User talk:Supertask

316:"WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in 94:"WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in 2187:

way for us to resolve this in the United Kingdom article is to include both. (Personally, I think that the fact that the original Treaty of Union referred throughout to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' does lend support to the view that though the original UK was formed in 1707 with it growing in 1801 and shrinking again in 1922!) Whatever our views on that point, if we agree that the Union of Crowns in 1603 was not the date of the formation of the UK, my view is that this means it should not be included in the infobox. Cheers for now.

772:: "There's only so much information that you can put in the infobox. That's why the statement is included as a note, which isn't just at the bottom of the page. It appears when you roll over the note tag in the infobox. There's no way anyone is going to agree to a whole sentence appearing in the infobox. That's not the way it's done. What has been added as a note is far more accurate and descriptive than just adding a date. It expands on what is in the infobox in such a way that nobody reading the article could misinterpret what is written." 964:" and regardless of the fact that my date is the one when the act actually effected Australia, as explained earlier. Now you are using the strange tactic of calling on the support of the original editor who inserted that date, again it is part of your unfounded notion that the status quo is automatically a stronger argument than objections on Knowledge and that objections must overcome this advantage. I have already said all this, so now who's "rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything". 2202:

commonwealth after which the former situation was restored. Over the century up to 1706, attempts to bring about political union failed, so it was not the fact of the union of the crowns that led to political union rather than the political and economic conditions of 1706. Anyway, that's my view - you may wish to bring this to a wider audience by raising the issue on the UK talk page, though I doubt there will be concensus for change. Cheers for now

1719:"this still doesn't say anything about edits that have been around for longer being more immune to criticism because there is no such policy." - Consider the time that the edit has been around and the number of people who have edited the page. Now compare that to your attempt. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people have edited or read the article and of all of them, only one person has opposed what is written. Your edit was immediately opposed. 21: 1765:

date of adoption is 3 September 1939 and the date it came into operation is 9 October 1942 (and that is also the date it entered Australian law and actually started affecting Australia. It is actually you who is more slanted towards original research, but I will not accuse you of it because your not doing original research yet and again unlike you I'm reasonable enough not to try every underhand tactic to further my agenda.

2229: 2128: 1293: 1826:

1939 meant it came into operation in 3 September 1939, showing that your 'I'm just doing what the act says' tactic is a sham. You have dumped all discussion and evidence and are shouting wild accusations. You still haven't answered this even though I have asked you to: why did you not originally call my views original research? More evidence this is just an underhand tactic.

808:: "It's not an immature insult. It's an analogy based on the way you've handled this. You raised issues at the beginning of May and what you wanted included was added to the article soon after. Here you are harping on about it a month later with still no sign of accepting that what you wanted in the article was included so you've got nothing to complain about." 1692:"Great, you quoted what I already read." - You may have read it but you clearly do not understand it. Your statement "I haven't done any of that" proves that. By deciding that the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster should be 9 October 1942, rather than 3 September 1939 as stated in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act you've done exactly that. 1204:

judegement, such as this one "Because, by backdating the effective date of the Act the effective date that the Act came into operation became 3 September 1939. It's not rocket science." even though your own cite of the act itself says it came into operation on 9 October 1942, you choose to say that adoption makes the operation 3 September 1939.

1073:: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end. You haven't justified your desired change so it will just have to stay out. The simple fact is that even the Act states that the beginning of the war is the important date, and it does so in its long title: 445:

beyond that you say they are equal dates, both being in the document of the act, then which one should be picked? Well the one which has a being on physical reality would be the one. The act that Australia used to ratify the Statute of Westminster, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is even Statute of Westminster Adoption Act

130:"If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation" - There is nothing in the template to state that the date is to be the date it was formally adopted. One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities" 223:: Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely 375:: Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely 246:: Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts. 398:: Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts. 2201:

Yes, I understand your point about 1801 and realise that there is evidence to back it. However, I'm afraid I do not see that the personal union of 1603 should be included because later political unions are. After 1603, England and Scotland remained separate states until the brief period of Cromwell's

2186:

Hi, and thanks for the reply. At present, the infobox includes details about the Acts of Union of 1707 as well as the Act of Union of 1801, as I believe it should. The date of formation of the UK is something that is disputed between those who argue for 1707 and those who argue for 1801 - the easiest

1856:

You still haven't answered my question: I have only said what the act said and that it came into Australian law on 9 October 1942. Other than that all I have said is the 9 October 1942 date is important enough to be in the infobox. If you can't point out which part of that is original research please

1345:

so it's not a lie. It has been the case all along but I haven't used it until now because I've been trying to get you to see reason by pointing out all of the flaws in your arguments. After a month of pointless discussion I see no problem pointing out what you should have realised from the beginning.

1325:

The original research ploy is a complete lie that you have only recently started using because it's a buzzword which labels a users contributions as bad, rightly so. Though I have never once resorted to my own hypothesis or evidence, only using the act and what it says and history to support my side.

378:

I wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed. You have not answered some of my points properly and are now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'.

