User talk:PAustin4thApril1980

I just wanted to let you know that I've made reference to an RfC regarding incidents in which you were involved from several years prior in an ArbCom case statement. It was for purely contextual purposes, and I did not intent to cast you in a negative light. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it really would be of great help at the FAC if you could provide some sources to support what you say about notable omissions. I'm quite open to new content which we might have missed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comment. I wouldn't exactly call it problematic, but as it wasn't there to improve the article, it has no place on the article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul: I saw your posting on Kudpung's talk page. You may wish to read this thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Another missing wikipedian? -- Kudpung. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Baby-peggy-fdr.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Baby-peggy-fdr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ivanhutch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:LimeGroveStudios.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Samantha smith lime street.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Marmalade atkins thames.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Tate Genette.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paul1999.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paul intensive care 1980.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paul chest surgery 1983.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ivanhutch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I added some meat on the bones of the article :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I can certainly help, although I've never tried getting an article to a GA or FA before. Thanks for asking!--GouramiWatcher^pride 01:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:MaiaLBrewton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kylie-maybury.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rotten regard 22:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You can upload a low resolution of the image of the victim (you could use File:AmyMihaljevic.jpg as a reference for what to put for the fair use rational as well as what licence to choose. Thanks for asking! --GouramiWatcher^pride 16:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There's a debate going on about one of the articles I created, as someone has stated that it is non-notable, etc. If you could possibly give your opinion on the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Lady, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!--GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your comment. If you could state whether you're opposed to keeping or deleting the page, that would be great. There isn't a lot of people who participate in these debates for this topic and I'm afraid the article will be deleted without a reasonable amount of opinions stated. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher^(?) 03:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we share a birthday of sorts. Happy Wiki-Birthday to both of us. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kyliemayburyherald.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kyliethesun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kyliethesun.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart Meetup Next: TBA Last: 3 June 2023 This box: view talk edit

Hello! This is a message to inform you of a Wikipedia Hobart meetup which will be held on 10 January. New and experienced editors are welcome! Please check the meetup page for more information.

This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on writing an article for the actress? If yes, please go ahead. If not, I propose to revert this edit, and add a hatnote to the Ashley, New Zealand article:

Ashley Bank directs here. For the American actress, see The Monster Squad

Schwede66 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could please give Murder of Kylie Maybury some work or a once-over in editing? Paul Austin (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you request from the good folks at WP:GOCE. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PAustin4thApril1980. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Murder of Kylie Maybury at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! --Biblioworm 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process.
A discussion should take place at length about the issue at hand on the articles talk page (or perhaps a users' talk page or another forum in some limited cases) and Disagreements must be limited to 2 specific users (not a group of people), to qualify for a Third opinion request.
Perhaps a good discussion on the article's talk page would suffice, or a request for comment if more input is needed. Though if that doesn't work dispute resolution is always still an option, just be sure to clarify where prior discussion has taken place when seeking it. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archived request-

 Some people have questioned Murder of Kylie Maybury. There's no doubting the notability - it made the front page at the time,
 even pushing Reagan's win over Mondale over to the side. I still feel uneasy about using the term "handbag" on its' own, since
 "handbag" by itself usually indicates the type used by adult women and little girl's handbags are smaller and have licensed
 themes such as Disney or Barbie. Paul Austin (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]  

I removed the email you posted at Talk:Murder of Kylie Maybury. It is not reasonable to post private correspondence on a public website, and it is highly unhelpful to post private details including name, email address, and phone number. It's good that you are trying to improve the article, but as I mentioned when you approached me, it is unlikely there is much encyclopedic information available about a six-year-old who was murdered 30 years ago—that is unfortunate, but we have to be realistic. Good luck with the article, but please do not post emails on Wikipedia. If wanted, you could post a section where you mention that as a result of a query, you received an email which provided [insert brief paraphrase (not quote) of content here]. However, make it general—give the position the person held, but not their name and not their details. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think. I was so happy to get a reply from her. Paul Austin (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I imagine you did a lot of work to find people who might have information, and it would have been great to get a reply. The November 2014 Herald Sun report used as a reference in the article is very detailed, and I imagine it has everything known about the case, and finding more would be difficult. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in advance of a possible project in the Hobart area, we're looking to identify and improve a specific range of articles, mainly those associated with locations in the Hobart City Council region. If you'd like to find out more, please join in the discussion at WikiProject Tasmania, or check out the list of articles at QR list. If you'd prefer to not receive these notifications in the future, please let me know.

