yet known, this cannot be an assassination. (I note that you have since renamed the article from me starting to write this, but the infobox still says asssassination).
• It's not a murder until it's proven as such in a court of law - there's some discussion on Talk:Jo Cox about this. In the UK, Sub Judice applies now since an arrest has been made, which has potential implications for those reporting on the event in the UK, which we both are.
• You've named the alleged perpetrator of an unproven crime - I'd like to point you int the direction of WP:BLPCRIME

I'm not disagreeing with splitting it into a new article, just please be careful with this!

[stwalkerster|talk] 03:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Jo Cox 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this other nomination? Surely it would be at the current AfD's page title? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is referenced on the talkpage. It was however at the earlier title of the page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox AusLondonder (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and AGF don't get along very well, I think. "Pointy, sly and contentious"? Drmies (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: you and BRD don't get on very well. AusLondonder (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. A revert whose edit summary contains only insults, that's not likely to make anyone discuss anything. BRD is an essay, as you know; AGF is a fundamental principle in this joint. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You waited until less eyes were on the article to remove a massive section which you know had community support. You arbitrarily chose some nations as "involved" - not French neighbours such as the Netherlands or the United Kingdom. You left the United States in unsurprisingly. The revert summary was describing your behaviour not you as a person or you as an editor. I have disputed your arbitrary and pointy removal now should be the time to discuss. AusLondonder (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion Mlpearc (open channel) 15:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: Why bother starting a discussion if midway through with no consensus for your position, you show huge disrespect for your fellow editors by making the disputed change with a totally misunderstood rationale? AusLondonder (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the times. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: Apologies, although I think the status quo should have remained before starting the discussion per WP:BRD AusLondonder (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarians. 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) 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little late in writing this but wanted to say that I hope there aren't any hard feelings about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting. Hope you know that it has nothing to do with animus toward the LGBTQ community or anything. I just feel that many of the news-related articles are TOOSOON but it's becoming clear I'm in the minority with that opinion (e.g., Talk:2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers#Way_too_soon). I'm recalibrating my perceptions of the community norm based on the feedback in the AFD.

TL;DR - sorry if I put you through any undue stress, especially related to such a traumatic event to folks in the LGBTQ community. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Thanks for that! Really cool of you, I appreciate it. I had taken a little break from the project for a couple of weeks which I think we all need sometimes! No hard feelings at all :) AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear and thank you. Hope your wikibreak went well! Glad to have you back! EvergreenFir (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electoral division of Blain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry Mills (politician). 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) 09:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clive Palmer, 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. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just explaining my undoing your change to Division of Bass - it's actually only had sixteen different members (equal with Bendigo, Denison and Swan), but Warwick Smith was the member twice. :) Frickeg (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frickeg: No worries thanks for fixing it up :) AusLondonder (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AusLondonder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments solicited here: Talk:Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_Canada#Rename_Cannabis_in_Canada_or_create_new_article.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Kingdom general election, 2015 (London) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election, 2015 (London) 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. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just put in a regular deletion request? MB298 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB298 I am willing to do that if you take exception. Just remove the tag if you disagree. AusLondonder (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. MB298 (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another user already declined your PROD, so now you have to take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I invite you to join a new Wikiproject over at WP:Greens. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it was a speedy tag. But if a speedy was declined, it is likely a PROD will be too. I suggest not wasting your time and going right to AfD if you feel strongly about it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lavender Greens 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavender Greens 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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of recurring events in location establishment categories

• New York City Marathon in 1970 establishments in New York
• Grand National in 1839 establishments in the United Kingdom
• Reading Amateur Regatta in 1842 establishments in England
• Mar del Plata chess tournament in 1928 establishments in Argentina
• Scripps National Spelling Bee in 1925 establishments in the United States

And thousands more. You want to change what articles such as these are categorized, I suggest WP:RFC or the talk page for WP:Categorization....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting it should be categorised as an "establishment in Rhode Island" even though it could be held in any state in future years? AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because that is where it started. Events as well as companies can move, but all started somewhere. There are cases where they move and even come back to its roots before ending. For instance, Western Open, a 1899 establishment and 2006 disestablishment in Illinois. In between the event was played in 15 other United States....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. AusLondonder, thanks for creating Lavender Hill High School!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. If you could add references to [WP:V

