User talk:HappyWaldo

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, HappyWaldo, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! User:JarrahTree 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

HappyWaldo, before you start deleting references to sources you need to familiarise yourself and follow Wikipedia guidelines rather than relying on your own opinion. Please refer to: “Finding secondary sources is a large topic but make use of Google Books, News and Scholar; find local newspaper archives; go to a library; if you have access, use pay/subscription services like JSTOR, Newspaperarchive.com; Ancestry.com, etc.” (Help:Maintenance template removal], ‘Primary sources’ section). Ikeshut2 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• My point about Ancestry.com is that you described it as an “unreliable source”, but neither link you provided supports that contention. Ancestry.com is useful mostly for providing on-line access to primary source documents, that would otherwise only be obtainable by spending considerable time at places such as NSW Archives at Kingswood (for example). I agree that user-generated content on Ancestry.com can be unreliable, especially when unsupported by linked documents. I use Ancestry.com as a tool, totally aware of what should be used and what should be avoided. I could easily quote the source details, without including “per Ancestry.com”, pretending that I spent a couple of days gathering research material at (say) NSW Archives, but I would prefer to be honest and up-front about the reference. It is incorrect to conclude Ancestry.com = unreliable source. It can be useful and I have the skills and judgment to use it properly. Your black-and-white position about Ancesty.com is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines.
• I used the Truth newspaper as an example of how Lowry’s words to Detective Camphin were transformed to represent his last words, formulated as “Tell ‘em I died game”. Yes, it’s a dodgy tabloid source, but that’s the whole point; it entered the public imagination precisely through sources such as that. There is no pretence that the Truth is a reliable source. A cited source needs to be read in connection with the section of the article it refers to.
• As it was you who initiated the article, I assume you have no issue with Lowry’s notability. You say: “Basically, primary sources should be avoided if the same information has been covered in a reliable secondary source, such as a peer reviewed academic paper”. That assumes that the “same information has been covered in a reliable secondary source”. I have access to a University library and a large range of on-line resources, including academic papers, and in my experience there are very few reliable secondary sources on Lowry (not for want of trying). To my knowledge a biography of Lowry has not been written; the modern books on bushrangers I’ve consulted either don’t mention Lowry or basically paraphrase and summarise information out of Boxall, White or Clune; Boxall is riddled with mistaken assumptions and inaccuracies, and I have used White and Clune at appropriate places in the article. If there’s any high-quality article and/or book on Lowry I’ve missed, please let me know, otherwise I stand by the primary sources I have cited.
• When I compare the original article initiated by you (no citations; multiple factual errors) with the extended, corrected and fully-referenced version that I am responsible for, I proudly stand by my version whatever “scholarly attention” it receives. Prior to my major overhaul the article had just two cited sources (added by others and both retained), and included many of your unsourced original errors of fact.

Furthermore:

• You removed the word “sensational”, claiming it to be WP:PUFFERY (i.e., using praise-filled adjectives). 'Sensational' means “causing great public interest and excitement” which is a factually correct description of the coverage of Lowry’s bushranging career. Accounts of his deeds elicited much public interest and were extensively covered in local newspapers, as well as in other New South Wales country districts and in Sydney, and in other colonies as well (extensively covered because it sold newspapers). You appear to have read the word as its informal sense, meaning “very impressive or attractive”. The context made it obvious I was using the formal meaning of the word and I am completely at a loss how you could misinterpret the word. Ikeshut2 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I must admit it’s crossed my mind to write and publish an article first, but the thought of having to paraphrase myself fills me with horror. I accept your point about ‘sensational’, and have no problems with your amendments to the lead. I brought it up because I perfectly understand the concept of ‘puffery’ and to be accused of using it is an affront. We clearly share a few areas of interest and are likely to intersect into the future. Can we at least call a truce and enter into some sort of rapprochement? All I ask is for you to give me the benefit of the doubt. For example, if there had’ve been some quality secondary source on Lowry out there, I would have liked nothing better than to use it, but there wasn’t and so I did it the hard way. Apart from a few differences in taste, I think we basically want the same thing, so I’m proposing we accept there will be some differences but trust the big picture stuff is being taken care of (unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary). Ikeshut2 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Manchester Unity Building

Was there any reason you removed the image of the Manchester Unity Building in the Architecture section of the Melbourne page? Ashton 29 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Girl Who Joined the Bushrangers

The article The Girl Who Joined the Bushrangers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Australia (History)

Hi Waldo,

I note your comments on my recent edits to the history section on Australia, which I have taken on-board. I have spent today on a do-over of my prior edit. The majority of the new content (for instance, the para leading up to federation and the para on the dismissal) have been removed.

