text:
HCLTech

HCL Technologies Limited, doing business as HCLTech, is an Indian multinational information technology (IT) consulting company headquartered in Noida. Founded by Shiv Nadar, it was spun out in 1991 when HCL entered into the software services business. The company has offices in 60 countries and over 225,000 employees.

Formation and early years
In 1976, a group of eight engineers, all former employees of Delhi Cloth & General Mills, led by Shiv Nadar, started a company that would make personal computers. Initially floated as Microcomp Limited, Nadar and his team (which also included Arjun Malhotra, Ajai Chowdhry, D.S. Puri, Yogesh Vaidya and Subhash Arora) started selling teledigital calculators to gather capital for their main product. On 11 August 1976, the company was renamed Hindustan Computers Limited (HCL). HCL Enterprise developed an indigenous microcomputer in 1978, and a RDBMS, networking OS and client-server architecture in 1983. HCL Technologies began as the R&D division of HCL Enterprise.

The company originally was focused on hardware but, via HCL Technologies, software and services became the main focus. On 12 November 1991, HCL Technologies was spun off as a separate unit, being incorporated as HCL Overseas Limited, a provider of software and technology development services.

In 1993, HCL also started providing enterprise IT infrastructure management services, winning an order to establish India's first floorless, electronic stock exchange for NSE.

In July 1994, the company name was changed to HCL Consulting Limited. On 6 October 1999, the company was renamed 'HCL Technologies Limited' for "a better reflection of its activities."

Between 1991 and 1999, the company expanded its software development capacities to US, European and APAC markets.

IPO and subsequent expansion
The company went public on 10 November 1999, with an issue of 142 crore (14.2 million) shares. During 2000, the company set up an offshore development centre in Chennai, India, for KLA-Tencor Corporation.

In 2001, HCL formed a joint venture with Deutsche Bank by acquiring a 51% stake in the latter's Indian subsidiary Deutsche Software (later renamed DSL Software). In 2004, HCL bought out the remaining 49% stake in DSL Software, which then became part of HCL's banking technology division.

In 2005, HCL expanded its operations in Northern Ireland. At the 2006 UK Trade and Investment India Business Awards in New Delhi, the then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the expansion.

In October 2017, IBM and HCL announced a strategic partnership, with the latter taking over the development of IBM Lotus Software's Notes, Domino, Sametime and Verse collaboration tools.

In July 2018, US-based Actian was acquired by HCL and Sumeru Equity Partners for $330 million.

In 2019, HCL Technologies acquired products of IBM including AppScan, BigFix, Commerce, Connections, Digital Experience (Portal and Content Manager), Notes/Domino, and Unica.

In 2021, the company reached $10 billion in revenue. In 2022, HCL Technologies rebranded as HCLTech.

In May 2024, HCLTech decided to acquire select assets of Communications Technology Group, a business division of Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), for $225 million.

Operations

HCLTech operates in 60 countries, including its headquarters in Noida, India. It has establishments in Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Morocco and Sri Lanka. In Europe, it covers Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Romania, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, and United Kingdom. In the Americas, the company has offices in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and United States.

HCLSoftware
In 2019, HCL Technologies started a software product division called HCLSoftware, after completing the acquisition of IBM's software tools. Notable products under HCLSoftware include HCL Notes, AppScan, Connections, Commerce Cloud, Actian, BigFix, Digital Experience, Ingres, Unica, Sametime, and iNotes. HCLSoftware division had revenue of inr 111090000000 in fiscal year 2022–23.

Leadership
HCLTech has had four CEOs since its inception:
 * 1) Shiv Nadar (1976–2007)
 * 2) Vineet Nayar (2007–2013)
 * 3) Anant Gupta (2013–2016)
 * 4) C Vijayakumar (2016–present)

HCL Group
HCLTech is the flagship company of the HCL Group. Another HCL Group company, HCL Infosystems, was formed in 1976 to produce calculators. HCL Infosystems later became one of the leading manufacturers of personal computers and laptops in India, but it eventually lost market share to foreign competitors like HP and Dell, and shut down its manufacturing division.

In February 2014, HCL Group launched HCL Healthcare, which provides corporate health services. HCL TalentCare is the fourth venture of HCL Group, which provided skilling and staffing services.

title: HCLTech


text:
Talk:Dennis Lillee

Untitled
"Still a huge hit with the fans, Lillee continued his international career until famously retiring along with Greg Chappell and Rod Marsh after the Sydney Test match against Pakistan in January 1984; many consider this 'triple retirement' had an adverse impact on the Australian national team as their performances soon slumped."

Whilest all 3 did retire from TEST cricket after that match I'm pretty sure Marsh continued on play out the World Series Cup of that Summer whereas Chappell and Lillee did not.

 * Interesting, but I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to an article on Dennis Lillee. In adding the information about the possible adverse impact on the national team, I did so as more an indication that it happened.  Certainly an article on the impacts of their retirements would be very interesting...--Cory 16:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

MRF School Of Pace
I think something should be mentioned in his role at the MRF (Madras Rubber Factory) sponsored School of Pace Academy in Chennai (formerly Madras).

He was made director of the school, founded in 1987, which was launched to help find good young fast bowlers in India

A couple of links:

http://www.chennaibest.com/cityresources/Sports_and_Recreation/sportsacademies01.asp

http://www.iloveindia.com/sports/bodies/mrf-pace-foundation.html

Fast bowlers who I think have trained at the school:

Javagal Srinath, Venkatesh Prasad, Ajit Agarkar (?), Ashish Nehra(?), Zaheer Khan(?), Irfan Pathan, Shanthakumaran Sreesanth, Munaf Patel(?), Rudra Pratap Singh(?)

Stonysleep 14:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DKLillee.jpg
Image:DKLillee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One and only caught & bowled dismissal in test cricket
No mention of Lillee's one and only caught and bowled in test cricket - the victim was Geoffrey Boycott. Having induced Boycott to hook with the previous ball ( a bouncer), Lillee repeated it - and Boycott skied it. Yelling "Mine!" at the top of his voice, Lillee ran to a short mid wicket position and delightedly took the catch. (This happened at Trent Bridge - but I am open to correction on the point.)

I think this deserves a mention. 81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It was Dilley at Headingley, no idea if it was a hook shot, so maybe not that notable- or referenced.The-Pope (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Info on Carl Rackemann
Carl Rackemann was NOT the Man of the Match in the second Test against Pakistan in 83/84 - that honour went to Geoff Lawson. Rackemann was Man of the Match for the FIRST Test. It also isn't clear, from what I can remember, that Lillee was going to be dropped for the Third. Tom Hogan came into the side as Rackemann's replacement - a left arm orthodox spinner! There would certainly have been a lot of public resistance to dropping a living legend like Lillee at that stage, not least from PBL who had disproportionate influence over the game at the time and who would have seen the Lillee name as a draw card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.218.51 (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Other Controversies
Lillee was involved in more controversies than have been mentioned. During his comeback to First Class Cricket, he (and his mate Botham) destroyed an Honour Board in the small ground they were playing at in Tasmania. There is also the apparent undermining of Kim Hughes's authority when the latter was Captain of Australia, most notably the very public "disagreement" during a one day match in 1983. Much information on this can be drawn from the recent book "Golden Boy". When he was the stand in Captain of WA in his last season, he had a very public spat with the umpires over extra drinks for the team. Certainly the first two should rate a mention, particularly since the attitude of Lillee (and Marsh and the Chappell brothers) helped to undermine Kim Hughes as a Captain, his self confidence and perhaps ultimately his batting form. I'm a big fan of DK, but there is no walking away from this - although kicking Javed is the most notorious incident Lillee was involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.218.51 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lillee/Miandad Incident
I have removed this section which needs to be be written to comply with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The link was dead (though I see an updated version is available), the quote was selective, and one source has been used for an incident that was widely written about and needs more balance for e.g what the media reaction).  Flat Out  let's discuss it  01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dennis Lillee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831043509/http://www.mcg.org.au/default.asp?pg=toursdisplay&articleid=111 to http://www.mcg.org.au/default.asp?pg=toursdisplay&articleid=111

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent NPOV issues in the lead
This is in response to an IP user who's used multiple IP addresses.

