Archive 1

Hi Cjhard, Thanks for signing up as a DRN volunteer. I saw your contribs and see that you have actively participated in RFC's. Do realize that WP:DRN is something different and here, you are required to play the role of a mediator and try to resolve conflicts between parties. To get started, read WP:DRN/V completely, watchlist the noticeboard and its talk page, pick a case from the current noticeboard which is listed as a new discussion, change the status to 'open' and start working to try and resolve the conflict. If you have any doubts, feel free to contact me. I also request you to visit WP:DRN/VA and leave your comments/ideas on the talk page. Its a new volunteer award system that's in the works. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Yashovardhan, so far DRN volunteering has been pretty daunting (particularly regarding whether the DRN request is valid, it seems most aren't), but I'll do some more reading to see if I'm up for the task. Cheers, Cjhard (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I will give you a headstart - try taking up this case - Talk:Malayalam#Debates on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017 - It meets all criterias and both parties involved are willing for moderated discussion. Ofcourse, if you are not involved with the editors or the subject. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It expires in about 36 hours. It seemed the best way to deal with the problem. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Thank you. Cjhard (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your reverting edit was obviously over-hasty and hence in error. I am restoring my edit and expect you to provide valid reasons for rejecting correct orthography and content cited from a reliable source. Your contention that serious and pointed international comment on Australia is "irrelevant" requires fuller justification on the talk page. (It appears only at the very end of a very long lead and is incontrovertibly verified.) Bjenks (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain why the website for an Italian newspaper describing Australia as "a paradise of Orcs" isn't relevant to the lead section on George Pell some time tomorrow. In the mean time, I'd like to kindly recommend that you read MOS:LEAD to understand the purpose of an article's lead section and WP:BRD to learn to approach these disputes in a way which avoids edit warring. All the best, Cjhard (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RugratsFan2003. I would like to say thank you for introducing me to the genre warrior page. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem! It can be difficult to get a hang of things here. My offer for any help or advice remains open. All the best, and good luck. Cjhard (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to review the insertion of the disputed material you've added back to the page. The user that created it laid the complaint that he is adamant should be part of the page. However, it don't believe it's of such significance that it warrants such detail. He has also embellished it. He is currently is multiple mediation disputes with Afrihost. You will also see in his history that he inserted a similar controversy section on the MyBroadband page, with whom he is also in mediation through ISPA. He is clearly creating these edits with malicious intent. I created this page back in 2012 and I haven't really touched it, others have been updating the information in line with Wikipedia's policy. But I sincerely believe that this user's edits should be removed. i am happy to discuss further. Also just to add, I did create a mention and citation that I feel is more approporiate, so now this has been duplicated with the insertion of that paragraph. Suveshnan (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to highlight that none of my edits or contributions are of malicious intent. Both companies Suveshnan mentioned are members of ISPA, a South African regulatory body endorsed/recognised by the South African Minister of Communications as an industry representative body. It is true that I have brought one regulatory complaint against Afrihost in 2015. Since I was not happy with the initial finding of ISPA, I appealed and ISPA fined Afrihost in June 2016. The significance of my edit, detailing the breaches and fines is that in the South African ISP history this was the first time that any ISP has been fined for breaches within the ISPA code-of-conduct. From a consumer perspective highlighting those rulings is important as it has subsequently changed the South African ISP landscape, empowering ISP users to open regulatory complaints against ISPs.

It is obvious that an Afrihost employee would find my consumer actions "malicious" but the ISPA ruling against Afrihost followed a fair and procedural process and Afrihost was found to have violated a large number of code-of-conduct (CoC) clauses. Since the ISPA ruling was widely reported, I have chosen not to cite sources on my own website but rather use MyBroadband.co.za which is a South African IT publication.

For full disclosure, I would like to highlight that I have currently two ISPA complaints ongoing (both are in the last procedural phase and under review with an ICT lawyer / adjudicator): 1) A Bill of Right issue (The Bill of Rights is part of chapter 2 of the South African Constitution) related to censorship and various code-of-conduct breaches against MyBroadband.co.za (I am more than happy to share the final ruling) 2) A section 45 ("unsolicited communication") Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA) complaint against Afrihost for spam and unsolicited messages

I have also lodged a separate complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) against MyBroadband.co.za for violation of constitutional rights.