I have made the edit with WP:SUMMARY and WP:DETAIL front of mind, and the section is now highly concise and now contrasts with most national history sections in its high level of conciseness. For instance, it goes into significantly less detail than the History section under another Featured Article of a similar nation, namely Canada.

Furthermore, I have added numerous new citiations from respectable sources. Not only have I added these to the small number of my additional sentences which remain, I have also added new citations to pre-existing text where I felt citations could have been used.

Lastly, whilst nearly 80 years have elapsed since the start of the post-war era and we are no longer in the historical post-war era, I have combined the couple of remaining sentences about the 21st century into a new combined Post-war and Contemporary eras section. Of all of the chronological eras under the History of Australia page (1788-1850, 1850-1901, 1901-1945, 1945-present) this is by far the longest era. Most of the material was pre-existing.

I feel the point which is absolutely key is that for a nation with a 235 year recorded history at least there is not now the entire period from 1901-2021 (covering a whopping 121 years) all under a single subsection which really relates to foundational events (ie beginnings of national history - like federation and Gallipoli) when it is clearly not arguable that Australia is still in that era or has been for a long time, with 1945 the clear dividing line. This way, the section is structured more as a 'History' (ie history of the nation - telling the story of the nation) section rather than basically a 'Foundation' section, noting that Australia is now a mature nation that achieved a stable nationhood many decades ago.

I appreciate your work in seeking to maintain high standards, and trust that the above demonstrably yet further increases the standard of a good article while maintaining strong conciseness.

My compliments to you. StormcrowMithrandir 08:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Stop it honestly, stick to productive edits rather than just being critical of people and making out you are the authority on everything. I'm seriously about to give up editing because you take it upon yourself to revert every single edit I make even if they are fully sourced and researched. --Rulesfan (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this what I am to expect over the vandalism of Melbourne Shuffle, an edit war? I will email the news site with the source and advise them of Wikipedia toxic behavior and mention you as well because there and millions just like you on here. Purple rain and black sky (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Your changes to Ned Kelly article

Hello Happy Waldo

My concern with your additions is that they do not improve the article. They are repetative, full of unnecessary detail and often written in unencyclopeadic language. For example:

"Constable Arthur, the first policeman to encounter Kelly, recalled: "I was completely astonished, and could not understand what the object I was firing at was.""

This is unnecessary. There is already a long quote from Tom Carrington stating how astonishing the scene was, there is no need for another one making the same point. Articles are supposed to be concise. Other eyewitness said that they weren't at all astonished by the events and knew exactly what was happening.

"Kelly began laughing as he shot at and taunted the police, and, upon his order, Dan Kelly and Hart provided intermittent covering fire from the hotel."

This "strange contest" continued for almost ten minutes, Kelly at times stopping to change weapons or regain his composure after taking a bullet to the armour, the sensation being "like blows from a man's fist". After diving to the ground to avoid one of Kelly's shots, Sergeant Steele realised that the figure's legs were unprotected. He shot at them twice with his shotgun, tearing apart Kelly's hip and thigh. The outlaw staggered, then collapsed against a fallen tree and moaned, "I'm done, I'm done". Steele went to disarm him, but Kelly fired once more, blowing the sergeant's hat off and burning the side of his face. Kelly was disarmed and carried to the railway station where a doctor attended to his wounds."

This is the stuff of a novel or tabloid journalism. Eyewitness accounts of the details of the seige vary on almost every point. Many of the participants wrote colourful accounts to put themselves in a good light and to sell newspapers and memoirs. Some say that Steel simply fell over rather than diving to the ground. How do modern authors know that Kelly felt the sensation of the gunshots "like blows from a man's fist"? Why include lurid details about bullets "tearing apart Kelly's hip and thigh"? Based on eyewitness accounts and secondary sources one could write an entry stating that Kelly was a coward who abandoned his gang and begged for mercy when cornered. It's best to just stick to what we know about the facts and write it up in neutral, unemotional manner. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added more detail to The Last Stand section which I think sticks to the facts and meets some of your concerns over my previous edits. I apologise again for the tone of some of my previous comments. I still think the article needs some work and would be happy to discuss further improvements with you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop

Can you please make constructive edits instead of just reverting changes wholesale with pitiful reasoning just because you don't want an article modified??? --Rulesfan (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please explain your rationale for South Africa??

