Hi, Cement4802. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cement, I had to undo your edits to the Sydney and Australian tallest buildings article, with regards to Altitude: you had not provided a reliable source which confirms that Altitude is currently in the topped-out phase. Feel free to add said content back in, once you've provided said source. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't introduce content that is unreferenced, as you did at List of tallest buildings in Australia. Sydney's skyscraper count (completed and topped-out) is still one less than Melbourne, per CTBUH. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Note: The CNN article is under discretionary sanctions which you have violated:

• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
• Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

I suggest you revert your last edit. Also, there is a discussion on the article talk page.[1] O3000 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have issues with habitual edit warring - the warning here applies to Clementine Ford (writer), too. Based on your edit summary here, please also review WP:ONUS. VQuakr (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carlos Maza; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antifa (United States); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. SharabSalam (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Steven Crowder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O3000 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Carlos Maza, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your additions to Australian residential architectural styles. I've been working on this article on and off over a number of years and really appreciate your well-sourced additions. However, I've had to remove Toxteth Park, Glebe as it's actually Victorian Italianate. And Juniper Hall, Paddington that was already there is actually Victorian Georgian and not Old Colonial Georgian (in fact it was listed twice!). I'd really appreciate if you could add citations to each property's architectural style if you plan to add any more images. That really helps if an image is challenged. Many thanks, once again. And keep up the great work :-) Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I've also been working on the Australian non-residential architectural styles page which was and is still a bit oversaturated with architectural examples from Victoria, so it would be great if we could get some more examples from across the nation as a whole. Cement4802 (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. The same issue applies with citations for the non-residential arch. styles. Yeah, I hear you the dominance of Victorian examples. I've been adding NSW over the years; but I'll try to give a national perspective. @Kerry Raymond: Any imagery from Qld that you wish to add to Australian non-residential architectural styles would be appreciated; especially where it's unique to your state or a landmark example. And perhaps suggestions on who to reach out in Tas, and SA/NT? @JarrahTree: Same re WA, if you're interested. I'm sure there would be good examples and images from Fremantle that could be used, if you can find citations that clearly articulate their architectural style. Many thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Can you please stop for a minute. You're adding properties to Australian non-residential architectural styles that are already listed in other categories; and you're adding them in the wrong category without references. eg. Department of Lands building is NOT Victorian Free Classical, its Victorian Renaissance Revival. Can I ask that before you add (or take off any more) you please add a reference that clearly shows the relevant architectural style. I'm fixing up VFC right now. I'm hyperlinking where possible, adding citations and sorting into alphabetical order. Re Glebe... do we really need four buildings from the one suburb to demonstrate the style? It's not about numbers on this page, it's about getting the best representative mix across Australia. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources I used to determine the architectural style of buildings might have conflicted with other sources which have already been used on this page, especially since different architectural features from different periods could have been added on to existing buildings. I'll try and avoid this next time.Cement4802 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Queensland, if you go to the Search the Queensland Heritage Register webpage and choose the Advanced Search option, you get the option to search by Style which ranges from Art Deco to Tudor (but curiously seems to omit plain old "Queenslander" which is a dominant residential style). That list of styles (plus Queenslander) would appear to be a good starting point for Queensland architect, plus the search capability means it's easy to find examples of those styles (noting that as these images are CC-BY licensed, I have uploaded many of them to Commons to make life even easier). Kerry (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cement4802: Some of the sources I used... Please add the reference from now on so that we can see if it's from a reliable source; or maybe we can provide a better source. A lot of work in QLD and NSW has been done to extract data from the relative state heritage registers for items of state significance; and work has also been done on the Commonwealth Heritage List for buildings of national significance. We should use these buildings as the stand out examples of both residential and non-residential architecture (and the same for the other states/territories). Each of these properties has a Wikipedia article. Thanks
@Kerry Raymond: Great work as always. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually posted a response to your last comment on the Talk:Sydney page. However, User:AussieLegend removed it. Can you believe that? He has the gall to remove something I wrote simply because he did not like it. It's ridiculous. Have you considered taking it further? These same editors can't keep their rigid control over the Sydney page forever. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]