User talk:Arno

Hallo Arno,

wer hat den Artikel ueber Krakatoa verfasst? Im Speziellen meine ich den Absatz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#Biological_research Der dort erwähnte Deutsche Johann Handl ist mein Grossvater, vaeterlicher Seite. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Johann_Handl_1900.jpg Mein Vater ist Seppi Handl auf dem Foto.

Gruss Stefan aus Bayern http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:InterPixel.de

Guten tag. Ich spreche Deutsch, aber nicht sehr gutt. Ich nicht verstehen sie! Schreiben sie innen Anglisch, bitte! (Please send this to me again in English. I understand that this has something to do with your grandfather and Krakatoa) Arno (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.16.51 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." It pays to remember this at times, it really does. However, it does not excuse the actions of some 'locusts' on this site, eg the Cabramatta article, who were the last straw for me in 2004.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

from Mav.

Some appreciated feedback[edit]

Happy birthday!! --AN 11:49 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Hi there. Great stuff on the Romana article. It's when three-line stubs become a full-page article in a matter of hours that wikipedia really seems to be achieving something! :-) -- Tarquin 11:25 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

What Tarquin said. Glad you accepted my NPOVing (I like Adams and think his Who stuff is good [it's Nation's bits of Destiny that are the problem if you ask me, but this probably isn't the place to debate such things]); I'd never heard the Mary Tamm pregnancy rumour, by the way - do you know enough to write a bio page for her? I'd be interested to read it. --Bth

You might want to look at the bottom on the most active Wikipedians page. I'm sure you would be much higher if your anon edits were counted. --mav

Excellent comment on Jimbo's page. Gave me a laugh. JtdIrL 05:37 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! Arno!

Thank you, Arno. Of all the articles I've contributed to, Emu is probably my favourite. :) Extraordinary creatures! As for "tweaking", I have no idea where I picked it up from. Tannin

Come on back when you can, Arno, you'll always be welcome. Tannin

I'm glad to see that you are at least kinda back. :) I hope your wikivacation re-energized you - I just got back from a week-long trip to Yellowstone and that re-energized me. --mav

I don't suppose you'd be interested in taking a trawl through September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for the day of the attacks to see if it needs tightening up? PMA 11:38, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

No thanks, I guess not. Sorry I have not replied until now. Arno 07:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A change of mind occurred tonight. Sep 11's timeline went through a major tidyup. Arno 10:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pick-up on the year for Ethos. I checked several sources that all said 1962! Go figure!?! Peter Ellis 03:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it was erected in 1962. I must say that the statue itself is rather unimposing. I had not really noticed it at all until I was walking past the thing recently and took a closer look at it. Arno 08:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Territory representation[edit]

The Northern Territory had one non-voting member of the House of Representatives from 1922 to 1968. The member acquired voting rights in 1968. The ACT had a non-voting member from 1949 to 1968, and a voting member thereafter. Neither territory had Senate representation until 1975, when they were given two Senators each. Adam 09:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have not been able to verify this, though it does sound correct. I won't be modifying anything in this regard until after I do some checking/verifying. Arno 03:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arno/Arnaud. Thanks for expressing what I am sure many people were thinking. It's had a good outcome, though. Cheers. JackofOz 13:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome.... Arno 08:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User page protection=[edit]

I am sending this message to a group of seasoned users whose opinions I respect. My aim is not to draw you into a dispute, but to canvass opinion on a contentious area of policy. If you have a few minutes to spare, please see the debate currently under way at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, with particular reference to user page protection. For some reason, I seem to have fallen foul of a group of sysops who have made it their business to stamp out the practice of protecting one’s own user page. A sensible (in my opinion) proposal has been made to amend the policy, and I would be grateful if you would add your view, assuming you have one. Cheers. Deb 13:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Sorry, Ran-Man, this went largely over my head. How, for instance, are you going to determine what in this website are my contributions, and what if someone overrides them? As it seems to apply to US Citizens anyway, I find it hard to even care about it. Sorry, but the answer to your offer is no. Arno 08:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HNY[edit]

And a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda to you too! Deb 23:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Pics[edit]

Hi Arno ... actually i have liked the logic by which u have talked in the talk page of Muhammad's cartoon , it is nice to see ppl talk with this fully logical wise speech , actually i have suggested in User talk:Babajobu to propose a policy for displaying the offensive pics in all pages in wikipedia like Piss Christ and Anti-semitism ... etc .. i think u will like this idea , can u support me please --Chaos 16:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I second the motion. I included a bunch of links to articles whose pictures should be viewed & "censored" depending on if they're offensive. Anti-semitism, Nazis, War, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Penis, Vagina, Breasts, Human anatomy, George Carlin (well, just all the swear words), etcetera.

