User talk:JCRB

Hello, JCRB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Kralizec. Nice of you to offer your help. JCRB 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i suggest that you post a link on your user page to the Ip address that you used to edit under. This gives others the chance to see your previous edits and any previous discussions. Thanks Woodym555 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spanish Empire. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philippines. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Lambanog (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: consensus and insertion of information on Philippines and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--JL 09 _^q?c 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find I've started a thread on AN/I about your disruption of Gibraltar here. Justin talk 00:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed others' names from your straw poll. It's best to let everyone sign themselves, otherwise you will get accused of trying to swing the vote. Tempers get very high on that page. I hope you don't mind. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps if you mind, apologies, revert me or ask me to do it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have left the names. Some of those editors are no longer active, or have not seen the vote. Perhaps we should recap on those comments in favour of mentioning BOT. I am sure they outnumbered those against it. After all, it's common sense to avoid the issue of self-government. JCRB (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Australia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Regarding this edit, you should be aware that the onus is on you to open a discussion to gain consensus to add the information to the article, not on others to gain consensus to delete. This is especially the case since the content you added has been deleted four times now by four different editors,[1][2][3][4]. I suggest you review Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more guidance before you actually breach WP:3RR. AussieLegend (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war intended. You have also reverted one of my edits without apparent justification. It is not up to an editor to gain consensus on information which is undisputably well-sourced and reliable. Still, I have asked editors to discuss these points on the talk page [5]. I have yet to see any comments.

There are two questions here. One is the "first European sighting of Australia", which is disputed, meaning two or more points of view exist. In this case it is that Willem Janszoon was the first to see the Australian continent, or that it was in fact Pedro Fernandes de Queirós. Both views are backed by sound sources (I have provided the sources for the second). That is the reason why I suggested the use of the word "probably" in the sentence about Queiros' first sighting. This is a constructive way of approaching the issue. It contributes to NPOV.

The second issue is in the Etymology section. There is absolutely no doubt that in 1606 Queiros arrived in Espiritu Santo and called the island "La Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" thinking he had landed on the Australian mainland. I have provided sources for this too. Plus, it is all over the Espiritu Santo and the Queiros articles. If this were not enough, the current text even mentions this name:

• "the first recorded use of the word Australia in English was in 1625, in "A note of Australia del Espíritu Santo, written by Master Hakluyt" and published by Samuel Purchas in Hakluytus Posthumus" [6]

The first use of the word Australia in English was "A note of Australia del Espírtu Santo" in 1625, because the Spanish expedition had named the island like that in 1606. I don't see the problem in mentioning that. JCRB (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no consensus to add the information that you keep adding to Australia, as you did today.[7][8] If you persist in adding the information, you may find yourself blocked for edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your problem with including this information [9]. I would suggest you present your arguments in the talk page instead of threatening to block editors who are only being constructive and respectful with WP policies. JCRB (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that the information that you keep adding to the article has been removed multiple times by multiple editors. There is obviously opposition to its inclusion and there is no consensus to add it, yet you keep adding it. Your actions constitute edit-warring, which is against Wikipedia policy. My opinion as to whether the information should be included or not is not an issue and has no bearing on the warnings that I gave you. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]