The edits you're trying to put in place have a range of issues associated with them: What does this boil down to? Hell, Lillee was good. Not as fast as some, not as skilled as others, but a fine bowler and one of the best I've seen (at times). And the article says that already. The lead could use a little work to be cleverer, sure, but that's not what you're doing here really I'm afraid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * to start with, you're removing a source and a direct quote. There's no need to do that, so don't. That quote actually does way more than the four you've added to the lead;
 * you're then suggesting that he is "widely regarded as one of the greatest and a complete fast bowler" - which, by the way, doesn't actually make grammatical sense. Of the four sources you're putting up to support this, the Wisden one doesn't say either of those things, the CricInfo profile could be used to suggest that he is regarded as being "complete bowler", and that might be a useful thing to say in addition to the quote you keep on removing, CricketCountry has some general POV issues associated with it - I find it more reliable for factual points than for opinions -, and The Age makes neither claim. Use the CricInfo profile, sure, but use it carefully and with a bit more nuance please;
 * the issue with him being sixth in the Five Cricketers voting is, again, that you're doing it crudely. Ultimately the vote was designed to select the top 5. Lillee didn't make that. He wasn't voted sixth - he came sixth-equal in the voting to select the top five and so failed to make the cut. If there had been a vote to select the top-10 people may have voted differently than they did in the vote to choose the top 5 - it's nuance again. Ultimately I think you'd be better off using the quote from Bird in the Wisden article about the vote as the key point - it's more of a telling point anyway;
 * and we don't write "Dennis was...". There's a manual of style. We write "Lillee was..." - and it's red flag if you don't fwiw;

First of all the Cricket County article is by a renowned cricket historian so that hardly makes it a POV issue infact far from it..

 * You are saying that being written as outstanding fast bowler of his er diminished his all time great status ?? Seriously there are articles which mentions Don Bradman, Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara as premiere batter of their era does that prevent them from being top tier great batters ??

 * Noone literally nobody can deny Dennis as an All-Time great in their right sense of mind for sure infact all great batters of that era rates him finest paceman of all time whether it's Viv Richards, Greg Chappell, Gordon Greenidge or West Indian pace quartet infact those who have serious reason to dislike him Miandad and Gavaskar are united in rating him as finest paceman that's ever lived.

Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram article mentioned that they are one of best ever so why not in case of Dennis Lillee ?

At last you claimed that he was not as fast as many ?? Not sure about that pre injury he was as fast as anyone Garry Sobbers said that he was fastest he ever saw. Even after those stress fractures he was still like greased lightning slower than Jeff Thomson but quicker than anyone else in the game. He clocked 155 kmph rocket in 1977 way after his stress fractures.. In skills well you must be ill-informed if you don't rate him in his skills

Overall there is literally no one that can deny his stature as an all-time great paceman and arguably the finest. 2409:4051:18B:75A3:38AC:5D71:90:3D3B (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Andy Roberts the Hitman one of finest ever rates him as greatest ever 'take a look here' 2409:4051:18B:75A3:38AC:5D71:90:3D3B (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Michael Holding another champion paceman rates him among four best ever along with Roberts, Marshall and Steyn 'source is here'

 * Just for your bit on Wisden article that clearly mentioned that Happy birthday to DK Lillee, one of the great quicks refering to his iconic over to Viv at MCG in 1981.

I am pinging Is there any issue in refering to Dennis as one of greatest ever fast bowlers in lead as it is used for Akram, Marshall and other great pacemans ?? 2409:4051:18B:75A3:38AC:5D71:90:3D3B (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I think a direct quote works best and ref bombing the lead is not necessary.Spike 'em (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 * OK, I'll try and respond here if I can manage to get a handle on what you're actually asking for.
 * the article currently says, with a direct quote, that he was the "outstanding fast bowler of his generation". That's a pretty strong statement of greatness. I'm quite happy if that's added to a touch - but don't remove it because it's actually stronger, in my view, than saying that "he was great, really great";
 * lots of articles claim greatness. In most cases that's debatable at best (I mean, Bradman, sure); it's unfortunate that far too many articles use phrases such as that in my view. As I wrote above, no one's arguing that he wasn't a damned fine bowler. I said: "use the CricInfo profile, sure, but use it carefully and with a bit more nuance please". Calm down and write properly. What if we wrote a lead paragraph that said something along the lines of:
 * Dennis Keith Lillee, (born 18 July 1949) is a former Australian cricketer rated as the "outstanding fast bowler of his generation".(ref with the BBC article) Lillee was known for his fiery temperament and 'never-say-die' attitude(can we find a direct ref for this?) and is generally considered one of the most "complete" fast bowlers of the 20th century.(use the cricinfo reference)
 * This could lead into a second paragraph that discusses him being the leading Test wicket taker, for example. And that into a third paragraph where his awards are summarised: Hall of Fame, Australia's test team of the century, cricketer of the year etc...
 * This would give the lead more balance;
 * I could pick through the individual points you make of course - the Wisden line you quote was from an embedded tweet not from the article; my issue is with CricketCountry as a rather hyperbolic site rather than with Arunabha Sengupta as a writer etc... But that would be pointless (I mean, if you want me to, just ask);
 * By the way, I should note that John Woodcock has him 19th in his list of the 100 Greatest Cricketers of all time. I can dig the Times reference out for you if you want - it's online at Gale; and Wisden's obituary of Bob Willis mentions Lillee a few times - it's an interesting comparative view;
 * We need to be more, well, encyclopaedic. The National Portrait Gallery does a half decent job of a short bio that has things that could be used, for example. But what you're currently insisting on is poorly written and, as Spike says, the ref bomb is completely unnecessary - given that everything in the lead should be backed up in the body of the article anyway;
 * Currently you're writing Dennis Keith Lillee, AM, MBE (born 18 July 1949) is a former Australian cricketer who is widely regarded as one of the greatest fast bowler of cricket history.[1][2][3][4] In 2000, Dennis was voted as sixth greatest cricketer of the 20th century along with Frank Worrell by a 100 member panel of experts and was first fast bowler in the list.[5] This has a number of issues:
 * don't link Australian - WP:OLINK issues;
 * one of the greatest fast bowler of cricket history doesn't work grammatically. I hinted at this above;
 * don't use Dennis - use Lillee. I specifically pointed this out above, yet you've just put the same thing back again;
 * again, unfortunately, Dennis was voted as sixth greatest cricketer of the 20th century along with Frank Worrell by a 100 member panel of experts and was first fast bowler in the list is grammatically full of issues. It's interesting that you called me a "typical Pom" in this edit summary; are you aware that we can approximately geolocate IP addresses?;
 * you piped fast bowling to bowling, which was unfortunate.
 * cut a bit of the hyperbole, write in a balanced way. That's all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What can we make of this ? So apart from Bradman no other great batters ever played ?? Master Blaster Viv Richards ?? Perhaps the finest of all post war batters..Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Greg Chappell, Javed Miandad are all in top echelon of great players. Only you can debate or belite their greatness infact it was Bradman who is a bit overrated smashing helpless Poms everyday.

 * My point has always been with these specific quote that he was outstanding paceman of his era ?? I have some articles which mentions Viv as most destructive batter ever, does that prevent him from being an all-time great ?? Some mentions Brian Lara as magician batter so does it makes him any lesser ATG batsman ?

 * At last instead of using this baseless quote rather write a common consensus about his status that DK is an all-time great and one of finest ever pacemans thats ever lived.

So, here is my suggestion for the same:-

OR

As simple as this articles of other great fast bowlers like Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Dale Steyn, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose simply acknoweldge them as ATG fast bowlers.

About Wisden assesement of him can be discussed a bit later. 2409:4051:18B:75A3:588F:7030:2690:3802 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 * No reply in last 4 days now so as per silence I am assuming consensus here. 2409:4051:4E82:767:D570:AAE4:7F3D:A93B (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than the fact that 2 people have disagreed with you. Spike 'em (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, then Dennis was not an all time great ?? Bring out a source that say so that he was not a great bowler ??

