Hello RaiderAspect,

Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.

These links might help you with your contributions:

• Tutorial
• Manual of Style
• Policies and Guidelines

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Community Portal and the Village Pump.

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like The Australia Wikiportal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Preferably, use four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I hope you're well. I'd like to thank you for participating in the vote earlier to include the HDI in the country infobox/template. Yay!

After a lengthy gestation, a discussion piece has been prepared to help give form to the vote. If you've a preference for how and where this information should appear in the infobox, I'd appreciate it if you head on over there and comment. :)

After a decision is arrived at, if at all, I'm also hopeful to prevail upon you to add the values (if you're willing and comfortable) for a handful of countries; the more people doing it, the less time it will take to implement the vote and realise the fruits of our collective labour.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 04:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi RaiderAspect. I thought the fact it looked, frankly, nasty, was reason enough. I intend to update them with party colour id's being used by WikiProject Australian politics. --cj | talk 02:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about my earlier comments - they were a bit harsh. I'd just recieved some nasty emails from someone I had blocked, and was consequently moody :). With regards to the party colour id's, see here. JPD and I had separately developed templates for use in tables. I hope to synchronise these. They're still being developed, and I haven't yet created any for historical/defunct parties. You're welcome to suggest colours.--cj | talk 05:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello RaiderAspect,

You recently removed my contribution to the Solomon Islands page.

I have now researched the Wikipedia requirements for verifiability and neutrality. I will repost my comments in a way consistent with these guidelines.

There are several points in the article, that you have not been challenged, that are misleading or support a particular point of view. In the interests of consistency, I encourage you to carefully check the article and delete all POV comments from the article - not only the ones you disagree with.

The obvious question is who is the judge of what is a subjective opinion or an objective fact. If you feel qualified to take on that role, I would appreciate an outline of your particular expertise on the topic of Solomon Islands politics.

By the way, I just updated this opinionated comment about RAMSI:

"The mission, consisting of a policing effort, military support, and a large development component, has largely restored law and order to Honiara and the other provinces of Solomon Islands and has been seen as highly successful so far."

After the failure to maintain peace during the recent election I don't no anyone (except Downer) who would claim that RAMSI is a success.

I have also added a few comments with links to URL's. I hope this satisfies the need for verification.

Why do you support the second Iraq war. Sure Saddam is a bastard but there are other assholes all over the world. Do you support an invasion of North Korea, Iran, Sudan, or Saudi Arabia (all brutal regimes)? Do you think America has the right to privatize Iraq's oil industry rather than letting Iraqis decide what they want with it? Do you think Bush had the right to lie to the American people about the reasons for going into Iraq (WMDs). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.202.250 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The fact that there are other brutal regimes does not mean that removing one is somehow morally wrong. I note that your one... addition to wikipedia was about Pinochet. Do you believe that the British and Spainish shouldn't have tried to prosecute him? After all, plenty of bloodier dictators have got off without prosecution. --RaiderAspect 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't disagree with removing brutal dictators but i do disagree with going to war with a country under false pretenses. My question is why Iraq?, America had no problem supporting Saddam in the 80s when he was fighting Iran (even though he committed gross violations of human rights during this time period). I do think Pinochet should have been prosecuted. You probably think I'm some bleeding heart pinko socialist who loves dictators but thats not true. I just think America is hypocritical in their foreign policy. They overthrew Saddam (who was a bastard and he will burn in hell) and talk about democratic reform but the Americans have twice overthrown democratic goverments once in Iran in '53 and in Chile on 9/11/73 (which saw the installation of Pinochet). I think America needs to renounce terror and stop supporting dictators worldwide. (They are currently allied with Saudi Arabia (a brutal regime) and with Colombia (the worst human rights abusers in the western hemisphere)).

You are entitled to your views. I am entitled to mine. I frankly do not see the significance of things the US may or may not have done thirty years ago in Iran and Chile. It was a totally different world situation and a totally different American leadership. On an purely moral level, I would like American to renounce dictators everywhere. However, on a pragmatic level I realize that in the realm of foreign policy, you have to do business with disgusting individiuals. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean I believe that anyone should shed a tear for the destruction of one of the worst dictatorships. --RaiderAspect 04:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not a matter of what the US did or didn't do. They did do it and just becuase it was 30 years ago doesn't make it right. Even today they are friends with brutal regimes, they should mind their own business and stop getting involved in other countries affairs.

You are entitled to your opinions, regardless of how contradictary they are. --RaiderAspect 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not contradictory, when i say they should mind their own business, i mean they shouldn't support terror for economic gain.