227:

1911:

It was immediately opposed by only one person. All over Knowledge wrong edits are overlooked by thousands of people. Maybe they don't have time, more likely they don't look into it. It doesn't say anything about the 1939 date being a backdate in the infobox, many would have thought that was the date

1825:

Please answer this and don't ignore it: I have always only said what is in the act, 3 September 1939 is the date it was adopted, 9 October 1942 was the date it came into operation and the date it entered Australian law. However, you made a blunder and said that the fact it was adopted in 3 September

1389:

It is ridiculous to suggest I have done research just because I have reached a different conclusion to you, if you want to push this, you must show how my interpretation is original research and yours is not. You vaguely say that it's because I made my own conclusion different from what was actually

288:

Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way (it hasn't shown interest in showing your point of view either) and WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't. If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the

2063:

and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund

959:

self legislate (yes, it had legislated itself before but it didn't have the independence of the British government to do this fully without the possibility of intevention, so don't bring that up), I have elaborated on this point a lot earlier. You, however, are just declaring by fiat that your date

422:

Basically your saying you want to leave the discussion because it is your opinion that it has come to an end, but I can't change anything anyway because the community hasn't commented. When I said there is no Knowledge definition of status quo I meant there is no policy on it - you are putting your

163:

and you haven't made any attempt to explain why what is written does not satisfy you. Instead you've just continued on about legal technicalities and how it was actually adopted on 9 October 1942, which is explained in the note any way, making it impossible to know exactly what would please you and

153:

and which was not opposed by anyone else, I have clearly explained the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Act. There is therefore no reason for you to change anything as your apparent concerns are completely and accurately covered by what is written. I pointed this out at Talk:Australia

1764:

Massive hypocrisy occurs here. I have never said that the adoption date was 9 October 1942. It was you that made this mistake earlier and said the date of operation was 3 September 1939. I have not done original research and have unlike you stuck strictly to what the act says and that is that the

1618:

Great, you quoted what I already read. I haven't done any of that. You are saying that simply because I disagree with your view it is my original research, you are putting your view as the standard and everything else is original research, but this isn't true and is simply arrogance. You haven't

1203:

Your just using a simple mistake of mine to turn into as if I've been decietful all along, part of your false judgement thing earlier. I'd like you to show me the other times I've misrepresented you and these times I'm ignoring making a mistake. You have made mistakes before and I haven't passed

775:

The date the act was passed is important enough to be in the infobox. It's amazing you are telling me no one will agree to a whole sentence in the infobox - what do you think I was talking about when I said we needed to save space and proposed my compromise which would show both dates in minimal

444:

actually took effect, and it would allow the infobox to display both dates. My point on legal technicalities vs actual dates is that the actual date that act had an actual effect on Australia's independence can't have been your date because the act hadn't been invented then. In addition, even if

401:

What about this as a compromise: I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence so what if rather than saying: "- Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 (commenced 3 September 1939)" it said: "- Statute of Westminster

250:

2170:

that outlines the steps that led to the formation of the United Kingdom which covers the Union of the Crowns. The Treaty of Union of 1706 agreed the details of the new state created in 1707 and the Acts of Union of 1707 brought this new state into being by ratifying the Treaty. The Union of the

1676:

I am the voiced disagreement, this still doesn't say anything about edits that have been around for longer being more immune to criticism because there is no such policy. Your argument from there is no community support for my argument falls apart because there is no community support for yours

176:

is needed in order to incorporate your edits. Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is

1900:

Consider the time that the edit has been around and the number of people who have edited the page. Now compare that to your attempt. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people have edited or read the article and of all of them, only one person has opposed what is written. Your edit was immediately

739:

The community hasn't shown interest in either of our views so there still on equal ground, again you still pass silly judgements "ignoring reality" yet I have responded to this before and you keep bringing it up so it seems to be you who is ignoring the reality that I have already responded to

484:

come to an end a long time ago. You just won't let it die until you want it to and keep insisting that I continue this pointless discussion. It's pointless because the concerns you raised in your edits back on 5 and 6 May were addressed in an edit made on 8 May, as I've already mentioned, and

1883:

lol, well the one you consider that "really mattered" was passed in 1931! Again an arrogant assertion with nothing to back it up. Also one that actually supports my view, it is just the 1942 act that says it was adopted in 1939, people actually acknowledged the application of the 1931 act on

540:: "You've only raised the Australia Act in the past day or so. Until now the thrust of your arguments has been about the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Australia Act is not relevant to the discussion that we've been having. Why the sudden change of tack?" 215:

There is no definition of a status quo in Knowledge policy you just made it up. There is no consensus because no one has supported your point or mine and I have already said this. There is no policy on Knowledge which says those defending the status quo get a boost of any kind.

