User talk:Adpete

Hi. Hit the "new section" button to send me a message. Unless there is a delay (say, more than 2 days) in me responding - or unless you request otherwise - I will reply on this page rather than on your talk page. (That way conversations are easier to follow).

/Archive 1 (Dec 05 to Jun 07)

/Archive 2 (Jul 07 to Jun 08)

/Archive 3 (Jul 08 to Feb 09)

I've deleted my entire watchlist and I'm having a break. Peter 04:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that, while it is a really good resource, Wikipedia will never be more than an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to its stated aim (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). There are too many editors with agendas (both deliberate and unconscious). There are too many editors putting in random irrelevant (or incorrect) factoids.

The people who concluded that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica[1] must have been on drugs.

I've tried to work on fixing these things and improving Wikipedia, but the tide is too great. It's a lost cause. I've got better things to do with my time. Peter 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (Moved from User page to here, 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

What's happened to make you feel such a way? Was it any pages in particular? What pushed you over the line? It's a real shame that Wikipedia appears to have lost yet another good SA editor. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What pushed me over the line was about 5 different pages over a few days, under quite different topics. (I did actually cross swords with you at Talk:John Howard recently, but that one bothered me the least because there I think we've got well meaning editors with very different pespectives). There was a common theme: I was trying to improve pages, and my efforts were either in vain (changes reverted, talk page suggestions ignored), or it took (or is taking) enormous effort to get any changes through. I've taken a step back and decided: why bother, it's too hard, my time's not worth it. I've resigned myself to the fact that Wikipedia (like the Internet in general) can only ever be an error-riddled resource, and given up trying to help improve it. Peter 11:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, it's partly the reason why i've retreated to the nice and quiet tranquility of SA politics pages these days. There's still much room for improvement on Premier's pages if you ever feel the need to scratch a wikipedia itch at some point in the future. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I may return to quietly adding stuff once I've calmed down. Peter 05:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I can attest to the benefits of editing in low traffic areas - I edit heavily on WA topics where I'm often the only editor, although I've been able to solicit neutral reviews of my work where necessary. It'd be a shame to lose you to the void, and I wish you the best. Orderinchaos 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a real break, go edit Encyclopedia Dramatica instead of WP for a while :-) --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter, of course I understand your frustration and even share your feelings. But-- with all respect for what you have gone through, please have in mind that we, Wikipedia readers in the Third World have verbally no local access to relevant print media and/or no funds to order them from abroad . I am a professor of cultural history at a Ukrainian university in Odessa. My students are actually depending on the Internet and encyclopedic sources like Wikipedia, Wikibook, Wikiversity, and others. Sometimes I ask myself why we have to live from these huge mountains of ecclectic or low-quality material - kind of like the poor on the garbage hills of Cairo. But then I have to realize that we have no other choice and we become thankful again... 91.90.15.48 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, one of my favourite Bible verses, but I'd never thought to apply it to Wikipedia before! My advice to you and your students: by all means use Wikipedia. It is a wonderful resource. But (1) check anything you read on it! i.e. check the references. And (2) be aware of bias, i.e. be aware that many Wikipedia articles have bias (deliberate or otherwise), or simply are badly written, with irrelevant material mixed in with useful material. Peter 06:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter -- I just responded to a good question you raised on the Nestle-Aland talk page. I agree that Wikipedia is a mixed bag, and I've had to retreat myself. You're quite right that there are too many people with too many agendas. I'm lately looking into two areas that I have a lot of resources on but few people care to add -- textual criticism and story theory. Just adding sources to document little fought areas might be a good way to take a break and still benefit the Encyclopedia. While many people have agedas on "Christianity", I've found that not so many have agendas on which text forms map to which manuscripts -- or which story theory agrees with Aristotle and which with Jung! I think what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia is a big place. The least controversial areas are sometimes the best places to take a vacation in. There's always a book on your shelf that can supply some footnote somewhere!EGMichaels (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is reopen for one more day so please take time to vote. just out of interest, how did you hear about the poll? Did someone contact you by email? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll#Recent talk page posts regarding this RfC - is it canvassing? Peter 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please could you tell me who emailed you, or ideally forward the email to ryanpostlethwaitehotmail.com. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter, please see my post [here]. Tony (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you weren't satisfied with 1 reference citing the connection between 2Peter and Jude I've added a second ref to the first, and I'm prepared to add as many as needed, since this is a well known and notable parallel in contrast to the assertion made about Jude primacy. If you delete it again I'll add a third reference. And if you delete it again I'll add a fourth. Your call. Deleting referenced information simply because you don’t like it is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadtotruth (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference (TCNT on Jude) is available on the web here.[2] All it says is "01:17 2Peter 3:2 01:18 Isaiah 3:4; 2Peter 3:3". It doesn't say Jude quotes 2 Peter (or vice versa), it just says there is a correspondence between the two. So the editor had (a) misinterpreted the source, and (b) presented the (alleged) conclusions as fact ("However, Jude 1:17-18 denotes a quotation from Second Peter 3:3"). That's why I deleted it. Accusing me of POV is silly. The new wording is better - it says "possibly", and quotes a much more widely known source (Word Biblical Commentary). Peter 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, are you sure that Baukham's Word Commentary says that Jude 17-18 quotes 2 Peter? Part of the book is browsable at Amazon[3], where he writes "The relationship between Jude and 2 Peter is discussed in the Introduction to 2 Peter, where the judgement of most modern scholars, that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude, not vice versa, is accepted." 05:31, 15 May 2009 Peter(UTC)

