Welcome to Wikipedia, Ozhistory! I am Bidgee and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing ((helpme)) at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Skiing in Australia has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm, http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've put an "under construction" template on Culture of Australia, because we've already had a couple of edit conflicts with three people editing it today. I'll wait until you finish until I do any more. Please remove the "under construction" template, when you're done. (My intended edits are copy-edits, not restructures.) Thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - will do. Almost done really. For time being I am only planning to add a Theatre in Australia section.Ozhistory (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Nice section on Australian democracy you just added to History of Australia. Just a thought - should it be headed "Development of Australian Democracy" or similar? CheersNickm57 (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you've been working on Pacific War and I don't want to mess with it. but I made a mistake when I change the lede to add It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941 with the Japanese invasion of Thailand[14] for the invasion of British Malaya.... It actually began about an hour earlier. See comments I added to Talk:Citations needed badly. The present Note [14] linking to Churchill's broadcast should be deleted; or if considered of import, moved somewhere else. --Pawyilee (talk)
How about letting us have more detail about yourself? Greenmaven (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ozhistory, I noticed you made a page at Catholic church and medicine with a note saying "see Catholic Church and health care". I have turned it into an actual redirect page so visitors will be automatically taken to Catholic Church and health care. I hope that's okay. If you want to make redirects yourself you can take a look at Help:Redirect. Have a nice day! —Noiratsi (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ozhistory. Good to meet you. Recently you "undid" an edit I created. You make a valid point and caution that we're not to "cut and paste" copyrighted publications. This I too am aware of, which is why I did not; the wording is slightly different for that reason. Perhaps, it is too close to the actual wording so there is the possibility to paraphrase with genuine intent and providing a citation for detail.
One of the problems with this Article and any involving religion and the Nazi Era is that it lends itself to emotion, controversy and sometimes, unfortunately, selective and "creative" editing of legitimate sources. This introduction allows a tone to take hold early on that promotes a NPOV to assist and encourage the Article away from becoming a battle ground of "edit wars" between those who go to extremes from all camps. This is the heart of this particular edit and should be our goal overall objective, which I'm certain you share. This Third Party reference helps in that way.
As for Pius XII - well, it is rather challenging - if not impossible - to discuss the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany without his pontificate becoming the central focus with regard to the Catholic response to Nazism and Nazi Germany. Yes? And, ultimately, it leads us there regardless of our best efforts because this is how the history unfolds naturally. Therefore, why not "cut to the chase" early on and diffuse a topic that is bound to be contentious? Not much one can do about that. So, I ask you to collaborate. I invite you to edit my input rather than simply "undo" to reach a working compromise. So, I will revert my edit for you and I look forward to your future input. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I entirely understand your frustration Ozhistory and after my own bruising encounters can sympathise. This is how it now reads after I have tidied it up a bit; On the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the German Army murdered up to 1,000 Polish priests, fearing they would be foci for discontent, while German Catholic priests and bishops prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show their support for Germany's (and by extension, Hitler's) cause was undimished. I think that's a fair reflection of what's in the book. It's maybe a bit of a side point for an introduction, but it does deserve to be mentioned. As it happens, it was sort of right...although if you will pardon my borrowing a phrase, there were some 'sins of ommission' in it! Hope that you are OK with that edit.Hcc01 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to ((infobox road))
. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS
Nbound (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler, User talk:Greengrounds". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ozhistory- sorry to ask you to jump in . . . . but as serious fiasco just took place at the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Article. An editor by the name Biknsternet - on a whim -discarded weeks of solid work by yourself, Sayerselle, Greengrounds and myself. Please go to Talk page to voice your input. Thank you!
Hi Ozhistory- Just left a note with the good editor Sayerselle to request he self-edit his recent offering in the lede and place them in an appropriate Section. We need to focus rather on reducing the verbiage of the lede. We now have had two Senior Editors point out that its too long. And, I truly desire to avoid the "roll-back" fiasco. I intend to exercise the same discipline. All the essentials are already there. Now its about an economy of words w/o loosing the essentials.