You both sounds like helpless Poms whom he and Thommo made a mess of and in response Poms cried about too many bouncers but they enjoy same when they found Jofra Archer. 2409:4051:6:51E4:4A19:4D7C:E435:67F2 (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA Spike 'em (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that your interpretation of WP:SILENT is necessarily spot on here - people are busy and don't get a chance to repond to everything. Fwiw I was thinking about what you'd written but was in work for much of this week. I'm not sure we're at the stage yet where we have a consensus for the change you proposed - although it was an improvement on your past edits.
 * I was wondering how frequently other sports use the wordings "greatest" or "great" and in what circumstance. I see it surprisingly often in cricket articles, although often having been added by editors who appear to be from the sub-continent - I don't know if there's a subtly different meaning in regional versions of English at all. It's a slightly troubling term - we seem to have an awful lot of "great" or "greatest" cricketers which, logically, is tricky to resolve.
 * TLDR: I need to think about this a bit more I'm afraid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I'd not read it before, butt did find this section pertinent: Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like. Similarly, in the presence of a revert, there is neither silence nor consensus. Spike 'em (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that you are making much sense here; a lot of articles use greatness as a yardstick for cricketers, so what ?? If there is universal consensus among the cricket fratinity among certain individuals as one of finest or greatest then no doubt it should be mentioned. Apart from great figures DK was kind of trendsetter for future fast bowlers by coming of from severe back injuries who no one knew back then. We aren't using greatness here for someone like Peter Siddle or even Merv Hughes.

This quote is as meaningless as is India's current series loss to perhaps worst ever RSA team I know in 45 years. What is consensus among greats for judges for Dennis ? Simply one of the greatest ever or some says the greatest those some are Viv Richards, Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell, Ian Botham, Sunil Gavaskar, Tony Greig and Imran Khan or Javed Miandad so I will rather go with them instead of you two who are simply giving silly reasons of why he wasn't one of best ever. 2409:4051:2005:1066:50B2:2A8F:E4FF:CA8A (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I am far from quarelsome editor but it's you guys who are making a issue out of it. Earlier rant about Poms was bit over the top but it's a fact they made Lillee and Thommo or later West Indian quicks literally as mobs introduced bouncer rule and made the game sissy. But when they get someone like Archer they love the same brutness. #On On. 2409:4051:2005:1066:50B2:2A8F:E4FF:CA8A (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 * There isn't anything like "universal consensus". In that vote for the top 5 cricketers of the 20th century there was only "universal consensus" about one man - no one else got votes from all the judges. One other chap got 90 iirc.
 * In terms of the players you selected to use to judge Lillee - yes, jolly good, I'm sure they all did. How did they judge Frank Woolley as a bowler? Or Alfred Mynn? There was an awful lot of cricket played before colour tele got invented you know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well you are making it into a unnecessary argument. Universal consensus so called means how a player is rated by champions who were around or by experts. I will doubt anyone ever claimed Lillee was not an all-time great. A guy that Roberts and co. said best ever or someone like Viv greatest ever rates him as best or Sobbers then we hardly can doubt it. He is Godfather of modern fast bowling. Bradman no doubt avg 100 but how would have he fared against Clive Llyod's team or Imran and Wasim or later Wasim and Waqar ?? Sure he wouldn't have done much better than Viv or Lara or Sachin. The cricket was hardly competitive back in days and more then it most teams apart from Aussie and Poms were awful. There is no mention about his famous tussles with Viv here either. Ok, answer quickly was DK not great or in same echelon of Macko Marshall, Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Roberts, Mickey Holding, Steyn ?? 2409:4051:2005:1066:1B5C:9826:C70:69AF (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I didn't bring up the idea of there being a "universal consensus". There's also a massive difference between saying that he's one of the greatest of all time and saying that his contemporaries regarded him as one of the best bowlers they played with. From looking at a few other sports, the idea of caveating things like this seems to be a key. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well mate you are deliberately twisting statements to keep this rather tedious argument going on. Further not only his peers all cricket historians, great bowlers rated him as one of the best ever or simply the best. Godfather of modern day fast bowling. Obviously you also got judged by your peers too who rate him as finest ever. An all rounder like Imran Khan said he became a fast bowler after seeing the great man bowl.

I seriously doubt anyone in right sense of mind can dispute greatness of Lillee as an All-time great paceman. Well you even said Viv was not great so your knowledge being hearsay is pretty evident. 2409:4051:2E14:2C11:E8A0:CC92:BA54:86EF (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm not twisting anything. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again : WP:AGF, WP:NPA Spike 'em (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You are unfortunately not many in their right senses can deny Lillee or Viv as among the finest our game has seen. A guy whom even greatest pace attack admired most hardly needs a certificate from others; also those who have serious issues with him like Miandad and Gavaskad are united in rating him finest fast bowler that's ever lived. 2409:4051:2E14:2C11:E8A0:CC92:BA54:86EF (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * see WP:AGF, WP:NPA. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Like BST, I have a problem with the hyperbole in many cricket articles, where it seems people see one player rated as (one of) the greatest ever and then mirror this in articles about their particulate favourite. I don't doubt that many players rate Lillee as the best they've faced, but things like this, and polls for "greatest ever" always suffer from recentism. It is very difficult to compare players across generations other than by the use of statistics. Spike 'em (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well; calling or describing players like Lillee, Viv, Greg Chappell, Warne, Sunny, Tendulkar, Marshall, Akram, Imran, Lara, Greenidge, Sobbers as among the finest is far infact a world away from hyperbole.

I am not saying to describe Lillee as greatest ever in the article; I agree this can always be debated because there were guys like Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram who were in same echelon as of Dennis but to describe him among the finest ever is hardly a hyperbole or even recentism.

This quote is basless almost saying that Lara was a magician batter of his era does that prevent him from being an all-time great ?? 2409:4051:18C:6366:B81B:D93D:9915:BAE4 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your ever expanding list of "greatest ever" players shows the problem: Is Viv one of the greatest? Quite probably. Were Gordon Greenidge or Greg Chappell among the greatest-ever batsmen? I would say not: they were clearly very, very good and among the best of their era, but I wouldn't say they were in the, say, top-25 players ever (this is not to say that is my measure of "greatness", just an example). Spike 'em (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 * In his introduction to his list of 100 greatest cricketers in The Times (7 June 1997 - p.159), John Woodcock writes: When asked what he thought of Brian Lara, the West Indian who had relieved him of his record Test score, Sir Garfield Sobers had this to say: "The word great is used too often. You can't call Don Bradman great and David Gower great too. If Gower was great you have to invent a different word for Bradman, who was an all-time great, like Everton Weekes." ... Sobers is right: the word "great" is not used discerningly enough He has many other interesting things to say fwiw (on the subject of greatness versus genius, for example) - it seems to be available via the Wikipedia library these days.
 * He is right about the hyperbolic nature of greatness - more so now, given the sheer amount of cricket played these days and the nature of it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well bit of the topic but Gordon wasn't as celebrated because of Viv's aura surround him; Mickey Holding once said that Only Viv Richards stood between Greenidge and all time greatness In terms of away wins Gordon was most successful of that era; he avg 54 in away wins even better than Viv who too avg 52. Greg was indeed a great player: Viv was rated as fifth greatest cricketer of twentieth century and only batsman of post war era to be in that list. In ESPN Legends of cricket list he was third behind Bradman and Sobbers. If taking into account most dominant pomp of all batters that's lived (4 year span, 3000 runs and 10+ tons) Viv is second to only Bradman. 2409:4051:18C:6366:14F0:7DE3:77DC:74B5 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well John himself said that ''If I am picking pacemans in my best XI..The first one to make the cut after SF Barness will be Dennis Lillee, the man simply rewrite the fast bowling coach manual; this was said by him during interview with Michael Atherton, Allan Lee and Christopher Martin-Jenkins.

This was their XI Shane Warne capt, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar, Don Bradman, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Ian Botham, Alan Knott, Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee, Muttiah Muralitharan.