366:

1404:

date so you must show specifically what part supports your argument but contradicts mine. You didn't do this and just threw an accusation out there as your argument so far has been dotted with useless slander, I guess I should expect it. The quote you have taken from

1149:

The act also says it comes into operation 9 October 1942. So which is more important, adoption or operation? Well, as I've pointed out before, the date it actually came into effect would be. It is convention that acts have the date they started in their title, again:

164:

what exactly you find wrong with the current article. Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the

1500:

Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence,

449:(emphasis mine). You mentioned earlier that not showing the backdate would be excluding relevant information, so please accept my compromise which will show both dates: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)".-- 1988:, and refuses to reinstate them, thus destroying the thread for participants and newcomers. I have apologised to him for not knowing the recommendation against interpolating comments, and received an abusive note on my talk page from him (which I have removed) 423:

argument on higher ground by saying that if the discussion stops (despite the fact your the one stopping it) your view automatically stays just because it is the status quo - you could have saved loads of time if you had only responded to me once, then flashed

126:

but, like every other response, you just ignore it, or misunderstand it, and come back with the same old arguments, just as you've done on my talk page. To be quite frank, it's more than just annoying and gives nobody any incentive to discuss things with you.

732:: "This goes back to my statement about you ignoring reality. You keep saying that the discussion hasn't ended but if you didn't pester people to respond it would have ended a long time ago. The community has no interest in continuing so it did end, just as 1268:: "If you insist on changing the date of adoption to 9 October 1942 it will be reverted and an appropriate warning will be placed on your talk page. If you continue to change it the changes will be treated as vandalism, for that is what they are." 2058:

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to

1695:"You are saying that simply because I disagree with your view it is my original research" - No, I'm saying that because you are pushing a position that isn't supported, without citing anything that supports your position, you are engaging in 488:

It's just your opinion it's ended, they weren't addressed on 8 May, just put at the bottom of the page, the date it actually happened it important enough to be in the infobox. Just putting "did" in italics still doesn't make it anymore your

606:: "That information is already in the article. It has been there since 8 May 2008 in response to your concerns. I've told you that and provided diffs to it. I'm not sure that there is any more I can do to point it out to you." 1183:: "This is not the first time that you've claimed that I haven't said something that I have and you've done it even after I've provided diffs to the change. The edit where I "put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom" was 661:

I noticed this but didn't bring it up because you haven't used it up until now, all you've been using is the 'ahhhh! stop pestering me with your discussion (but I still want to enforce my view)' argument so this is a new

1230:

This statement makes no sense in our universe, how can something in 1942 cause something to happen in 1939? Again a mistake you have made and I can't believe you fell into it because I've been pointing it out all along.

199:

Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent which I wasn't, apart from that I still have questions that haven't been answered, the argument continues but you want to block me out.

177:

willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely, then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing. --

811:"I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic." is just a quip and doesn't help the discussion. You are constantly passing false judgments on me with these silly statements yet I have not done the same disservice to you. 2284:. 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 2103:) with a reliable reference from the most authoritative history of Wales. Please do not revert again unless you can provide a justification which is not simply "It's well known that...", as you stated before. 359:: All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so 207:: All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so 350:

171:

All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so

2165:

Hi there. Sorry I reverted your edit to the United Kingdom article without giving a reason - I've now reverted again but this time provided a reason! This may be an issue for talk but my view is that we have

952:

obviously disagreed with you and so do I. We've been over this before. The Act backdated itself to have effect from 1939 so that is more important, regardless of whether or not you think it's a technicality."

2143: 1729:

One final thing, please do not quote so much. You only need to quote relevant portions of what you're replying to. Quoiting almost the whole lot makes your responses extremely difficult to follow. --

1754:

By deciding that the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster should be 9 October 1942, rather than 3 September 1939 as stated in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act you've done exactly that.

1795:

Obviously you have been ignoring the support I have been arguing for it this entire time. You have no evidence your position is any more supported than mine, just a supreme amount of arrogance.

2238:. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Knowledge. You can join 1657:

Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it.

1533:

Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it.

64:, it ignores reality. Other than you and me, the only person to join in on the discussion was Gazzter and he made only one post, over 3 weeks ago. My only responses to you in those three weeks 1722:"Your argument from there is no community support for my argument falls apart because there is no community support" - Clearly you have either not read the policies or not understood them. " 609:

The 9 October 1942 date is put at the bottom but it is not a side note it is the main date so this is not sufficient. In addition you misrepresented my argument at the bottom by saying "The

427:

and said "actually I think the discussion has come to a natural end and you can't edit this article because my view is the current status quo" - show me anything like a WP:Status Quo and OK.

2122: 1346:

I don't need consensus because I'm supporting what was in the article to begin with. You're seeking to change the article and you've been opposed so you need consensus. I suggest you read

1254: 424: 1587:. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that 1451:. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that 1310:

As we discussed over the period of a month, the appropriate Act is the Statute of Westminster, not the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act. There has been no consensus for your change.

