User talk:Purrum

		Civility Award
		Awarded to Purrum for keeping cool while some others were not, and for apologising for a small error in so nice and polite a way as to make this user feel rather foolish. Congrats, and please keep it up! Reynardo (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that your multi contribs and multi edits are very bias. This discussion page is enough evidence of your lack of credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.185.198 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing wiki is a learning process Purrum (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to others' Edit summaries. You are being asked to discuss your proposed changes. They may be perfectly justified, but they are quite significant and you need to justify them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What logical reasons do you have to remove every sources citations references contributions relating to Ronald Ryan? You have removed these from every Wikipedia article that contains information on Ronald Ryan. If there are citations supporting facts, why do you insist on removing them? (86.58.132.213 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Before a sockpuppet was banned that person posted this opinionated piece on four different pages, most of the posts are irrelevant to the article. As for the citations, 3 are for television dramas, 1 is from his defense lawyer and is not very accurate of the facts, (his other defense lawyer thought he was guilty) and the other a political website that cut a pasted from wiki , I recognized many of the phrases of that of which I wrote. Purrum (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: ACADP clearly affirms its not a political website but a registered non profit human rights organization with no political or religious affiliation. Read it yourself! Its contents on Ronald Ryan were first published in March 2004 in collaboration with Ryan's defense lawyer & court trial transcripts. Going by history, much later you copied & posted some of its contents on Wikipedia neglecting the citation.

Who are you to judge or to question the accuracy of citations sources references news articles television docos websites lawyers facts? I recognize and see you as the one and only minority who removes all things that cast doubt on Ronald Ryan's guilt. I read there was no forensics evidence the other defense lawyer thought Ronald Ryan had been verballed there was no tape recordings of Ronald Ryan's confessions his jail pastor believed in Ronald Ryan's innocence and he was executed before his unfunded final appeal had been declared? Are these and every citation on Ronald Ryan lies or are you very bias for a reason? (86.58.132.213 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I suppose you believe this piece of news is irrelevant untrue and before long you will remove that too? The Hanging of Ronald Ryan : 40 Years Later (86.58.132.213 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• The news items doesn't have anything new to add to the Ryan conviction.Purrum (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dasagree! News items over the years have always claimed Ryan's conviction was most doubtful. Jurors further added to that doubt by saying they never would have convicted Ryan had they known he would be hanged. Just thought I'd let you know that Colin Campbell Ross was also convicted like Ryan, on the same basis of a confession with no scientific evidence. He was convicted and hanged for the rape strangulation of a schoolgirl. Eighty-six years later new evidence emerged and scientific evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Colin Campbell Ross could not have committed the crime. He was pardoned by the Brumby government, a miscarriage of justice had resulted in an innocent man sent to the gallows. Premier Brumby said it was not inconceivable there could be other instances of people being executed for crimes they did not commit. "If you went back through every single case and you had the evidence still around to scientifically test, forensically test, there may well be some other cases," said Premier Brumby.^[1]

The difference between Ross and Ryan is no-one saw young Alma get strangled, unlike Ryan who's actions were seen by many eyewitnesses! Purrum (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many witnesses as in (4) FOUR from hundreds of pedestrians motorists present! All others told conflicting inconsistent incompatible stories of what they saw, according to book The Hanged Man on page 232, one citation of innumerable citations sources references news articles etc. Yet you continue to delete or replace facts with baseless opinions ideas views allegations. Pay attention to facts!