Hi, I've added three sources to this article. [2] I believe this should take care of the sourcing and notability concerns, and you may want to revisit your AfD comments. Best regards, Dragonfiend 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your user page says "If I was a cynic I'd suggest the lack of action was due to the fact that it looks like Afghanistan's getting better not worse..." Note the recent addition to the Afghanistan article that reads: The start of 2007 saw the situation in Afghanistan steadily worsening. Taliban's growing strength led the US to consider longer tours and even an increase in troop numbers. According to news reports "U.S. military officials cited new evidence that the Pakistani military, which has long-standing ties to the Taliban movement, has turned a blind eye to the incursions." Also "The number of insurgent attacks is up by 300 percent since September [2006], when the Pakistani government put into effect a peace arrangement with tribal leaders in the north Waziristan area, along Afghanistan's eastern border, a U.S. military intelligence officer told reporters." [2] Opium production has also steadily increased, accounting for one-third to two-third of the country's GDP [3]. NN 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, please remember that better is a comparitive term. Secondly, remember that a few years ago the central Government had no power outside Kabul. Thirdly, remember that while the insurgents are launching more attacks, they're not having anymore success than before. Fourthly, remember that whereas four years ago the Afghani government did not have an army worth the name, it now has a reasonably effective one. Fifthly, remember that the insurgency only affects the southern most provinces. Finally, read WP:NOT#SOAP --RaiderAspect 00:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't have to get so defensive. There wasn't any accusation made against you. I had added what I consider are facts to the article. You obviously have a different view. The purpose was to bring to your attention changes in case you wanted the other view presented. The lay reader is likely to confuse a 300% increase in attacks and booming heroin production as a worsening of the situation, but I am sure you will be able to explain the actual situation to them. NN 09:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Jvalant reported by User:Philip Baird Shearer (Result:). Little steps.

I noticed that he used American spelling on the talk page (which I found odd), so I had a look at his user page and saw "This user is of Indian ancestry." and "This user graduated from RIT at Rochester, New York". I have found that some Americans of Irish ancestry are also very sensitive to this sort of thing on pages relating to Irish issues. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're absolutely right. It's just that I've recently been bumping on the same editors, of the same partisan views, in several different articles. They always use the same unorthodox method in order to violate NPOV, so my patience has run thin. Also it's sad to see that WP doesn't have any powerful methods for protecting NPOV. Miskin 08:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, I'm trying to WP:AGF and explain this matter once again, for all the editors who joined late in the dispute and of course preferred to revert rather than read the talk page. So I started a new section, acknowledging that we must try to be patient about this. There's quite a few good editors and admins involved so I don't think defending NPOV will be a problem. Cheers. Miskin 23:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your opinion, and that of anyone else, is wanted here. Manxruler 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RaiderAspect - Thanks for removing that supposed David Rockefeller quote from the Bilderberg Group page. [3] I had been meaning to do that as soon as I had time to deal with the complaints. Hopefully that won't be necessary! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melbourne Meetup Next: 6 January 2013 at La Trobe City Campus Previous: 25 November 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 06:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German General Staff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermann von Stein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to French Army in World War I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 8th, 13th, 14th, and 21st Army Corps), with the objective of capturing [[Mulhouse]] and [Sarreboug]].
• <ref>Leonard V. Smith, "War and 'Politics': The French Army Mutinies of 1917," ''War in History'' (1995( 2#2 pp 180-201.</ref> The British government was alarmed, for it interpreted the mutinies as a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Sea Lion order of battle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Army Tank Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Soviet Armed Forces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• web.archive.org/web/20060509003357/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/33490_1.html KAMPANIA WRZEŚNIOWA 1939] from [[Internetowa encyklopedia PWN|PWN Encyklopedia]]. Please note that the above link is the [[
• generally a full member of the [Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Politburo]] and from 1934 onwards, a Marshal of the Soviet Union. Both civilians and professional served as

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, RaiderAspect. 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[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Hello, RaiderAspect. 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[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited François Darlan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (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) 09:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, RaiderAspect. 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[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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case my earlier ping did not go through. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 1: indefinite BLP topic ban (Æthereal) (non-admins can comment/vote). Also, happy new year! starship.paint (exalt) 16:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hej Raider, I have to apologize for the disruption caused. I misread the WP:RFCEND page and thought RFCs may not be closed by involved editors. Turns out I was wrong. Sorry about that. Mvbaron (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]