So I've done everything you've asked for, including a relevant citation from one of your preferred sources in which De Moore gives New Zealand and South Africa almost equal representation. Yet it seems you are just out to remove every edit I make. What gives??? --Rulesfan (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Beckett changes

Hello there, as a reader and editor with interest in art history and criticism, I am puzzled by your reversal of my edits to Clarice Beckett, though of course I am remiss in that I didn't run them past you in making them. You announced you were "removing reception section" adding "all contemporaneous reviews should be woven into life section." Should they? Is there Wikipedia rule on that? Can't find it, and you would be at odds with it anyway when in that in Vincent van Gogh (Russell painting) of which you are "quite proud" (see statement in your User page) there is such a section; Reception and legacy. I am, and evidently many others are, interested in understanding in particular the way that reactions to Beckett's work evolved so dramatically, and so I put some effort through many edits to this article to track that. A separate section 'Reception' and the re-ordering I most recently made (discussion of her style in a separate section first) is therefore justified. I bow to your shifting back those posthumous tributes (mercury crater etc) along with some editor's trivia about a movie back into 'Legacy,' but I object to having work undone without justification, and without improving the article—in fact contradicting your own practice in Vincent van Gogh (Russell painting). I don't wish to enter an 'edit war,' but do you see my justification for adding a 'Reception' section, and will you permit me to add it?. In Percy Leason: An artist’s life by Margo Tasca there is more on that issue that might be included..I've purchased a copy for the purpose, though you're welcome to do that research task yourself if you desire. In the interests of arriving at some consensus on this, do reply please. Jamesmcardle^(talk) 06:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured articles

Further to comment above - here is a table of Featured articles showing their incorporation and placement of critical reception, contemporaneous or posthumous.... Jamesmcardle^(talk) 07:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey of location, in all 'Featured' artist articles, of critical reception; i.e. analysis, critique, evaluation, appraisal, commentary
Featured article	Dates, profession	Comment	'Reception' contained in biography or 'life'	Critical reception detailed in separate section
Felice Beato	photographer (1832–1909)		some	in "Photographic techniques"
V. Gordon Childe	archaeologist 1892–1957)		not in	in 'Archaeological theory' and subsections, and 'Legacy and influence'
Edward Thomas Daniell	artist (1804 – 1842)		some commentary	mainly in 'Works and artistic style', 'Legacy'
Homer Davenport	cartoonist (1867–1912)	little critical discussion throughout		some in 'Legacy
William Etty	artist		some	majority in subsections devoted to particular examples
John Douglas (English architect)	English architect (1830–1911)		No	in 'Styles and practice'
El Lissitzky (1890–1941)	Soviet artist and architect		yes
Adolfo Farsari	Italian photographer (1841 – 1898)			only in 'Evaluations of his work'
Florence Fuller	artist (1867–1946)		yes	evaluation is most concentrated in 'Style and legacy'
Charles Holden	English architect (1875–1960)		yes
Osbert Lancaster	English cartoonist (1908–1986)		incidental	in discussion of works in sections, and in 'Legacy' subsection 'reputation'
Henry Moore	English sculptor	devoid of critical commentary or discussion	none	none
Benjamin Mountfort	English architect (1825–1898)	sparse critical commentary or discussion	little	a bit in 'Legacy'
Wintjiya Napaltjarri	artist (born between ca. 1923 to 1934)		no	In section 'Art', subsection 'Career'
Makinti Napanangka	artist (c. 1930 – 2011)		no	In sections 'Artistic career,' and 'Style of painting'
Hilda Rix Nicholas	artist (1884–1961)		minor, scattered	In 'Critical summation'
I. M. Pei	architect		no	limited, in 'Style and method'
Minnie Pwerle	artist		no	in "Career' and 'Style of painting'
Constance Stokes	artist (1906–1991)		some contemporary critique throughout	appraisal mainly in 'Legacy'
Tom Thomson	artist		no	'Art and technique' 'Legacy and influence'
Mortimer Wheeler	archaeologist		no	'Reception and legacy'
Rudolf Wolters	architect (1903–1983)	little evaluation	no	no