620:" how many times do I have to say my argument for listing it with that date has nothing to do with royal assent? Even if royal assent was on a different day, I would still support the 2171:

Crowns did not create a new state and need not have led to the creation of the United Kingdom - therefore, I do not think it can be included in the way you propose. Cheers for now

1199:", 18 hours and 13 minutes before to be precise. It would be nice, just once, to see you actually acknowledge that you've made a mistake rather than ignore the fact that you did." 71:

have been as a result of your demands on my talk page. More than just the community losing interested, it was never interested to start with. So yes, it has happened. Accept it,

2025:

and making up his own terms for the debate. With the help of others a compromise was eventually reached. I guess editors of the Australia article may simply have a hard time.--

1595:

and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information

1459:

and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information

140:

states the date of royal assent as 9 October 1942 and the date of commencement as 3 September 1939 so these are obviously the important dates. In the amendment that I made to

1619:

answered my question as to if this isn't just a tactic why didn't you mention it the moment I stated my views? I used the act itself, in your cite 11, to support my views.

1716:"I used the act itself, in your cite 11, to support my views" - Yes, but there are two Acts involved and that refers to only one and it's not the one that really matters. 1261:? It's all in the act, the act gives a date, it actually came into effect on that date, therefore the act originated on that date, I've elaborated on this a lot earlier. 2219: 195:: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities" and I rebutted that immediately. 2039: 1082:

An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by

347:: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities" and I rebutted that immediately. 2155: 1979: 1956: 2332: 2327: 239:

It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.

627:

date because thats when it came into operation, thats when it actually started being enforced so that is when it affected Australia. Anyway basically the

390:

It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.

228:

Your argument is not the default because it's the status quo, they are still equal, you only supporting yours openly and me only supporting mine openly.

379:

Your argument is not the default because it's the status quo, they are still equal, you only supporting yours openly and me only supporting mine openly.

960:

is the main date, regardless of the fact the act confirming the Statute of Westminster 1931, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is: "

689:

Yes, along with that I'm pestering, and that your really glad your not my mechanic, what more rhetorical gems of simple slander will you throw my way?

1039:: "We're clearly getting nowhere so, unless you can come up with a much better suggestion and some new material there I don't intend continuing this." 2313: 2089: 2034: 1781:

I'm saying that because you are pushing a position that isn't supported, without citing anything that supports your position, you are engaging in

2254: 2239: 2167: 2008: 1974: 1709:"You haven't answered my question " - And yet again you accuse me of not doing something that I have done. This is really tiring. Please read 2211: 2196: 1846:. You don't have to look far. It's only a few lines up on this very page. Granted, it was said yesterday but you should remember reading it. 1713:. You don't have to look far. It's only a few lines up on this very page. Granted, it was said yesterday but you should remember reading it. 1238:: "You know that because the evidence has been presented to you a number of times over the past month. Your interpretation that the date is 1161:: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end." 955:

We have 2 dates, I argue mine is the main date because it is when the act actually took effect on Australia, when Australia was allowed to

2135: 1145:

is the date and if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour."

1738: 1566: 235:: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing. 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 387:: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing. 1051: 702: 458: 411: 60:

to which you responded "Yes, I read that, it hasn't happened." It's an interesting statement to make because, like your arguments at

1212: 1151: 1124: 1099: 961: 610: 165: 137: 311:"Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page. 89:"Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page. 1995:

Seems like an unpleasant atmosphere at that article, dominated by a single person who resents anyone who doesn't agree with him.

1304:. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a 543:

What?! I can't believe this, I told you its so that both dates can be displayed easily! I'm fine to have it list the date of the

2117: 1409:

was part of a greater statement about needing citation. It didn't say that information that had been there for a long time (the

2263: 1553:

On a slightly different matter, regarding the way you've been formatting dates. eg ], I suggest you familiarise yourself with

1165:

Where I repeat stuff it is only because you haven't responded or have missed the point. For the record, you repeat stuff too.

485:

provided diffs for. You're arguing about something that was fixed for you a month ago. I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."

843:: "The Australia Act is irrelevant to displaying the dates. That's already been done without any hint of the Australia Act." 186: 84: 2309: 1416:

date) somehow needed less evidence than information trying to be introduced, the burden of proof was on whoever put in the

1281: 1172:: "if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour" 305: 2052: 278: 260: 2296:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2112: 1984:

Hi, I see that you've endured a certain aggressive stance by this user. You may be interested that this person has now

2078:

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

312: 90: 2235: 2022: 1176:

I wondered before what the next bit of simple, immature slander you'd throw would be, well here it is as predicted.

1932:" That edit has been around for a long time without change or opposition so there has been support for a long time. 1726:" That edit has been around for a long time without change or opposition so there has been support for a long time. 283: 881:

While I'm trying to reach a compromise you are declaring by fiat that the 3 September 1939 date is more important.

2305: 1985: 1667: 1588: 1543: 1502: 1452: 1192: 1120: 916:

Because you suddenly pulled out I am trying to get you to answer some of my points and defend your point of view.

547:

1942 and the date it was adopted, but to have both our dates on it would need more space and so we could use the

161: 151: 131: 124: 67: 65: 58: 2180: 1843: 1710: 1609: 1473: 1320: 1301: 1258: 41: 2064:

raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

2048: 913:: "It's not a discussion when you're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything." 2094: 1127:

may have come into operation on 9 October 1942, when it received Royal Assent, but it immediately caused the

27: 1951: 1686: 1432: 1335: 2055:

for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

1184: 582:

No, you just want to back out without continuing the discussion because you can't be bothered to continue.