This happened in 2001 when Lara and Tendulkar were still around as active players. You simply won't found anyone saying Lillee as not one of the greatest. 2409:4051:18C:6366:14F0:7DE3:77DC:74B5 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 * So; now can we finally conclude Dennis as an all-time great ?? Funny enough that we are putting a bowler of Lillee's class into dispute here for being a all-time great and one of best pacemams ever. 2409:4051:2E89:5330:4518:7FC1:3D17:183E (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * per NPOV, no. We need to employ nuance. As you’ve been told numerous times Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think the direct quote describing him as the best of his generation has more impact then the wishy-washy "all-time great" which is undefined (how many greats are there?) and I'd happily remove similar statements about other players. Spike 'em (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning him as one of the greats backed up by good quality sources doesn't breach any NPOV case. The source doesn't mention him as best of his era; this can be debatble as Andy Roberts too was sublime infact they both goes head to head for best tittle. There are sources which mentions him as an all-time great. You both failed to give sources which states Lillee was not an all-time great. 2409:4051:39B:C2E9:1506:A722:18A5:A5C1 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I probably won't find any quotes saying Scott Boland (just throwing out a random name of a current player) isn't an all time great either. Wikipedia isn't stating that Lillee is the best of his age, it is reporting that someone else has done so and I guess we'll need to add Andy Roberts to the ever expanding list of all-time greats too then? Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ^ this. My working list of greats includes Grant Stewart - I mean, seriously, his performance in that day-night match at Canterbury had him hooping the ball like a banana; single best bowling performance I've ever seen, so surely that makes him an all-time great. And I've seen Stevo (clearly the greatest of all time btw - on that track in Hobart he'd have had eight before drinks) bowl a lot... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well atleast don't poke in if your knowledge of the game is that sub standard. Comparing Boland case to Dennis Lillee ?? I mean really ? This is getting out of laughter zone aa well; Yes Pomies can even claim that Zak Crawley is a better player than Viv Richards.

Anyway; mocking Andy Roberts now ? Do you know who he was ?? He was actually the original leader of the pack; a men from whom Mickey Holding and later Marshall learnt a lot from; Ask Gavaskar, Two Chappel's or Pakistan batters who he was they will give an better idea. When Cliv Llyod was asked to choose between his great bowlers he mentioned a close run between Andy Roberts and Malcolm Marshall despite having Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Collin Croft and even Sylvester Clarke. Ok, Dennis was not an all-time great but how all these fools who played with him or saw the game and some remonwed cricket scholars manage to call him probably the finest ?? I fail to get how spike can manage to call Viv, Lillee as ordinary cricketer one ranked fifth and other sixth in Wisden list. Surprising isn't it ?? 2409:4051:39B:C2E9:DDDB:83B2:E26C:BD5D (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * You a resorting to personal attacks again, and I refuse to engage with you any more. As mentioned above, my future silence is not to be taken as silent consensus. I object to the change that you want to make and Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like.Spike 'em (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also object. There clearly isn't consensus to make any changes that you're suggesting. Feel free to take this to anyone else and see what they think of course - make sure you direct them to this discussion so that they can see what they're getting themselves into though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To hell with personal attacks it really gets annoying when someone are giving wierd logics for their claim without any source; It's actually both of you who are not giving any subtle reason as why Lillee isn't one of the greatest ever. BST quote John Woodcock and pop in David Gower who isn't really in same class as Viv, SOBBERS or Tendulkar kind of batters. Even John mentioned Lillee as first pick of all great pacemans he saw. If every player that played with or against him rates him finest; commentator or anaylyst like Richie Benaud, Bill Lawry, Jim Laker, Fred Truemen and knowledgable cricket scholars rate him among the greatest ever then there is no reason to not mention it and instead go with this basless quote. You can't simply deny and move on give logical reasons why Lillee isn't a great Fast bowler. 2409:4051:4E8D:FFF8:F97:C794:9C3A:E6CA (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Woodcock didn't see everyone bowl. And what I quoted was from 1997. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No one in history have seen everyone play but what circket scholars and knowledge person knows through stats and impact on game we judge greatness of players and players like Viv, Lara, DK, Macko fall in top echelon.

You used Woodcock as a scape answer of how he said great is a term toosed up way too often. I don't think any knowledge or sane human will argue that Dennis was not an great or this term is gifted to him. 2409:4051:315:F964:91B5:BB7F:B9CA:4C7B (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead already says what it needs to in this regard. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This lead is dubious; doesn't mean much in calling someone outstanding or extraordinary bowlers of that era..bit like Warne as a magician or Viv as Smokin Joe... I don't know how bowler of his class can't be described as one of the greatest ever when all cricket historian, his peers and experts like Benaud, Tony Cozier said so. 2409:4051:389:D437:40BD:2596:EBE0:ECCF (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead already says what it needs to in this regard. The quote is much more powerful than anything else we might add. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it's rather wierd that a random quote taken from a profile is powerful than these cricketing piece written by a renowned cricket historian 2409:4051:4E89:5010:77E9:EE33:EFFC:9DF7 (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Because a) it says what we need it to say; b) it's caveated appropriately; c) it's a well-established, super-reliable, globally renowned source; d) it's blanched; e) it's not a source prone to hyperbolic nonsense; f) were actually quoting it; g) it's short enough; h) it's concise; i) it reads well. Next? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

One of WP:DR or WP:DTS needs to happen here. Spike 'em (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

What a wierd way to justify these source. Who rated him as such ?? Any reliable author ?? WP:OR is best way to finish it. 2409:4051:2E07:83CD:D451:3F05:335B:8A3E (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is one more source from ESPN Cricinfo which call him perfect fast bowler so describe him as perfect fast bowler according to it ? 2409:4051:2E07:83CD:D451:3F05:335B:8A3E (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

So now we should go with this new quote that describes DK as perfect fast bowler of his generation; since it is from Cricinfo it won't have any issue.

Fact is this shows how naive you have been in cherry picking some random quotes instead of going with well established consensus among cricket fratinity that DK was among the greatest ever. 2409:4051:4E1A:CA:BF4:D51:EBD8:ACDA (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Dispute resolution has been suggested. I think that's a good idea. Because you're using a dynamic IP address which changes frequently it's impossible to reliably be able to open a user talk page dialogue with you, so you'd better open the DR. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Dennis Lillee


text:
Jefferson County International Baccalaureate School

Jefferson County International Baccalaureate School (JCIB) is a public International Baccalaureate school located on the campus of Shades Valley High School in Irondale, Alabama. The school enrolls 372 students in grades 9-12 and is a part of the Jefferson County School System. It is consistently recognized as one of the best high schools in the country:
 * JCIB was ranked first in Alabama and 9th in the U.S. in the 2016 Washington Post study of America's Most Challenging High Schools.
 * The Daily Beast ranked JCIB first in Alabama and 13th in the U.S. in its 2014 Top High Schools ranking.
 * In 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 JCIB was ranked #1, #2, #4, and #3 respectively in the annual Newsweek poll of "The 100 Best High Schools in America".

Student profile
JCIB students are diverse: 56% are white, 32% are African-American, 6% are Asian-American, 4% are Hispanic, and 2% are multiracial. 20% of students qualified for free or reduced price lunch.

100% of JCIB students graduate and go on to attend four-year colleges and universities. The 2016 graduating class earned approximately $12 million in college scholarships, an average of almost $160,000 per student.

JCIB students have an average ACT score of 29, and the average SAT score is 1,831. The most recent graduating class includes three National Merit & Achievement Finalists, 64 AP Scholars, 35 AP Scholars with Honor, 21 AP Scholars with Distinction, and two AP National Scholars.

Admission
Students must apply to JCIB during the late winter prior to the year of anticipated enrollment. The application requires students to submit a transcript and test scores from their current schools, recommendations from both a mathematics and language arts instructor, and an application essay. Students are also strongly encouraged to attend an open house and/or shadow a student prior to applying. Students must also pay tuition if they live outside Jefferson County. The tuition for students from other counties is $2200 per year.