On further reflection, the argument doesn't follow anyway, and I intend to delete it. See Talk:Epistle of Jude. Peter 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your efforts at a couple of articles. I added a bit to the article above, perhaps you could improve my contrib a bit: correct, expand, source or whatever. Certainly let me know if anything seems unreliable. I'm guessing we're on different sides of the fence in that debate, but both committed to NPOV treatment of issues. Just the sort of combination that can actually achieve progress at Wiki. Hope to hear from you. God bless Alastair Haines (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're enlisting people, could both you and Peter take a look at the Rapture article? Particularly this NPOV Violation. Two login names are trying to exclude non-Dispensationalists from the viewpoint.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair wasn't enlisting me. He saw that I'd already done work at Gender in Bible translation and invited me to do more. (To which I reply: with not too much more work and rearranging, I think we could make that article reasonable). But Tim, I'll decline your offer. I probably don't know enough about the different theologies to be able to contribute easily anyway. Peter 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really considered the current text of the article in detail, but we probably have different views of what that namespace should contain. Many people may think it should simply be a transclusion of Gender neutral language. Others would think it should give equal space to the Egalitarian/GNL understanding and to the Complementarian understanding of the Bible's teaching on human gender roles. However, I believe neither of those positions needs elaboration at a translation article (they are adequately covered elsewhere, or should be developed elsewhere if not done so already).

A translation article that doesn't deal with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and receptor languages (including those other than English) is not actually dealing with the topic of the article.

This work has already been done in hundreds of topic specific reliable sources and is addressed by thousands of others.

There are lots of people at Wiki who know Greek, for example, so we need not fear a lack of accountability for editors who contribute from original language heavy sources.

But what we can note as objective facts here is one thing, what unrestricted editing by people who don't appreciate these facts might lead to is another.

Specialist articles in predictably controversial areas benefit from having some documentation of how policy applies, and benefit from some collegiality among a few maintaining editors.

Gender in Bible translation is one of the areas I've read very widely in and care about for the sake of another Wiki project. Ultimately, it's one of my very highest priority articles to edit, and a place I can contribute more than any other at Wiki. However, what I will be wanting, when I start work, is responsible editors representing "the educated reader". Peter strikes me as precisely that; and, even better, one who has a slightly different view of things to me.

I anticipate it will be more than a year before I start work, though. Others might get it all done sooner, which would be great, but I'm just putting out feelers in case, as seems more likely, there is little work done in the meantime on the actual translation issues at the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that translation is a separate issue. I've written a lengthy comment at Talk:Gender in Bible translation. Peter 07:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've written too long a reply to your last at the article talk page.

Belatedly I found this interesting quote, courtesy of Michael Marlowe's eagle eye. Responding to criticism, "our Don" (I mean this genuinely and affectionately) said,

"I have been doing university missions for thirty years, and in such quarters inclusive language dominates. Not to use it is offensive."

— DA Carson, "The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation—and Other Limits, Too", chapter 3 in Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss and Steven M. Voth (eds.), [ The Challenge of Bible Translation]: Communicating God's Word to the World, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003): pp. 65-142.

I was a bit player in university missions myself for a little over a decade: I agree with Don. It's a very serious issue to raise gender issues to an importance that competes with the intrinsic offense of the Gospel itself. I'm not a six 24 hour Genesis 1 literalist, though I respect those who are. But how awkward it can be to know how to avoid compromising the scriptures while avoiding compromising the Gospel.

Those issues are not for a Wiki article, but they are serious issues that provide grounds for mutual tolerance among believers. Don's no man to compromise the scriptures. The thought is laughable. To a university audience in Sydney, I heard him say, "sending single women as missionary pastors is an exercise in unbelief." Speaking of unbelief, I couldn't believe what I heard!

