User talk:ITBF

to-do list

• Lorenzo Gamboa
• Próspero Cahuantzi
• interesting image formating at Percy Glading / John/Eleanor Rykener

Welcome!

Hello, Ivar the Boneful, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 14:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Care

WP:RS and WP:CITE Paul hasluck edit is classic case - smells of WP:COPYVIO - text like that doesnt come out of thin air specially when it looks like you have not done so - WP:OR and WP:V might also be considered JarrahTree 00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lawrence of Rome has been nominated for discussion

Category:Lawrence of Rome, 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. You are being notified because you took place in the recent RM on Saint Lawrence. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Democrats

Hi, and thanks for seconding my political-party template request. To help clear up any doubt about this IP edit, the guy is actually right. It was always a feature of the Democrats senators that they could (and often did) exercise a conscience vote in any division. Party bloc-voting was one of the detestable traditions which Don Chipp regularly railed about. Conscience voting was enshrined in AD policy, stimulating a great deal of membership in the early Democrats. Cheers. Bjenks (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Further to my efforts to obtain a "deregistered" template parameter for the Democrats article, a template guru has placed the idea in the too-hard basket. I've given up! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Bjenks Yes I noticed that the other day. What a bizarre response! I read your reply, and I guess we probably don't need to have that infobox parameter. However, I've worked out that it still could be added using blank parameters, i.e.:

| blank1_title = Deregistered

| blank1 = 2015

The only trouble is that this would appear at the bottom of the infobox, rather than just below the "Founded" parameter. I'll let you decide if you think it's worth adding in that way. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds Ok--I won't object. Watch out for the bogyman! Bjenks (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fuck right off.

Roxy the dog. bark 17:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

IgnorantArmies

FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bozzio. Sro23 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok?? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Need source link correction for your uploaded Joyce image

Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barnaby_Joyce_official_portrait.jpg the source link you provided appears incorrect and as such will shortly be deleted if not fixed. Are you able to find the correct source link and update it and then remove the 'no source since' tag? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang

Sorry, but Qin Shi Huang is not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 10, as it has one section does not have enough references. Thanks for the suggestion, though. —howcheng {chat} 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Marriage template

Please note that per Template talk:Marriage/Archive 4#RfC: Removal of "widowed" function, the "widowed" function of the marriage template is no longer recommended. Many thanks, DrKay (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivy Wedgwood

Hi, I'm one of the promoters at DYK. I've spent over an hour looking for a biography to slot into Prep 3, and yours is the first well-written, well-sourced article I found that meets all the DYK criteria without any fuss. Good work! Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Ivy Wedgwood

On 20 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ivy Wedgwood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ivy Wedgwood's retirement after 21 years in the Australian Senate was reported with the headline "Ivy is a housewife again"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ivy Wedgwood. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ivy Wedgwood), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in the Australian Senate

Hey, just wanted to say great idea with the numbers in this list! It's a great solution to making sure we don't end up missing people or miscounting, and it also helps to clarify the people who came in at the same time. I'm going to extend it to the HoR and the rest of the state lists. Frickeg (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful

After moving the Tom Frame page to Tom Frame (comics), you added an orphan tag to it. It was only an orphan because you moved it. Its previous location (Tom Frame) had several incoming links. I have updated them and removed the tag. Please be more aware of how moves impact other pages in the future. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Tanya Plibersek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Australian Labor Party leadership election, 2013 and Rudd Government

Ted Theodore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Teodorescu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Keating image

Hello, the NAA creative commons page you are using ([1]) to justify your inclusion of the images of Paul Keating and Ninian Stephen applies only to the NAA-generated content of its website. Please note that it includes a specific section at the bottom on the copyright status of items in the NAA's collection which explicitly notes that different copyright statuses apply to these items, and links to this very clear fact sheet. From reviewing the fact sheet, it is clear that these images are still under Commonwealth Government copyright. Please stop trying to insert them into Wikipedia. If you continue to try to add them, you will be blocked from editing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that you are also editing as 95.145.130.94 (talk · contribs). Please stick to one account at time please in line with the guidance at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. I have only edited with a single account and I am quite happy for my IP address to be visible so this can be verified. I have nothing to hide, unlike certain others. Ivar the Boneful @ 220.253.157.110 (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Agnes Robertson

Thanks for your edits to Members of the Australian Senate, 1953–1956. Do the 56-59 & 59-62 pages need to be changed as well ? Find bruce (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly do! That must have slipped by the original creator. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Agnes Robertson