I do not believe that "dimming down" the relevance of an ISPA ruling against an ISP is in the interest of public and transparent disclosure on Wikipedia. I appreciate that my comments/suggestions have been considered and my edits have been reinstated. I am more than happy for someone else to reword it, but I do think the rulings hold interest and are of public value. Lastly, the Wikipedia user Suveshnan needs to understand, that just because a person/citizen/consumer exercises his/her rights protected via regulators and laws, and a company is guilty of violating such laws, does not make the reporter of such "controversies" guilty of malicious intent. I leave it to the Wikipedia community to apply fair and objective judgement on this. I certainly feel that it is inappropriate for a company employee to repeatedly remove rulings from an Industry Representative Body such as ISPA or to attempt to hide wrong-doings of a company.

In fairness, it was said that after the rulings, Afrihost did correct their network performance and consumer engagement. The same applies to my section 45 complaint where Afrihost has already put extra measures in place to prevent human error and SPAM in future, but this should not serve as an "excuse" to not highlight mistakes from the past and how those were corrected (if I had not filed a ECTA complaint, Afrihost would have not implemented a marketing opt-out option on their website). MagicDude4Eva (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Suveshnan and MagicDude4Eva, I'm happy to discuss the edits with both of you on the talkpage for Afrihost. Suveshnan, could you start a discussion there outlining your problems with the edit?

Just as an aside, outside of editors with a conflict of interest as described here: WP:COI, an editor's motivation for their edits is of no interest, so long as their edits comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As such, if MagicDude4Eva's relationship with Afrihost does not constitute a conflict of interest, it is of no interest to Wikipedia. Cjhard (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could help me out. Currently, The "The Life of Pablo" page only includes one of the two album covers. There was a time when it included both. Since I am a new user, I am having trouble figuring out how to add the secondary (is it really) cover back since it deserves to be there -- he never changed the cover, just released an alternate. I would also suggest that the primary cover for the album returns to the original cover (https://rapdose.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-8.jpeg), since, again, the current cover on the page is, in his words, "another" one. Even the source code for the current image states that it is an alternate cover. I understand that TIDAL eventually changed the cover to the alternate one (as did every other streaming service/his website), but it makes more sense to have Kanye's official cover be the first one seen when looking at the page. One of the primary conceptual elements of the album is its state of flux. I'm happy to hear you out if you disagree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlernersinsheimer (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kanye-west-life-of-pablo-art-2016-billboard-650.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kellymoat (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Kanye-west-life-of-pablo-art-2016-billboard-650.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment recognizing my addition of "extensive sources" to the article Elijah Daniel.

Especially with all that's been going on lately, your kindness and your choosing to take the time to say that about my research efforts is really appreciated.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with TPO, this was an IAR case of WP:DNFTT, big time. All of his issues were taken care of immediately, and yet he kept insiting they weren't, besides, at this point the article's been re-written and now that note is irrelevant.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kanye-west-life-of-pablo-art-2016-billboard-650.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

can you explain how an allegation of 5 rapes in 6 years is the related to university why it needs to be added to every university — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.61.3 (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add the content, you didn't explain the basis for your removal of this content. Feel free to discuss this on any of the talk pages. Cjhard (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed it because its not related to the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.61.3 (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well that's not at all true. All of the content you removed was specific to each university. As you reverted me for that same reason on Deakin University and this is a conversation about content, we'll continue this on the talk page for that article. Cjhard (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cjhard, can you please consider checking statistics removals at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sturt_University . Being 3rd highest in sexual assault and 2x nat average is significant and notable. And the uni has now come up with strategy to deal with it = [1] 121.216.192.249 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits. I'd strongly recommend that you register for an account, as we can have conversations like these easier and your edits will be taken more seriously and will be less likely to be reverted if you have an account. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this issue as far as adding a section to each individual university on the matter. I reverted the above IP editor's removal of the content you added on the basis that it was unexplained or explained in a clearly wrong manner. As to others' issue of WP:NOTNEWS, I think their objection isn't particularly strong, but it is based on a legitimate understanding of policy. There is a question of whether the sexual harassment/assault statistics of each individual university is notable enough for inclusion. But I don't think that question extends to 'worst offenders' like Charles Sturt, so I'll engage on that article. Also, it's best for you to try to convince those who disagree with you on article talk pages. Cjhard (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how something that is nothing more than one report that wasn't produced using a controlled data set but rather an opt in that screened only for university students which then asked if the person had experienced had sexual harassment(not rape as stated in the articles) an undefined term which can be anything and mean different things to different people can be consider so reliable that it can be blanket spammed across the articles of Australian universities. Secondly the news articles are either based on the original survey or are a synthesis of unrelated matters made to look like rape a very clear and definitive term is a regular event experienced by significant portions of students at those universities has any encyclopaedic merit. I'd like to know how you can defend allowing such content that is perpetuating such a position. Finally reading WP:NOTNEWS that policy requires a longevity that these issue have not had, the story hasn't lasted beyond the initial 24-48 news cycle from the time the report was released. I have reversed your insertion of the content on most of the article with exception for a couple articles where there was more information though I think even those don't met the original research requirement of not synthesising unrelated events to form a conclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.61.3 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. When edits are good faith reverted you don't simply revert back and restore the disputed edits. You discuss the content on the talkpage and gain consensus to include the content or a variation of it. AND, while discussion is underway the status quo remains. That means leaving the disputed conten t out until there is consensus to include it. Forcing it into the article is edit-warring and you can be blocked for that. I find it amazing that you've signed up as a DRN volunteer and don't understand these basic principles. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As explained on the talk page, I support inclusion of the material. If you continue to revert against two other editors you are engaging in edit-warring and the only person responsible for that is yourself. Cjhard (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