What I have noted is that Articles that cover complex epic subjects have no citations - at all, but rather 4 "simple" paragraphs. We're doing great work - just desire that this round it all "sticks". Until next time Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ozhistory-Left a message on the Talk page making a formal request that Sayerselle start genuinely collaborating. He has been editing this Article since 12.11 - nearly half the life of the Article. And now, 35-40% of the word count is sourced to his edits alone! Yet, he seems to feel his voice is being muted. Not sure where this is headed -but my take is if we turn our heads for a matter of weeks all this work is for naught and he'll jump right back in and edit our work to a stub. As we say here in Chicago, "Just say'n." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, I see you are quite interested in Australian history. I myself have been working on the article Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars. But it has turned out to be much longer than I realised and I haven't had much time to add to the war parts or even properly finish the origins section. If you would like to help me with this please contact me on my talk page and we can go from there. Cheers. --Collingwood26 (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I enjoyed your reply back to Greengrounds. It was very well said. Since he seems to be very active this week on many of the Christian pages I watch, its been interesting to read (and reply to) some of the comments he has made on Talk pages. He has a serious axe he's trying to grind... Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I have nominated several of your articles on non notable christians for deletion. The reasons are as follows: poor sourcing (the Huffington Post, catholic news, obscure German websites), non notability of the articles, and bias. We don't generally keep a list or provide a memorial for non notable islamic "martyrs" AFIK, so why would we have one for non notable christians. Keep up the good work, though. You're trying.Greengrounds (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Re the section "Resolution?" and how to get a decision, what happens is that we just have to wait for an "uninvolved" admin to decide to "close" the discussion with or without some action. It is very frustrating, I know, and they always dilly dally about such things, why I do not know, these procedures are all so bureaucratic and time-consuming, how there could be anything clearer than the current green problems I cannot imagine. Whatever happens we must not let it go 36 hours on that thread without any comment from someone or the bot will archive the whole thing without any decision or comment from an admin at all. Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ozhistory, I happened to see your posts about IPs presumed to be used by Greengrounds on User:Penwhale's page. I think 209.91.107.139 must be the same also, and 209.91.107.167 editing Religious views of Adolf Hitler, and… in fact, take a look at contributions of the 209.91.107.128/25 range for yourself, as listed by Helloannyong's neat tool. It's not a very large range, by my notions, and I'm sure most of the edits from it are Greengrounds'. I've blocked the range for two weeks. I'm new to range blocking, so I hope there won't be a lot of collateral damage (=innocent IPs caught in the same net). If you see continued disruption from similar IPs at the end of the two weeks, you might let me know about it. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC).
Dear user:Penwhale, User:IRWolfie-, user: Smeat75, Bishonen, User:Salvio guiliano or John Carter - action is required to block new sock puppets of Greengrounds and protect Religion in Nazi Germany page, where he has reverted a considerable amount of well sourced content and made a personal attack and false allegations on the talk page. I can see two IP puppet addresses used for this latest round of vandalism: here and here. Ozhistory (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Were you aware that this article had been nominated for DYK? I've reviewed it at ((Did you know nominations/Pius XII and the German Resistance)) and raised a couple of substantive issues and one stylistic one; I'd appreciate it if you'd go there and respond at least to the substantive objections. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
do you mind not putting 'happy now sayerslle' and such fatuous personal directed notes in your edit summaries? - I watched a programme on the rise of hitler on Sunday and , after the Reichstag fire, it said Hitler addressed the 'parliament' in an opera house that was serving as a new temporary Reichstag and at this point it said simply, the Communists having been banned , the socialists bravely voted against hitler, while the Catholic Centre Party and the Right voted for him - your whole drive is to portray the catholics , and at this point, their party, as victims, but there , in a simple portrait, they are rather conniving at Hitlers rise. you are, like (soi-disant) 'integrity and honesty' determined to portray things in a certain light and just because I do sometimes add a tag , or question wording or sources, that is legitimate Sayerslle (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have a few concerns about your recent edits to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article. I wasn't sure if you were done editing the page, plus I'm not exactly sure I'm unbiased in this area, so I wrote up my concerns on the talk page. Since it directly related to your edits I thought I should let you know I posted my comment about your edits there. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. -- HiEv 22:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
On 2 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pius XII and the German Resistance, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that despite officially being impartial, Pope Pius XII (pictured) acted as an intermediary between the German Resistance and the Allies during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pius XII and the German Resistance. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Catholic resistance to Nazism