Yes four eyewitnesses that couldn't be discredited. Purrum (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four out of hundreds of eyewitnesses testimony doesn't weigh much because none of them is based on forensics proof or signed documentation proof. The question is why should all other eyewitnesses testimony of not seeing Ryan fire a shot be discredited? Every eyewitness told a different story of what they actually saw. To rely on four out of hundreds of eyewitnesses is profoundly unacceptable. Forensic science is unbiased and sound. Forensics is considered a very critical part of a crime investigation. Forensic science was completely absent in Ryan's case. Police investigations were mysteriously negligent,incompetent and unethical. There are good reasons for lawyers to rate eyewitness accounts as unreliable. First, human memory is imperfect. It is always possible that an eyewitness will mix up what he or she saw with what was later read or heard. Secondly, emotions often play a role. Legally one has to differentiate between accounts of partial and impartial eyewitnesses. While eyewitnesses may often be mistaken have credibility issues or are bias, forensic science "tells the same true story" no matter how many times it is tested or how many years have passed. In Ryan's case the absence of forensic proof and absence of signed documentary proof contradicted the four eyewitnesses testimony. It's a known fact that unsigned allegations of confessions are not documentary proof. Since there is no forensic proof or documentary proof but only four out of hundreds of eyewitnesses testimony of what they saw, it demolishes every theory that Ryan fired a shot. No amount of your speculation will ever change the facts of this case. Bepopalula (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name the hundreds of witnesses not called upon to give evidence? And where are the recorded statements of these hundreds of witnesses?? Is it anything like the hundreds of armed warders standing on the high prison wall? Purrum (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arr Forensic science and the Ryan case.

The fatal bullet was not found therefore no ballistics was possible. If they did do forensic testing on the stolen rifle it would not say when the rifle was last fired and by whom and forensic testing could not say when the rifle was last cleaned and by who. It would be speculation at best and indecisive. In 1986 Victoria's Attoney General Jim Kennan ordered the case reopened and they found nothing new. Purrum (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no place in forensic science for any "IF". The word "IF" is purely speculation imaginery hypothetical opinion. I suggest you read the hundreds of sources supporting Ryan's innocence. It's only a matter of time before Ryan will be pardoned. I noticed you have deleted most of your discussion page where Wikipedia considered most of your contributions to various articles for "Speedy Deletion". More evidence of your lack of credibility. It's very obvious you persistently remove every "fact" that you disagree with. Fortunately Wikipedia contains history pages where no user can hide from their past. 208.91.129.246 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan won't get pardoned, there is no new evidence to achieve it. Why don't you go a find the fatal bullet. Only then will forensics be possible. Remember I do not have to prove Ryan's guilt , its history. As for hundreds of source supporting Ryan's innocence, they are all based on the work of Philip Opas who in my opinion twisted the facts to support his theories. Purrum (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions don't belong on Wiki encyclopedia. In your opinion Philip Opas is to blame for doing his legal professional job, defending his client by expossing the fact that there were "no facts" to prove Ryan was guilty? How can Opas twist the facts if there were no scientific facts, no forensics evidence? Opas is to blame for police hiding Ryan's rifle so it couldn't be tested by forensics? Opas is to blame for every eyewitness testifying wide-spread inconsistencies of what they saw? Opas is to blame that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime and only a mere four eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan fire a shot? Opas is to blame that armed warders on the prison wall were forced to hold their fire for fear of hitting some of the "hundreds" of pedestrians and motorists outside the gaol.^[2] Opas is to blame for armed warder Patterson testifying he fired the one and only shot heard by everybody? Opas is to blame for Patterson's rifle not tested by ballistic evidence. Opas is to blame for nobody hearing two shots? Opas is to blame for the "alleged" missing bullet that couldn't be tested by ballistic experts, which would have proven who's rifle it was fired from? Opas is to blame for the missing cartridge (if Ryan had fired a shot a spent cartridge would have been found on the road) no spent cartridge was found because Ryan didn't fire a shot! Opas is to blame for alleged verbals or confessions that were not recorded, not signed and remain unproven? Opas is to blame for evidence by a ballistic expert indicating Hodson was shot from a distance at an elevated position in a downward trajectory angle? Opas is to blame for Hodson, Walker and Ryan being in close proximity on leval ground, which made it impossible for Ryan to fire in that manner? Opas is to blame that the prosecution's case was weak and had to rely heavily on unsigned, unrecorded "hearsay" verbals and confessions for a conviction, because the prosecution had no scientific evidence of proof?

Do not assume the fatal bullet was forever lost! The fatal bullet is new evidence! Ronald Ryan will be pardoned! Ryan's family members will be entitled to receive compensation from the state of Victoria!