Basically, what I'm looking to do is to make sure wikipedia offends no one, and to that end we can surely start with religious & racial offensive pictures (the anti-semitism article shows 17-19 offensive images of jews)! Further, I'm sure everyone wants this toned down enough to be pg-13 (no swearing) and have no pictures of the unclothed human body (those who believe in clothes might click those NPOV articles like "Human anatomy."

Glad to know you're on our side! Fight for what's right! 128.135.36.151 16:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. 128.135.72.110 20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys, but can you tell me who you all are? Also, and this may come as a surprise to some wikipedians, I'm hesitant abut how far a picture ban should go. But I do oppose the provoctive action taken in putting up that cartoon (as a good many do know!). Arno 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please certify RfC[edit]

Please certify the RfC I've just created.Raphael1 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace[edit]

You might be interested in the Article for deletion on the article Religion of Peace. Raphael1 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP cartoon victims[edit]

You might be interested in the table I've just created, which lists Wikipedias JP-cartoon victims. Raphael1 16:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came by too late for this.....Arno 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can see the new version here and my arbitration case here in case you are interested. Raphael1 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed seeing it again. Sorry, I've been very much an absentee these days for various reasons (those cartoon being one such reason). But I'll look at the arbitration case. Arno 01:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen, that you tried to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Proposed decision so I guesss you might be interested to read my comment on User_talk:Dmcdevit#Raphael1_is_disruptive. Raphael1 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

)

Sydney Harbour Bridge[edit]

G'Day!

This is a courtesy call.....

I've just completed a thorough edit of the Big Coathanger.

I have left all the written content, made some inclusions and only editted in the name of clarity and making appropriate connections.

What I have done is re-order the information under (sometimes different) headings, improve the layout, add the best photos I could find (incl. de Groot declaring the B. open) and shuffle those pics that were not either particularly informative or particularly beeyootiful down to a snapshot gallery (because we ALL like to have our work up, don't we? and it's a sign of the popularity of the item)..

I'd be interested in gettting your feedbackk, as you were a major contributor.

--Amandajm 02:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the changes were OK. Sorry I did not get back earlier, but I have not been here very often over the past several months. Arno 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee wizz, Arno. I'm kinda glad they were OK. Such enthusiazz is overwhelming!

--Amandajm 08:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, great enthuiazz in the speed of this reply! Arno 09:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk[edit]

Pretty good. Got some good shots I'll load to Commons in the next day or two, structual stuff, might be of some use in the article itself. I'll let you know when its up, if you're interested. -- saberwyn 10:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got some of the better ones up at commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saberwyn/Bridgewalk . -- saberwyn 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR nom Canberra[edit]

I have nominated Canberra for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back here temporarily, but thanks for this. Arno (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....and I first hear about in on August 19!????? Aaargh!!!!! 211.31.108.186 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)(ie Arno)[reply]

Checking to see if I still have this account. I do. Arno (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still here....Arno ( talk) 04:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

still here.... Arno (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Borusa for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Borusa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borusa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Arthur Plunkett[edit]

The article Arthur Plunkett has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Redsky89 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article could certainly use some fleshing out. I did create that page some years ago because someone had put in a few sentences about him on the Sydney Harbour Bridge article. I felt this was better off on another page and so moved those few sentences there. I just can't see how he qualifies as a "living person". Arno (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arthur Plunkett for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Plunkett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Plunkett until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this discussion had gone away. After 3 years , it was still there. Now that the article's here, I must maintain that it should stay. Arno (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Arno. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Arno. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Borusa for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Borusa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borusa (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]