User talk:I elliot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Dante Arthurs
I've taken your advice and placed a POV warning on this article. I'll also do my best to educate the newer users which are editing this article and point them towards policy and procedure as required. Perhaps I did jump the gun here, though I wasn't going to protect the article myself as I am an active editor there also. I was rather pointing out where edit wars usually end up, ie, the article locked, and the argument referred to the talk page. It's a dangerous area at times when unconvicted persons are subject to articles which make claims that are not supported. I've got the article watchlisted for now. We'll see how things proceed from here. Thanks for your advice. It's been taken onboard. -- Longhair 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 124.184.224.64
I've given them a warning. I'll wait and see if they come back and keep it up. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I gave him/her a block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No problems, Elliot. He's complaining to the unblock list right now and called me a "filthy animal". :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crickettragic
Hey Elliot, I just received your message. It's best to leave talk page messages at the very bottom of the page, otherwise, if the person receives multiple messages, they likely won't see the one at the top. I only just saw yours when I was archiving old messages. I checked out User:Crickettragic, however he had only made two edits on December 4 and hasn't edited again since. He was warned for his vandalism, so I've watchlisted his talk page in case he starts up again. All the best, Sarah Ewart 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Keating
Hi, I notice you keep reverting an edit to correct a typo in the word "Parliament" in the above article. I'm pretty sure its not meant to be "Patliament", which is what you are reverting it to. I assume this is an oversight - could we let the correction stand? Jeendan 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have no strong view about the dismissal paragraph being in this article or not. But have a look at the article as it stands right now - after your reversion. It contains the dismissal paragraph and the typo. As you are the most recent editor, it appears this is the way you want it? If you want to remove the paragraph, go ahead, but take the typo with it. Jeendan 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yay! :) You're right, it would be better placed in the Whitlam article. In "Mates", Keating denied the story ever happened, but it is an entertaining bit of folklore and is a good Whitlamism so it has persisted. still - if there was a trivia section on the Whitlam page, that's where it should be mentioned. Jeendan 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