So It's all about getting your greedy hands on some money Purrum (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeated vandalism of articles on Ronald Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bepopalula (talk • contribs) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trajectory theory was discredited at the trial because if Ryan had to be 8.25 ft tall to fire the shot then Paterson would have to be 30 feet tall according to Speed’s calculations. Bennett in the closest tower Number 2 was 33 feet high and he was closer that Paterson so Ryan and Paterson to low and Bennett to high. ^[3] Tower 3 which is twice the distance of Paterson would also be to low and the view from the tower was blocked by century old gumtrees.

"If Ryan" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

1. • For unknown reasons, ballistic forensic experts never scientifically examined Ryan's rifle.

• The ballistics expert examined the carbine when it was retrieved and gave evidence that it appeared to him that it had not been cleaned since it was last fired.

"It Appeared To Him" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

2. • There was no forensic proof and no conclusive evidence that Ryan's rifle had fired a shot at all.

• true but why do forensics when the killer bullet was not recovered.

Scientific forensics on Ryan's rifle would have proved whether the rifle had fired a shot.

3. • It was never proven by forensics that the fatal bullet came from the rifle in Ryan's possession.

• Can’t examine a bullet that was never found

Without examining the fatal bullet there was no scientific evidence to prove Ryan guilty.

4. • Despite extensive search by police, the fatal bullet mysteriously went missing and was never found.

• Bullet exit Hodson’s body and never found

Without examining the fatal bullet there can be no scientific evidence to prove Ryan guilty.

5. • The fatal bullet was never scientifically examined by ballistic forensic experts, to prove which rifle fired the fatal bullet.

• Can’t examine a bullet that was never found

Without examining the fatal bullet there can be no scientific evidence to prove Ryan guilty.

6. • Despite extensive search by police, the spent cartridge mysteriously went missing and was never found.

• Cartridge never found

A spent cartridge was never found because no bullet was fired by Ryan.

7. • The spent cartridge was never scientifically examined by ballistic forensic experts, for evidence.

• Can’t examine a Cartridge that was never found

A spent cartridge was never found because no bullet was fired by Ryan. No bullet fired, no spent cartridge.

8. • If Ryan had fired a shot, a spent cartridge would have spilled out of the rifle. No spent cartridge was ever found.

• It is possible for the cartridge to jam in the breach

"It Is Possible" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

9. • All fourteen eyewitnesses for the prosecution testified different accounts of what they saw - there were widespread inconsistencies.

All fourteen eyewitnesses for the prosecution testified widespread inconsistencies of what they saw. Your account of what eyewitnesses testified is contrast with the actual transcript of the trial.

• List of Witnesses
  • Warder Helmut Lange - saw Ryan raise and aim at Hodson, glanced at Bennett when shot was fired, saw Hodson fall to the ground.
  • Warder William Albert Mitchinson – Ryan took three steps from the car raised his rifle and shot Hodson.
  • Warder Thomas William Wallis – Saw Ryan aim rifle and saw puff of smoke.
  • Rodney Arthur Burroughs – Standing at petrol bowsers, Ryan took aim at Hodson, “as though he was out shooting kangaroos.”
  • Warder Patterson - ?
  • Driver Frank Jeziorski – saw Ryan take two or three steps, take aim and fire. He saw recoil and smoke.
  • Pauline Jeziorski –smelt the discharge from the rifle Ryan fired.
  • Sandra June Tolley – was sitting in car getting petrol, she saw the assault on Hewitt and ran frighten into the Garage. Watched Ryan put rifle to shoulder and heard shot. The Noise came from Ryan’s direction.
  • Station attendant Les Watt – saw Ryan’s rifle recoil when Ryan fired it.
  • McCulloch - ?
  • Keith Dobson – Ryan had something raised to his shoulder
  • Louis Bailey - In car with Dobson
  • John Stuart Anderson – said that Hodson got hold of Walker’s arm and Walker fell to the ground, He heard rifle and saw Hodson fall to ground.
  • Rocco Melideo – said he drove at the escapees; he picked up Mitchinson and gave chase after the Vanguard.

.

10. • Only four of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified of seeing Ryan fire a shot.