This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania, Category:Wikipedians in Hobart, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tasmania participants by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the old-school rollback method to restore the page to what it was prior to the IP's edits. You do not need to be an admin to do this. Basically, should you need to do something like this somewhere again, you:

• Go into the history and ...
• Click on the time and date of the last "good" version. This will open that article up, with a boxed note at the top that you're looking at an old version.
• Click edit as you normally would. Again, there will be a boxed colored note at the top warning you that you've opened an old version and if you edit it, all subsequent changes will be lost (Which is, of course, exactly what you want to happen in this case).
• Save without making any changes. But do note that you're reverting to this version in your edit summary.

If there is anything else I can help you with, feel free to let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although a submission has already been made, you can also request protection through WP:RFPP in the future. AldezD (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I started on a project a few days ago in a userspace draft here and was wondering if you or @BabbaQ: would be interested in helping me out, as it turned out to be a lot bigger than I estimated. I've got a lot of cases from the US already, but I definitely need more for Australia, the UK and Europe for sure. I started off with sources by using database pages for most of the cases and I know I'll need to get more/better sources eventually.

If you are interested in contributing, feel free to edit the userspace, just add the {{underconstruction}} tag so that there aren't any edit conflicts. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher^(?) 04:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Cousin ruby sue.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Padme ep1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article about the Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp. Please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like that . As for the article, looks like it's notable and it's a nice start. I will be interested to see where that story goes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I know you are from Australia I just wanted to recommend this article that I created years ago. John and Sarah Makin. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even though I did not create this one, I can recommend this one as well. 2007 Hitman case. Any improvements on this and the other one are welcomed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that page isn't even on my watch list nor does it carry the Paranomal Project tag, so I'm not sure why you contacted me, unless I was the one to separate out the curse talk into a subsection, which is entirely possible. If I did, I was also likely the one who put it in Scare Quotes. However, I'm glad you did contact me, because I have a suggestion that might work. How about we change the section heading to : Purported family curse? That makes it clear that there is no way to prove that there is one or isn't one but that enough writers and readers consider the possibility of such a curse that is should at least be noted. That is usually what I do about claims that cannot be proven or disproven. I just toss in a "purported" and everyone's happy. Shall we go for it? LiPollis (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called family curse was sourced. It was mentioned in a biography of the family. But I don't object to removing the list of all the premature family deaths. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my qualifying of 'suicide' in the lede. The lede should reflect the main article, which claims only that it had been ‘ruled a suicide’. (The authorities initially called it an accident.) Most historians allow that it may have been murder. Valetude (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valetude: I see. I'll revert my revert. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that's been said by a reliable source, no. Daniel Case (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @Daniel Case: OK. It's just a bit upsetting. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and valid criticism, to be sure, however. Daniel Case (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Within the Princess Doe-article, you undid a revision. I would like to explain why said revision was performed. Within the Princess Doe-article, the same source (http://njsp.org/miss/ui_warren_u630870962.html) was cited twice for the same claim (The "The body was discovered at the Cedar Ridge Cemetery in Blairstown early on the morning of 15 July 1982"-claim). The edit was done because citing the same source twice for the same claim was redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AldezD (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. I appreciated the notification, but be mindful of WP:CANVASS when you do this in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I didn't know about Wikipedia:Canvassing. Surely asking people like you who helped me with LMN's article, or asking people on the Crime WikiProject is reasonable? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're not trying to stack the debate, yes. I just warned you because it could be used in the AfD to discredit a keep consensus (although in this case I genuinely think you weren't trying to do that). The idea is that it's ideal to let people know who could offer an informed perspective either way, instead of people likely to agree with you. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You probably don’t know me, but I came across this disagreement re WP:CANVASS, and I’d just like to point out this sentence from the lead: “However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate” (emphasis added). And from later in the page: “Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent.” Asking someone to help you save a page, for example, is campaigning, a form of unacceptable canvassing. A neutral notification would have been perfectly fine, so long as you didn’t cherry-pick who you notified based on which side you thought they’d be on.

Hope this helps in the future! And please let me know if you think I’ve gotten anything wrong. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, took a look at the AfD. Could you please take a look at my noms at TAFI. Some of then needs one more inout to reach the three review limit. Would appreciate it. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this article about one of Swedens most infamous murders. Von Sydow murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The article looks to be in pretty good shape as is, but of course there is nothing that can't be improved. What do you need? If you let me know, I'll see what I can do.