AP & IB courses
All academic courses at JCIB are taught at an accelerated pace. Many courses prepare students for Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate Exams. While all students are required to take a rigorous curriculum that includes both AP and IB coursework, students may choose whether to work toward earning an IB diploma. Approximately 64% of the 2015 graduating class received an IB diploma.

Creativity, Action, Service (CAS) work/study program
Beginning in 11th grade, JCIB's students participate in a work-study program every Wednesday afternoon. Students choose whether to take on an unpaid internship in a career area of interest, volunteer for a nonprofit organization, or perform some other community service. These hours contribute to the 150 CAS (Creativity, Action, Service) hours that are required in order to receive the IB diploma. All students participate in the CAS program, even if they do not pursue the IB diploma.

IB extended essay
Students are required to write a 4,000-word extended essay on a topic of their choosing. The extended essay introduces students to the independent research and writing skills that will be necessary to succeed at top colleges and universities. Students choose research questions across a variety of subjects and work closely with JCIB faculty in executing their research and writing the essay.

Campus
JCIB shares staff with Shades Valley High School, but has its own faculty for the core curriculum subjects of English, Foreign Languages, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. As a school within a school, JCIB students are able to participate in activities specific to IB students as well as those for students at Shades Valley High School.


text:
Cohn

Cohn is a Jewish surname (related to the last name Cohen).

Notable people sharing the surname "Cohn"

 * Al Cohn (1925–1988), American jazz saxophonist, arranger and composer
 * Alan D. Cohn, American government official
 * Alfred A. Cohn (1880–1951), American screenwriter
 * Alice Cohn (1914–2000), German graphic artist
 * Art Cohn (1909–1958), American sportswriter, screenwriter and author
 * Arlen Cohn (1953-), author of Friends of a Feather and Solar System SOS
 * Arthur Cohn (b. 1927), Swiss film producer
 * Arthur Cohn (1894–1940), mathematician known for Cohn's irreducibility criterion
 * Avern Cohn (1924-2022), United States District Court judge
 * Bernard Cohn (1928-2003), American anthropologist
 * Craig Cohn (b. 1983), birth name of American professional wrestler Craig Classic
 * Daniel Cohn-Bendit (b. 1945), French-German politician
 * Dan Cohn-Sherbock (b. 1945), Jewish theologian
 * David Cohn (b. 1995), American-Israeli player in the Israeli Basketball Premier League
 * Edwin Joseph Cohn (1892–1953), American scientist
 * Emil Cohn (1854–1944), German physicist
 * Erich Cohn (1884–1918), German chess master
 * Ernst Max Cohn (1920–2004), American philatelic researcher and expert
 * Falk Cohn (1833–1901), German rabbi
 * Ferdinand Cohn (1828–1898), German biologist
 * Gary Cohn (b. 1960), American investment banker
 * Gary Cohn (b.1952), American comic book writer
 * Gretta Cohn, cellist and podcast producer
 * Gustav Cohn (1840–1919), German economist
 * Harry Cohn (1891–1958), American co-founder of Columbia Pictures Corporation
 * Harvey Cohn (1884–1965), American track and field athlete
 * James Cohn (1928–2021), American composer
 * Joan Cohn (née Joan Perry), the widow of Harry Cohn
 * Joseph Judson Cohn (d. 1996), MGM producer, founder of J.J. Cohn Estate
 * Lawrence H. Cohn (1937–2016), American cardiac surgeon and researcher
 * Leonie Cohn (1917-2009), German-born BBC Radio producer
 * Leopold Cohn (1862–1937), Hungary-born Christian clergyman
 * Leopold Cohn (1856–1915), German author and philologist
 * Linda Cohn (b. 1959), American sportscaster
 * Marc Cohn (b. 1959), American singer-songwriter
 * Mariano Cohn (b. 1975), Argentine TV and film director
 * Mathilda Cohn (1798–1877), birth name of Finnish and Swedish concert singer Mathilda Berwald
 * Mindy Cohn (b. 1966), American actress, comedian and singer
 * Nate Cohn, American journalist
 * Nik Cohn (b. 1946), British rock journalist
 * Norman Cohn (1915–2007), British historian
 * Norman Cohn (1907–1972), birth name of American saber fencer Norman C. Armitage
 * Oskar Cohn (1869–1934), German politician
 * Priscilla Cohn (1933–2019), American philosopher and animal rights activist
 * Rebecca Cohn (b. 1954), American politician
 * Robert Cohn (b. 1949), Canadian business executive, founder of Octel Communications
 * Ronald Cohn, co-founder of The Gorilla Foundation
 * Roy Cohn (1927–1986), American lawyer
 * Ruth Cohn (1912–2010), German-born psychotherapist, educator, and poet
 * Waldo Cohn (1910–1999), American biochemist

Other

 * La Danse de Gengis Cohn (The Dance of Genghis Cohn), a novel by Romain Gary
 * Marc Cohn, eponymous 1991 album
 * Rebecca Cohn Auditorium, concert hall and theatre within the Dalhousie Arts Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia
 * Robert Cohn, a character in Ernest Hemingway's 1926 novel The Sun Also Rises

title: Cohn


text:
Talk:Walter Harriman (Stargate)

 * In season two episode "1969," in which SG-1 goes back in time, General Hammond (who is currently only a lieutenant) addresses the character as "Airman".

I cut the reference to "1969", in which the character doesn't even appear. (And of course Lt. Hammond couldn't have talked to him in any case.) So, what's the correct episode? —wwoods 08:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Dr. Carter: It's heading straight for us.
 * General O'Neill: Confirm, airman.
 * Harriman: Trajectory confirmed. ETA, one minute. - "There But For the Grace of God"
 * I haven't checked to see if this is the only such reference. Happened on it by chance. Harriman is also wearing a nice tie & stuff, not a uniform that I can determine. Also I confirmed in "Redemption (Part 1)", the nametag says Norman Davis. --MeekSaffron (Jaffa, Tree!) 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In the episode specified above (there but for the grace of god) they are in a paralell reality, declaring any ranks or titles null and void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.240.28 (talk) 17:48, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Admin Assistant
Hammond to Walter: "Sgt., I'd like you to get me the president on the phone." early in "Into the Fire" Walter's at a desk next to the briefing room, looks like. Just FYI for one of my edits, since it doesn't look like an article-worthy note.

Psychic talent
Okay, this has bothered me for months, but what the heck does the article mean when it says he has psychic talent? He's never been shown to have any kind of mental powers, so what is this referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.165.48 (talk • contribs)

 * Quite possibly it was put in as a subtle bit of vandalism. I've removed it, if anyone thinks it should be there then hopefully they'll provide some sort of reference to back it up next time it's inserted. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Bryan 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also mentioned on the page for Radar himself, which makes just about as much sense. If it really is nonsense, I'll kick it out of there. 67.85.165.48 12:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

actually what it boils down to is the Harriman and Radar share the gift of knowing what thier commander is about to say before they say it and having everything they need before they need it. I chalked up Harriman 's first name and this gift plus that Harriman calls out on the loud speaker "incoming wormhole" just as Radar says "Incoming Choppers" as a homage to Mash's Radar. Danrduggan 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First Sergeant comment
This comment puzzles me a little: "First Sergeant's only job is to be a First Sergeant". I gather than in the USAF, 1sgt is an appointment, rather than a rank, but isn't it consistent both with what he does, and with him being a Master Sergeant in rank? Alai 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walter Harriman (Stargate)


text:
1945 in South Africa

The following lists events that happened during 1945 in South Africa.

Incumbents

 * Monarch: King George VI.
 * Governor-General and High Commissioner for Southern Africa: Nicolaas Jacobus de Wet.
 * Prime Minister: Jan Christiaan Smuts.
 * Chief Justice: Ernest Frederick Watermeyer.

Events

 * 22 May – The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) is established.
 * 26 June – Prime Minister Jan Smuts represents South Africa in San Francisco at the drafting of the United Nations Charter.