Christians believe and disbelieve a great many things wrongly. But only one belief matters.

Feel free to delete this post, I probably should have emailed it. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the issue? CTJF83Talk 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor and show me where is it then! Until then I reserve the right to protect the page against vandalism. Oh wait, it's actually vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Burdoh)

You gotta be kidding me. Two people (who could very well be one) doesn't make "consensus". Do you want me to show you a five-people consensus and then you'd leave it alone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Burdoh)

Sorry, my friend, but unlike the countless usernames you used to revert the Ahmed Deedat-article to something only you seem to like, most people use only one account over here. And, of all users who discussed this article, nobody felt inclined to discuss the external-links-part any further.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Peter! Pity it's a 2009 (32 years after the event) POV quote (and itself lacking verification). But, not to worry--will you now use it also to cite "Bob Hawke crie[d] as he confesse[d] to being an alcoholic and an adulterer on Clive Robertson's Newsworld (1989)" ? Or would you rather have someone else insert that? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I detect some sarcasm. Are you saying it really shouldn't be in there? I agree the source isn't that good, but here's a better one [4]. But I gather it's a pretty infamous event in Kerr's life so it probably deserves a mention. Peter 04:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind you the ABC source I give is wildly opinionated. The SMH article, puff piece that it is, does illustrate the point being made in the WP article - that it was a well known incident. Peter 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you've really said it all. It's not that such well-known aberrations (like the much more embarrassing ones of say Churchill or JFK) are without interest to political opponents; but they are rarely of notable relevance to the real substance of the persons, eh? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO sometimes these events become big news stories which haunt political figures for years, and so deserve to be mentioned factually and neutrally on WP so people can go to WP to get the facts. On that basis I've argued in the past for inclusion of Rudd's stripclub episode. Whether this is the case for Kerr is debatable, because it's less recent history (he's been dead for 17 years). You can remove it if you want, I don't care either way. Peter 12:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am pretty sure that you are on a Wikibreak at the moment but thought I'd draw your attention to [this] category/article/whatever it is. You have previously commented on it. IMHO zero evidence exists to suggest that such a category exists. It looks like a random, fanciful list of old money families. I [talked to the editor] but I don't really know how to proceed now. I'm staggered that this page is still kicking around! Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Hazir (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured it out and have [nominated] the category for deletion. Please take a look when you have a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazir (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 687 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Terry Cameron - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Stan Evans - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Robert Leslie Brown - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still interested, I have proposed a merge at Talk:Wildfire. Also one at Talk:Bushfires in Australia, with respect to merging the content from the unnecessary Bushfires in Victoria article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the Bushfires in Victoria merge after that article was vastly improved as a result.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

I noticed you changed the summary of game 8 on World Chess Championship 2012, with reference to the analysis of an (unnamed) GM, stating that the result of 17... Nc6 "is absolutely hopeless for black".

First, I think you made a mistake while editing in your reference, at the moment it's simply a link to an edit command of the section itself. But nevermind, I'm sure there is a GM that said it is hopeless. The problem I see with your summary (and which I tried to avoid) is this: by concentrating on one mainline (like the one you quoted, 18 dxc6 Qxc6 19 Bg2 Qc8 20 Rf1 Qf5+ 21 Qxf5 gxf5 22 Rxf5), you beg the question "what about other continuations after Nc6?". Because of that problem, I was trying to phrase it more generally, mentioning the positional disadvantage of black since /any/ position that could result from 17... Nc6 seems to be worse for black.

Another case in point for you is for example is GM Alejandro Ramirez commentary on chessbase, who calls one of the possible 17... Nc6 continuations "hopeless when you play someone of Anand's caliber. Or even a little less" (chessbase, game 8). On the other hand, GM Susan Polgar, writes "17...Nc6. But this is also losing.", but then adds "Unfortunately, Gelfand resigns as he may miss Nc6. Wow! Premature resignation." (Susan Polgar on blogspot).

In conclusion, I don't challenge the point that the game was lost, as far as we can see and, more importantly, as far as we can find others saying so. But I'd say your phrasing is a bit too strong, and instead of saying /why/ it was lost (which was, in fact, a positional disadvantage, since by material alone, black was hardly worse), you focus too narrowly on one mainline continuation of Nc6, and the drastic conclusion about it by the GM. I noticed you've been very active on the article and improved it a lot, while I just "drove by and edited", so I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this, but I at least wanted to state my doubts and hear what you think about it.