• Four eyewitnesses confirmed Ryan fired a shot

Ten eyewitnesses confirmed they did not see Ryan fire a shot. No person among the large crowds of people heard two shots.

11. • All fourteen eyewitnesses testified of hearing one single shot. No person heard two shots.

• Patterson heard two shots. Ryan testified that he heard several autodetonations, and ex-prisoner Allan Cane signed an affidavit in Feb 1967 claiming he heard two shots

If Patterson (who changed his statement to police on three separate occasions) and Cane heard two shots, no person among the large crowds of eyewitnesses heard two shots. There was no contest at trial that all persons heard only one single shot fired.

12. • Prison Officer Paterson, admitted and testified he fired the one single shot from an elevated distance (heard by all persons).

• Paterson's elevated position was because he stood on small wall less that a metre high, Because Champ St slopes down he would not be elevated compare to Ryan. Impossible for Lange to hear shot fired by Patterson, noise blocked by prison wall and prison escape siren

Champ street is definately on level ground. It definately does not slope. This fact was made very clear at the trial.

"Impossible for Lange" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence.

13. • If Ryan had also fired a shot, at least one person among the dozens of people surrounding the scene of the crime, would have heard two shots.

• Patterson heard two shots. Ryan testified that he heard several autodetonations, and ex-prisoner Allan Cane signed an affidavit in Feb 1967 claiming he heard two shots.

If Patterson (who changed his statement to police on three separate occasions) and Cane heard two shots, none of the large crowds of eyewitnesses heard two shots. There was no contest at trial that all persons heard only one single shot fired.

14. • Forensic experts never scientifically examined prison officer Paterson's rifle, to prove it had fired a shot.

• Paterson’s rifle was visibly examined after the escape by Homicide Squad detectives and taken away as evidence.

"Visibly Examined" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

15. • Forensic experts never scientifically examined all other prison officers' rifles at the scene of the crime, to prove if their rifles had fired a shot.

• All prison rifles was visibly examined after the escape by Homicide Squad detectives and all rifles found to be unfired and with full allotment of bullets except Patterson’s Rifle.

"Visibly Examined" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

16. • Ballistic evidence indicated that the prison officer was shot from a distance, in a downward trajectory angle.

• Justice Starke told the jury if the trajectory theory ruled out Ryan then it must also rule out Paterson as he would have to be thirty feet tall.

"Then It Must" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

17. • The measurement of the entry and exit wound on the deceased prison officer indicated that the fatal shot was fired from an elevated position. At the time of the shooting, there were many prison officers' armed with rifles surrounding the crime scene, on prison walls, on prison guard towers and on the streets.

• If Hodson was leaning forward the elevated position theory is voidable, also if there were so many armed warders, why didn’t Ryan die in a hail of bullets?

"If Hodson Was" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing.

Go and ask the armed prison officers why Ryan didn't die in a hail of bullets. Very difficult to shoot straight with large crowds and vehicles surrounding the crime scene. That's probably how Patterson missed his target and shot Hodson instead of Ryan when he fired a shot.

18. • Eyewitnesses testified seeing the prison officers aiming their rifles in the direction of Ryan, Walker and Hodson.

• Apart from Paterson, only Bennett in Tower 2 had a rifle, this is known because Warder Minchinson called for a rifle and the only one available was Bennett’s. Minchinson got in Rocco Melideo car to give chase, The rifle was returned to the prison unfired.

Incorrect. The Age newspaper confirmed and published what eyewitnesses saw: "Armed warders on the prison wall were forced to hold their fire for fear of hitting some of the hundreds of pedestrians and motorists outside the gaol. Warder killed

19. • Ryan (a shorter man) could not have fired at the prison officer (a taller man) in such a downward trajectory angle, as both were on level ground.

• The downward trajectory theory was dismissed by Justice Starke and the Appeal court Justices.

Judges very often dismiss theories. A ballistic expert did testify that the fatal bullet was fired in a downward trajectory angle.

20. • Ryan could not have fired from a distance as evidence indicated, because Ryan was adjacent to the prison officer who was running after and adjacent to, the other prison escapee.