its actually 2 editors Aussie legend and myself who disagree with the inclusion of the content, I had previously removed the content as not news but decided to revert my edits rather than discuss so apparently not only are you engaged in the edit war its clear to me that your actions instigated it see two sections above. 167.30.61.3 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on University of Newcastle (Australia). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mate, I reverted twice after you reverted twice. I take it you understand the same rule applies to you, right? And with that knowledge this templating is uncivil at best? Give it a rest. Cjhard (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to be nice but clearly you are just interested in edit-warring, since you've done exactly that without any attempt at discussion since my last post. Your edit summary demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not count votes. It requires an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. All that you are doing is edit-warring. Tit for tat reverts don't achieve anything. As I explained above, and on the article's talk page, we work toward consensus and, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, when we are discussing disputed content it stays out of the article until there is consensus to include it. You are not doing that at all. My edits have simply been to maintain the status quo. As a DRN volunteer you should know that. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You've found yourself editing against two different editors. Consensus is against you. If you don't like that consensus, reason with those who disagree with you or seek alternate dispute resolution. I have always been open to either inclusion or exclusion. The other editor's arguments were convincing, yours were not. I'm still open to inclusion or exclusion, if anything I think much of it should be pared back. Your edit warring, incivility, personal attacks and stonewalling is no way to reach consensus, and has only made someone who would have been open to extensive cuts of the disputed material less enthusiastic about coming to a consensus with you. Chill out, man, your attitude is toxic to a collaborative environment. Cjhard (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, we don't go by numbers. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, which I quoted. The discussion has not finished, so there is no consensus yet. The other editor made no actual arguments for inclusion, so your edits are more than inappropriate at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Again you don't have consensus it 2:2 not 2:1 and ignore the fact that I also removed the content from that report which the ip editor just spammed everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.61.3 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As you seem to have an interest in Safe Schools Coalition Australia, what do you think of my edits here?
Interesting to find out who, & what, the person that was running it is! Intersting 'background' here, "Anti-bullying advocate Roz Ward harasses bystander" too!--220 of ^Borg 06:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This too: Safe Schools' Roz Ward wins people's choice at redflag.org.au.--220 of ^Borg 06:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Could you please post to Talk:Kris Kobach#The neutrality of this article is disputed your concerns about the alleged biased nature of that article?

Please feel free to add again {{NPOV}} -- but only after explaining in "Talk:Kris Kobach#The neutrality of this article is disputed" why you think what parts of that article are not written from a neutral point of view. Without such an explanation, that addition will again be reverted.

If you want people to do something to correct the problems you see in this article, please help us understand what in particular you find objectionable -- and contrary to the available evidence

I'm keenly aware that parts of that article might sound extremely biased to a naive reader. However, {{NPOV}} means that it's inconsistent with the available evidence.

We live in a post-truth world, in which the mainstream media make money stampeding their audiences into doing things contrary to their best interests. To fix this reality, we need habitual fact checkers.

Are you disputing whether Kobach said the League of Women Voters is communist?

