User talk:Watchover

Michael Photios

You can write an article on Photios right now. The original was only deleted because some fool a few years ago went around writing a whole ton of articles like "Michael Photios is a politician." Actually having someone write a proper article would be great! Rebecca (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titles in member lists

Re: adding "Sir", etc., to the member lists in electorate articles. I really wish you'd raised this at WP:AUP or something first, since I think it actually creates quite a few problems. I know that generally the policy is to include titles like this, but in this case it is fairly impractical and if we are going to we need to establish some guidelines first. For example: what about members who were knighted after their terms? Do we have "(Sir)" as a title? And what about members knighted during their terms? It's factually incorrect to say that Sir Earle Page was member for Cowper from 1919; he wasn't Sir Earle until 1938. Can we at least discuss this before implementing it across the board? Frickeg (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your most civil response. Actually, we don't refer to past Prime Ministers as "Mr Prime Minister" (we don't even refer to our present one as such), and it is vital to remember that when McMahon, for example, was prime minister, he was not Sir William at all. It's not Wikipedia's job to "honour their achievement" - in fact, that's a straight-out violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. We would never say, for example, that "In 1919, Prime Minister Sir Earle Page was elected to the seat of Cowper". We would say that, "In 1919, Country Party candidate Earle Page, a future Prime Minister, was elected to the seat of Cowper." I'll take this to WikiProject Australian Politics for further consensus, though. Frickeg (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Watchover! I am Airplaneman and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Airplaneman ^talk 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales Division). Note that users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Orderinchaos 14:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you are trying to make are controversial and have been opposed by several editors. It would therefore be a good idea, rather than simply trying to ram the changes through without consultation, to discuss with other editors what the best course of action would be. A multi-list article on a state division of a political party replacing a leader list is unprecedented on Wikipedia as far as I know, and definitely is not common practice on the Australian Politics wikiproject (where leader lists of all kinds are the norm). Five of your edits simply stripped references from the article, in violation of WP:V which requires that information be appropriately sourced. As well, much of the material you are attempting to add is uncritically transcribed from the Liberal Party of NSW's website, which is a primary source. Orderinchaos 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a marginal seat?

According to the AEC,[1] status of seats is based on the two part preferred vote as follows:

Marginal - <56%
Fairly safe - 56-60%
Safe - >60%

I can't find a contrary definition on the New South Wales Electoral Commission website. Do you have proof that a different definition is used in NSW to that used by the AEC? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFYS2D NCIS is on Watchover 10:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ken Ticehurst

While your edits to this page did in some respects improve the page, please have a closer look at Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Several of your changes did not reflect this. Also, I'm not an admin but I feel compelled to point out that your comment above to AussieLegend is considered very uncivil, even on your own discussion page, and to warn you that that kind of thing can lead very quickly to your being blocked. I would advise you strongly to remove it. Thanks, Frickeg (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

No worries. Needed to be done anyway; you provided a nice catalyst! Frickeg (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rann, Affair allegations

Waiting for you all, who is going to be the first.... Watchover (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add fair-use images to Bio's

Per Wikipedia:NFCC fair-use images can't be used as free-use image already exist or can be taken. Bidgee (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I noticed I had gotten the wrong picture from my data base. Maybe before you jump to negative accusations nerd, you should ask the editor if they have made a mistake and ask them to correct it or correct it yourself. But I noticed you have jumped at these situations before nerd. Making fun of junior or 'not your bias opinion type' I believe is something you should not be proud of and maybe think your attitude over. Have a nice day :) ... nerd Watchover (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a nerd issue - many of our own number have gotten in trouble over it in times past (including several of your political opponents), particularly as the rules regarding NFCC criteria have been anything but clear over the years and have been changed several times so that what is OK one day isn't the next. While I respect the need for an NFCC due to Wikipedia's redistributability, I personally disagree with the stringency of the ones we have as they apply (it encourages paparazzi shots of living people), but it's never been up to me. I believe Bidgee's post above was a genuine attempt to help, and being incivil to him really wasn't called for. Orderinchaos 04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as an addendum, a group of us under another hat (Wikimedia Australia, which can best be thought of as an advocacy organisation as we have no links to Wikipedia) are attempting to convince political parties and parliaments to release free, acceptable shots under the Creative Commons 3.0 Share-Alike licence, which allows them to release it but retain some rights as opposed to a pure Public Domain licence where they surrender all rights. At an individual politician level, this can be done by two means: one is to upload a picture in their website domain (it doesn't have to be linked from the main page of their site) with a clear statement linking to and releasing the pic under the above licence; another is to send an email containing the pic to permissions-en at wikimedia.org with a similar statement. The benefit of this is that any photo they release is almost guaranteed to be better than any other shot we can obtain. I suggest looking at Colin Barnett for an example (and looking in the history to see the shot we used to have!) If you're interested in helping with this (especially if the politician in question's article currently has a paparazzi shot) we'd be most grateful. Orderinchaos 04:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calling anyone a "nerd" is rather rude but the way you said it makes it a personal attack. Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rees Resignation Section