• Opas conceded that Ryan was twenty feet from Hodson. Hence the trajectory calculations also if you google maps the crime scene you can work out the distance because Hodson body was adjacent to the service station entrance and the Jeziorski car was stopped at the Champ St intersection.

The prosecution and defense both conceded after eyewitnesses evidence that Hodson, Ryan and Walker were in close proximity.

21. • Ryan could not have fired from an elevated position as evidence indicated, because Ryan was on level ground.

• The terrain at Pentridge is not level, check it out , Ryan had a rifle, he could fire it from anywhere

The terrain at Pentrdge Prison is, and always has been, on level ground.

"Ryan Could Have" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

22. • Some eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil his rifle and smoke coming from the barrel of his rifle. In fact, ballistic experts testified at trial that type of rifle had no recoil and it contained smokeless cartridges.

• The ballistic expert said the rifle had no noticeable recoil. It was Opas who claimed it had no recoil. the rifle contained smokeless cartridges, smokeless cartridges are not smoke free ^[4] as the name implies. Smokeless cartridge refers to a bullet that used a less smoky propellant that the original black powder bullet.

A ballistic expert testified at trial that type of gun had no recoil and contained smokless cartridges.

From Opas on Ryan , “I believe that by the time of the trial I knew more about the M1 carbine than did the ballistics expert called be the prosecution. In fairness to him, he knew a lot more about a large variety of weapons but I concentrated on just one.”

Meaning? How does this quote from Opas prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ryan fired a shot from his rifle. There is no scientific evidence to prove Ryan fired a shot at all.

• Ryan’s gun barrel smoked , he must have fired

"Ryan Must Have" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

Only one eyewitness testified he saw smoke coming from Ryan's rifle. No other person among the large crowds saw the smoke.

Only one eyewitness testified he saw Ryan recoil the rifle. No other person among the large crowds saw Ryan recoil his rifle.

THE REFERENCED FACTS : THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BALLISTIC FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE RYAN FIRED A SHOT. (41.32.0.58 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
There is no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to disprove Ryan fired a shot and that is the crux of your problem, all you can do is form a hypothesis by speculating and conjecturing, and without scientific evidence of proof all you can do is create arguments that go round in circles. Purrum (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to disprove YOU fired a shot. That is the crux of YOUR problem. All YOU can do is deny the facts, forming hypothesis by speculating and conjecturing without scientific ballistic forensic evidence of proof. All YOU can do is create hypothesis that go round in circles, also known as fairytales. All YOU can do is valdalize the facts over and over again. All YOU can do is try to cover-up the facts. Covering up for who, what and why?

Guess what? yet more facts are about to be publicly revealed and it will be explosive. One past prison escapee is still alive and well.

It don't really matter how many users YOU ask to be banned from adding the facts on Ryan. The mega-referenced facts are out there on the Internet for the whole world to read.

Why are most of YOUR articles deleted by Wikipedia? It don't look good. Not looking intelligent at all. (41.32.0.58 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Fortunate for me I have an alibi for that fateful day Purrum (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BINGO......................YOU OLD FART —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.161.253 (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purrum I was just wondering about a couple of the edits you made at List of former Australian rules football competitions in Tasmania. I was just recently working on the 1940 Mercury and I never found that Esperance FA grand final result. When was it played? Also, are you certain that Tyenna was in recess from 1949 to 1951? And also according to my records, Bronte never played in the Tyenna comp. They were in Derwent Valley until it folded and that was the last I saw of them. I've got Brushy Park down for losing that 1955 GF to Molesworth and losing the 1956 first semi before they disappeared. Footy Freak7 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I read the Mercury looking for results and forward them to Footypedia, I'm currently reviewing my Tassies records and only as far back as 1960. I now got 50 years of results on PDF files.

• It is possible I got the 1940 Esperance result from John Stoward's book,
• Tyenna probably didn't send their results to the Mercury from 49 to 51, I only have the 1952 GF result
• Bronte and Brushy Pk are a far distance, I could have misread those years ago. Purrum (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have John Stoward's book and I'm glad you mentioned that because I checked it out, and he reckons Esperance was in recess for WW2 in 1940. Can't be because I know I saw results for Southport and Raminea at least. But it also noted that Tyenna folded in March 1949. Thanks for the encouragement to do that! Footy Freak7 (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me at that, that comment DOES look very familiar!