Thank you for quality articles such as Pius XII and the German Resistance, the general Catholic resistance to Nazism and biographies such as Karl Friedrich Stellbrink, for looking at women in the history of the Catholic church, for your modest user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Awww shucks! Danke, Gerda. I've travelled down a huge side track of researching resistance to Nazi Germany, which I am finding fascinating. I keep thinking I've finished on it, then find more. All the best. Ozhistory (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 623rd recipient of my ]PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Six years ago, you were recipient no. 623 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Just a note to let you know I caught a recent piece of yours in the New Articles queue and was impressed with your editing work.... Thanks for your efforts! Carrite (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
On 10 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karl Friedrich Stellbrink, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lutheran pastor Karl Friedrich Stellbrink was one of the Lübeck martyrs guillotined on 10 November 1943 for opposing the Nazi regime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Friedrich Stellbrink. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 08:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your tireless contributions to previously less developed articles, like Criticism of Atheism, and making them more informative with good references. Keep up the good work. You are making a difference. Mayan1990 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
Ozhistory, please do not include complete bibliographical information in each and every individual footnote in which a book is cited. I've deleted thousands of bytes from Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, to discover that it's all because of redundant information in footnotes. There was a bibliography already, so a footnote need only contain a brief reference, not full name, full title, year of publication, publisher, and year. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On 31 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thaddeus Ma Daqin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Catholic bishop of Shanghai, Thaddeus Ma Daqin, has been held under house arrest by the Chinese Government since 2012? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thaddeus Ma Daqin. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the work of Evans, however I think the paraphrased formulation of his work now present in the article is misleading since the quote "convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid 1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society" most certainly directly refers to those in the category "gottgläubig" and to them alone, but not to the 1.5% atheists. Unfortunately I don't have access to the book so I can't present the original quote, but I believe it has been either misconstrued or the author was not careful with his wording, hence the misleading interpretation in this article, taken out of the original context. As I said there is an entire article about gottgläubig in the German version of Wikipedia, unfortunately all sources provided there are naturally not in English. I think it is important to point out that "gottgläubig" was a specific religious affiliation only present in the "third reich" and not equatable with deism since deism has no specific ideology attached to it very much unlike "gottgläubig" which explicitly included the worship of Hitler as a messiah-figure. Unfortunately, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and unsure how to go about this myself. All I know is that the current wording is certainly better than the previous one (which falsely equated gottgläubig to agnosticism) but still less than ideal.178.5.161.105 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Your edit to Religious views of Adolf Hitler was in violation to WP:NPOV, so your edit has been reverted. TheGFish (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If you keep making nonconstructive edits as you did to Religious views of Adolf Hitler, you may be subjected to a block after farther warnings. TheGFish (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I was mistaken that you were a vandal. Sorry, it was not a personal attack either. I thought at first that you tried to remove large content for no reason, but I accidentally deleted something of your's while I included something. TheGFish (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Hitler wasn't an atheist or Christian. He was definitely not for religion. A person can be anti-religious and still believe in a god.
"In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that He would give His blessing to our work, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right. I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty. No man can fashion world history unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence." 1937,
"But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German State we shall destroy.", Adolf Hitler, a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939,
He did stop mentioning his beliefs in Christianity in these speeches, but still proclaim belief in a god in those. He's a believer that's against religion. Could I reword the article sentence to something like, "Contrary to popular belief, Hitler was not an atheist or a Christian". 98.235.17.150 (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm TheGFish, I somehow logged out. I'm going to log back in. 98.235.17.150 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good. Thanks! 98.235.17.150 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for mistaking you for a vandal. TheGFish (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You may not have read the article about Adaminaby enough to realise that the original "Adaminaby" was flooded by the waters of the Snowy River Scheme and becomes a kind of Ghost Town.
Strictly speaking, a new topic List of flooded towns is required, but as flooded towns are rare, the List of ghost towns will have to do. Please therefore undo your reversion.