145: 134: 69: 2301: 1216: 1128: 1109: 441: 2071:

at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch

2068: 2018: 1305: 1188: 148: 121: 61: 2139: 579:: "I'm really not interested in going over the same arguments over and over and over and over again." 1215:

makes it quite clear in both the long title and the preamble that it causes certain sections of the

265:

I just discovered the Australian adoption acts official name is Statute of Westminster Adoption Act

2142:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 1989: 1592: 1456: 2207: 2192: 2176: 2014: 1873:

there are two Acts involved and that refers to only one and it's not the one that really matters.

1406: 1347: 2047:

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the

1734: 1562: 1379: 1316: 182: 80: 996:: "I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on 2151: 1007:

No they weren't, I am referring to your edit which put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom.

2060: 1296:

Welcome to Knowledge. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to

2292:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1962: 1645:

I've read that before so please don't mangle normal Knowledge policies to win an argument.

1599:

to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

1463:

to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

8: 2297: 2234:

Hello, Supertask. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the

1515: 1341:

You've made your own conclusion which is different from what is actually written. That's

1042:

Fine, but don't then have the arrogance to think you can ban me from editing that date.--

733: 360: 317: 208: 173: 95: 72: 54: 878:: "No, we don't need any more space. That's why we use notes, references and wikilinks." 2203: 2188: 2172: 2108: 1119:. I've pointed this out previously. Don't say I didn't, as you are wont to do, because 330:

If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through

107:

If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through

2273: 2264: 2160: 1965:

that I hope you will find acceptable. It Adds the Adoption act and uses both dates. -

1915: 1887: 1860: 1829: 1798: 1768: 1730: 1622: 1572: 1558: 1375: 1312: 1286: 1265: 1235: 1208: 1180: 1169: 1158: 1070: 1036: 993: 945: 910: 875: 840: 805: 769: 729: 683: 655: 603: 576: 537: 510: 477: 395: 384: 372: 356: 344: 243: 232: 220: 204: 192: 178: 76: 2293: 2277: 2147: 2085: 2072: 1195:

at 00:23, 9 May 2008 UTC so the edits "were made before you started complaining on

1138:. Whether you think that's a technicality is irrelevant. Australian law says that 289:

date the act came into operation because this is when it made its dent on history

2003: 1970: 1554: 2289: 2281: 2250: 2026: 1943: 1678: 1424: 1327: 1273: 1196: 1043: 997: 846:

But the actual date the act affected Australia is not displayed on the infobox.

694: 555:

isn't relevant at all other than to display both dates and reach a compromise.

450: 403: 297: 270: 252: 47: 2013:

I agree. He sometimes used crude attacks and kept trying to avoid the issue -

2321: 2285: 2104: 1942:

I have already said that I am the voiced opposition, you have ignored this.--

1004:

should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month."

658:: "you've ignored my requests to explain what exactly you find wrong with it" 2144:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of fictional city-states in literature

1930:

Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident

1782: 1724:

Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident

1696: 1360:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

1342: 1326:

I have used the act itself as my source and you have no consensus either.--

1246: 1253:

You sure are good at flinging accusations, but here is a change of tactic

2228: 2081: 1484: 1417: 1410: 1391: 1371: 1220: 1139: 1132: 1113: 1088:

from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany

1996: 1966: 2246: 1398: 1297: 1239: 949: 628: 621: 614: 440:

I thought the Australia act was more important because it's when the

290: 141: 2127: 1635:

Please at least pretend to read Knowledge policies before replying:

1591:

the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

1455:

the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

1438:

Please at least pretend to read Knowledge policies before replying:

1000:. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written 168:

article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.

20: 2280:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

686:: "I'm starting to think that you're arguing for arguments sake." 1585:

Knowledge does not publish original research or original thought

1449:

Knowledge does not publish original research or original thought

1928:

you have either not read the policies or not understood them. "

1815:

the standard because it's exactly what is stated in the Act(s).

1706:

the standard because it's exactly what is stated in the Act(s).

155: 1292: 1272:

Back to threats now I see. Ones you can't carry out, either.--

50:

because this is a more appropriate place for this discussion.

2123:

AfD nomination of List of fictional city-states in literature

2100: 1108:

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the

1487: 1420: 1413: 1401: 1394: 1242: 1223: 1142: 1135: 1116: 631: 624: 617: 293: 158: 402:

Adoption 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)"--

251:

Adoption 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)"--

1086:

certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as

1702:"you are putting your view as the standard " - My view 334:

the community having lost interest in the entire thing

111:

the community having lost interest in the entire thing

2220:

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

2134:An article that you have been involved in editing, 2040:Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice 1505:, if there is adequate exposure to the community. 1187:at 06:10, 8 May 2008 UTC. Your first complaint at 2272:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 75:. This is my final word on the matter. Cheers. -- 2319: 2049:Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference 1677:either, anyway Gazzster has taken an interest.-- 1980:Someone seems to own the talk page at Australia 1957:Possible resolution on Australia infobox issues 948:: "It isn't the main date. Previous editors of 211:is needed in order to incorporate your edits. 120:As you are well aware, I posted that quote at 363:is needed in order to incorporate your edits. 147:which you might note I explained by creating 2333:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages 1557:. In short, you only need to type ] or ]. -- 2328:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery 2136:List of fictional city-states in literature 2118:List of fictional city-states in literature 513:: "I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic." 516:Immature insults don't help a discussion. 46:I'm addressing this here, rather than at 1308:for all of your information. Thank you. 1213:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 1152:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 1125:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 1100:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 962:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 611:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 553:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 549:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 332:one party having "won" or (more likely) 166:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 138:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 109:one party having "won" or (more likely) 1390:written, the article mentions both the 2320: 1483:Regarding the burden of proof and the 2099:I have reverted your changes (and to 1986:removed my rejoinders to his postings 1189:Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster 149:Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster 122:Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster 62:Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster 31:. Supertask has not edited Knowledge 1920: 1892: 1865: 1834: 1803: 1773: 1746: 1650: 1627: 1577: 1526: 1493: 1441: 1353: 1075: 323: 100: 15: 1300:, but we regretfully cannot accept 1257:stops working so now you switch to 480:: "No, I'm saying the conversation 73:drop the stick and back slowly away 13: 2126: 1990:Talk:Australia#a_few_little_things 1370:I suppose now you'll tell me that 693:about what the next one will be.-- 14: 2344: 2298:review the candidates' statements 1857:cease you tiring smear campaign. 28:This user may have left Knowledge 2227: 2223: 1291: 736:says. You just won't let it go." 133:and I rebutted that immediately. 19: 2075:, for updates on future meets. 1668:Knowledge:Silence and consensus 1544:Knowledge:Silence and consensus 144:after you raised your concerns, 2304:. For the Election committee, 2274:Arbitration Committee election 2265:ArbCom elections are now open! 1912:the act actually took effect. 1610:Knowledge:No original research 1474:Knowledge:No original research 634:deserves to be in the infobox. 136:What you claimed is not true. 1: 2314:16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 2255:15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 2212:22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 2197:15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 2181:13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 2156:20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 1490:date being there a long time: 57:and quoted a specific section 2113:10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 2067:You may also wish to attend 1961:I proposed a solution at my 7: 2300:and submit your choices on 2090:23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 1217:Statute of Westminster 1931 1129:Statute of Westminster 1931 1110:Statute of Westminster 1931 442:Statute of Westminster 1931 10: 2349: 2306:MediaWiki message delivery 2233: 2061:the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page 2035:08:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 2009:07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 1975:14:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1952:13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1739:12:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1687:11:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1664: 1606: 1567:22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 1540: 1512: 1470: 1433:20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 1386:22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 1096: 613:received royal assent on 2030: 1947: 1682: 1428: 1423:date as well as on me.-- 1336:16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 1331: 1321:22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC) 1282:10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC) 1052:10:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 703:08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC) 459:20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 412:09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 306:10:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 279:19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 274: 261:09:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 256: 187:01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 85:14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 2236:Article Rescue Squadron 2069:the next London meet-up 1503:silence implies consent 1407:Knowledge:Verifiability 1348:Knowledge:Verifiability 2138:, has been listed for 2131: 2017:by wrongly applying a 1131:to be adopted as from 545:Statute of Westminster 284:Statute of Westminster 42:Statute of Westminster 2278:Arbitration Committee 2130: 2095:Gruffudd ap Llewellyn 691:I'm starting to think 2282:arbitration process 1884:Australia in 1942. 