Jamesmcardle^(talk) 07:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that intervention on the Brisbane Lions page

Yeah, you coming into the discussion there helps a lot I think, the whole situation in July got very difficult at times with stubborn holding out about claims that were contrary to the empirical proven facts, and definitely wanting to avoid a rehash of that with RL.

Have also made a slight addition there to ensure the full factual consistency - just a couple of words - and put in the relevant ASIC sources that were part of the discussion in "Talk" on that page, hope you're OK with that... JayBee00 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

East End Theatre District

Hi

The current picture is really bad with the lowest quality. The light is not good at all. Also, those overhead stars block the view. "Moulin Rouge" sign is not shown. In my photo, all details of the building can be seen clearly. If you want Regent Theatre in Collin Street, Melbourne.jpg to be set with the thumbnail, you can crop it. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism of Melbourne Shuffle based on your opinion

Dear Sir/madam,

The video if the subject whom is said to have created the Shuffle in filmed at Falls Festival the largest music festival in Australia held in Melbourne, it is clear he is being filmed by the large camera on wheels then the main image of the fans holding him one girl even topless. Your opinion runs contrary to the 20,000 fans that day and falls management. Plenty of other evidence in the article too if you had the time to read it and translate. Cheers Purple rain and black sky (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

LoL you the absurd one not the article, lets just wait till the news get coverage in USA so you can cry every night about it hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.225.157 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You are an Expert wikipedia vandal you only revert and you say consensus when it is only you, Yet no replies to any talk pages it's a wonder you have not been banned yet. I am going to spread the word about Novoa to everyone. Purple rain and black sky (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Apology accepted I am impressed with how you updated the page, your good. Purple rain and black sky (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Users above all blocked as socks of Maurice Novoa/Australianblackbelt, so you can comfortably disregard. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, HappyWaldo!

Happy New Year!

HappyWaldo,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Jerium (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Jerium (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New wave.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Prince of Wales Hotel (Melbourne)

Hello, HappyWaldo,

Thank you for creating Prince of Wales Hotel (Melbourne).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi Happwaldo, nice work on the new article. It would benefit from inclusion in additional Wikiprojects. It will need additional sourcing as it is currently sourced to only one source. The (impressive!) list of notable performers is also unreferenced, and would be better presented as prose.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Melbourne Shuffle

Hallo mr I see you edit history in a Indonesian website about Melbourne Shuffle, there is a new source https://el-espanol.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/IMG_7344-scaled.jpg and this one is a legit source too https://radarkaur.disway.id/read/651452/menyelami-gerakan-halus-wing-chun-kung-fu-sifu-maurice-novoa-maestro-di-balik-fenomena-melbourne-shuffle#google_vignette what do you think? Menteng Ibu (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Bendigo

Hi HappyWaldo, I have recently joined WikiProject Bendigo and I am currently recruiting more editors to join also. I can see that you are a regular editor to Victorian-related articles, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in joining the project, as there are still a number of Bendigo articles that need improvement. Please let me know what you think. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiculturalism in Australia article

Hello there Please note that I have started a discussion on this on the Talk page. Also, if you want to change someone else's edits, please consider the reasons they made the change as expressed in their edit summaries or talk page comments. If there is a disagreement between several editors on the article, it is much more constructive to open a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus rather than reverting good faith edits and leaving sarcastic messages on your edit summaries. Please also see policy on WP:edit warring. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

List of demolished buildings and structures in Melbourne

Thanks for thanking me for creating the page, but its now a bit unwieldy and unfocussed. I created the original page to be specifically Victorian landmarks in the CBD that were demolished in the 50s-70s because they are the largest group, and often mentioned. The page now seems to be a list of anything notable in and beyond the CBD that was ever demolished, including places demolished in the 1880s. And theres no order at all. They could be grouped by period of construction, or period of demolition, or alphabetical, or by location ? Or i could resurrect my original page as a subsection ? Rohanstorey (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Australian Football

Hey

Just saw you reverted my addition of AFL to the list of names/nicknames. I reverted this back because I cannot see a reason to remove it. It does not make the list unwieldy, it's sourced and it's a common name for the sport.