Births

 * 3 February – Marius Weyers, actor
 * 8 June – Nicky Oppenheimer, mining magnate
 * 27 June – Omar Badsha, photographer, trade unionist and political activist.
 * 21 July – Barry Richards, cricketer
 * 28 September – Pieter-Dirk Uys, performer, author, satirist, and social activist.
 * 5 October – Riaan Cruywagen, news reader and voice artist
 * 16 October – Kaizer Motaung, footballer, founder & chairman of Kaizer Chiefs F.C.
 * 22 October – Lillian Dube, actress & TV host
 * 17 December – Belinda Bozzoli, academic and politician (d.2020)

Railway lines opened

 * 4 June – Transvaal: Village Main (Booysens) to Faraday, 1 mi.

title: 1945 in South Africa


text:
Talk:Paul Brennan (Northern Ireland musician)

Untitled
Well well... this Paul Brennan does exist, see. Lupo 08:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * But the image... Image:Paul Brennan.JPG is not exactly favourable, showing some guy who apparently has had a few pints too many and who bears only a very superficial resemblance to the image shown at the above extlink and who also seems to be younger. That beard is also strange... I've removed that image from the article; we need a better one. Also, can you give the address of "Fitzgerald's Irish Pub" in London? I must say, I encounter an awful lot of Fitzgeralds lately. Lupo 19:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the beard looks to be a badly drawn addition. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Disabiguation? Is this the same Paul Brennan who won Teen Big Brother (UK). This page is linked from there. 88.107.22.94

Journalist
There's another Paul Brennan who's a journalist for Al Jazeera English. 31.16.113.231 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring

Case Opened on May 30, 2005.

Cases Merged on 25 June, 2005.

Reopened on August 1, 2005

Case Closed on August 12, 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * User:Skyring
 * User:Petaholmes
 * User:Jtdirl
 * User:El_C (statement forthcoming)

Statement by party 1
I am requesting arbitration against Skyring on behalf of the editors working on Government of Australia. Skyring disputes the content of the article; he wishes to introduce what I will describe as original research since he is yet to provide references for his assertions. His edits to the article are disruptive and usually start edit wars. An informal poll conducted by compilation of editor comments, see Talk:Government of Australia/archive 5, shows that 12/12 editors with an interest in the page and Australian constitutional law agree that Skyrings changes to the article are incorrect (for want of a better word).

User:Adam Carr has initiated a poll to make a policy especially for Goverment of Australia, I hazard to say in desperation after 5 months of ciruclar discussion on the topic, where Skyrings edits would be reverted on sight unless backed up with references on the talk page. I think this poll would set a bad presedent if it were to be implemented, and request rather that the ArbCom consider resticting Skyrings ability to edit on the subjects where he is being disruptive. I should make it abundantly clear that the concensus on the page, amongst people who are knowledgeable in this area is to revert Skyrings edits.--nixie 06:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words

The dispute is a simple one. One user wishes to use definitions that don't exist in constitutional law. He claims as 'evidence' statements by academics and politicians that do not support his claims. All users in 5 archives have told him that he is wrong in law, in constitutional theory and that he is mis-representing the views of the leading experts he quotes. Detailed links have been provided, including primary legal documents, state documents, ministerial statements, formal speeches from international figures, quotes from academics, quotes from legal cases, etc. Yet he insists that the overwhelming view of all experts is "based on uninformed tradition or folklore" and when pushed, produces 'evidence' based on POV magazine articles and a link to something one minor lawyer once wrote. Everyone on the page is simply trying to find a way to stop his farcical POVing of an otherwise accurate article.

Re the rfc option - the user in question ignores everyone's views and rubbishs them, so is unlikely to pay the slightest attention to an rfc. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 3
Australia is not, nor has it ever been, a republic. Skyring learned early on that he could not so crudely insert this original theory, and now he has resorted to gaming the system with ones slightly more subtle, but nonetheless, original. Refusing propper attribution or engaging in gross misattribution, the circularity ensues seemingly endlessly, needlessly taxing everyone's time and energy. El_C 02:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring
My position is simple. The unqualified assertion that the Queen is Australia's sole head of state is one of three views on the matter, and is not uniformly representative of informed opinion. Unlike indigenous kingdoms where the monarch is a clear and undisputed head of state, Australia and other Commonwealth Realms have a powerful local head of state in the Governor-General. Kingdoms such as the UK, Norway, Netherlands etc. have no comparable figure who is given and exercises powers in his own right. I refer to a popular Australian Politics site for a summary of the three views. It should be noted that the current Governor-General supports the first view, the Prime Minister and several eminent constitutional scholars support the second, and the sizable monarchist population the third.

A Parliamentary Library Research Note contrasts the two extreme positions. It is worth pointing out that since the withdrawal of the Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General in 1984, the Queen is unable to issue instructions to the Governor-General. I make no assertions as to which of the three positions is correct, I merely point out that there are three differing positions, and that making an unqualified reference to one specific person as head of state is not an NPOV position, regardless of whether that person is the Queen or the Governor-General.

I reject the accusations of edit warring. As can be seen from the history of the article, if I make an edit and it is opposed, I will direct other editors to the discussion page, where the point is discussed. I do not attempt to sustain edits against consensus, though I am more than happy to use the discussion page for discussion.

I cannot, however, feel much confidence in the ability of some other editors. The continued use of abuse, strawman positions, and evasion when asked specific questions strikes me as very poor practice. For example, the opening discussion in Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_5, indicates the normal practice of party 2 in this RfA. The poisonous and provocative tactics of Adam Carr strike me as particularly repugnant, especially as he has been asked several times to refrain from abuse. Pete 06:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/3/1/0)

 * Accept. I think there's a case to be heard, and I think there's been some issues on both sides. Being Australian, I've been around the fringes of this dispute, but I don't think it's necessary to recuse - but if one party or the other feels that it is necessary, I'll seriously consider doing so. Ambi 06:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept, for consideration of content dispute Fred Bauder 10:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred, you know full well that is outside our mandate. Ambi 12:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject - this is worded as a content dispute, plain and simple, and is thus outside our mandate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:27, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * IMO as a recused arb, it's really one about a user putting in original research repeatedly and persistently over months without references - which is behavioural - David Gerard 14:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I urge its acceptance on grounds of persistent original research injection - David Gerard 14:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject ; put it through an RfC first. --mav 14:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept, per David Gerard. →Raul654 18:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject, content dispute ➥the Epopt 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. David's reasoning is sound, and I can't see a RFC being useful - i've seen how many people have already commented.  This reminds me of the Darwin-Lincoln dispute -- sannse (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Merged case

 * User:Skyring Contributions 1 Contributions 2 Contributions 3 Contributions 4
 * User:jtdirl User talk:jtdirl

Reason: A campaign of personal harrassment, stalking personal abuse and attempts at bullying directed against me and which, while I was writing this, I was informed that he has directed in part against others also, who have stood up to him on his behaviour on Wikipedia.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 * Skyring

Other users aware of his behaviour:
 * Petaholmes
 * Adam Carr

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Given the experience with Government of Australia, Skyring has shown himself unwilling to listen to anyone else, convinced of his own correctness, and sure that everyone who disagrees with him is a "bully", "ignorant", etc.

Statement by party 1
As the arbitrators are aware, Skyring has been the subject of a POV dispute on Talk:Government of Australia. You are currently dealing with this. I was one of the users who challenged him. Since then he has engaged in constant harassment of me. In one period 100 of 102 edits he did were of pages I had edited either immediately before or within a short space of time, accompanied by personally abusive edit summaries. He placed messages abusing me on among others the talk pages of User:Adam Carr and User:Djegan. Tonight I edited the page a two year old article, Vicarius Filii Dei to add in some images and do some minor textual changes. 42 minutes later he went to the page and added in a deletion notice.

His most recent act on a page I had edited was, as mentioned to propose deletion, which he categorised in the edit summary thus:

04:56, 19 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vicarius Filii Dei (Kick it off)

His appearance at the article was as follows:

 * (cur) (last) 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 Skyring (VfD. Trivial material covered elsewhere.)
 * (cur) (last) 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 Jtdirl

Among the comments he added to people's talk pages were

He described his comment on Adam Carr's page thus:
 * 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Low quality of Irish editor)

Throughout the period he appeared on pages he had never paid any attention to, simply because I edited it. He suddenly developed an interest in Irish local government, a member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet, the Irish referendum on the European Constitution , News Anchors , Viceregal thrones where he announced his intention of deleting a template I had added to an article I had written from scratch (a user who has been waging a campaign against templates had just been voted down in his attempt to delete another template I had created. Suddenly Skyring was in to templates too!). Whether it was the residence of the President of Ireland or Papal Tiaras, Mary Robinson or the State Crown of George I, templates or even a temp page, if I went near it, he followed and then in many cases was publicly abusive.