1516:Knowledge:Consensus 1219:to be adopted from 2294:arbitration policy 2132: 1121:here are the diffs 269:(emphasis mine).-- 53:I directed you to 2261: 2260: 1940: 1939: 1909: 1908: 1881: 1880: 1854: 1853: 1823: 1822: 1793: 1792: 1762: 1761: 1674: 1673: 1643: 1642: 1616: 1615: 1550: 1549: 1522: 1521: 1480: 1479: 1374:doesn't apply. -- 1367: 1366: 1302:original research 1106: 1105: 341: 340: 118: 117: 39: 38: 33:since 6 July 2009 2340: 2231: 2224: 2073:Knowledge:Meetup 2006: 2001: 1921: 1893: 1866: 1835: 1804: 1774: 1747: 1670: 1651: 1628: 1612: 1597:directly related 1589:Knowledge is not 1578: 1546: 1527: 1518: 1494: 1476: 1461:directly related 1453:Knowledge is not 1442: 1354: 1295: 1102: 1076: 324: 101: 23: 16: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2318: 2317: 2302:the voting page 2268: 2222: 2163: 2146:. Thank you. 2125: 2120: 2097: 2042: 2019:Knowledge essay 2004: 1997: 1982: 1959: 1665: 1607: 1555:MOS:UNLINKYEARS 1541: 1513: 1471: 1306:reliable source 1289: 1097: 286: 44: 12: 11: 5: 2346: 2336: 2335: 2330: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2259: 2258: 2232: 2221: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2162: 2159: 2124: 2121: 2119: 2116: 2096: 2093: 2041: 2038: 1981: 1978: 1958: 1955: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1925: 1907: 1906: 1903: 1897: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1870: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1839: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1808: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1778: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1751: 1744: 1742: 1741: 1727: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1707: 1700: 1693: 1672: 1671: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1648: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1632: 1614: 1613: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1593:Citing sources 1582: 1570: 1569: 1548: 1547: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1531: 1520: 1519: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1498: 1492: 1491: 1478: 1477: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1457:Citing sources 1446: 1440: 1439: 1384: 1383: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1352: 1351: 1288: 1285: 1271: 1264: 1252: 1234: 1229: 1207: 1202: 1197:Talk:Australia 1179: 1175: 1168: 1164: 1157: 1148: 1104: 1103: 1098:— Long title, 1094: 1093: 1090: 1080: 1069: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1040: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1005: 998:Talk:Australia 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 958: 953: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 914: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 879: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 844: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 809: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 773: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 737: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 687: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 659: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 607: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 580: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 541: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 514: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 486: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 415: 414: 399: 392: 391: 388: 381: 380: 376: 369: 368: 364: 353: 352: 348: 339: 338: 335: 328: 322: 321: 314: 285: 282: 249: 242: 238: 231: 226: 219: 214: 203: 198: 191: 116: 115: 112: 105: 48:Talk:Australia 43: 40: 37: 36: 24: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2345: 2334: 2331: 2329: 2326: 2325: 2323: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2266: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2243: 2242:here << 2237: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204:Fishiehelper2 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2189:Fishiehelper2 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2173:Fishiehelper2 2169: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2129: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2062: 2056: 2054: 2051:. Please see 2050: 2045: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2015:wikilawyering 2011: 2010: 2007: 2002: 2000: 1993: 1991: 1987: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1935: 1933: 1931: 1926: 1923: 1922: 1919: 1917: 1913: 1904: 1902: 1898: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1889: 1885: 1876: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1862: 1858: 1849: 1847: 1845: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1833: 1831: 1827: 1818: 1816: 1814: 1809: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1796: 1788: 1786: 1784: 1779: 1776: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1766: 1757: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1669: 1663: 1659: 1656: 1653: 1652: 1649: 1646: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1545: 1539: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1517: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1489: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1475: 1469: 1465: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1403: 1400: 1396: 1393: 1387: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1362: 1359: 1356: 1355: 1350:which states: 1349: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1269: 1267: 1262: 1260: 1256: 1250: 1248: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1227: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1205: 