Are you disputing that he only got six convictions for double voting by the date specified in the references -- and none of those would have been prevented by the strict voter ID laws he championed?

Please help us understand which claims in that article are inconsistent with the available evidence -- and which sources are credible or uncredible. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a Twitbookspacetube 12:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Or they disagree with FT2's analysis. It's fine to disagree, but throwing around accusations like this isn't very useful, nor, I believe, is the credibility of the admins really shaken by what is going on there. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about usefulness, but I’ve watched this situation from the sidelines from the start, I’ve watched this unwarranted block stand for three weeks, with multiple administrators taking a look at the situation, saying ‘no thanks’ and moving on, despite Hidden Tempo’s good faith attempts at appeal and FT2’s demonstration of the lack of grounds for the block.

The expression of frustration at watching this is real, but the intention behind the comment is to demonstrate that this situation is being seen by other editors, and I can’t speak for others, but it really, sincerely, is shaking my confidence in the administrators.

I simply don’t see the room for reasonable disagreement. I don’t see the refutation of FT2’s points. I don’t see the evidence of ‘repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban’ of ‘tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing’ asked for by Hidden Tempo and now FT2, a clear violation of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It’s not my intention to be inflammatory, but how is this block remotely defensible? Cjhard (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No sections can be deleted at any time, like you did to Creepypasta#Phone creepypastas. So please do not delete that section ever again. Larsconks (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I forgot that the opening post's date affects the RfC, so could you renew the date of your post? New editors were showing up days before. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

bub! EEng 05:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not to be a total EEng, but I think you'll find that suggesting that another editor's username can somehow be used as a personal attack is itself a personal attack against that editor. Any more of it and you'll have another ANI notice on your talkpage. Cjhard (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cjhard. This is a courtesy note to let you know I've closed an RFC you initiated, at Talk:Game_of_Thrones#Should_Game_of_Thrones_be_in_the_LGBT-related_category?. Apologies for the delay in closing this discussion, there is a backlog of closure requests which are being worked through. All the best, Fish+Karate 14:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the advice ARMcgrath (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I needed that. Response was so appreciated. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! As far as I am aware, Aung San Suu Kyi does not have a PhD from SOAS. The 2012 Complete Uni Guide lists her as having been an MPhil candidate, not having been awarded a PhD. I have asked SOAS if they can clarify. Rob at Pells (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rob! On a second reading, the article originally claimed that she graduated in 1985, which is the same year she began the course, which is obviously wrong. I agree that the sources claiming that she graduated (at any year) aren't the most reliable. I've self-reverted my revert. All the best, Cjhard (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cjhard! That's great to see. Thanks for considering my view. Best wishes Rob at Pells (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cjhard. Do you have a reference for the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre having been operated by Serco before it closed? The reference for G4S says it was taken over by them in 2003 and the contract was under tender in 2009. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scott. This 2017 Australian Human Rights Commission Report into the centre: [3] contains the following "As was the case in 2012, external contractors continue to play a central role in the management of immigration detention facilities. Serco Australia remains the contracted detention services provider, responsible for the day-to-day running of the facilities including security and provision of services and activities." --Cjhard (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cement4802 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC) This isn't about you, but i just thought i'd let you know that i've reported AussieLegend, and that you may have an interest or involvement in this discussion

My purpose in posting that on the Talk :Sydney page was simply to help people understand why he will have stopped contributing. It was just as relevant as a lot of the other nonsense and insults on that page. You will note that I posted it without expressing an opinion. BUt it can stay gone for now. I just wish the lies would stop. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there - so this Sydney image dispute has wrought havoc and bashed up editors. And has the potential to do still more damage...particularly when one or the other way is settled. Who are the main players (on either side) who have got the most skin in the game and the most bruised? I don't just mean someone who's lobbed in a comment or two either way and doesn't really care, rather I'm asking about those who have really invested time and ego into it? I'd say it would be you, Hilo, Ashton, Cement4802, Aussielegend - have I missed any? My reason for asking...I am thinking about a way to sooth some ego bruises and foster goodwill/respect amongst editors in advance of resolution. (I've also posed this question to aussielegend as a random representative of the other side too). :) --Merbabu (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --FollowTheSources (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, FollowTheSources! Please do not ever edit my talk page again unless you have to for a notification such as the one above. You are banned. --Cjhard (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)