--Minvogt (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version (I think by you) said something like "significant positional disadvantage for black". My problem with those words is that I felt they were not strong enough, they don't (at least for me) convey the point that black is totally lost, which every commentator I've seen agrees on. (Polgar seems to contradict herself - if it's losing it's not a premature resignation - probably explained by the fact that Polgar blogs very quickly). So I don't mind a change or removing the variation I put, so long as the words are to the effect that black was lost. Adpete (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adpete,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

More info here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.

This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott McGrory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1988 Olympic Games. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Carseldine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Courier Mail. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment says: "lower house seats have always been single member". Although it's somewhat dependent on what you mean by "always", it's not necessarily true that "lower house seats have always been single member". Prior to 1938 there are many examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that! But still, I can't see how the sentence I deleted was in any way relevant to the 1989 election. Adpete (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. (Hence my reference to the edit comment, not to the edit.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

AVRO 1938 chess tournament (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Winter

South Australian state election, 1975 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal Movement

South Australian state election, 1977 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal Movement

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

should there be actual pictures of Joanne and Kirste in the infobox? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. There's always an issue in ensuring images really are free to use, so I always leave it to someone else :) Adpete (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, International Cricketer of the Year, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption, allowing content and references to be added. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Kb.au (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If ESPNcricinfo is not a reliable source, then pretty well every cricket article on Wikipedia will need to be edited. Anyway, I've added the Canberra Times as well. Adpete (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barrie Robran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFL Hall of Fame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like your chess work, but I must admit that I'm kind of pissed that you erased some of my work with the edit comment "remove OR". In fact I think that everything in that section is found in the cited Chess Life article. I'll check it again when I have the time, but don't be surprised if I restore most or all of what you excised. Quale (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the Chess Life reference referred to Benko only. Feel free to restore; though if it's all CL's opinion maybe that should be made clearer. Adpete (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be interested to see what CL said about Tal, because that seems to be missing. I know from the Brady ref (which I added today) that CL picked Fischer. The short version of your old edits based on CL seem to be: Petrosian draws too much, Keres is too old, Korchnoi and Geller are too erratic, Benko and Filip don't have strong enough recent results. But there's nothing about Tal. If you look at the Brady ref, the quotes seems to be about why they were picking Fischer ahead of Tal. Adpete (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored most of it now. Feel free to fix. Adpete (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elaine Herzberg#Requested move 6 April 2018. — IVORK _Discuss 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Chess Championship 1960, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bryan Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm SshibumXZ. Adpete, thanks for creating Nationwide (Australian TV programme)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories. Also, wikilink the article on other pages. If and when you get the time, that is.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steele Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adpete: How are you? I closed the merge discussion and archived it. It has been going for three months, and another editor voted for support. There seems to be a very strong consensus for updating or removing or merging one article into another, and/or making this article disamg page and improving the other one. Either way it seems your right. Please crack on. If you need any help, drop me a line. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1992 Cricket World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you were trying to do, but the change you made to the results table in USA vs. USSR radio chess match 1945 doesn't really work. In a chess game score context "1-0" does not mean the player from the first team won, it universally means White won. This is not a more standard use of notation and doesn't really work in this context. I think it's worth looking for something better than the previous notation, but this isn't it. Quale (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Probably the ideal is to use colored boxes and a simple 1, 0 or 1/2, like in most WC matches, e.g. World Chess Championship 1961. Adpete (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Chess Championship 1910 (Lasker–Schlechter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why en.wiki don't have a article for United States Chess National Team, Chinese Chess National Team, Germany Chess National Team, Yugoslavian Chess National Team, Egipat Chess National Team (hr)etc.? Bye.--Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is just that no one has done it! There is no special reason. It would need an editor very interested in Chess Olympiads, I think. Adpete (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- in your edit to FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2019, you wrote in the summary "fix a mistaken link to 2018 Candidates". I think that was a misunderstanding -- the link was to the 2018 World Championship, and it was correct, as Caruana qualified by virtue of being the challenger there. I've added that information again but tried to reformulate it so as to avoid this misunderstanding. Joriki (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. But I think that level of detail is not required in that article anyway. For the purposes of the Grand Swiss article, it doesn't matter how Caruana qualified, all that matters is he had qualified; i.e. the text would be the same if runner-up had been Ding Liren or Radjabov. (In my opinion!) Adpete (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my edit for no reason. I hate destructive persons like you. Shame on you --Langholz8 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Looks like FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2019 is also your destruction field.--Langholz8 (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Congratulation you won. Have not time for shit--Langholz8 (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which edit you mean, but I explain my edits in the edit summaries. If you have a specific issue in mind, I'll be happy to discuss. Adpete (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks for your update at World Chess Championship 2020 -- since you asked: it's correct, the same players are the top 10, and they're likely to remain so until January. While Aronian and Radjabov now have a slightly higher rating than Anand, Grischuk and So, the difference isn't enough to catch up in the average by January. Currently (including November) Aronian has an average of 2760.9, against 2763.5 for So, so he'd need to be 13 points above So in the average of the two remaining months in order to overtake him (whereas currently the difference is only 2 points). Joriki (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out that FIDE amended the November ratings of So, Aronian and Mamedyarov (I updated World Chess Championship 2020 accordingly) – So is now at 2760 and Aronian at 2772, and the difference of their sums from February to November is only 16, so it now seems quite likely that Aronian will be overtaking So at the 10th rank in the average from February to January. That could become relevant, since after his massive win against Carlsen in the Fischer Random championship So might be a natural candidate for the wild card. Joriki (talk) 20:24, 3 November 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poisson distribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bivariate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was deliberate, because the dab page seemed more informative; the reader could then explore all of the 3 links at Bivariate#Statistics. Adpete (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my mistake at World Chess Championship 2021. I now see that I stupidly misread what was there. Seeing a picture of Magnus Carlsen and text referring to the winner of the 2020-2021 tournament, I read it as saying that he was the winner of the tournament. Somehow I failed to notice that alongside Carlsen there was a caption for his challenger. JBW (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Thanks. I was puzzled by your objection, but now it makes sense. Thanks for replying and clearing it up. Adpete (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adpete:, I request you to join the discussion about changing the title of ICC Test Championship. Thank you. Selva15469 (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I thought you might be interested in my (slightly belated) response at Talk:Vladimir Kramnik#Was his peak rating 2809 or 2811?. Also, while I'm writing you: perhaps you have some thoughts on the various issues I brought up at Template talk:Infobox chess biography? Joriki (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adpete. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:World Chess Championship split of 1993–2006, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:FAIR data we were discussing the copying of other texts to Wikipedia. The context is that this is still uncommon enough that Wikipedia does not have clear developed best practices for when and how to do this.