Hello! Your submission of Agnes Robertson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SounderBruce 06:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just promoted your hook to Prep 5. I just wanted to say that it's a great hook! I honestly thought she'd been serving in the senate for decades and changed parties at the last minute. I wish all hooks were as good as this! Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint

Please see this result. Both of you are risking a block if you make further reverts prior to talk page agreement. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Friendly invitation

Hey there. Now started a discussion about your issue on talk. look forward to discussing with you and why exactly you have a problem with this?Brownlife (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Also please in future on any other articles we both edit simply bring up a discussion on the talk page instead.Brownlife (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Agnes Robertson

On 21 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agnes Robertson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Agnes Robertson served in the Australian Senate until she was 79, and switched political parties at the age of 73? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Robertson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agnes Robertson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Dumbest revert I've seen for a little while

Why would you have thought that this was a good idea, exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Latham&diff=807156852&oldid=806895784

Hello Mr/Ms IP, I reverted your (I assume?) edit because it's poor English – see adjective order for an explanation. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It is poor English to imply that someone is no longer Australian when you merely want to indicate that they are no longer a politician. 148.122.187.2 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity, as no native speaker of English would interpret "former Australian politician" to mean that the individual is no longer an Australian. You're analysing it as if it's formal logic, but it isn't. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There is ambiguity, which is clear to any educated native English speaker. It's clear what is meant but it's clear that the meaning is not well specified. The grammar rules are well known and simple. 148.122.187.2 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, "Australian former politician" contravenes the standard English adjective order; if you can find a style guide or any other source that says otherwise please let me know. I don't go out of my way to correct it, but if I see it being added I'll continue to remove it. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

For example, here: in modification structures involving at least one operator adjective like former or alleged (i.e. of type <<s,<e,t>>,<e,t>>), adjective ordering restrictions do not apply 148.122.187.2 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

...and the same paper states "adjective ordering restrictions apply only to sequences where different orders yield different semantic interpretations", which is exactly what you're arguing against. [2] Here's a paper which specifically lists "former" as a scope-taking adjective (p. 17) and therefore first in the pecking order. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood. If different orders lead to different semantic interpretations, then obviously, the order to choose must be the one corresponding to the semantic interpretation you intend. If different orders have the same semantic interpretation, then normal adjective order applies. "Big blue house" means the same as "blue big house", but "Australian former politician" does not mean the same as "former Australian politician".145.15.244.20 (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Perhaps you should try learning about the populations you are trying to reclassify before making edits that can only be described as enormously ignorant at best, and bigoted at worst.2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And good job going over WP:3RR. In less than an hour to boot. 2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Classifying all Jews as middle easterners is antisemitic and refusing to call Romani european is antiziganist."

No, what YOU are doing is antisemitic, and way over the 3RR limit. I'd tell you to stop, but that ship has long since sailed. I suspect you will be banned soon. Ciao.2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Racism in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Racism in the United States

Hello Ivar the Boneful. Thank you for your recent improvements to Racism in the United States. I know the trolls can be annoying, but please try not to violate WP:3RR. It isn't worth it. Make your edit, and then argue your case on the article's talk page. Cooler heads will prevail. I know from experience that it's easier said than done, but please try. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

<Personal attack redacted>

Talk:Julie Payette

Greetings. You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP's talk page guidelines regarding constructive contributions. To wit:

Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people [...] the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it.

Frankly, I'm not seeing anything constructive about the (overheated) comment by Randal Oulton that you restored here. I would urge a self-revert on this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

asking why material hasn't been included is not "venting". you can revert if you want, it will stay in the article history as evidence anyway. Randal Oulton may have his own opinions and you might ask him to rephrase instead of just deleting, because that way it looks like suppression / censorship. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that seems a little paranoid. This isn't a legal proceeding, nor am I a government censor, just a volunteer editor like yourself. WP:BLP and WP:PROPORTION are pretty clear: just because something scandalous has been published about a person doesn't make it encyclopedic info. WP is not a tabloid (I'm assuming this was prompted by the car accident issue, but after all, Oulton didn't specify just which factual omissions they objected to). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave off the wrong impression, I probably worded that poorly. I didn't mean it as an attack or an accusation on you, it's just that that article has a history of paid / COI editing. :) Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a great deal of info about her that people are currently discussing out there. The controversy about her has ramped up owing to her inaugural speech this week. I'd rather people can check the information on Wiki, where we can hope there will at least be an attempt to keep it impartial and objective. As it stands, the article has been scrubbed and it shows frankly, and I was startled how bare it was when I came to it. Start a section called "Controversy" or whatever, and put the stuff there. Or not, I really don't mind. Like I said, all the info is out there elsewhere on the web anyway. Randal Oulton (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Disappearance of Harold Holt