I outlined more details at. Petaholmes also outlines what is described as the "personal harrassment of User:jtdirl". (Other users have emailed me over his behaviour using extremely strong language about Skyring and his antics, and urged me to raise it here.)

Finally, I note that in the discussion on the proposed one year ban from editing any articles relating to the Government of Australia, Skyring made the following threat "Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts." In other words he is openly admitting that he will get around the ban by "finding some other editor(s)" to force his patiently incorrect opinion. Given that he is already under investigation by you, this request here should receive priority and be dealt with in tandem with the other, with one injection given for both. Otherwise, going by his past performance he will simply use the excuse of his ban on writing on Australian government topics, while simultaneously breaking it, to harass and bully others who have in the past stood in his way.

''Since I started typing this, Petaholmes has contacted to inform me that "he briefly tried wikistalking me too after I put up the harassment evidence." Clearly this campaign of harrassment is not a once off and won't be a once off. This user needs severe dealing with, possibly even the ultimate sanction, for his behaviour. ''

Statement by El_C
I feel bad since I should have been keeping an eye on this. I warned Skyring against making personal attcks in edit summaries (diff) and taking pains in upsetting Jtdirl. I consider Pete Skyring's VfD nomination & participation alone to have been made in extremely bad faith, undoubtedly as part of a campaign of harrasment targetting jtdirl — and I could not care less that Pete Skyring fixes some grammatical errors in the course of this, to prove his point. His contempt towards Essjay, which a cursory glance reveals to be one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholicism, only further underscores Pete Skyring's contempt for Wikipedia and its editors. I excerpt the unfortunate exchange, thusly:

I did not realize snops.com was exhaustive. This is symptomatic of how editors get treated when in the way of Pete Skyring's agenda. Since when did "who really cares" become a criteria for deletion/notability? The use of the word "crackpot" is telling, noting Pete Skyring's most infemous edit: Australia is a republic *** This editor has been nothing but discourteous to me, personally (recently, on this matter diff), on Talk:Government of Australia, where he had edited my comments, lengthening a two sentence quote to a whole paragraph, thereby he is seen to be suppressing my point (diff) —as seen in the following two diffs, more than once— and with a most discreditable impunity despite all protests (diff, and a 2nd time: diff). And in the realm of content, extremely eliptical, agenda-driven and intellectually dishonest. This latest stunt, while his current Arbitration on "crackpot" Republicanism in Govt. of Australia remains ongoing, is a mockery of Wikipedia, its editors, and this committee. I offer Jtdirl's my apologies for my oversight in neglecting to watch over Pete Skyring's proofreading (I have been rather preoccupied elsehwhere), and I call on this committee to put a stop to Pete Skyring's abuse of Wikipedia policy, starting with an immediate injunction. El_C 11:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring
jtdirl makes his hypocrisy plain. A glance at his contributions shows that he repeatedly abuses me both publicly and privately. As he does again in this RfA. That's one reason for me to keep tabs on his contributions. (jtdirl attempts to justify his harrassment of me.) "his hilariously ridiculous comprehension of constitutional law", "his dodgy claims" "Pete's ridiculous, uninformed constitutionally illiterate rambles","Pete's ridiculous dillusions about Australian constitutional law" "'Alice in Wonderland' contibutor" "But then, when you have spent 6 archives making ludicrous claims it would be a bit much to expect you to understand the rules of wikipedia when you don't even understand your own constitution" (list of edits to follow. Long list)

Checking out my contributions reveals one obvious point. I like hunting down errors and fixing them. I like this more than creating new articles or adding material to existing articles. I noticed from jtdirl's contributions when he weighed into the Government of Australia debate that his material was full of errors (for instance, he was unaware of Australian monarchist spokesmen and what their public statements had been, and he claimed two Governors-General had commented on events in 1999, not knowing that they had died in 1991 and 1993 respectively).

So after patrolling RC for a while I thought that I might go and check out jtdirl's edits as a more fruitful source of errors, and I found the mother-lode! My edits speak for themselves. Spelling mistakes, syntax reconstruction, grammar and style fixes galore, but also corrections of some really ludicrous errors. Several times jtdirl reverted my corrections, thereby reintroducing the same old errors.

Petaholmes is worth following around to tidy up her spelling mistakes, but she's not in the same league. (list of edits to follow. Short list)

(I must say that I take my hat off to Petaholmes! She complains that I'm stalking her, but if you read her statement below, she's busy trawling through my LiveJournal blog for stuff to use here! Way to steal the moral high ground, nixie!)

And yes, I looked at Vicarius Filii Dei, read through it and was unimpressed. It's pure crackpottery and doesn't belong in WP. Snopes.com covers a multitude of myths, but doesn't bother with this one. So I created a VfD for VFD and yes, I made the comment "Kick it off". As I had done with other new articles such as or. I had imagined that the reference to "kicking-off" a football game was plain.

I am not surprised that jtdirl is moaning about "harrassment". He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Wikipedia if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue. -- Comment:

A warm glow of virtue ?(!) The contempt and instransigence of Pete Skyring truly begs belief. He is not satisfied with attacking Jtdirl in his statement, but also feels compelled to add a snide, disparaging remark against Catholics. I charge that he is out of order and out of line. This is an insult to the Wikipedia community, a mockery of this procedure, its participants, and the committee. El_C 13:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I "feel compelled", do I? What interesting terminology. How very Freudian. I personally do not feel "compelled", despite your projections.

 * Wikipedia is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."

 * That's the bottom line. The aim is not to create a bureaucracy. The aim is not to create a clubby community where everyone agrees with everyone else. My edits speak for themselves - they are directed towards correcting errors and thereby improving the quality of the Wikipedia.

 * And I'd like to point out that charging me with attacking other editors whilst making an abusive and insulting attack against me is the height of hypocrisy. Look to the log in your own eye, brother! Pete 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That was rather insane. You sure seem compelled to me. Quite the VfD you got there, btw. El_C 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * That's the point. It's your perception. Don't tell me what I "feel", because it's your feeling, not mine.

 * As for VFD VfD, if people want to keep it that's fine, and I'm pleased to see the system working as it should. Looks like I misjudged the genuine interest of people in mythbusting. To my mind the whole crackpot myth can be exploded by simply pointing out that the papal tiaras don't have any inscription. Plain common sense, but hey, if people really want a whole article with pictures instead of two lines in the Papal Tiara article, that's OK. My apologies to all the keen mythbusters and I've changed my vote there to make it a unanimous Keep. Pete 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? I did no such thing. As I said,. El_C 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Read what you wrote again. Please. Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And I was not telling you anything, I was addressing the committee, which I suggest that, henceforth, you limit yourself to doing. El_C 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * May I point out to the committee the blatant hypocrisy of El C's comment above? Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boasting of your contempt for other Wikipedians in a public forum (which you link to from your user page so I can only assume that you want people to go there) seems like very relevant information, and speaks to your general contempt for the norms of behaviour here.--nixie 00:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the behaviour of you, jtdirl and El_C, one might imagine that breathtaking hypocrisy is the norm. Sure, my LiveJournal is open to the public. So are Wikipedia contributions, and really, you can hardly complain that I am stalking you by looking at your official contributions here when you go offsite and not only hunt back through my personal blog but you also quote bits out of it. Be reasonable, please! Pete 01:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Tired rhetoric, shallow innuendo, trivial diversions; the facts speak clearly, and they have been thoroughly documented above & elsewhere. El_C 02:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Just step into my shoes for a moment, brother. From my point of view, you're doing the exact same things you accuse me of doing. You want me somehow wikipunished but I'll bet if I kick off three more RfAs for the above three clear hypocrisies, you'll complain that it's all terribly unfair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say. Look into your own heart and ask yourself if the hatred you are directing my way is something you'd care to be on the receiving end of? Pete 04:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not directing any hatred your way, I take exception to that accusation. You are free to take any action you see fit against me. El_C 12:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in any discussion with Skyring, who has shown himself to all who have dealt with him to be arrogant, obnoxious and incapable of recognising that when everyone who has dealt with him points out that there is a problem with his behaviour, there may well be a problem with his behaviour. I will however point out three facts:

 * He sees nothing wrong in targeting 'enemies' of his, attacking them, and following them around from page to page harrassing them. If he did that in person he would be reported to the police for stalking.
 * While seeing nothing wrong with his behaviour of targeting his critics personally, Skyring regards it as unacceptable when El-C reads something he had written about Wikipedians in a public forum that he himself has advertised on his own user page, with a link provided by him to enable Wikipedians to read his page.