Funny that this comes up ... I am planning to write an article about a similar disappearance of five of a family's nine children following a fire, the Sodder children disappearance in Fayetteville, West Virginia, in time for its 70th anniversary this Christmas Eve. I had looked at the Beaumont article to see what sort of approach I might take, at least as far as how to name it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest aiming for GA, so you could get it in DYK ... but it was already there, back in 2004 (Wow! That's a long time ago!). So for FA ... the time frame is just barely possible, but it would have to be considered what it needs. Of course it would be great to get it into top shape for an OTD listing ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ratcliffegordonfrontpage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this fits into your area of interest. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the sourcing and I think it's enough for the articles to be viable WhisperToMe (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I recommend: backing up references at webcitation.org and making sure they have archives at http://web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AldezD (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As it is it just might make it as far as notability goes. The first article's definitely got non-trivial coverage, but the second one could be regarded as a passing mention. Is there any possibility you can dig deep and find more substantial contemporaneous coverage? Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Paul Benjamin Austin. Based on your long tenure and otherwise apparently high level of qualification as a WP editor, it's really surprising to me that you would revert the missing cite tags, which directly contradict the most fundamental cornerstone WP policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, etc. I've never had to push this point previously with any WP editor except a newbie.

As it stands, this article, almost totally lacking sources, appears 2B almost completely OR but in actual fact is almost certainly PLAGIARIZED from easily found and easily cited sources. The reason for inline need-citation tags is to point an editor who wants to fix the text by adding sources precisely where the source cites are needed.

PLEASE familiarize yourself with the WP sourcing and citing rules cited above. If you revert my cite tags again OR if you ask me to, I will refer this to an administrator to discuss it with you.

Please run this by your WP editor or admin. friends yourself. If the rules I've cited aren't clear or don't seem 2U 2B applicable, I certainly wouldn't expect you to take MY word. (The two WP essays you mentioned in your last edit summary reverting the tags, while NOT WP policy--the rules I've cited ARE WP POLICY, appear nevertheless 2B competent discussions; AND they clearly do NOT refer to the kind of core substantive content missing citations in THIS article.)

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Sheila Fox is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sheila Fox until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Denise McGregor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Denise McGregor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AldezD (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Threads 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 article's 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.160.111 (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When making edits, please be sure to test the links you are adding to ensure they link to the proper site, and that they provide the necessary WP:V info to accompany the addition. Also, it is good practice to use Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news rather than including a raw link in the ref code as you did in this edit. Finally, please be sure to review Template:Infobox person and the details regarding the education parameter (see #Parameters). The field is intended to include "degree, institution and graduation year", not where a subject went to elementary school. AldezD (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to why/with what justification you have deleted this talk page contribution instead of replying to it (or ignoring it). Bjenks (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

haven't a number of people you have notified have never worked on it. Secondly a number are known keep !voters. I suggest you stop any notifying any user. LibStar (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

..... the article about Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers has been saved. No consensus. As expected.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to President of Germany (1919–1945) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |abolished = 2 August 1934 (death of Hindenburg)<br>23 May 1945 (Allied dissolution of the (Flensburg Government)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Miss Cleo are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Keith Moor (journalist), for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Keith Moor (journalist) to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Celestinesucess (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a legal question, so I'm not sure of the answer. My presumption, based on my severely limited knowledge of American law on the subject (being as I live in the US) is that no, it wouldn't be untoward to mention the incident in the article as long as it's properly sourced. But I know there have been some issues under European law regarding the point, and I'm not sure if that would change the answer any.

Sorry I can't be of more assistance. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, also as an American user and former journalist, I would +1 to most of what Nicaolo is saying. It would be perfectly legal under the American law that governs the servers, but it's good politics to respect the law and custom of the country where the incident occurred (this has caused some trouble in the past). It's probably best to get some consensus from your fellow Australians on how they feel about it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul. I've noticed that you've done a lot of good work on the article for Threads. I just watched the film today. Do you know why it is called "Threads"? It doesn't seem obvious why it has this name. Is the spider web at the start of the film a clue? Epa101 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. I was away when you posted your question at the Reference Desk. User:Viennese Waltz pinged me but it escaped my attention. Here's what I would have written had I written.

• All of the machinations that occurred before 11 November were just appetisers to the main event. That a GG could in theory dismiss a Prime Minister - even one with a solid majority in the lower house - was well known to all the players. Whitlam even joked about this with Kerr himself at a dinner at Government House some weeks before 11 November. Whitlam knew Kerr wanted to seek Barwick's advice, because he asked Whitlam's permission to do so, and was denied permission. What Whitlam didn't know until after the event was that Kerr had gone ahead and got that advice anyway. What Whitlam never knew was that Kerr had also got Anthony Mason's advice. We know Kerr discussed his thinking with Prince Charles. We know he wrote regularly to the Queen, but apart from a few scant excerpts, those letters (and any responses from the Queen or her advisers) remain under wraps, not to be released until 2027, and even then not unless the GG of the day and the monarch of the day both agree. The early release of these documents is a matter of current legal action by Jenny Hocking, who argues this correspondence is not "private" but "official". We await the outcome of this with great interest.