Hello! Your submission of Disappearance of Harold Holt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice

An Rfc is opened at Charles, Prince of Wales concerning that article's lead. You many want to put that article on your watchlist�:) GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Women's biographies

Hi there, Ivar. I'm impressed by all the new biographies you have been creating recently. Maybe you would like to join the Women in Red project where we are striving to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. You might also like to look at our World Contest which is running until the end of November. It's not too late to add your articles to the "Articles achievement" list there. Keep up the good work and let me know if there's anything I can do to help you along. (cc Dr. Blofeld)--Ipigott (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually heard about the contest a while back, but I completely forgot about until a few days ago. Hopefully I can still sneak in and snare some of the minor prizes! I've actually already added most of the articles I created lately to the main list (I think that's what you were referring to, if not let me know). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. If you have time, you can add all the others to the main list too - or if you want to take part in the contest, add them with your user name under the countries. Let me know if you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Evelyn O'Callaghan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Evelyn O'Callaghan, Ivar the Boneful!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating women biographies and many more congratulations for your efforts in order to combat gender bias.

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jean Springer

FYI, there seems to be some dispute about this person's date of birth–I've seen sources saying 1939 or 1946-ish. My guess is that the 1939 source is correct as it seems to come from personal information, but I thought it was worth explanining in an endnote. Blythwood (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This source is quite explicit, but I agree the discrepancy is worth noting. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi, don't forget to add your articles to the main list, I added a few you did yesterday! I wasn't sure if you were going to add them in a bunch later. Anyway, keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for creating the article on Shirley Raines and all of the work you've done creating content this month! Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	for great work in creating many articles on notable Jamaicans. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for more than due diligence on justices of the High Court of Australia. Wikiain (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Harold Holt

Hi, do you know why this hook keeps being moved out of the Special Occasion holding area for December 17? Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is already listed at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 17, and as far as I'm aware the same article cannot be in bold in two separate places on the main page on the same date. Perhaps it could run a day or two before the actual anniversary instead. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Now I understand. So we'll leave it where it is and it will be promoted as needed. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Canadian biography

Hi, Ivar the Boneful! I saw you wrote a Canadian biography for the WIR Contest. If you'd like, you can also submit this to The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Please use this link for convenience. Thanks for all your amazing work on the contest! – Reidgreg (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ivar the Boneful. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

An exceptional barnstar for you

	The World Contest Laurels
	Thankyou for the hard work you put into the Women in Red World Contest!! -♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I make it $60 that you've won. Please double check. If you would like to donate any of your winnings into the Women in Red Book Fund to raise money to buy books for editors of women topics who need them on demand please add your name and the amount you'd like to donate in the sub section below the prize winners on the main contest page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I was just about to email you when I noticed that I seem to have gained an extra $10 since the last time I checked (apparently an additional $10 as a general prize). So that would bring my total to $70 (10+15+20+25) rather than $60 (the figure listed at Earnings by user). I've included $70 as the "prize claim" in my email to you, but you might want to double-check that I haven't messed up my sums. Thanks for all your work, Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not join Women in Red?

		Thank you for creating articles on women and their works over the past few weeks as a participant in our World Contest. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. If you would like to receive news of future WiR events and participate in our discussions, you might now be interested in becoming a member of Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently 17.25% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for December: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/61|Seasonal celebrations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/62|First ladies]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/63|Go local]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Global Times, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Georgs Everest

Thanks for tackling the Everest page. It has needed attention for years. If you have the energy the section on the survey could be extended since that work is the basis of his fame. The section on his house in India and and that on his extended family are really too big. Glad too that you had the courage to change Welsh to British; the nationalists won't like that! Peter Mercator (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, I pretty much came across it by chance and I was surprised at how little info there was. I could've been really daring and called him English! I mean, I'm usually the first person to call a Scot a Scot, etc., but with Everest there's no evidence that he ever even set foot in Wales, only that his dad had a house there. Hopefully I don't get any backlash. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Disappearance of Harold Holt

On 11 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Disappearance of Harold Holt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian prime minister Harold Holt's death by drowning has been commemorated by a warship, a naval installation, and multiple swimming pools? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Harold Holt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Disappearance of Harold Holt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Contest Prize

Please email me and state your user name, email address and how much I owe you in your preferred currency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hetty Johnston