It's kinda sad; while I don't have a strong view on Ryan's guilt I'm opposed to capital punishment, and if this person was even trying to follow WP rules I'd be happy to help them find an appropriate way to present a pro-Ryan perspective. But I don't have time for people who think lying to other editors is a good way to get what they want. --GenericBob (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, see also: [redacted] --GenericBob (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, see also: [redacted] plus there is more of same, much more, and all is so true. 212.227.18.13 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a clear breech of copyright to me. Purrum (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor describes himself as a conservative.^[5] He has endorsed a referendum on the death penalty and supports liberalisation of gun control. In an interview published in The Sydney Morning Herald following the 2010 Federal election, it was reported that Windsor supports a rent resources tax, deep cuts to carbon emissions, and improved services to rural and regional areas such as Labor's proposed national broadband network; however he wants to ensure the scheme is fully costed.^[5] The same article claimed that Windsor supports the Coalition's position on water, and the Greens position on a universal dental scheme.^[5]

He has fought a long-standing battle protecting the interests of local landholders and farmers living on one of NSW's richest agricultural regions, the Liverpool Plains, due to the impact of mining on underlying groundwater. The region is rich in coal deposits and mining companies, such as BHP Billiton and Whitehaven Coal, have sought to acquire land. Greens have campaigned alongside Windsor, against mining companies.^[6] During the 2010 federal election campaign, it was revealed that Windsor had sold his family farm at Werris Creek to a wholly owned subsidiary of Whitehaven Coal, and then leased the property back. The reported sale was for more than A$4.5 million.^[7] The Australian subsequently claimed that Windsor yielded a return about three times greater than other farmers who sold their properties to the same company in the previous 18 months.^[8]

"I've never been in parliament as a National, I gave up smoking about the same time [and] I've rid myself of two cancers." - Tony Windsor^[9]

"I won't get into the antics of what went on then." - Tony Windsor on his Nationals pre-selection battle in 1991

"The National Party is a dying party." - Tony Windsor

Tony Windsor versus Barnaby Joyce

"I don't deal with fools terribly lightly, and I think under any definition the man's a fool." - Tony Windsor on Barnaby Joyce ^[10]

"I won't be dealing with him, I don't like the guy. The way in which he was trying to give gratuitous advice in terms of a hung parliament [on Saturday], when he had the balance of power in the Senate [in 2005] and then sold the country out on the sale of Telstra was an indication of just where he stands in terms of country issues." - Tony Windsor on Barnaby Joyce ^[11]

"Well, they're in a position of incredible strength so that being the case they have a shooting licence to say whatever they like at the moment." - Barnaby Joyce on Tony Windsor ^[12]

Windsor was present at the February 2011 announcement by the Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the proposed July 2012 introduction of a tax on carbon emissions, together with Greens Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne, Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet, and independent MP, Rob Oakeshott . Windsor downplayed his presence at the announcement, stating, "Please don't construe from my presence here that I will be supporting anything."^[13]

Barnaby Joyce commented Well, Mr Windsor, what were you doing there? Did you get lost on the way to the toilet and just stumble across the Prime Minister doing her press conference and decide to stand in on it? ^[14]

He was later reported as stating that he would not accept increased transport fuel costs for country people.^[15]

Nothing libelous here, all their own work Purrum (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your name in the comments on this article about Ronald Ryan. Is that actually you, or is our regular stalker trying to make mischief again? If you read the other comments you'll know why I ask. --GenericBob (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Purrum (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purrum. While I appreciate your enthusiasm to expand Australian football articles, I have reverted your last edit to Kevin Heath as it was a copyright violation.

The GNU only License (I can't see any CC license on the website) used by Blueseum is not compatible with Wikipedia.