• But to return to the point, what a monarch or GG can "in theory" do is not necessarily what can be ordinarily expected of them. In theory, the Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the UK Armed Forces; does this mean she can, on a whim, command the British Army to annex the Sudetenland, or attack Donald Trump's headquarters, or whatever? Of course not. In theory, the Governor-General of Australia decides which party or coalition will be the government of the day; but does this mean he can suddenly appoint the leader of the the Raving Bong-Smoking Loony Party as Prime Minister? Hardly. No, he makes his decisions based on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. Even where an incumbent party is defeated at an election, it is still the incumbent PM who goes to the GG, tenders his commission, and advises him to appoint the leader of the winning party in his place. It is not the winning party leader's role to initiate an approach to the GG to request he be appointed; he waits to be summoned. Once appointed, though, he then becomes the GG's principal adviser.

• Kerr broke all these conventions. He discussed his plans with Malcolm Fraser, but not with Gough Whitlam. He had clearly made up his mind, some days before 11 November, that, if things had not worked themselves out in the meantime, he would on 11 November dismiss Whitlam and appoint Fraser. He had time to work out the delicate timing, so that the Senate could pass Supply and the Parliament would have been dissolved (on Fraser's advice) before he would have had an opportunity to receive the Speaker and be informed that Fraser had just lost a vote of confidence in the House of Reps. That is exactly what happened. Kerr arranged his schedule so that he kept the Speaker waiting for some hours before receiving him, by which time Fraser had instructed his Senators to vote for Supply, and then given Kerr the advice to dissolve the Parliament (that advice was a condition of his appointment). By the time the Speaker was ushered into Kerr's office, the Parliament had been dissolved and the matter was moot. Fraser was now PM and, by convention, the incumbent PM remains in office throughout the caretaker period. Oh yes, all very proper when it came to honouring that convention; but to act in strict obeisance to certain conventions while utterly trashing others betrays the mind of a man with an agenda. Governors-general are not supposed to have agendas. It's not that the governor-general is a rubber stamp; he is allowed to question things, to be informed, to warn. He never warned Whitlam what he was planning to do (though the list of of others he let into his thinking seems to grow by the year). And even if he had warned Whitlam, the solution he settled on was so extreme as to be close to unthinkable. That was what blindsided Whitlam. He was so stunned that he even omitted to tell his own Senate colleagues that Fraser had been appointed in his place, so when it came to the vote for Supply, they all naturally voted Yes, and when they saw the Coalition senators also voting Yes, they had no idea what had taken place. They just assumed the Coalition had finally capitulated after taking three months to make its point. The Labor senators voting for Supply did not know they were now in the Opposition and were voting for Fraser's budget. Had Whitlam told them, they could have voted No. That wouldn't have changed anything since they were in the minority in the Senate, but it would have served as a token of their outrage at what Kerr had done.

• In the Australian context, a government ceases to be the government in one of only 2 ways: (1) being defeated at a general election or (2) losing a vote of confidence on the floor of the House of Representatives. Neither of those things had happened to the Whitlam government on 11 November. The government that Kerr swore in (Fraser's) DID lose a vote of confidence, but that was brushed aside in the brouhaha.

• That Australians massively dumped Whitlam's Labor Party and massively voted for Fraser's Liberal Party at the 13 December election, has no bearing on the outrage at the way Whitlam was dismissed on 11 November 1975. Whitlam was seen as a maverick who had visionary ideas but lacked the patience and pragmatism to implement them in appropriate ways. He was seen as having insufficient control over his party. He was seen as having failed, and lost his way. That's why the people voted Liberal. But the outrage at the devious, underhand, unfair and highly improper manner in which Kerr connived with others to get rid of Whitlam remained. We're great lovers of the "fair go" down here. The fair go didn't get much, or any, look-in in Kerr's thinking. For those who were around at the time, it's a day that will never be forgotten.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Femme, Paul Benjamin Austin!

Wikipedia editor Yoshi24517 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewing a 13 year old article! Looks good!

To reply, leave a comment on Yoshi24517's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

(Or as Kelly would say, "He who laughs last laughs west".) I saw that anon edit on Girly girl a few hours ago and left it. You might be right maybe it is a slang expression. Make me wonder when something is slang or not. SlightSmile 03:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about your Rfa. Rfa is not a place an editor actually needs to invest his or her time to enjoy Wikipedia. I applaud your candor and effort to apply for adminship. Look, here's an analogy; I don't understand edit filters and don't ever wish to apply out there for rights to see and edit private filters - and if I do, I know I'll be sensibly shown the door by the regulars there. Big deal. That's what Rfa should be for you. Enjoy your time here Paul. See you around. Lourdes 16:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably withdrawing was the sensible thing to do at this time. I have not formed an opinion on whether I would have supported or opposed, though I had no a priori reason to oppose. Good for you for making the RfA in the first place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]