1200: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1173: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1160: 1155: 1153: 1146: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1111: 1101: 1095: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1072: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1006: 1003: 999: 995: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 963: 956: 954: 951: 947: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 915: 912: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 880: 877: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 845: 842: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 810: 807: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 774: 771: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 738: 735: 731: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 685: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 660: 657: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 633: 630: 626: 623: 619: 616: 612: 608: 605: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 581: 578: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 554: 550: 546: 542: 539: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 515: 512: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 487: 483: 479: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 460: 456: 452: 448: 443: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 426: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 413: 409: 405: 400: 397: 394: 393: 389: 386: 383: 382: 377: 374: 371: 370: 365: 362: 358: 355: 354: 349: 346: 343: 342: 336: 333: 329: 326: 325: 319: 315: 313: 310: 309: 308: 307: 303: 299: 295: 292: 281: 280: 276: 272: 268: 263: 262: 258: 254: 247: 245: 240: 236: 234: 229: 224: 222: 217: 212: 210: 206: 201: 196: 194: 189: 188: 184: 180: 175: 169: 167: 162: 160: 157: 152: 150: 146: 143: 139: 135: 132: 128: 125: 123: 113: 110: 106: 103: 102: 99: 97: 92: 91: 87: 86: 82: 78: 74: 70: 68: 66: 63: 59: 56: 51: 49: 34: 30: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2269: 2245: 2164: 2133: 2098: 2080: 2077: 2066: 2057: 2046: 2043: 2012: 1998: 1994: 1983: 1960: 1941: 1929: 1927: 1916:AussieLegend 1914: 1910: 1899: 1888:AussieLegend 1886: 1882: 1872: 1861:AussieLegend 1859: 1855: 1842:Please read 1841: 1830:AussieLegend 1828: 1824: 1812: 1810: 1799:AussieLegend 1797: 1794: 1780: 1769:AussieLegend 1767: 1763: 1753: 1743: 1731:AussieLegend 1723: 1703: 1675: 1647: 1644: 1634: 1623:AussieLegend 1621: 1617: 1596: 1584: 1573:AussieLegend 1571: 1559:AussieLegend 1523: 1460: 1448: 1388: 1385: 1376:AussieLegend 1324: 1313:AussieLegend 1309: 1290: 1277: 1270: 1266:AussieLegend 1263: 1255:WP:DEADHORSE 1251: 1236:AussieLegend 1233: 1228: 1209:AussieLegend 1206: 1201: 1181:AussieLegend 1178: 1174: 1170:AussieLegend 1167: 1163: 1159:AussieLegend 1156: 1147: 1107: 1087: 1083: 1071:AussieLegend 1068: 1047: 1037:AussieLegend 1001: 994:AussieLegend 946:AussieLegend 911:AussieLegend 876:AussieLegend 841:AussieLegend 806:AussieLegend 770:AussieLegend 734:WP:DEADHORSE 730:AussieLegend 698: 690: 684:AussieLegend 656:AussieLegend 604:AussieLegend 577:AussieLegend 552: 548: 544: 538:AussieLegend 511:AussieLegend 481: 478:AussieLegend 454: 446: 425:WP:DEADHORSE 407: 396:AussieLegend 385:AussieLegend 373:AussieLegend 357:AussieLegend 345:AussieLegend 331: 318:WP:DEADHORSE 301: 287: 266: 264: 248: 244:AussieLegend 241: 237: 233:AussieLegend 230: 225: 221:AussieLegend 218: 213: 205:AussieLegend 202: 197: 193:AussieLegend 190: 179:AussieLegend 170: 129: 119: 108: 96:WP:DEADHORSE 93: 88: 77:AussieLegend 55:WP:DEADHORSE 52: 45: 32: 26: 2148:Nutiketaiel 1485:3 September 1418:3 September 1411:3 September 1392:3 September 1221:3 September 1140:3 September 1133:3 September 1114:3 September 2322:Categories 2290:topic bans 2168:an article 2286:site bans 2161:Sorry ... 2027:Supertask 1944:Supertask 1679:Supertask 1425:Supertask 1399:9 October 1328:Supertask 1298:Australia 1287:June 2008 1274:Supertask 1240:9 October 1044:Supertask 950:Australia 695:Supertask 629:9 October 622:9 October 615:9 October 451:Supertask 404:Supertask 361:consensus 298:Supertask 291:9 October 271:Supertask 253:Supertask 209:consensus 174:consensus 142:Australia 2140:deletion 2105:Ghmyrtle 1901:opposed. 1811:My view 1397:and the 1084:adopting 489:opinion. 154:back on 1963:sandbox 1211:: "The 776:space?! 662:tactic. 98:, ie: 2276:. The 2082:Addbot 2023:policy 2005:(talk) 1123:. The 551:. The 156:21 May 2241:: --> 2240:: --> 2101:Wales 1967:Rrius 1783:WP:OR 1697:WP:OR 1343:WP:OR 1259:WP:OR 1247:WP:OR 957:fully 740:this. 367:kind. 320:, ie: 2310:talk 2251:talk 2247:Ikip 2208:talk 2193:talk 2177:talk 2152:talk 2109:talk 2086:talk 2053:here 2044:Hi, 2031:talk 2021:and 1999:Tony 1971:talk 1948:talk 1844:this 1735:talk 1711:this 1683:talk 1563:talk 1524:and 1488:1939 1429:talk 1421:1939 1414:1939 1402:1942 1395:1939 1380:talk 1372:WP:V 1332:talk 1317:talk 1278:talk 1243:1942 1224:1939 1193:here 1191:was 1185:here 1143:1939 1136:1939 1117:1939 1048:talk 699:talk 632:1942 625:1942 618:1942 455:talk 447:1942 408:talk 351:out. 302:talk 294:1942 275:talk 267:1942 257:talk 183:talk 159:2008 81:talk 2270:Hi, 1625:: 1575:: 1245:is 1112:is 1002:you 482:did 296:.-- 2324:: 2312:) 2288:, 2253:) 2244:. 2210:) 2195:) 2179:) 2154:) 2111:) 2088:) 2033:) 1992:. 1973:) 1950:) 1936:” 1924:“ 1918:: 1905:” 1896:“ 1890:: 1877:” 1869:“ 1863:: 1850:” 1838:“ 1832:: 1819:” 1813:is 1807:“ 1801:: 1789:” 1777:“ 1771:: 1758:” 1750:“ 1737:) 1704:is 1685:) 1666:— 1660:” 1654:“ 1639:” 1631:“ 1608:— 1602:” 1581:“ 1565:) 1542:— 1536:” 1530:“ 1514:— 1508:” 1497:“ 1472:— 1466:” 1445:“ 1431:) 1363:” 1357:“ 1334:) 1319:) 1280:) 1249:" 1226:" 1154:. 1092:” 1079:“ 1050:) 701:) 457:) 410:) 337:” 327:“ 304:) 277:) 259:) 185:) 114:” 104:“ 83:) 2308:( 2249:( 2206:( 2191:( 2175:( 2150:( 2107:( 2084:( 2029:( 1969:( 1946:( 1785:. 1733:( 1699:. 1681:( 1561:( 1427:( 1382:) 1378:( 1330:( 1315:( 1276:( 1046:( 697:( 453:( 406:( 300:( 273:( 255:( 181:( 79:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index