I wanted to show you Chemical graph generator, copied almost entirely from a single other article and put into Wikipedia by Wikipedia:Journal to wiki publication, which is like Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia.

For that graph generator, the conflict I encounter was that someone complained that the text was not attributed, so I put citations to the original source after every sentence. After that someone else said that it was foolish to put the same citation after every sentence of an article, so they removed them.

This situation does not arise much, but when it does, we do not have a clear best way to respond. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Adpete. I don't believe we've ever interacted directly. I'm KyleJoan. Pleased to make your acquaintance! I removed a chunk of material that you included on Heath Ledger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and opened a discussion to potentially further discuss it if necessary. Please feel free to respond if you'd like. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 04:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Chess Scoring, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jessamyn (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessamyn: is this a new policy? I've never submitted a new article for review before. Adpete (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the article was pretty rough when you found it, but I intend to move it back into main space later today. Adpete (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking at the rules at WP:DRAFTOBJECT, I'd like to formally (and friendlily I hope) object to the move to draft. Adpete (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, yeah no worries. I've been patrolling pages as part of the backlog drive which I am somewhat new at. The article had no citations and it was unclear why it wasn't part of the existing chess articles but looks like it's back and you can have some time/space to add some references if you'd like. Jessamyn (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adpete  ! I'd like to invite you to take part in this discussion since it seems you were involved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2021#Wikipedia_bias_against_Russian_sportspeople_and_its_own_rules_violation

2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Downscaling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downsizing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adpete. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "World Chess Championship split of 1993–2006".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennessee Tuxedo and His Tales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cholmondeley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desertarun (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penelope Pitstop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wacky Races.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both Draft:Australian cricket team in India in 2022 and Draft:Australian cricket team in India in 2023 are unattributed copy and paste versions of Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 without proper attribution of the original contents, and so are copyright violations. If the article does get split, there is a proper process to split the article that encompasses preserving the editing history, which is required by Wikipedia's licence. Please don't create copy and paste drafts again, as they violate copyright. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I got a bit lazy because it was a draft. I certainly intended to do the split correctly if the time comes. Adpete (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adpete. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "World Chess Championship split of 1993–2006".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Liberal Movement (Australia) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help! Thank you. Dev Darshan T. K. (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adpete. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Australian cricket team in India in 2022, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adpete. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Australian cricket team in India in 2022".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I replied to (and acted on) a comment you left a long, long time ago :-) Joriki (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adpete, our group, WikiProject Australian television, is currently recruiting additional editors to help edit the large project that is Australian TV. I was wondering whether you might consider joining us, since you have worked on Australian TV-related articles in the past. If you are interested, please add your name to the list of active participants, and see our list of open tasks. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]