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lavender Hill High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable school without any sources

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. TM 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lavender Hill High School 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavender Hill High School 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. TM 16:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Hello AusLondonder, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I wasn't aware of that particular CSD criterion. I want to populate those Mexico regional radio station stub cats but am not familiar with stub sorting and would need to create 32 templates and edit more than 1,200 articles. Would it be possible for you to help me with that? Raymie (t • c) 08:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you add a single article to the CSD criteria no longer applies. I would probably be able to help if you let me know what needs to be done. I'm not an expert in stub sorting either though :) AusLondonder (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Steve Christian, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Dan Koehl (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Green Party Archives that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the comment, but it's still not nice. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A bit of a patronizing arse" may be relatively mild compared to some other things I heard recently, but it is still a personal attack. Kindly refrain. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who deals with current event articles, I am soliciting comments from you on my first attempt at a Wikipedia essay: WP:DJTG/WP:HOLDYOURHORSES. I've started a section on the talk page of the essay for comments (or you can just edit the article). Having worked on current event articles and terrorism lists, I thought this essay might be useful when addressing editors who add content prematurely (e.g., labeling an even as Islamist terrorism before RS proclaim it to be so). If you have the time and energy, feel free to comment or edit on it. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding that a copy of the same tag need to be posted at the talk page of the page creator. I have been placing tags on the page alone so far. Bilingual2000 (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilingual2000: No problem thanks for your friendly response :) AusLondonder (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kroonstad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pick'n'Pay. 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) 10:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... Wtmitchell blocks AusLondoner for twelve hours with the rationale to stop series of edits flouting WP:ENGVAR... Fifteen hours after their last edit?! Presumably the edits of concern are those most recent, labelled "per WP:TIES"- but none of those, that I can see, have been reverted, which begs the question as to how disruptive they were. In any case; where's the discussion, the escalated series of warnings, even? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell Is this a joke? What on earth is this about? You haven't even notified me of the block let alone discussed the issue with me?!? AusLondonder (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked Wtmitchell has not even reverted a single of my edits? Wtf? AusLondonder (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No complaint about my conduct, no discussion raised that I'm aware of on any forum, no block template, no notification of the right of appeal? I'm seriously wondering whether Wtmitchell's account has been compromised. AusLondonder (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AusLondonder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not sure whether this is a mistake or not. I'm a regular editor in good-standing. Absolutely no complaint was made on any forum by any editor about my conduct. I received no warning or discussion about the block, as is generally the accepted precedent per WP:BEFOREBLOCK and I received zero notification or explanation of the block from the admin, in breach of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. That policy states "The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" and "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked...Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page". The admin, in their blocking summary, apart from threatening me with an indefinite block, stated the reason was "to stop series of edits flouting WP:ENGVAR". However, none of my edits have been reverted, even by the blocking admin and I simply changed spelling to, for example, New Zealand English on Suburbs of Nelson per WP:TIES which states "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". The admin has not engaged with me nor other editors since the block. Very happy to discuss any concerns with the reviewing admin.

Accept reason:

Bizarre block. No discussion, no warning, not even a block notification, even though AusLondoner's last edit was 16 hours before the block was applied. This was a very bad block. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just coming to the same conclusion as BrownHairedGirl. Bizarre block, good unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl Thanks a lot for that. Definitely was weird seeing this today. AusLondonder (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome, @AusLondonder. I'm just sorry you had to go through this, and that I didn't spot it sooner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Thanks, Boing. I am going to raise this at ANI, where I hope that Wtmitchell will be able to give a good explanation of what happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Perhaps ask him at his talk page first? There might be a good response that would avoid the need for ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry -- too late, Boing. I had posted at ANI before seeing your comment.
        In any case, I think that something as bizarre as this deserves a more public discussion, particularly given the possibility of account compromise (as speculated above by AusLondonder).
        Hopefully Wtmitchell will have a good response which keep the ANI thread short. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, fair enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) +1 to my colleagues above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belated apology[edit]

I want to acknowledge my judgemental error here and to apologize for the block which I precipitously and improperly placed following on that judgemental error. This is discussed in some detail at WP:ANI#Wtmitchell's block of AusLondonder, and I don't want to rehash that discussion here. I do want to to apologize here, though, both for my bad judgement in this instance and for the block which I improperly placed as a result of that bad judgement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell Thank you for your apology. It is most appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wtmitchell's block of AusLondonder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me write the article with finished contracts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIS Construction (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to help me write an article on the corporation. I am the marketer and I have never written an article on wikipedia.