Could you please check the votes I have entered here? Not Sure if they are correct. Not that politically knowledgeable. Thanks! Nathan Rees#Resignation --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email address is...

permissions-en at wikimedia.org, substitute @ for at. If they are released on the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence, you have the choice of uploading them to en.wikipedia, which can only be used here, or commons.wikimedia, which can be used at any project. (eg French, German, wikisource, wikinews, etc)

Process is something like

Make sure the copyright holder understands the license. I suggest showing them [2] (and be grateful that we stopped using the GFDL for licensing... I can't believe we used to have to get people to read 15 pages of legalese to release a photo! :|)
Get their permission in writing (or like I said get them to do it on a hidden page on their website) to release the image under that licence. (Something like "I agree to release the image attached / the image at http://blah/blah.jpg under the Creative Commons 3.0 Share Alike license." Note it should not say "released to Wikipedia" as it is a general release)
Upload the image, and make sure the appropriate license is chosen.
Forward the permission email/letter, or the webpage address, to OTRS at the above address together with the exact filename of the image
A day or so later (there can be delays), one of the OTRS people will mark the image to say they have sighted the permission and it's in the correct form.

This is basically exactly what I did to get File:Colin_Barnett_(formal)_crop.jpg onto Wikipedia just days after his election as premier. It was emailed to me as an attachment in that case.

Takes a while to get one's head around the process (I've been here almost four years and I still have to think through each stage!) so feel free to ask for assistance if you need it. I may not know the answer to any queries but will definitely be able to find someone who does. Orderinchaos 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

...re the Rees/Keneally handover. A lot of the constitutional stuff really isn't well understood unfortunately, and a lot of people can't distinguish popular perception from legal reality. Reminds me of the issues that arose when the Labor government was defeated here in WA but it took 17 days to sort out who was the government, with some certainty after 8 days but a formal announcement in the Gazette taking quite some time to get going. Also when Rudd was elected in 2007, people thought as Howard had lost his seat he had lost his commission when he in fact didn't until he resigned it on (if I recall) 3 December. Orderinchaos 18:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

It's great to see others adding these too - keep it up! Some things to make it easier:

We don't mention children in infoboxes unless they're notable in some way.
Try using the constituency_MP parameter instead of office; that way you can just enter the seat (for example: constituency_MP = Bradfield) and the template will do the rest. It's also a good idea to fill in the parliament parameter after this (parliament = NSW) to clarify further.
Make sure the place names are working links. Victoria will take you to a disambiguation page; you need Victoria (Australia) to get to the state.

Hope this helps! Frickeg (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kristina Keneally. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hi! I'm not entering into the debate about the use of flags in infoboxes at Kristina Keneally for nationality, as it seems that this ends up being a matter of taste an interpretation. :) However, WP:FLAGBIO specifically speaks against the use of flags for place of birth and death, so I've had to revert a couple of your recent edits. Adding them was clearly editing in good faith, but I think the argument against them at the manual of style is pretty sound. - Bilby (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've again tried to add flags despite repeated warning, you are now bordering on vandalism. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PM Table

Hi Watchover, When will you have this table finnished at Prime Ministers of Australia. i noticed Timeshift i winging cantwejustbefriends 04:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantwejustbefriends (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppetry

I got the result I *wasn't* hoping for at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Watchover. It tells me that Cantwejustbefriends, who posted to you above as a supposedly different user, is confirmed as being you - and I note that the two accounts tag-team edit warred on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. That account has been blocked indefinitely.

Furthermore, it establishes a link (although only a "likely" one) with the account User:KAPITALIST88, who was indefinitely blocked yesterday for lying about image copyrights, and who both before and after their block showed rather an ugly personal side when it came to WP:NPA.

I am willing to assume good faith here with regards to the second linkage, but I think we (as in the Australian Politics editors) deserve an explanation as to what the hell is going on. I know that strange things can happen and people can get blamed for things that are not their doing on likely evidence - that's the nature of technical evidence. I also believe in general, apart from the recent incident, you generally have shown good faith in your dealings with us, and I recall our discussion about getting CC-licenced images in that vein. But I can't deny I am disappointed. Orderinchaos 22:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire reason for writing "I am willing to assume good faith" was because your general profile and that of Kapitalist are just so different that I actually got a shock when that result came back as it did. The two possibilities I had entertained were: 1. it was Kapitalist's - block it as a ban evading sock. 2. it was yours and had come out of heated editing - knock the account on the head, warn you, move on without socks. Either of these possibilities would have been reasonable ones. I hope you do not consider me as part of a "gang" - my main purpose here is to try and ensure editing proceeds smoothly on the politics articles and, although we sometimes disagree on either ideology or syntax, I have never doubted your good faith. Orderinchaos 04:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

121.218.162.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Cantwejustbefriends". The reason given for Cantwejustbefriends's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: (using them to tag-t