No backing down on your wrong reverts here. See WP:POLD.Direct evidence is here[3], and is against WP:COI and WP:COIN. Please either change this back or WP:ANI will immediately follow. History of political agendas is completely against policy. I.e. WP:COI Considering the history of this page, this revert is quite justified. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Should of said, see this reminder here, Talk:Hetty Johnston] where it says: "If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page." They just defied this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Now immediately request to solve this issue quickly. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1 you're clearly deluded if you think I'm in error. By all means take this to ANI, you'll get laughed off the internet. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What you guys have here is a content dispute - that's not something requiring administrative action, unless one or both of you carries on edit warring. Talk it through either here or on the article talkpage, but right now there's nothing sanctionable going on, and no mop-wielding required. If you can't come to terms, dispute resolution is thataway. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, with my "uninvolved editor" hat on rather than my "admin" hat, I'd say Ivar is correct here. The disputed passage appears to be sourced and (thanks to some earlier improvements by Arianewiki1) neutrally worded. That it was added by a COI account (<changes hats>and if you can provide reasonable (non-outing) proof of that COI, I will happily block Jasonox32 for violation of the disclosure policy<editor hat back on again>) is neither here nor there, it would seem to be pertinent information for an encyclopedia article about Hetty Johnston. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John McEwen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Trade and Industry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Leaders of the Liberal Party in NSW

Template:Leaders of the Liberal Party in NSW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Some basis in principle

I write about your insistence on fact sequence in BLP lede (Alexander Downer) where you have insisted (4 reverts) that a lesser current role should stand above an earlier more notable one. I note that your last edit summary relies on the principle that you "haven't seen that written down anywhere" and there are other articles which reflect your method. This was interesting as your first revert had, quite to the contrary, claimed you were reverting my edit on the basis of an existing standard. So the first point here is that you have a propensity to cite a standard to be followed when there is none. On the substance of the alternative approaches, I note that you conceded, by implication, that the relative notability of the subject's roles is to be taken into account in determining sequence because it was on the basis that running a bridge club is way less significant than having been foreign minister that you concede that would not take precedence. So the principle of your position is not principled at all, merely as long as a piece of string for you, at least as far as your brief edit summaries go. So here is an opportunity for you to lay out your principle of precedence so we can then apply it intelligently and reasonably to the specific problem before us. I'm all ears. sirlanz 02:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balance of power (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33

DYK for Ethel Page

On 4 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ethel Page, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first time Ethel Page met her husband – a future Australian prime minister – he set her on fire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ethel Page. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ethel Page), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earle Page, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balance of power (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adrian Knox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colonial Sugar Refining Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Lyons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Latham (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

John Howard (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian Macfarlane

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anne McEwen

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Howard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Macfarlane (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kim Beazley Sr. (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arthur River

William McMahon (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Fairbairn

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Geneva massacre

Hello, Ivar the Boneful. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Geneva massacre".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. � Shadowowl | talk 10:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Geneva massacre has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Geneva massacre. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I never submitted this to articles for creation, it's just a draft that hasn't been edited in a while.

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Deborah O'Neill (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cork, Ireland

Infancy Gospel of Thomas (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pope Gelasius

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lorne, Nova Scotia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Ayres (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russell Broadbent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division of Corinella (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Are you aware that you blanked two paragraphs of sourced content when you reverted at Commonwealth of Nations? Your edit summary applies to one paragraph removal, but does not cover the other. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I can only see one, the one beginning "The Queen has since ceased to be the head of state..." [4] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the second paragraph moved up and I misread the diff. Carry on! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, it happens to the best of us. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Higgs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compositor (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pontiac, Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franklin Boulevard Historic District (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Approaching the bright line

You're an experienced editor, so I'll spare you the template, but you are at risk of violating the 3-revert rule on the Martin Van Buren article. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Martin Van Buren. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. �Favonian (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: You blocked me while I was in the middle of typing a response on the article talk page. Could you please copy and past this there? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"You randomly deleted links, deleted a sentence mentioning one of the most notable aspects of Van Buren's career, and now you're making up lies about "abuse". I'm starting to think you're a troll, and I'm not going to engage with you any further. If you keep this up I will report you to admins. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)"

Done. Favonian (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red's Monthly achievement initiative

