User talk:Purrum: Difference between revisions

Ronald Ryan

		Civility Award
		Awarded to Purrum for keeping cool while some others were not, and for apologising for a small error in so nice and polite a way as to make this user feel rather foolish. Congrats, and please keep it up! Reynardo (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The_Truth_front_page.pdf)

Thanks for uploading File:The_Truth_front_page.pdf. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Ronald Ryan

Just thought I'd let you know that your multi contribs and multi edits are very bias. This discussion page is enough evidence of your lack of credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.185.198 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing wiki is a learning process Purrum (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please pay attention to others' Edit summaries. You are being asked to discuss your proposed changes. They may be perfectly justified, but they are quite significant and you need to justify them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What logical reasons do you have to remove every sources citations references contributions relating to Ronald Ryan? You have removed these from every Wikipedia article that contains information on Ronald Ryan. If there are citations supporting facts, why do you insist on removing them? (86.58.132.213 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Before a sockpuppet was banned that person posted this opinionated piece on four different pages, most of the posts are irrelevant to the article. As for the citations, 3 are for television dramas, 1 is from his defense lawyer and is not very accurate of the facts, (his other defense lawyer thought he was guilty) and the other a political website that cut a pasted from wiki , I recognized many of the phrases of that of which I wrote. Purrum (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction: ACADP clearly affirms its not a political website but a registered non profit human rights organization with no political or religious affiliation. Read it yourself! Its contents on Ronald Ryan were first published in March 2004 in collaboration with Ryan's defense lawyer & court trial transcripts. Going by history, much later you copied & posted some of its contents on Wikipedia neglecting the citation.

Who are you to judge or to question the accuracy of citations sources references news articles television docos websites lawyers facts? I recognize and see you as the one and only minority who removes all things that cast doubt on Ronald Ryan's guilt. I read there was no forensics evidence the other defense lawyer thought Ronald Ryan had been verballed there was no tape recordings of Ronald Ryan's confessions his jail pastor believed in Ronald Ryan's innocence and he was executed before his unfunded final appeal had been declared? Are these and every citation on Ronald Ryan lies or are you very bias for a reason? (86.58.132.213 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

I suppose you believe this piece of news is irrelevant untrue and before long you will remove that too? The Hanging of Ronald Ryan : 40 Years Later (86.58.132.213 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

• The news items doesn't have anything new to add to the Ryan conviction.Purrum (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I dasagree! News items over the years have always claimed Ryan's conviction was most doubtful. Jurors further added to that doubt by saying they never would have convicted Ryan had they known he would be hanged. Just thought I'd let you know that Colin Campbell Ross was also convicted like Ryan, on the same basis of a confession with no scientific evidence. He was convicted and hanged for the rape strangulation of a schoolgirl. Eighty-six years later new evidence emerged and scientific evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Colin Campbell Ross could not have committed the crime. He was pardoned by the Brumby government, a miscarriage of justice had resulted in an innocent man sent to the gallows. Premier Brumby said it was not inconceivable there could be other instances of people being executed for crimes they did not commit. "If you went back through every single case and you had the evidence still around to scientifically test, forensically test, there may well be some other cases," said Premier Brumby.

The difference between Ross and Ryan is no-one saw young Alma get strangled, unlike Ryan who's actions were seen by many eyewitnesses! Purrum (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Many witnesses as in (4) FOUR from hundreds of pedestrians motorists present! All others told conflicting inconsistent incompatible stories of what they saw, according to book The Hanged Man on page 232, one citation of innumerable citations sources references news articles etc. Yet you continue to delete or replace facts with baseless opinions ideas views allegations. Pay attention to facts!

