User talk:Aus0107

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, Aus0107, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I see that you have just created this account. I wanted to give you some information that you might find useful as you begin:

Introduction

5 The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

Tips

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

I encourage you to edit this encyclopedia, helping to make it as good as we possibly can. I think you will enjoy seeing your contributions take their place within. I hope you will join the community of regular contributors who identify as Wikipedians! And consider it a proud association. We are proud to welcome you with optimism. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. I look forward to your contributions. Again, welcome! My76Strat (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake[edit]

I did not vandalize Bleep censor. I just wanted to put something about Barney and Regular Show; I even put a couple references to them. 166.171.249.28 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your references only include two YouTube videos, one of which violates Wikipedia's copyright policy, the other being an obvious hoax video. Aus0107 (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have an original AWTY Barney DVD, and Barney's quotes in that Bad Words version are the nearly the same. I SWEAR TO GOOODDDDDD! 166.171.249.28 (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ERA use[edit]

The use of era style in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population needs to be changed to BC/AD simply to reflect the use of this style in the academic references to avoid ambiguity and confusion. 86.7.253.227 (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

We seem to be in a change/revert war which is not constructive. Again, what is the point of using ERA style BCE/CE when all the academic references refer to BC/AD? Does that not lead to ambiguity and confusion? Surely for Wiki to be of any serious value, the academic references are key to ensuring quality and consistency which over-rides personal religious views?86.7.253.227 (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article originally used BCE/CE, and regardless of the fact that the references use BC/CE, WP:ERA states, "Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question." I am reverting your edits because you should use the talk page, not because I prefer BCE/CE. Aus0107 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point and I have raised it on the talk page seeking consensus to reflect ERA use in academic references. However the main issue appears to be actually gaining consensus, from whom, how many at a minimum and when? If there is a disagreement between two editors then how is that resolved without getting into a change/revert war?86.7.253.227 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general to gain consensus, I'd recommend waiting for an experienced editor to reply. There's more info on that at WP:CON. It looks like Mindmatrix has responded to you on the talk page for World population, and I recommend following their advice. I see you've started a new section on Talk:Second Triumvirate, and I recommend waiting for a response before you make another revert. Aus0107 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see Nicknack009 reverted to the format I have been pushing for, based on factual evidence that the BCE/CE era style has only been in place since April of this year, not since inception as you claim. Consequently, and in accordance with your belief that era styles should be as per the original, then the use of BC/AD is valid and fair putting aside consistency with cited academic references. I hope this settles the matter.86.7.253.227 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My claim, which I admit to not have been proven, was actually for the article World population. Regardless, I admit I should have looked more into the history of the article before making that claim. However, it seems both our arguments were imperfect, as your argument that it should follow references to avoid confusion has been shown by Mindmatrix to not follow guidelines. Regardless, I'm glad that our dispute on Second Triumvirate has come to an end and I hope neither of us will need to engage in such edit wars in the future. Aus0107 (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article recovery[edit]

Hello is it possible to have the article Andrew Phillip Almanza reinstated? He is on many TV shows and commercials and has has gotten police escorts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescott222 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanta Hawks 2015 Logo.svg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atlanta Hawks 2015 Logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ★ Bigr Tex 19:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Aus0107,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Aus0107. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]