A new article Old Adaminaby may be required. Indeed this article does already exist as a redirection. Tabletop (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I tried to be as transparent as possible with my edit summaries, I thought those changes are sufficiently explained. If I removed any sources then I'm sorry, that was accidental. I was still not done with reviewing my changes when you stepped in, it was unfortunate timing. No vandalism intended. However, to go deeper into the reasoning as to why the sentence about eradication of Christianity is misplaced and misleading taken out of context, it is A) a false paraphrasing of the provided sources since it disregards the support of "positive Christianity" and generalizes Christianity as a whole and B) draws implied parallels to Stalin's oppression of religion which was very much unlike Hitler's actions and intentions. Hitler was more interested in reshaping Christianity according to his ideology than to promote atheism. However with this sentence taken out of context in the first paragraph the reader is reminded of Stalin and draws a false conclusion. There is no valid reason why this sentence should be in the first paragraph since it describes Hitlers relationship to the churches which is talked about in a later paragraph where it is much more fitting.178.0.219.141 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
PS: Yes it's me again, we spoke the other day. Thanks for your patience, I'm still not perfectly well-versed with Wikipedia protocol, but my intentions are still to make the article more objective and logically well-structured.
No I wouldn't have accused you of vandalism, you have shown your good intentions already and I think we left our last conversation a few days ago in good standing, so the hostility of GFish would have been uncalled for if it had been me. As far as I have seen he apologized though, I guess he took your edits the wrong way. The thing is, this article is quite frustrating to read, knowing that many people have a preconceived misconception about Hitler and are convinced that he tried to turn everyone into atheists which there is absolutely zero evidence for, but can easily be read into the POV influenced wording of many sections in this article. He DID indeed fight the Christian churches that is a fact. Their influence was a potential threat to his power and parts of the church doctrines, especially those rooted in Judaism, didn't fit his word-view. However there are strong indications that he was honestly motivated by the fanatic idea that some form of heavenly guidance has made it his destiny to put through his plans. He explicitly encouraged and perpetuated the Christian values and traditional family ideas he had been raised with and banned books on Evolution. http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines Also his statements were quite clear:
Of course not everything he said should be trusted as honest opinion, however, after he had been preaching these ideas for years there was no possible way he could to a 180° turnaround after the war to start and suddenly promote evolution science and atheism. It's absurd. His actions simply don't fit the idea that he wanted to eradicate a belief in the Christian god. His goal was more to reshape the Christian faith, more like a reformation, but to his dismay of course the "positive Christianity" movement didn't catch on as well as he wished it would. I'm aware that there are many American historians who overgeneralize by not making that distinction that he opposed only the established churches/denominations and not religion in and of itself, but the bare number of sources which perpetrate this view doesn't prove that it is anything more than speculation based on some vague statements. Unfortunately most books about WW2 I have in my possession and most documentaries I watched are in German so they won't be of much use to you. But to cut it short, Hitler was strongly influenced by Christian ideas and likely believed in a god that was at least based on the Judeo-Christian concept of the "almighty Creator". The American historians who claim otherwise are certainly biased since they are Christians themselves. This is quite problematic. Furthermore throughout the article when sources are paraphrased, the wording often is colored to paint a certain image as well, often departing from what the referenced source is actually saying in context, which is also quite problematic but of course harder to demonstrate. Anyway, I'm digressing, to cut it short, regardless of the controversy what Hitler's actual goal was, he never got a chance to go through with this alleged plan so it is a what-if scenario. What-if scenarios shouldn't be elevated to a status of importance as this is in this article since this aledged aim was not reflected in his politics, his public perception, or the events that lead up to the war whatsoever. It would be more useful to outline his public portrayal as a devout catholic more since that is what influenced the German people a lot more than what could have, would have, happened after the war was over if Germany had won. Do you see where I'm coming from?178.0.219.141 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Ozhistory, thank you for your work on the Criticism of atheism article! I found a reference that you might find to be useful in the "Morality" section, available here. You can go ahead and add this in, if you think it would be beneficial to the article. What are your thoughts? I look forward to hearing from you! With regards, AnupamTalk 09:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religious views of Adolf Hitler 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
You keep saying you are restoring the original wording of Evans from his book. Do you have that book available at your disposal? There are no quotation marks and it is a clear paraphrasing rather than reciting of his work so for all we know this might very well be a misrepresentation of his work. Since you pay so much attention to what his original wording supposedly was I would strongly encourage a direct quote for this section rather than the current wording. I have seen this section copied into different articles all over wikipedia in different variants. A definite original literal quote from his book could settle this. 178.8.176.145 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Ozhistory, thank you for your comment on my talk page. Yes, I noticed that the material you added there was unfortunately removed. I hope to see it restored and will be participating on the talk page to offer my thoughts. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 奇安德拉. Since you had some involvement with the 奇安德拉 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 02:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