Yes four eyewitnesses that couldn't be discredited. Purrum (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Four out of hundreds of eyewitnesses testimony doesn't weigh much because none of them is based on forensics proof or signed documentation proof. The question is why should all other eyewitnesses testimony of not seeing Ryan fire a shot be discredited? Every eyewitness told a different story of what they actually saw. To rely on four out of hundreds of eyewitnesses is profoundly unacceptable. Forensic science is unbiased and sound. Forensics is considered a very critical part of a crime investigation. Forensic science was completely absent in Ryan's case. Police investigations were mysteriously negligent,incompetent and unethical. There are good reasons for lawyers to rate eyewitness accounts as unreliable. First, human memory is imperfect. It is always possible that an eyewitness will mix up what he or she saw with what was later read or heard. Secondly, emotions often play a role. Legally one has to differentiate between accounts of partial and impartial eyewitnesses. While eyewitnesses may often be mistaken have credibility issues or are bias, forensic science "tells the same true story" no matter how many times it is tested or how many years have passed. In Ryan's case the absence of forensic proof and absence of signed documentary proof contradicted the four eyewitnesses testimony. It's a known fact that unsigned allegations of confessions are not documentary proof. Since there is no forensic proof or documentary proof but only four out of hundreds of eyewitnesses testimony of what they saw, it demolishes every theory that Ryan fired a shot. No amount of your speculation will ever change the facts of this case. Bepopalula (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you name the hundreds of witnesses not called upon to give evidence? And where are the recorded statements of these hundreds of witnesses?? Is it anything like the hundreds of armed warders standing on the high prison wall? Purrum (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Arr Forensic science and the Ryan case.

The fatal bullet was not found therefore no ballistics was possible. If they did do forensic testing on the stolen rifle it would not say when the rifle was last fired and by whom and forensic testing could not say when the rifle was last cleaned and by who. It would be speculation at best and indecisive. In 1986 Victoria's Attoney General Jim Kennan ordered the case reopened and they found nothing new. Purrum (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no place in forensic science for any "IF". The word "IF" is purely speculation imaginery hypothetical opinion. I suggest you read the hundreds of sources supporting Ryan's innocence. It's only a matter of time before Ryan will be pardoned. I noticed you have deleted most of your discussion page where Wikipedia considered most of your contributions to various articles for "Speedy Deletion". More evidence of your lack of credibility. It's very obvious you persistently remove every "fact" that you disagree with. Fortunately Wikipedia contains history pages where no user can hide from their past. 208.91.129.246 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryan won't get pardoned, there is no new evidence to achieve it. Why don't you go a find the fatal bullet. Only then will forensics be possible. Remember I do not have to prove Ryan's guilt , its history. As for hundreds of source supporting Ryan's innocence, they are all based on the work of Philip Opas who in my opinion twisted the facts to support his theories. Purrum (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions don't belong on Wiki encyclopedia. In your opinion Philip Opas is to blame for doing his legal professional job, defending his client by expossing the fact that there were "no facts" to prove Ryan was guilty? How can Opas twist the facts if there were no scientific facts, no forensics evidence? Opas is to blame for police hiding Ryan's rifle so it couldn't be tested by forensics? Opas is to blame for every eyewitness testifying wide-spread inconsistencies of what they saw? Opas is to blame that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime and only a mere four eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan fire a shot? Opas is to blame that armed warders on the prison wall were forced to hold their fire for fear of hitting some of the "hundreds" of pedestrians and motorists outside the gaol. Opas is to blame for armed warder Patterson testifying he fired the one and only shot heard by everybody? Opas is to blame for Patterson's rifle not tested by ballistic evidence. Opas is to blame for nobody hearing two shots? Opas is to blame for the "alleged" missing bullet that couldn't be tested by ballistic experts, which would have proven who's rifle it was fired from? Opas is to blame for the missing cartridge (if Ryan had fired a shot a spent cartridge would have been found on the road) no spent cartridge was found because Ryan didn't fire a shot! Opas is to blame for alleged verbals or confessions that were not recorded, not signed and remain unproven? Opas is to blame for evidence by a ballistic expert indicating Hodson was shot from a distance at an elevated position in a downward trajectory angle? Opas is to blame for Hodson, Walker and Ryan being in close proximity on leval ground, which made it impossible for Ryan to fire in that manner? Opas is to blame that the prosecution's case was weak and had to rely heavily on unsigned, unrecorded "hearsay" verbals and confessions for a conviction, because the prosecution had no scientific evidence of proof?

Do not assume the fatal bullet was forever lost! The fatal bullet is new evidence! Ronald Ryan will be pardoned! Ryan's family members will be entitled to receive compensation from the state of Victoria!

So It's all about getting your greedy hands on some money Purrum (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove contributions and citations from Wikipedia articles on Ronald Ryan

Please stop repeated vandalism of articles on Ronald Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bepopalula (talk • contribs) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Ryan: The referenced facts

The trajectory theory was discredited at the trial because if Ryan had to be 8.25 ft tall to fire the shot then Paterson would have to be 30 feet tall according to Speed’s calculations. Bennett in the closest tower Number 2 was 33 feet high and he was closer that Paterson so Ryan and Paterson to low and Bennett to high. Tower 3 which is twice the distance of Paterson would also be to low and the view from the tower was blocked by century old gumtrees.

"If Ryan" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

1. • For unknown reasons, ballistic forensic experts never scientifically examined Ryan's rifle.

• The ballistics expert examined the carbine when it was retrieved and gave evidence that it appeared to him that it had not been cleaned since it was last fired.

"It Appeared To Him" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

2. • There was no forensic proof and no conclusive evidence that Ryan's rifle had fired a shot at all.

• true but why do forensics when the killer bullet was not recovered.

Scientific forensics on Ryan's rifle would have proved whether the rifle had fired a shot.

3. • It was never proven by forensics that the fatal bullet came from the rifle in Ryan's possession.

• Can’t examine a bullet that was never found

Without examining the fatal bullet there was no scientific evidence to prove Ryan guilty.

4. • Despite extensive search by police, the fatal bullet mysteriously went missing and was never found.

• Bullet exit Hodson’s body and never found

Without examining the fatal bullet there can be no scientific evidence to prove Ryan guilty.

5. • The fatal bullet was never scientifically examined by ballistic forensic experts, to prove which rifle fired the fatal bullet.

• Can’t examine a bullet that was never found

Without examining the fatal bullet there can be no scientific evidence to prove Ryan guilty.

6. • Despite extensive search by police, the spent cartridge mysteriously went missing and was never found.

• Cartridge never found

A spent cartridge was never found because no bullet was fired by Ryan.

7. • The spent cartridge was never scientifically examined by ballistic forensic experts, for evidence.

• Can’t examine a Cartridge that was never found

A spent cartridge was never found because no bullet was fired by Ryan. No bullet fired, no spent cartridge.

8. • If Ryan had fired a shot, a spent cartridge would have spilled out of the rifle. No spent cartridge was ever found.

• It is possible for the cartridge to jam in the breach

"It Is Possible" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

9. • All fourteen eyewitnesses for the prosecution testified different accounts of what they saw - there were widespread inconsistencies.

All fourteen eyewitnesses for the prosecution testified widespread inconsistencies of what they saw. Your account of what eyewitnesses testified is contrast with the actual transcript of the trial.

• List of Witnesses
  • Warder Helmut Lange - saw Ryan raise and aim at Hodson, glanced at Bennett when shot was fired, saw Hodson fall to the ground.
  • Warder William Albert Mitchinson – Ryan took three steps from the car raised his rifle and shot Hodson.
  • Warder Thomas William Wallis – Saw Ryan aim rifle and saw puff of smoke.
  • Rodney Arthur Burroughs – Standing at petrol bowsers, Ryan took aim at Hodson, “as though he was out shooting kangaroos.”
  • Warder Patterson - ?
  • Driver Frank Jeziorski – saw Ryan take two or three steps, take aim and fire. He saw recoil and smoke.
  • Pauline Jeziorski –smelt the discharge from the rifle Ryan fired.
  • Sandra June Tolley – was sitting in car getting petrol, she saw the assault on Hewitt and ran frighten into the Garage. Watched Ryan put rifle to shoulder and heard shot. The Noise came from Ryan’s direction.
  • Station attendant Les Watt – saw Ryan’s rifle recoil when Ryan fired it.
  • McCulloch - ?
  • Keith Dobson – Ryan had something raised to his shoulder
  • Louis Bailey - In car with Dobson
  • John Stuart Anderson – said that Hodson got hold of Walker’s arm and Walker fell to the ground, He heard rifle and saw Hodson fall to ground.
  • Rocco Melideo – said he drove at the escapees; he picked up Mitchinson and gave chase after the Vanguard.

.

10. • Only four of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified of seeing Ryan fire a shot.

• Four eyewitnesses confirmed Ryan fired a shot

Ten eyewitnesses confirmed they did not see Ryan fire a shot. No person among the large crowds of people heard two shots.

11. • All fourteen eyewitnesses testified of hearing one single shot. No person heard two shots.

• Patterson heard two shots. Ryan testified that he heard several autodetonations, and ex-prisoner Allan Cane signed an affidavit in Feb 1967 claiming he heard two shots

If Patterson (who changed his statement to police on three separate occasions) and Cane heard two shots, no person among the large crowds of eyewitnesses heard two shots. There was no contest at trial that all persons heard only one single shot fired.

12. • Prison Officer Paterson, admitted and testified he fired the one single shot from an elevated distance (heard by all persons).

• Paterson's elevated position was because he stood on small wall less that a metre high, Because Champ St slopes down he would not be elevated compare to Ryan. Impossible for Lange to hear shot fired by Patterson, noise blocked by prison wall and prison escape siren

Champ street is definately on level ground. It definately does not slope. This fact was made very clear at the trial.

"Impossible for Lange" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence.

13. • If Ryan had also fired a shot, at least one person among the dozens of people surrounding the scene of the crime, would have heard two shots.

• Patterson heard two shots. Ryan testified that he heard several autodetonations, and ex-prisoner Allan Cane signed an affidavit in Feb 1967 claiming he heard two shots.

If Patterson (who changed his statement to police on three separate occasions) and Cane heard two shots, none of the large crowds of eyewitnesses heard two shots. There was no contest at trial that all persons heard only one single shot fired.

14. • Forensic experts never scientifically examined prison officer Paterson's rifle, to prove it had fired a shot.

• Paterson’s rifle was visibly examined after the escape by Homicide Squad detectives and taken away as evidence.

"Visibly Examined" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

15. • Forensic experts never scientifically examined all other prison officers' rifles at the scene of the crime, to prove if their rifles had fired a shot.

• All prison rifles was visibly examined after the escape by Homicide Squad detectives and all rifles found to be unfired and with full allotment of bullets except Patterson’s Rifle.

"Visibly Examined" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

16. • Ballistic evidence indicated that the prison officer was shot from a distance, in a downward trajectory angle.

• Justice Starke told the jury if the trajectory theory ruled out Ryan then it must also rule out Paterson as he would have to be thirty feet tall.

"Then It Must" is a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

17. • The measurement of the entry and exit wound on the deceased prison officer indicated that the fatal shot was fired from an elevated position. At the time of the shooting, there were many prison officers' armed with rifles surrounding the crime scene, on prison walls, on prison guard towers and on the streets.

• If Hodson was leaning forward the elevated position theory is voidable, also if there were so many armed warders, why didn’t Ryan die in a hail of bullets?

"If Hodson Was" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing.

Go and ask the armed prison officers why Ryan didn't die in a hail of bullets. Very difficult to shoot straight with large crowds and vehicles surrounding the crime scene. That's probably how Patterson missed his target and shot Hodson instead of Ryan when he fired a shot.

18. • Eyewitnesses testified seeing the prison officers aiming their rifles in the direction of Ryan, Walker and Hodson.

• Apart from Paterson, only Bennett in Tower 2 had a rifle, this is known because Warder Minchinson called for a rifle and the only one available was Bennett’s. Minchinson got in Rocco Melideo car to give chase, The rifle was returned to the prison unfired.

Incorrect. The Age newspaper confirmed and published what eyewitnesses saw: "Armed warders on the prison wall were forced to hold their fire for fear of hitting some of the hundreds of pedestrians and motorists outside the gaol. Warder killed

19. • Ryan (a shorter man) could not have fired at the prison officer (a taller man) in such a downward trajectory angle, as both were on level ground.

• The downward trajectory theory was dismissed by Justice Starke and the Appeal court Justices.

Judges very often dismiss theories. A ballistic expert did testify that the fatal bullet was fired in a downward trajectory angle.

20. • Ryan could not have fired from a distance as evidence indicated, because Ryan was adjacent to the prison officer who was running after and adjacent to, the other prison escapee.

• Opas conceded that Ryan was twenty feet from Hodson. Hence the trajectory calculations also if you google maps the crime scene you can work out the distance because Hodson body was adjacent to the service station entrance and the Jeziorski car was stopped at the Champ St intersection.

The prosecution and defense both conceded after eyewitnesses evidence that Hodson, Ryan and Walker were in close proximity.

21. • Ryan could not have fired from an elevated position as evidence indicated, because Ryan was on level ground.

• The terrain at Pentridge is not level, check it out , Ryan had a rifle, he could fire it from anywhere

The terrain at Pentrdge Prison is, and always has been, on level ground.

"Ryan Could Have" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

22. • Some eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil his rifle and smoke coming from the barrel of his rifle. In fact, ballistic experts testified at trial that type of rifle had no recoil and it contained smokeless cartridges.

• The ballistic expert said the rifle had no noticeable recoil. It was Opas who claimed it had no recoil. the rifle contained smokeless cartridges, smokeless cartridges are not smoke free as the name implies. Smokeless cartridge refers to a bullet that used a less smoky propellant that the original black powder bullet.

A ballistic expert testified at trial that type of gun had no recoil and contained smokless cartridges.

From Opas on Ryan , “I believe that by the time of the trial I knew more about the M1 carbine than did the ballistics expert called be the prosecution. In fairness to him, he knew a lot more about a large variety of weapons but I concentrated on just one.”

Meaning? How does this quote from Opas prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ryan fired a shot from his rifle. There is no scientific evidence to prove Ryan fired a shot at all.

• Ryan’s gun barrel smoked , he must have fired

"Ryan Must Have" is your hypothesis that has been formed by speculating and conjecturing, without scientific evidence of proof.

Only one eyewitness testified he saw smoke coming from Ryan's rifle. No other person among the large crowds saw the smoke.

Only one eyewitness testified he saw Ryan recoil the rifle. No other person among the large crowds saw Ryan recoil his rifle.

THE REFERENCED FACTS : THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BALLISTIC FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE RYAN FIRED A SHOT. (41.32.0.58 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC))
There is no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to disprove Ryan fired a shot and that is the crux of your problem, all you can do is form a hypothesis by speculating and conjecturing, and without scientific evidence of proof all you can do is create arguments that go round in circles. Purrum (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to disprove YOU fired a shot

• There is no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to disprove YOU fired a shot. That is the crux of YOUR problem. All YOU can do is deny the facts, forming hypothesis by speculating and conjecturing without scientific ballistic forensic evidence of proof. All YOU can do is create hypothesis that go round in circles, also known as fairytales. All YOU can do is valdalize the facts over and over again. All YOU can do is try to cover-up the facts. Covering up for who, what and why?

Guess what? yet more facts are about to be publicly revealed and it will be explosive. One past prison escapee is still alive and well.

It don't really matter how many users YOU ask to be banned from adding the facts on Ryan. The mega-referenced facts are out there on the Internet for the whole world to read.

Why are most of YOUR articles deleted by Wikipedia? It don't look good. Not looking intelligent at all. (41.32.0.58 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Fortunate for me I have an alibi for that fateful day Purrum (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

BINGO......................YOU OLD FART —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.161.253 (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tasmanian Football History

Purrum I was just wondering about a couple of the edits you made at List of former Australian rules football competitions in Tasmania. I was just recently working on the 1940 Mercury and I never found that Esperance FA grand final result. When was it played? Also, are you certain that Tyenna was in recess from 1949 to 1951? And also according to my records, Bronte never played in the Tyenna comp. They were in Derwent Valley until it folded and that was the last I saw of them. I've got Brushy Park down for losing that 1955 GF to Molesworth and losing the 1956 first semi before they disappeared. Footy Freak7 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Years ago I read the Mercury looking for results and forward them to Footypedia, I'm currently reviewing my Tassies records and only as far back as 1960. I now got 50 years of results on PDF files.

• It is possible I got the 1940 Esperance result from John Stoward's book,
• Tyenna probably didn't send their results to the Mercury from 49 to 51, I only have the 1952 GF result
• Bronte and Brushy Pk are a far distance, I could have misread those years ago. Purrum (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have John Stoward's book and I'm glad you mentioned that because I checked it out, and he reckons Esperance was in recess for WW2 in 1940. Can't be because I know I saw results for Southport and Raminea at least. But it also noted that Tyenna folded in March 1949. Thanks for the encouragement to do that! Footy Freak7 (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Escapeeyes

Thanks for pointing me at that, that comment DOES look very familiar!

It's kinda sad; while I don't have a strong view on Ryan's guilt I'm opposed to capital punishment, and if this person was even trying to follow WP rules I'd be happy to help them find an appropriate way to present a pro-Ryan perspective. But I don't have time for people who think lying to other editors is a good way to get what they want. --GenericBob (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, see also: [redacted] --GenericBob (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, see also: [redacted] plus there is more of same, much more, and all is so true. 212.227.18.13 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a clear breech of copyright to me. Purrum (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony Windsor

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Political views

Windsor describes himself as a conservative. He has endorsed a referendum on the death penalty and supports liberalisation of gun control. In an interview published in The Sydney Morning Herald following the 2010 Federal election, it was reported that Windsor supports a rent resources tax, deep cuts to carbon emissions, and improved services to rural and regional areas such as Labor's proposed national broadband network; however he wants to ensure the scheme is fully costed. The same article claimed that Windsor supports the Coalition's position on water, and the Greens position on a universal dental scheme.

He has fought a long-standing battle protecting the interests of local landholders and farmers living on one of NSW's richest agricultural regions, the Liverpool Plains, due to the impact of mining on underlying groundwater. The region is rich in coal deposits and mining companies, such as BHP Billiton and Whitehaven Coal, have sought to acquire land. Greens have campaigned alongside Windsor, against mining companies. During the 2010 federal election campaign, it was revealed that Windsor had sold his family farm at Werris Creek to a wholly owned subsidiary of Whitehaven Coal, and then leased the property back. The reported sale was for more than A$4.5 million. The Australian subsequently claimed that Windsor yielded a return about three times greater than other farmers who sold their properties to the same company in the previous 18 months.

Feud with National Party

"I've never been in parliament as a National, I gave up smoking about the same time [and] I've rid myself of two cancers." - Tony Windsor

"I won't get into the antics of what went on then." - Tony Windsor on his Nationals pre-selection battle in 1991

"The National Party is a dying party." - Tony Windsor

Tony Windsor versus Barnaby Joyce

"I don't deal with fools terribly lightly, and I think under any definition the man's a fool." - Tony Windsor on Barnaby Joyce

"I won't be dealing with him, I don't like the guy. The way in which he was trying to give gratuitous advice in terms of a hung parliament [on Saturday], when he had the balance of power in the Senate [in 2005] and then sold the country out on the sale of Telstra was an indication of just where he stands in terms of country issues." - Tony Windsor on Barnaby Joyce

"Well, they're in a position of incredible strength so that being the case they have a shooting licence to say whatever they like at the moment." - Barnaby Joyce on Tony Windsor

Carbon tax announcement

Windsor was present at the February 2011 announcement by the Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the proposed July 2012 introduction of a tax on carbon emissions, together with Greens Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne, Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet, and independent MP, Rob Oakeshott . Windsor downplayed his presence at the announcement, stating, "Please don't construe from my presence here that I will be supporting anything."

Barnaby Joyce commented Well, Mr Windsor, what were you doing there? Did you get lost on the way to the toilet and just stumble across the Prime Minister doing her press conference and decide to stand in on it?

He was later reported as stating that he would not accept increased transport fuel costs for country people.

Nothing libelous here, all their own work Purrum (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ODFA

Hi Purrum,

Just wondering where you managed to source the information for the TVFA and historic results from around 1900 that you added to Omeo & District Football League. I've been getting some info from old newspapers, etc, and fleshing out some of the early info, but had a lot of gaps in there. Actually would have thought the TVFA wouldn't have lasted until 1925, but still working on the original sources I currently have access to. Also thought there looked to be a recess for WWI, but hadn't nailed down the exact years. Am also trying to work out exactly when it became the ODFL (I'm not convinced Full Points Footy has that right, and I don't know where FPF actually sourced their information). Cheers, --jjron (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=59621249 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that you over on ozzienews.com?

I noticed your name in the comments on this article about Ronald Ryan. Is that actually you, or is our regular stalker trying to make mischief again? If you read the other comments you'll know why I ask. --GenericBob (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No Purrum (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gold Coast AFL

Just a note. The GCAFL according to my info commenced in 1963. The clubs were previously in another competition - Ipswich Moreton or something like that. Could you make sure of that? I'll leave the 1961 and 1962 flags there for now. I'll just add the other premiers (I do have them). Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The club history page of the Surfers Paradise AFC website failed to mention that the GCAFL became the Gold Coast Division of the QAFL from 1997. The GCAFL definitely folded after 1996. Thanks for the link as it confirmed who won the flag in 1963 (I had the four clubs but there were no finals in the Gold Coast Bulletin). Footy Freak7 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Yvonne Strahovski. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chuck Versus the Pink Slip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr. No (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hi there, I noticed on Surfers Paradise Australian Football Club that the text in the history section read like a direct club history with lines like "Many will remember" and "one of our greatest come back games". Sure enough, it's basically copied from [3]. I was surprised to see that it was you who added it [4]. Please ensure that you don't cut and paste info from other websites, unless they are appropriately licenced. The Surfers' site clearly has " © 2010 Surfers Paradise Demons AFL Club. All Rights Reserved" at the bottom, so you simply can't use it directly. You must rewrite it from scratch, not just change a word or two here and there. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Book references

Hi there, I saw that you created a few country league articles, using a book reference. It is best when you use offline refs to include as much info as possible, which should include as a minimum the book isbn and page number (and spell the author's name correctly!) The {{cite book}} template shows what else is commonly included in book refs. Thanks for helping to fill in some missing articles. And happy Purim! The-Pope (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi, could you provide an explanation for this removal? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melbourne Hawks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Australian rules football in New Zealand may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | match = '''22,546''' - 2013 {{AFL StK}}]] vs {{AFL Syd}}. [[Westpac Stadium]], [[Wellington, New Zealand|Wellington]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Melbourne Football Club coaches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Roos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melbourne Hawks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Roos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi Purrum. While I appreciate your enthusiasm to expand Australian football articles, I have reverted your last edit to Kevin Heath as it was a copyright violation.

The GNU only License (I can't see any CC license on the website) used by Blueseum is not compatible with Wikipedia.

In 2012 you were politely explained by User:The-Pope that you simply can't copy and paste (or slightly reword) from websites unless they display the appropriate license. I can understand that maybe in the case of Blueseum it is not always clear, but this is not the first time I have had to remove copyright violations that you have added. On 16 December 2013 you copy and pasted sections of an article from the Hawthorn Football Club website relating to Andrew Gowers, which is clearly not going to be compatible. You also made this edit to Bert Mills, which came before the copyright issue was raised with you by The-Pope, but I would have hoped you would have gone back and removed it. With that in mind, if you are aware of any other text you have added in the past that you think may be a problem, you should go back and remove it.

Please cease copy and pasting articles onto Wikipedia. Any further violations and this will have to be raised elsewhere.

Jevansen (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jevansen (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hello, Purrum.

First, I appreciate your work to rewrite the material at Kevin Heath. Unfortunately, since you didn't use an edit summary, it simply looked like a revert. It's a good idea to avoid seeming to revert copyrighted content back into articles, as our copyright policy is one we must take very seriously. It is standard practice to block contributors who do not follow it to protect the project, copyright holders, and our reusers.

I've had a look at the ANI, and quickly confirmed that copying content from previously published materials does seem to have been a pattern. I removed content from Harry Beitzel that you seem to have copy-pasted from an article in The Age from 1993. (It's also reproduced here, although you may have found it elsewhere.)

Please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste as well as the policies and guidelines to which it links. In simplified summary, you should not copy content you find anywhere unless you can prove that it is public domain or compatibly licensed, or unless you are adding brief and clearly marked quotations in accordance with our non-free content policy and guideline. If you can prove that it is public domain or compatibly licensed, you need to acknowledge the copying in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Some compatible licenses legally require such acknowledgment. All other text should be written in your own words as a proper paraphrase of the sources you use and cite.

Because it seems you have had a history of copying content, I have opened a contributor copyright investigation (CCI) to request review of your earlier edits. These investigations are not meant to be punitive - the purpose is simply to locate problems and clean them up. Your assistance here would be very welcome - if you know you have copied content, please remove it and put a note on the CCI - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Purrum - indicating what you've done. This will go a long way towards helping the editors who work on the CCI clear it out and put it behind us, and it will demonstrate your good faith and your understanding of our copyright policies. We ask that you don't remove the "diffs" or mark cleanup as resolved. Because sometimes copyright issues result from confusion about what is permitted or how much paraphrase is required, it's better if people who do not have a history with copyright issues evaluate to be sure that any problems are removed.

This is not meant to discourage you from future contributions. But please be very careful to follow copyright policies. Further violation of these policies may result in your being blocked without notice. If you have doubts about whether content is usable, please seek feedback. I believe you are working in good faith, and we would not want to lose you unnecessarily.

If you have questions for me here, please notify me either with a {{talkback}} template or by mentioning me specifically by name. {{Ping}} works well. I would not want to overlook your question. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)