NIS Construction (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AusLondonder

I was just checking your contribs from yesterday[1] to see if I could find any trace of what might have prompted the block.

No sign of that, which makes the block look even more bizarre, but I did spot one small unimportant thing. Several of your edits which rightly corrected the spelling of International Labour Organization used an edit summary which included a link to WP:BRINT, which is a redirect to WP:Redirect#Bypass_redirects_in_navigational_templates. That clearly isn't what you meant, so I presume it was just a mistaken recollection of another shortcut.

Obviously, that small glitch in no way justifies any reproach, let alone an out-of-the-blue block ... but I just thought I'd point it out for future reference, in case someone gets antsy about it.

Hope this helps! If not, pls ignore.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Thanks for that and for your help the past few days. It has been most appreciated. Sorry for my delay in replying I've been super-busy off-wiki. You're right I wasn't using the most correct shortcut. I was meaning the part just below where WP:BRINT appears which says "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect". When correcting spelling in similar circumstances in future do you have any advice on what I should say in the edit summary?

Thanks again for your help :) AusLondonder (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the guideline and stick a specific anchor in it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I don't think any guideline needed to be cited. It was just a matter of fixing the spelling of a proper name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Hi AusLondonder

I was glad to be able to help. I saw your username pop up somewhere else, but with a strikeout line through it (I have a CSS setting which does that to blocked usernames), and went to investigate ... and just thought I'd not like that to be me!

I dunno if you have seen my reply to Wtmitchell's response at ANI: WP:ANI#Response_by_Wtmitchell. What I suggested there (in point #1) was that since you were correcting the spelling of a proper name, a better edit summary might have been as something like "correct spelling of proper name International Labour Organization".

But I'm sure there are other ways of doing it. Just check shortcuts afore using them! (I know, we all screw up on that one sometimes, and it's no biggie, unless you encounter an admin on a hair-trigger over a flakey internet connection).