People are trying to delete the State Atheism article, seemingly for biased reasons. You might want to join here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_atheism#State_atheism_should_be_moved_to_Anti_theistic_government_actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.strangerX (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the important vote that'll determine whether the page is moved or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_atheism#Straw_poll Mr.strangerX (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Callinus has been removing all links to state atheism all over Wikipedia. You should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=683337655
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=684156805
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=684176371
Mr.strangerX (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turnbull Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Morrison. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What you create should be redirects, but who needs the redirects? Several similar actions have been reverted recently (not by me).Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religious views of Adolf Hitler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John S. Conway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Jesuits and Nazi Germany#Copyright violations -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Western civilization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
On 27 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Watson Government, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the world's first Labor Party national government was Australia's Watson Government of 1904? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Watson Government. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turnbull Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rudd Government. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
To see the changes I made to the Catholic/Nazi Germany page, see this link[1]. If you object to any, we'll explore them one by one on the talk. I am not making another bold change before that, regards. --OJ (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I note you've been absent since your contributions to the article in question. So that you know, I had been working on a drive to rid the word "regime" from places I felt it didn't belong for some time before we became acquainted over this issue. Although I made restorations (as you'll see), I am leaving it to you to act as you feel best and from there, we'll discuss all references one by one. Either way, until this happens, I have decided to avoid any further edits on that subject across the other articles. We'll work on an outcome here and I will go from there. --OJ (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turnbull Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prorogue. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
In light of the discussion at the "Religious Views of Adolf Hitler" talk page, recognizing that the existing article contains many repeats, I've prepared a draft of a re-organized version of the article. It's based around a chronological outline. I believe the vast majority of repeats have been cleaned up, while preserving every last bit of the information in the original article. The size is reduced from 168K to 155K.
In order to get a page in draft space, I gave the article a new title, but I hope to revert to the original title on approval. This was a lot of work -- it's easy to complain, but not so easy to fix things.
I'm looking forward to your review, I hope you'll like the result.
Draft:Evolution_of_religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Regards, JerryRussell (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) JerryRussell (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Atheist section on the "Forced conversion" article has been removed. You may want to check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forced_conversion&type=revision&diff=729806496&oldid=729738589
See the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forced_conversion#For_God.27s_sake
Mr.strangerX (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to track down who added a reference to Wikipedia. The reference was seemingly added by yourself in two articles. The reference contains the string "<!-- Bot retrieved archive -->" as seen in these diffs:
That's all I can find. Obviously the ref was copied by you from someplace else (unless you are misrepresenting yourself as a bot which I don't expect). Do you remember where the ref came from? Also, when copying text from one article to another it should be attributed in the edit summary. More info at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -- GreenC 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahh found the source of that string.[4] The ref had since been deleted from Bushranger so it wasn't easy to track down buried in the history. -- GreenC 13:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ozhistory. 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)
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Abbott Government you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery
Could you provide your input at the talk page state atheism article? The article also needs more sources and expanded further if you have time to do that now. desmay (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ozhistory. 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)
I just wanted to let you know that an article you worked on, state atheism, is being truncated as we speak. [5] One user even tried to get the whole article deleted. Please have a look. desmay (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Holocaust victims, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Catrìona (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Ozhistory. 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)
Hey Ozhistory, you need to look at the recent activity on the USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964) page. [6] It looks like someone just blanked some important statistics about 'Notable atrocities and victims' and then changed the heading to 'Notable accidents'. The information they blanked was properly cited too. I think you should investigate this since the scope of your editing covers this area. Can you also enable the email feature in your Wikipedia account? I would like to contact you but am unable to do so because that feature isn't activated on your end. 2600:1700:DB10:AF0:99E4:2021:C062:656C (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Christianity in Australia into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 18:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian music in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catholic music. 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) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholic Church in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fahey.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)