Hi there! As you were so active in the World Contest, you might be interested in August's Monthly achievement initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal intermarriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polynesian (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrew Peacock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green card (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marise Payne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fahey (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Australian state election, 1918, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electoral district of Sturt (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Parents of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Hi, I noticed Category:Parents of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. You've added people like Robert Pitt, who was not a parent of UK prime minister. His son William was Prime Minister of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom which did not come into existence until 1801. we have a separate category Category:Prime Ministers of Great Britain so surely the parental categories should be similarly arranged? DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Apology for accidentally reverting Warnie Lewis

Sorry, that was completely unintentional. I for some reason was editing from the "Previous" version and not paying attention. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Former politicians

"Australian former politician" is truly horrifying English, but "former Australian politician" is inaccurate. And anyway, who are we to say they're "former politicians"? All of them are still involved in some measure. We don't call people "former authors", "former scientists", "former historians". Frickeg (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

How is it inaccurate? They are no longer politicians. "Former scientist" returns 80 hits on Wikipedia search [5]. "Former politician" is used frequently in the national media [6], [7] [8]. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Because they're not former Australians. And anyway, is John Howard no longer a politician? We describe a politician as "a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government". Depending on the word "active", most of our former PMs are still involved in their parties in some way. I do not think the media is a good example as they are reporting on specific events whereas we are supposed to be taking a broad view. Britannica gets on very well without "former", and Australia seems to be one of few countries where this horrible formulation has been allowed to sneak in. Frickeg (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The rules of adjective order require "former" to precede "Australian". "Australian former" is ungrammatical. It's language not formal logic, I don't think anyone who's a native speaker would parse "former Australian politician" as meaning that person is no longer an Australian, any more than they would for "former Australian cricket captain". There are numerous results in the Australian Dictionary of Biography for "former Australian X", but none for "Australian former X" I think it's relatively simple to draw the line between "former politician" (or "retired politician" if that's any better) and "politician". Usually it will be reported that such and such is "leaving" or "retiring" from politics. Or failing that, if their term in a specific office comes to an end and they don't make any further candidacies, then it can be assumed that they have left active politics and are no longer a politician. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I would treat people like Howard and Hawke who are wheeled out every three years the same as any other celebrity endorsements - it doesn't turn them (back) into a politician just because they are campaigning for / endorsing someone. If "retired" suits you better than "former" I wouldn't object. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Dunn (Australian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electoral district of Leichhardt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Selina Siggins

On 14 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Selina Siggins, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1903, the 25-year-old daughter of an illiterate Irish immigrant became the first woman to stand for the Australian House of Representatives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Selina Siggins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Selina Siggins), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Guilfoyle at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

OTD October 22

Thanks for putting Louis Riel on, but that article normally appears on November 16, so it's not eligible to appear here. I've gone and replaced it. —howcheng {chat} 12:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your work across the SA area. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Oakleighhall

Hello, Ivar the Boneful. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Oakleighhall, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Traveler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelling salesman (check to confirm�|�fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Father of the House/Senate/Parliament

Hey - where's the discussion on this? I'd like to contribute but I can't find it on any of the talk pages. Frickeg (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just started one. Talk:Father of the Australian Parliament#Merge proposal. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Hiromi Nakayama

An article was created at Nakayama Hiromi a month ago, which I've just moved. Do you want me to merge your draft into it? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I will put it on my to-do list. Thanks. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Tasmanian Liberal League) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tasmanian Liberal League.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Very nice article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Guilfoyle

Fine, but the source isn't in the article, please add it. In the meantime, I am going to remove the year from the hook because there appears to be two sources which contradict each other regarding the year she entered the cabinet with a portfolio. Gatoclass (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass I didn't write that hook and I'm not an admin so I can't edit it. Please change it back to the original hook as agreed at the nomination page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason I substituted another hook for the original is that the original hook was found to be erroneous (the source does not say she was a "key" member of the razor gang, see WP:ERRORS2), and removing the word "key" would unacceptably weaken the hook in my view. I have spent a LOT of time trying to rectify the issues with this nomination, which firstly was submitted with an unsourced hook, and secondly proved to have another unsourced statement which you've only now provided a source for. I think it's a good strong hook as it stands and am not going to remove it, and I'm certainly not going to start casting around for a replacement hook when I've already been up half the night trying to fix your broken nomination, sorry. Gatoclass (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Guilfoyle

On 19 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Margaret Guilfoyle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Guilfoyle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Margaret Guilfoyle), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious

women in Australian justice and politics

Thank you for quality articles about women in Australian justice and politics, such as Selina Siggins and Margaret Guilfoyle, for articles from your first, Commonwealth Line, to Tasmanian Liberal League, for creating navboxes and categories and maintaining them, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ivar the Boneful. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)