Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 6 September 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Skyring) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Skyring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian politics

Pete, I have had to remove your comment in that infobox discussion. HiLo had already commented in that thread, and given the iBan your job is to make sure that this doesn't happen. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think it's fair that they can't comment in the same thread as long as they aren't addressing each other... Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You may think whatever you like, but there's an interaction ban in place. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Geez, Drmies, talk about precious. I don't complain when he edits the same articles and discussions after I do. That's the way the WP:IBAN wording reads. No interaction, but both allowed to edit the same things. We've both been active on Australian political articles for years. Is it really going to be a matter of who jumps into a !vote first so as to mark off their territory and exclude the other's opinion from the general debate? --Pete (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Again I agree with Pete. A stopped watch is still right twice a day :D Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It was either this or a topic ban, I think this is the better outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, you're giving me the impression that you aren't following what's going on. You've done this a few times now. Perhaps it would help if you read the contributions of others? --Pete (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My comment was referring to closing the AN thread (and subsequent clarification to you) in which I made the IBAN quite a bit more strict, my only other chose was to impose a TBAN. I decided that there wasn't enough of a consensus for the TBAN but based on the comments of other admins at the time that was not their impression so a TBAN might have been the other outcome. My opinion is that this is the better outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeees, but how does this relate to the political discussion, precisely? --Pete (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That instead of not being allowed to make any edit (etc) related to Australia and football or interact with HiLo there is just a stricter interpretation of the IBAN. My thinking was that it's better just not to be allowed to interact (etc) than not be able to edit a topic in which you are very active. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want any interaction. What I find puzzling is that I make a contribution to a discussion without mentioning the other guy or responding in any way and he thinks it's about him. Geez, but I've been editing Australian political articles for nine and a half years now, I'm entitled to an opinion on information in infoboxes. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to an opinion, I suppose--I do believe that the UN has written such a clause about infoboxes into the human rights charter. You are not allowed, though, to violate the conditions of your iBan. It's really quite simple and why Callanecc and I have to argue this point is not clear to me. What I was kind of hoping for is a simple "geez sorry it won't happen again thanks for not blocking me". For which, by the way, you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one to get a sense of deja vu from this? Pete, you have been warned before about trying to get around the edges of your iban. It seems that you seem to keep getting caught out like this then you say something like "I didn't think what I did this time was an infringement". Sorry, heard that story too many times before. If HiLo48 has been active on a talk page you would be best advised to stay away. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but you got yourself into this and although I know it takes two to tango, it seems that you're the one that keeps getting into these situations. Maybe that might tell you something, you're not stupid, I'm sure you can work it out. It seems to me that you're damned lucky not to have been blocked this time, make the most of your opportunity to continue to edit Misplaced Pages and stay away from HiLo48. - Nick Thorne 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. If I were trying to stir up the other guy and "get around the iban", you might be right. The reality is that it never entered my consideration. I added my opinion to a specific question on presentation of information. So I thought it a bit precious of HiLo to make a fuss. It's not about him. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• You're right on the last point. Now, let's move on, and let's hope that I don't have to revisit this issue again. Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey there

Pete, do you think you and HiLo can get along? And do you think that even if, on occasion, you can't get along, that you can limit that not-getting-along to where it won't disrupt threads, discussions, Misplaced Pages, the known universe? I think HiLo is willing to give that a shot. Also, I'm having a beer with some tequila, which I am sure most Australians can appreciate. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies! I'm addressing that position even as we speak. As for mixing tequila and beer, I look forward to your upcoming edits. :) --Pete (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Angus Taylor (politician)

Your old friend 1955Dewayne is adding a mountain of crap about wind energy to this BLP, and I was wondering if you might use your skills for good... The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest to you?

FYI, I've done a dummy spit (or two). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me get the facts right on Meilin Miranda's page, from Dragix (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Template:Z33

Please note Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. You didn't have to do that, and I appreciate the advice. --Pete (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"I'd like to welcome a new editor to the gentle discussion club that is the Australian political area in Misplaced Pages."

LOL Timeshift (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's open mike night at the Misplaced Pages comedy club. Thanks for your applause. I got a million of 'em. --Pete (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember to leave the 3RR report advice on the user's talkpage. Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Twinkle apparently can do all the legwork for reporting, but I couldn't puzzle out how. Fuck, I must be retarded. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A valid point, though looking at the discussion is a bit more edifying than edit summaries. --Pete (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:HOUND

You appear to be assuming the worst of Alans1977 on Talk:Abortion and admit to following them around. Please refrain from calling people names like "drunk". Based on your talk page archives, I see that interactions with other users has been an issue in the past, so consider this a warning (without a template). EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I will also note your lack of AFG is in violation of the ARBCOM ruling for Abortion as well as the WP:1RR restriction on the page. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

I am replying to your comments in the closed RfC. The Statute of Westminster had no effect on the role of the Crown in each dominion. "...it is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not. The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867." (Kerr LJ, 1982)

The Statute ceded the power of Westminster to legislate for the named dominions without their permission. In every subsequent case where a former colony achieved independence, Westminster ceded power to legislate even with permission. Later they ceded power to legislate for Canada (1982), Australia (1986) and New Zealand (1986). The other significant aspect of the Act is that it allowed the dominions to determine the succession of their own monarchs. But that power was never extended to the other Commonwealth realms - their constitutions state that whoever is monarch of the UK is their sovereign, which became evident with the Perth Agreement.

TFD (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD! I find your interpretation to be at odds with mine. The question of who advised the monarch is the crucial one, and it changed from the British ministers to the dominion prime ministers. The SoW gave force to the decision of the 1927 Imperial Conference. I don't know if you are trying to score points or something, but you need to do better than the above to convince me that the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs meant nothing about independence. It certainly meant something to Australians. --Pete (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That the King should appoint the governor-general on the advice of the Dominion prime minister was a reasonable interpretation of the Balfour Declaration 1926 that "it is the right of the Government of each Dominion to advise the Crown in all matters relating to its own affairs." Note that Isaacs was appointed before the enactment of the 1931 statute. And the Act did not apply to Australia until it passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Unlike countries that became independent after the Second World War, it is difficult to determine a specific date of independence. One could even argue that Australia was independent by 1919 when it entered the League of Nations.

But none of this has any bearing on the separateness of the Crown of the UK and that of Australia, even if in the past some scholars argued it did. The Australian Crown was created in 1901. At that point it was possible for the Queen in Right of Australia to enter into contracts as a person distinct from the Queen in Right of the UK. So one would pay taxes to the Treasurer of Australia, not the UK Treasury. Similarly each municipal corporation in Australia is a separate person.

Anyway, that is current legal opinion, and was affirmed by the House of Lords.

TFD (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am well aware of the timing of events. The SoW gave legal effect to the BD. That it was not adopted as Australian law until later makes no difference. The monarch was no longer advised on Australian - or Canadian or New Zealand - affairs by the British Government. That was the reality, as the appointment of Isaacs demonstrated. At that point the British Empire changed significantly. That's how I see it. And that's why I see it as inappropriate to view the Commonwealth realms as "the UK and others". You may throw red herrings and strawmen around as much as you wish, but I shall remove anything of that nature from this page. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Was that a vote?

I can't tell. Was this a vote? It's hard to tell from the layout, and you don't really say Reopen or Close. Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: - this is a !vote - my two comments after that (but earlier in the thread) were just comments. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bolt

I posted at the talk page. You failed to answer. If you are not going to discuss the section, then please don't revert.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I see that you did say something. Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Airbus A340

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JacksonRiley (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)