In 2012 you were politely explained by User:The-Pope that you simply can't copy and paste (or slightly reword) from websites unless they display the appropriate license. I can understand that maybe in the case of Blueseum it is not always clear, but this is not the first time I have had to remove copyright violations that you have added. On 16 December 2013 you copy and pasted sections of an article from the Hawthorn Football Club website relating to Andrew Gowers, which is clearly not going to be compatible. You also made this edit to Bert Mills, which came before the copyright issue was raised with you by The-Pope, but I would have hoped you would have gone back and removed it. With that in mind, if you are aware of any other text you have added in the past that you think may be a problem, you should go back and remove it.

Please cease copy and pasting articles onto Wikipedia. Any further violations and this will have to be raised elsewhere.

Jevansen (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jevansen (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum.

First, I appreciate your work to rewrite the material at Kevin Heath. Unfortunately, since you didn't use an edit summary, it simply looked like a revert. It's a good idea to avoid seeming to revert copyrighted content back into articles, as our copyright policy is one we must take very seriously. It is standard practice to block contributors who do not follow it to protect the project, copyright holders, and our reusers.

I've had a look at the ANI, and quickly confirmed that copying content from previously published materials does seem to have been a pattern. I removed content from Harry Beitzel that you seem to have copy-pasted from an article in The Age from 1993. (It's also reproduced here, although you may have found it elsewhere.)

Please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste as well as the policies and guidelines to which it links. In simplified summary, you should not copy content you find anywhere unless you can prove that it is public domain or compatibly licensed, or unless you are adding brief and clearly marked quotations in accordance with our non-free content policy and guideline. If you can prove that it is public domain or compatibly licensed, you need to acknowledge the copying in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Some compatible licenses legally require such acknowledgment. All other text should be written in your own words as a proper paraphrase of the sources you use and cite.

Because it seems you have had a history of copying content, I have opened a contributor copyright investigation (CCI) to request review of your earlier edits. These investigations are not meant to be punitive - the purpose is simply to locate problems and clean them up. Your assistance here would be very welcome - if you know you have copied content, please remove it and put a note on the CCI - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Purrum - indicating what you've done. This will go a long way towards helping the editors who work on the CCI clear it out and put it behind us, and it will demonstrate your good faith and your understanding of our copyright policies. We ask that you don't remove the "diffs" or mark cleanup as resolved. Because sometimes copyright issues result from confusion about what is permitted or how much paraphrase is required, it's better if people who do not have a history with copyright issues evaluate to be sure that any problems are removed.

Hi there, I was reading the new Kaiden Brand article, and the Early career section sounded like it was a recruiters opinion. Sure enough, when I googled the phrase, I found that it was a direct copy from an Inside Football Draft Special. You've been warned about copying text from other sources before. Please don't. Use your own words. Don't editorialise. Don't make this into BigFooty or Twitter or Hawk Headquarters. Keep it neutral and don't copy. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and input. The match is certainly an important one, which is why it is has its own score infobox (corresponding directly with the match description), and is mentioned in the section title, as well as the caption for that splendid image of Con McCarthy. I think it all goes together quite well, and works better for simplicity's sake. As it stands, the section isn't oversized so doesn't require splitting, and the Championship of Victoria doesn't have enough text to merit a subsection. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum. 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]

Your addition to Kew Football Club has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating James Cousins (footballer), Purrum!

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

Hi you might want to add some more information as certain terms are not clear; thanks

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

Learn more about page curation.

Domdeparis (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Purrum, thanks for creating Beaumaris Football Club!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article needs more references to substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please the subject's own website.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Purrum, thanks for creating Mulgrave Football Club!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The sources provided are not usable for verification. Just referring to Dandenong Journal and Lilydale Express does not give the reader enough information to verify that the claims are supported by a reliable source.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article St Pauls East Bentleigh Football Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable local football club. Only claim to notability is the merger in the mid-90s.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give List of places in Western Australia by population a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. PRehse (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I think you have the wrong editor. I have no history for this page! Purrum (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add unsourced content into an article, esp for a living person. The burden is with you to source everything you add. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that you have made an error in your article name which made me to confuse when I tried to review your article. You have mentioned that Caitlin Moran is an Australian rugby league player in the content but the article header looks ironical stating that she is a footballer within the brackets. You have to move this page to Caitlin Moran (rugby league player) Abishe (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum. 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)[reply]

Hello, Purrum. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Alfred Bye (murderer), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Abishe. Purrum, thanks for creating Tarneit Football Club!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix.