Blocking administrator: Orderinchaos (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: It would be better for you to respond to the polite query above before any autoblocks are cleared. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I uploaded the template and was in the process of putting my response in I shall try again. Watchover (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Hi, Sorry about the wrong template and then not filling out my response (I was filling it out while the admin declined it). I log into my account through two different computers (work and home) and was unaware what was happening until I was somewhat rightfully accused of sockpuppetry by Orderinchaos. I can only explain on the admins first comments that my husband created an account (Cantwejustbefriends) whilst I was at work because I was on the phone ranting about other uses edits. he created the account and edited (three if I am correct) different pages not in my knowledge and unaware that Sockpuppetry even existed, hence, while I walked away from the computer for a period of time, he has logged on and defended something which I was editing (in good faith). When I got back and saw my talk page and realised what was happening, what could I do? nothing is the short answer, sit back and hope for the best or have to explain it at lenght so other editors who seem to be a gang could through stones at me while I defend myself, alone. Orderinchaos's comments that I am somehow connected to Kapitalist88 are deeply offending and I hope, for that editors sake, it wasn't a lie just an honest mistake on their behalf. Compare both mine and Kapitalist88's edits if you could pick the neutral one Im quiet sure I would be the pick. Looking at that editors talk page and mine, I think that alone makes it quiet clear that I have nothing to do with he/she on Wiki or in "real life". I hope the right conclusion can be made after my response. Regards, Watchover (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not blocked directly. Sarah 10:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

1718081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: decline for now, see discussion below.— Sarah 10:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to answer any questions

I am happy to answer any questions from everyone besides User:Timeshift9. Please leave your nice comments below.

I will not comment on my exclusion of the above editor. Cheers, Watchover (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone familiar with the personalities, I have no problem with that request, it's a reasonable one. Orderinchaos 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchover, blocks on Wikipedia are about preventing disruption. I find your story above strange and convoluted enough to most likely be true, but what I want to know is, (1) is this going to happen again the next time you get pissed with people? Is he going to create socks to come and defend your honor again? Is this the type of thing he often does when you're upset or arguing with other people? I can accept your story once and consider giving you a second chance, but it concerns me that this may be what he routinely does when you're not getting along with people. Disputes happen here every day and I don't want to have to keep dealing with socks every time you're in a blue. Does he normally edit Wikipedia? (2) (a) Would you agree to editing terms that restrict you and [(b)he] from editing the same pages? (3) (a) If you look at the checkuser request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover, you will see that there is also some technical evidence linking you to User:KAPITALIST88. (b) Are you sure this user also isn't your husband? (c) Do you have any explanation for there being any technical connection between you and KAPITALIST88? (d) Is it possible it is a work colleague or someone else you share a computer with? (e) Have you been discussing Wikipedia with other people? I've declined your unblock request for now but if you can address these issues we mostly likely will be able to help you. Sarah 10:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your superfluous response Sarah. I am going to break it up a bit so it is not so intensive :)

1 (a) Is this going to happen again the next time you get pissed with people? (b) Is he going to create socks to come and defend your honor again? (c) Is this the type of thing he often does when you're upset or arguing with other people? (Comment) I can accept your story once and consider giving you a second chance, (d) but it concerns me that this may be what he routinely does when you're not getting along with people.(Comment) Disputes happen here every day and (e) I don't want to have to keep dealing with socks every time you're in a blue. (f) Does he normally edit Wikipedia?

(a) No, not when it is within my control.

(b) As above.

(c) Far to personal and private for Wikipedia.

(d) First time it has ever happened, not his fault he didn't know Wiki guidelines. Also links to the above answer c.

(e) First time it has ever happened.

(f) Never, he created an account 'Cantwejustbefriends'and edited around five different articles, that account will never be active again as a sock.

(2) Would you agree to editing terms that restrict you and [(b) he] from editing the same pages?

(a) I will not have any restrictions on this account.

(b) As per answer 1 (f). It depends on his plans.

(3) (a) If you look at the checkuser request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover, you will see that there is also some technical evidence linking you to User:KAPITALIST88. (b) Are you sure this user also isn't your husband? (c) Do you have any explanation for there being any technical connection between you and KAPITALIST88? (d) Is it possible it is a work colleague or someone else you share a computer with? (e) Have you been discussing Wikipedia with other people?

(a) I am blocked, I cannot view it. The technical 'evidence' is either misinterpreted or wrong.

(b) Please, you have read my above response to the temporary block. I do not know of or anything about this former editor. The check says 'likely', it is tainting garbage that people are using to stigma my reputation.

(c) No, I cannot view the diatribe therefore cannot comment other than to say it is false.

(d) No

(e) Yes, but I will not go into detail as it is far to private.

Sorry if it comes accross a tad surly, but they should be assumed under good faith and your questions were a bit superfluous. I have a question for you User:Sarah, when you refer to "we" who are you refering to? :) Cheers, Watchover (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You can view the page. Click on the link and see. Being blocked only prevents editing, not reading. The "we" refers to the administrative team reviewing unblock requests. Sarah 13:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says likely. Where do I view the actual evidence to support me having anything to do with Kapitalist88? Will this be all, Have I fully answered all of your questions. Watchover (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]