Please do not revert this again. Basetornado (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Waltzing Matilda

Dear Happy Waldo,

A short time ago I reverted your edit on ‘Waltzing Matilda’. None of the changes that you made improved the accuracy of the article. Some of your changes were not supported by the references which you left unchanged. In addition, you do not seem to understand copyright in music at all well. The existing edit was written to highlight the implications for copyright in the Christina Macpherson, Harry Nathan and Marie Cowan versions of the song between 1895 and 1903. Your edit removed them. Making small improvements to your edit was unlikely to help. The ‘undo button’ was the only real option.

In your edit, you said that a squatter was a ‘crown land occupier’. This was true in the early 1800’s, but the meaning had changed dramatically by 1895 when ‘Squatters’ owned large properties, freehold. The link to ‘Squatter’ explained this. Did you read the link, ‘Squatting (Australian History)’?

Why did you change the term ‘composed’ to ‘written’, in “The original lyrics were composed in 1895 by Australian poet, Banjo Paterson.” Reputable historians generally agree that Paterson composed the lyrics in 1895.

Your edit said that, in 1902, Nathan published a setting of the ballad with SLIGHT alterations to Christina’s melody. In Christina’s and Harry’s songs there are no matching bars where the two melodies are the same. While musicians generally agree that Nathan’s melody is a variation of Christina’s, the two melodies are quite different. Reference (3) is the manuscript of Harry Nathan’s ‘Waltzing Matilda’. If you can read music, you can see for yourself how different they are. As well as changing the melody, Nathan created a new complex harmony using a variety of chords. When Christina and Banjo collaborated on their song, Christina played an auto harp with only 3 simple chords. Banjo remembers their song’s dreaminess and whimsicality. Nathan’s arrangement is a brisk military mach. The two versions are VERY different.

Further down the same paragraph, you wrote, “By altering Nathan's version, Cowan gave the song a simple, brisk, harmonious accompaniment which made it very catchy.” This is back the front. Surely that should read that Cowan altered Nathan’s version by giving his melody a simple, brisk, harmonious accompaniment which made it very catchy. It is not only that your wording is quite poor, it also shows that you have no understanding of the issues surrounding copyright. The original edit was, “Cowan made some more changes to the words and some very minor changes to Nathan's melody and gave the song a simple, brisk, harmonious accompaniment which made it very catchy.” This says that Marie Cowan’s version is a ‘cover’ of Harry Nathan’s.

Many years later, Marie Cowan’s version was granted a copyright in America despite being a cover of Nathan’s tune!!!!!!. The beneficiaries of Marie Cowan's will received handsome royalties. Nathan died of alcoholic poisoning in 1906. The beneficiaries of Harry’s will received nothing. This is American justice in action.

The original edit came up very well in “Google searches”. Yours will not do the same.

Happy Waldo, I think that you were very presumptuous to change this edit.

BDW82 (talk)17:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Australian Football

What are you doing?

Why keep reverting edits that add relevant information.

There was no information on how scoring is notated. This is a pretty key piece of information. The 9 point goal is still used occasionally for charity matches and the like. Hence why I included it and referenced where it was "notably" used.

About the ball? If it was traditionall brown, then simply remove that line. Don't change it back to a worse paragraph.

About the competitions? No it doesn't have that information, lack or promotion/relegation in the top tier of the sport is pretty important information.

It is getting incredibly frustrating, writing new information that is a) relevant and b) not mentioned before and then having you come through reverting it because you personally don't want it there. Then if I try to revert your bad faith edits, you revert them back, tell me to get a consensus, then ignore anything I actually write, even when there are sources that clearly state the validity of what I am writing.

If you're going to change what I write, I have no issues as long as the information is still there. Change it around if there are inaccuracies, but don't do a blanket revert because you don't like it. It isn't your page. It's wikipedia, the point is that new users are meant to add when they see things missing or adapt paragraphs when they need to be rewritten.

Il give you an hour to reply, before I change them back, minus the traditional section, because this is getting absurd. Basetornado (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)