Hello Purrum: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Abishe (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moe Football Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Somerville (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) 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for trying to update the population at Tammin, Western Australia. However, please use {{CensusAU}} for referencing when making these updates, modelling the change on any existing use of that template. If you can't do that, it'd be better to wait for someone else to do it, otherwise you'd be creating unnecessary work for other editors. Graham87 01:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article South East Football Netball League 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/South East Football Netball League 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richmond Football Club, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barry Richardson, Kevin Sheedy and Tony Jewell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm SshibumXZ. Purrum, thanks for creating George Melville (bushranger)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add inline citations if and when you get the time to do so.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum. 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)[reply]

Why did you remove Dusties from the Ellinbank comp? I have seen nothing about them going into recess or folding. The removal therefore needs to be sourced, if you wouldn't mind. Footy Freak7 (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding a source. Just a note though - don't use nicknames in the article like that. I fixed that for you. Footy Freak7 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Outer East Football Netball League.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for your new article on the Outer East Football Netball League.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Riverland Indendent FL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Chelsea Football Netball Club, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Dylan Moore (footballer).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Hughesdarren (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leitchville Gunbower Football Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wooden Spoon (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) 12:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mjs1991 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Inline citations need to be fixed properly

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chelsea Football Netball Club and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chelsea Football Netball Club, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mjs1991 (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mjs1991 (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Chelsea Football Netball Club, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chelsea Football Netball Club".

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 edit the submission 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 17:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Len Vautier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State Electricity Commission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but where the hell did it all come from? beware someone wanting to revert you with WP:COPYVIO or something similar...

why no WP:RS somewhere? there is a lot of information there that needs to be WP:V if you want it to survive like that ... JarrahTree 09:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum

Thank you for creating Springbank Football Netball Club.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Whiteguru (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum

Thank you for creating Carngham Linton Football Netball Club.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work, thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Whiteguru (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 AFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Carter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to see you unilaterally add content about COVID to the article while apparently completely ignoring the discussion on that very matter on the article's Talk page. Please join that discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article East Sunbury Football Club 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/East Sunbury Football Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wimmera Football League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kyle Cheney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Purrum,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Aveline Fernandez for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum,

Thank you for creating Connor Downie.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Can you check the reference and external links to AFL Tables and the external link to Hawthorn FC as they are not working for me (might be that I am looking from Ireland, marking as good.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 Talk 12:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Victoria bushfire season 1969, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 AFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taylor Walker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Victoria bushfire season 1969, 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. FireflyBot (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purrum. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Victoria bushfire season 1969".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article) and Draft) for copyright violations and plagiarism.

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 ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit you made to Scotts Creek, Victoria was flagged as a potential copyright violation. Indeed, three of the four paragraphs you added to the article were copied from http://www.victorianplaces.com.au/scotts-creek, which was not cited as a source. You have been warned 1 2 3 (This one was marked as a final warning) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 times about copying text from other places, with your first warning being exactly 13 years ago. On top of that, there has been a contributor copyright investigation into your edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Purrum, which will turn eight years old in a week or so. I'm sorry, but you cannot carry on editing this way, your history of copyright violations is too severe. If you want to be unblocked, you must provide a better understanding of copyright and commit to not copying from sources in the future and cite them as well. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Skye Football Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article. Club seems to have gone inactive soon after its formation with any notable coverage. Official Twitter ( https://twitter.com/skye_fc ) formed in 2013 and last updated in 2014. Does not meet notability standards for sports teams and will not meet them in the future.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SimLibrarian (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dandenong Football and Netball Club 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/Dandenong Football and Netball Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 03:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hampton Football Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with only source being the club's website. Any sources online are largely WP:ROUTINE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lyndale Football Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with a single source to the club's website. Any sources online are largely WP:ROUTINE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dandenong West Football Club 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/Dandenong West Football Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Purrum! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Adr28382 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adr28382 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]