 * Another person, a young lady who may or may not have dyslexia, thinks that when I cast an eye over her edits and correct her spelling, I'm stalking and harrassing her. She just quoted an extract from this very LiveJournal blog as evidence against me. Huh? Who's doing the stalking?'

 * In two places, when debating the proposed sanction against him for his conduct on Australian government pages, and in the external page he himself links to his own Wikipedia page, he points out that he can get one or more other 'users' (ie, himself as someone else) to push his editing agenda, or that he can also sign on anonymously and do exactly as he wants, irrespective of what sanction is imposed on him here.

 * His aim in life is to get me booted off Wikipedia so I don't embarrass him any further. Yeah, like that would work. Wikipedia allows anonymous efforts, so all I would have to do would be to hop on my bike, trundle down Constitution Avenue to Civic where there are any number of hotspots, and enjoy a cup of coffee while I fixed up his latest idiocies. A different IP address every day. What could he do? Complain that some bastard was making him look like an idiot?

 * Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts.

Clearly, having shown contempt for other users and contempt of NPOV he has also demonstrated clear contempt for the rule-making and rule-enforcing standards on Wikipedia. As a result one can but question whether a partial ban, either from certain types of edits or certain pages, would be effective. DW and Lir showed similar contempt for other users and Wikipedia rules. Should Skyring, on the basis of his threats to get around any sanctions imposed, be treated like the above two individuals, and so have a longterm ban imposed, coupled with an instruction to revert any edits by him under assumed identities on sight? Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Petaholmes
After adding harassment evidence to Skrings other RfAr, he proceeded to edit four other pages that I had worked on that day, including one I was still actively working on and was yet to spell check. Previously he and I only have one page that we both edit. Since he didn't barrage with the same personal attacks that he did Jtdirl I was unsure If I should add it to the evidence. The wikistalking did concern me, first for the irrational reason that I was being followed (though I think most resonable wikipedians would feel the same way); second for the reason that I was being targeted and scrutinized unfairly due to involvement in the preceeding ArbCom case; and thirdly these behaviours certainly point to deficiencies in expected behaviour including Civility. I also find it quite odd that Skyring thinks he is doing the project a service by policing and enforcing his Wikijustice on good users, it would seem to go against the spirit of the Wiki. This quote from his LJ is rather telling As you know, I'm a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, where my tastes lie more in the direction of stamping on errors and egos than in adding to the body of knowledge, June 16. The personal attacks on Jtdirl are unacceptable.--nixie 09:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * Merge into existing case. This may require a temporary injunction. Ambi 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept but don't merge. Fred Bauder 11:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we need two cases on the same user for the same dispute with the same people? The only difference is that things have gotten more aggravated. Ambi 11:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * Merge ➥the Epopt 20:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - sannse (talk) 12:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

Not a soapbox or forum
1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for discussion.
 * Passed 6-0

Courtesy
2) Wikipedia editors are expected to exhibit courtesy toward other users.
 * Passed 6-0

Limited bans on editing
3) Editors whose activities are troublesome and disruptive may be banned from areas which have been the focus of their activities.
 * Passed 6-0

"wiki-stalking"
4) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.
 * Passed 5-0

Mutual discourtesy
1) Both User:Skyring and User:Adam Carr have sometimes been discourteous    Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2
 * Passed 6-0

Content dispute
2. User:Skyring has been engaged in a content dispute regarding Government of Australia and related articles, see Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6 for a restatement of the issues under dispute by User:Adam Carr, (The result of the vote is at Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6). The dispute is complex but essentially revolves about characterization of Australia as a republic.
 * Passed 6-0

Articles affected
2.1) Other articles affected include Governor-General of Australia and Republic.
 * Passed 6-0

Debate
2.2) Extended debate has occurred at Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2 (incomplete)
 * Passed 6-0

Head of state
2.3 The debate to some extent turns on whether the Governor-General is head of state or the Queen, it being maintained that if the Queen is head of state then Australia is a constitutional monarchy by definition.
 * Passed 6-0

Australian Republican Movement
2.4) There is a Republican political movement (ARM) which advocates change of the government of Australia to a republic Paper "We are on our own: the global and historical context of an Australian Republic"
 * Passed 6-0

Skyring's position
2.5) Skyring's position is that regardless of the formal statements in the documents which relate to the structure of the government of Australia, its structure and form of government is, in fact, that of a republic "I say that Australia is a republic because the best definitions of the word include Australia, and because Australia has been described as "a crowned republic" since Federation. It is hardly an original view. Skyring 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
 * Passed 6-0

Citations by Skyring
2.6) Skyring cites certain websites as authority for his position, Palmer's Oz Politics, see also "An Australian Republic", Alexa rank about 300,000 "Who Must Open the Sydney Olympic Games?" (see 2000_Summer_Olympics).
 * Passed 6-0

Adam Carr's position
2.7) Adam Carr's position is that the Queen (of Australia) is head of state, despite most duties and power having been delegated to the Governor-General.
 * Passed 6-0

State of the article Government of Australia
2.8) The current version of Government of Australia seems to adequately and accurately set forth the nature of Australia's government and the situation of its head of state, see Government_of_Australia despite the exclusion of User:Skyring's participation by the other editors of the article, see
 * Passed 6-0

Extended talk page discussion
2.9) Due to User:Skyring's extended discussion of certain points Talk:Government of Australia has become quite inflated with voluminous archives.
 * Passed 6-0

Wiki-stalking by Skyring
3) On 13 June User:Skyring followed User:Jtdirl, editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by Jtdirl (see contributions for 13 June). While it is not possible to fully assess intent, this action, and some of the edit summaries used, seem designed to provoke: "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor"
 * Passed 5-0

Blind reverting by Jtdirl
User:Jtdirl reverted many of User:Skyring's edits, taking the articles back to versions with spelling mistakes and inaccuracies in several cases:, , ,.
 * Passed 5-0

Limit on editing by Skyring
1) User:Skyring is banned for one year from editing any article (or talk page) which relates to the government or governance of Australia.
 * Passed 6-0

Skyring banned for two months
2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for two months for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset.
 * Passed 4-1

Skyring banned for a month
2.2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for a month for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset.
 * Passed 4-1

Skyring placed on personal attack parole
3) User:Skyring is placed under a one-year personal attack parole. Should any administrator consider one of his edits a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.
 * Passed 4-1

Adam Carr admonished
4) User:Adam Carr is admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks
 * Passed 6-0

Jtdirl reminded of good editing practice
5) User:Jtdirl is reminded that the best response to attempts to provoke is not to be provoked, and that valid edits should not be blindly reverted.
 * Passed 5-0

Skyring admonished
6) User:Skyring is admonished to be more civil and to cease attempts to provoke other contributors.
 * Passed 5-0

Provision for temporary ban
1) In the event User:Skyring edits any article (or talk page) which relates to the government of Australia he may be banned for a short period by any administrator (1 day for initial offenses, up to a week for repeat offenses)
 * Passed 5-0

=2nd Decision=
 * ''Case was re-opened per a request from Jimbo Wales in August 2005

Skyring banned for wikistalking
2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset.
 * Passed 5-0, 22:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)