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully we have some competent admins around here! I thought what could I possibly have done to irritate this guy! I've seen your reply it certainly put in words exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for the tip about the edit summary it seems like a good idea to avoid any potential confusion. Who would have thought the spelling of the International Labour Organization would be cause for such excitement! AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that helped. And the ANI thread has been closed without any further action, which I think is a good outcome. Wtmitchell has (belatedly) apologised to you, and can be in no doubt that they screwed up badly and had better not screw up like that again. Hope you feel reassured that it hasn't left any stain on your record. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it is now all resolved. Hopefully they won't repeat their mistake in future. I want to thank you again for your assistance and wisdom through all of this. AusLondonder (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Enrique Guerrero Salom has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days 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/dated}} 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. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed AusLondonder (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AusLondonder. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In a recent edit to the page 2017 Stockholm attack, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a big mistake on this. The article is written in British English. So the people have to use the British words. Look at the discussion page.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rævhuld I have replied at the talkpage. Your edits violate MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES. The first substantial versions of the page use truck not lorry. AusLondonder (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title doesn't match text Jutta Steinruck vs. Ulrike Rodust, --Mandavi (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mandavi that was a mistake from copying a template, I have now fixed it. AusLondonder (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Aniar, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. also disruptive editing on Locks Brasserie and The Greenhouse (restaurant) plus POV-pushing. The Banner talk 22:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. What part of treated with common sense do you not understand? The Banner talk 22:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner Please advise what "occasional exception" applies here. Don't bother with the crap about what you learnt at school again because that has no bearing on WP:TIES. Please try and stop POV-pushing for once. AusLondonder (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you indeed do not understand treated with common sense. Clear, thank you. The Banner talk 23:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You're pushing British English onto an article, where you can't even give the title of that article without using Gaelic or at least some level of Irish English? As the local dialect would advise, catch yerself on. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting, as per the discussion on the 420 project I'm restoring them all, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 01:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declined G4 on this based on a review of the deleted version, I feel that the sourcing provided appears substantially different. This is of course without prejudice to other deletion mechanisms, such as AfD. Note that I had previously been asked about this earlier in the day, see my talk page. Best regards, --joe decker^talk 05:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't it's at Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. There was no disruptive editing on my part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz Yes, I have. Which is why rather than placing a template warning I wrote you a personalised note regarding your disruptive editing. AusLondonder (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I am a member of the project where that template was placed and there's no consensus of the English language project to promote your project's cause so yeah, I have the right to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no such right. Please take a look at WP:TPO which states " The basic rule....is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". AusLondonder (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Abby Tomlinson has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Inops (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, another editor (not me) removed the word "false". I put it back in per longstanding consensus, but then it occurred to me that it's not proper to revert merely because of no consensus. So it's best if someone else (like you) puts that word back, given that I think it's overkill. Anyway, you wrote "???" in your edit summary, so I came here to explain. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Ah ok no worries. AusLondonder (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hand typed WCPW Pro Wrestling World Cup 2017 out. I understand and begrudgingly agree with it's deletion, but I did not copy and paste anything minus the bracket templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiitit (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiitit: Hello there. I'm sorry your article got deleted, even if it was something I supported. From experience I know it can be seriously disheartening and irritating, especially when you put in work on it. I did self-revert the speedy template because I realised that wasn't appropriate in the circumstances. AusLondonder (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have removed the dog again since there was NO consensus for adding it in the discussions on the talk page. The only one who wanted to add it was you, while multiple editors opposed it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: False. Feel free to re-read Talk:2017 Stockholm attack/Archive 1#Pet dog and then get back to me. AusLondonder (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AusLondonder, as I already stated in the archived thread. (Why is the archiving so quick?) But adding the dog to the infobox, or adding the dog's name (for god's sake) is just grotesque. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I have of course read the discussion in the archive, a discussion I took part in, and see no consensus for adding it (people who say they won't oppose it count as neutral in my book, and when looking at the rest I find more who oppose it than who support it...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you mis-count consensus in a way that suits yourself it is no surprise you produce a result that suits yourself. AusLondonder (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RfC started about whether the dog should be mentioned among casualties/fatalities or not, since the outcome of the previous discussion obviously is "open to interpretations". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Srinagar (Lok Sabha constituency) by-election, 2017, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
• It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Srinagar bypoll election protests 2017. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Srinagar bypoll election protests 2017, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly about the matter, then take it to the Talk:Kiev/naming page, because that's where it's going to be decided -- not at the "Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv" article. AnonMoos (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos (talk · contribs) I'm fully aware of that. The consensus is that we use Kiev not Kyiv, which is what I have done at Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was very sure that I had already eliminated all "Kyiv" spellings in previous edits to the article (see summaries of past edits), so I guess I got confused, sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: No worries :) AusLondonder (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AusLondonder, The name Kiev is incorrect. The correct name is Kyiv, Kiev - is a Russian version of Kyiv, and it already has been proved as incorrect. For the more details, please, check the link with grammar background on this issue by Radio Svoboda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk8SiM75_eE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annapetrenko (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You re-added 2017 Manchester Arena bombing to Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and you added the template to the article without edit summaries. The attack has not been determined to be Islamic terrorism in any reliable sources that I'm aware of. Please join the talk page discussion to justify adding this template. Thank you.- MrX 11:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove it? Your rationale is obsolete.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Bastani 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bastani 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. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AusLondonder. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:History of Cleveland County, Arkansas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The category is not empty at this point. Thank you. ~ GB fan 10:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AusLondonder. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:History of Tishomingo County, Mississippi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The category is not empty at this point. Thank you. ~ GB fan 10:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello AusLondonder! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

"Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Grenfell Tower fire, you may be blocked from editing. AusLondonder (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)"

What does this mean; I am not being "disruptive." Was this message intended for someone else? Am I supposed to register before I edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7FC0:7B:410:4122:4335:F6DD (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 June 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Grenfell Tower fire, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you/we meant B in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_16#Organisations_based_in_Bolivia. Oculi (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a claim that you may have supported this because you believed that ten people were killed. Can you confirm or deny that? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Bastani 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bastani (2nd nomination) 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to comply with WP:BEFORE, prior to nominating the article on Anne Marie Waters for deletion?

Your nomination said she was merely a failed candidate. Yet, when I google searched her I found half a dozen topics where coverage of her was not about her "failed candidacy". Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aaron Bastani, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator,