User talk:Brendanfox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello and welcome to my talk page! Please post new comments under an appropriate heading below. I'll generally respond directly below (i.e. on this talk page, not on yours) so it's easier to follow any discussion. For previous discussions (from February 2005 to December 2005) please see Archive 1. --Brendanfox 04:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Heide Museum of Modern Art, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.


[edit] Meetup in March

I see that you are listed as a participant in the WikiProject Melbourne. If you are a Melbourne resident I would appreciate your views on the suggested Meetup in March . Please give some indication of your interest, or otherwise, in the idea. Even a simple "No thanks" with your user name would be welcome and assist in assessing the level of support for a meetup. Thank you.. Cuddy Wifter 06:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Andrew Landeryou

Please don't restore the grotesquely defamatory material in Andrew Landeryou without carefully considering what you are doing. I have revised the article comprehensively and a blanket revert is not a productive step. DarrenRay 08:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that careful consideration was given to the matter, the reason for a "blanket revert" was that your changes completely shifted the perspective of the article. This was a change from a reasonable coverage of Landeryou's notable activities (that is, primarily, his involvement in musu) to a version based on the false assertion that Landeryou is "best known for his website", Brendanfox 08:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your subjective view. But let's look at the evidence, ie recent newspaper coverage of his website and its contents. He is frequently reported for that, is very well known for that because of the press coverage and while the outdated version may have been right at the time about some aspects, on that it is no longer the case. The article references many news articles and there are probably many more. I don't think there's any doubt that Landeryou is now best known for his website. DarrenRay 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is but I really find it unacceptable you make such changes without consultation or discussion. You have now made the same change and for what? It is an article that smears someone. Why do you feel the need to do this? --2006BC 08:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren, have you actually read those articles? Landeryou is invariably introduced in regards to his involvement with MUSU, because it remains the primary point of his fame, or infamy. I won't revert for a little while now, because this really is getting out of hand, hopefully we can reach a compromise in the near future. Brendanfox 09:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That's actually not the case, and I doubt asserting someone's "infamy" is going to get us very far toward a compromise at all, blanket reverts to an article based on old material isn't either. But I welcome you raising compromise because that's what I expect and hope for in almost all conflicts. DarrenRay 09:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You are an associate of or an alias for David Mulholland, who opposed Scott Crawford in the Banyule election. Please disclose your status as an interested party in future when editing such articles. DarrenRay 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I wondered what was going on here. Please refrain from personal attacks and defamation in Wikipedia articles in future. --2006BC 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ben, please provide an example of any personal attack that I have made. Or for that matter any defamation. My position was clearly explained, which was that the earlier version of the article was a better starting place for improvement than Darren Ray's revised version. In the name of compromise, I have now agreed to work on Darren's version, attempting to achieve a level of balance and neutrality which is acceptable to all parties. None of these changes could be described as 'defamation' or 'personal attacks', and so I simply cannot understand the basis for any accusations of that nature, accusations which I take very seriously.
Darren, earlier you made the point that 'blanket reverts' cannot lead to compromise, so I was puzzled that when I made a series of small incremental changes to the article, you (and Benjamin Cass) quickly reverted the changes. I genuinely want to achieve a version of the article that all parties are happy with, but it appears that you will not accept any deviation from your own point of view. As to your most recent comments, I have in no way covered up my identity and particularly given the fact that we have Darren Ray and Benjamin Cass working on this article, I find the fact that I know David Mulholland especially tenuous. Brendanfox 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll chip in here too. You didn't "cover up" your identity but nor did you disclose your personal interest. You only now say that you "know" David Mulholland, a candidate who ran against Scott Crawford and in so doing ran a vicious smear campaign against him that nearly led to his prosecution. No doubt you know all about this. So please don't bring your POV to articles. The issue of who and what someone is known for is a difficult area, but should be kept up to date, comprehensive and accurate. And please stop the personal attacks implicit in all of your edits. --2006BC 03:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The information wasn't disclosed, because it was trivial. I know David Mulholland, but then again, I know a number of Labor Right students also. If you read my user page, you'll see it clearly states my full name, date of birth, the fact that I'm a university student and that I'm interested in politics. Do you expect me to list every person I have ever known that has been involved in politics? And does this apply to every one of the articles editors? I encourage any third-parties, who might be following this discussion to compare the sorts of contributions Darren Ray and Ben Cass have been making (and their unwillingness for any further changes to be made), with my own, and reach their own conclusions as to who is bringing "POV to articles". I still await any evidence of Ben's repeated claim that I am making 'personal attacks'. Brendanfox 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Read your edit summaries and look at what you've been adding in. If you want me to list every edit that I have a problem with, I'll be happy to but I don't feel the need. Anyway, I've responded at length below. You've admitted being a close associate of a political rival of Scott Crawford's. That's more than most have done. I actually think it's great you've disclosed your identity and I wish more would be like you. You should have disclosed it though and not have it disclosed for you. That's the point I was making. I suspect there are many others in a similar situation. At least you're honest about it. --2006BC 12:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I encourage people to follow up on Ben's comments with a quick look through the history of the Andrew Landeryou article, it shouldn't take you long, :-) Brendanfox 13:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC).
[1] This is your opinion, and doesn't belong in the article. --2006BC 03:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this edit, we see that I've changed from a version which declared the blog more notable than the musu controversy (which is obviously a matter of opinion), to a version which stated that musu happened first (a simple fact), and that the website is the more recent occurrence (once again, undisputable fact). Please indicate where the opinion exists in this edit. Brendanfox 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Landeryou becoming known seems much more related to Sol Lew and his wife being on the Melbourne City Council than MUSU. How he became known to each individual is not that relevant but the news articles and their dates that Darren dug up seem to paint a different picture to the one you have. --2006BC 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have invented a causal link between these two events that neither I, or my contribution ever suggested. The contribution I made, switched from a "this is more notable than that" approach, to a chronological one. There was never any suggestion that Landeryou's blog became notable because of MUSU, although that has possibly been the case in some instances. Brendanfox 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[2] This may even be true but is so clearly about you - sorry David Mulholland - and it does seem rather petty. Please disclose your interest in future. --2006BC 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The rationale behind this edit was simple: the article as it stood (prior to this edit) mentioned Landeryou's criticism of State and Federal MP's, but neglected to mention the interest Landeryou takes in local council. If anything, I thought that by giving more space to Landeryou's opinions and criticisms, this would make the pro-Landeryou camp happier. I'm puzzled as to why this piece of information, which would be obvious to anyone who has followed Landeryou's website of the last few months, should not be in the article. Brendanfox 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I read the blog and see very little in it about local councils. --2006BC 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
That's because the local council elections were several months ago. Have a look through the archives around November last year - here's an example. Brendanfox 12:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[3] Unlike Landeryou, Crean is in fact a faction member so I'm not sure what that edit was about, but it added nothing. --2006BC 03:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, this objection is puzzling. I'm sure you read the newspapers, and have been following the recent preselection battle with as much interest as me. Almost every media report has described this event as Simon Crean versus the factions (in this case, the Victorian Right). To quote from the Age's article "Crean's war of factions": "It was, overwhelmingly, a victory over Stephen Conroy, the heavyweight from the Victorian Right credited with orchestrating the challenge against Crean and five other federal MPs." And earlier in the article: "His triumph over those faceless men (and women)...was the start of an even bigger assault on "the madness of factionalism" across the party." Brendanfox 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Not puzzling. Complicated. And also a reminder not to believe everything you read in the paper. Crean is a member of the Labor Unity faction. He attends its meetings. He knows its secret handshake. They may not like him but he is a member. Not that The Age is much of a reliable source but even it refers to Crean attending a meeting of his faction and asking for their support. Landeryou is not a member of the ALP let alone one of its factions. --2006BC 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether Crean is a member or not, this is missing the key point that Labor Unity backed Martin Pakula and not Simon Crean. Brendanfox 13:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hate to butt in but that's not actually true. Read the newspaper coverage in detail and you'll see that Labor Unity didn't make a final decision. Remember when Crean came out of that meeting saying he'd had a victory? That was the meeting they'd decided not to decide yet. Then the local vote occurred, with what appears to be significant numbers of "Labor Unity" votes backing Crean. Then Pakula withdrew without Labor Unity needing to make a decision. What decision they would have made is I think anyone's guess. DarrenRay 14:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, technically that's correct, there was no official decision. But if we consider Labor Unity leader Stephen Conroy's involvement in the pre-selection challenge, and Landeryou's relationship with Conroy (self described as "friend and mentor"), we may be closer to understanding Landeryou's criticism of Crean. I should point out, this isn't intended to take away from Landeryou's position at all, it just contextualises the criticism a little more. I really don't mind if this edit stays or goes, but I do think the article is better if it says what the criticisms are, instead of simply stating who has been criticised. Brendanfox 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello all, consider these facts to confuse even the most certain of people 1) Conroy is not Labor Unity's leader, it has a Convenor - Bill Shorten and a Secretary - Fiona Richardson. 2) Conroy is a friend of Pakula's. 3) Landeryou's family has been close to the Crean's for many, many years. 4) Landeryou has observed on his blog that while he agrees with Conroy's views they have often disagreed. 5) As Darren pointed out while Conroy and Crean are members of Labor Unity, Pakula and Landeryou are not. 6) There was not only no official decision, nor was there an unofficial decision to support Pakula either. It was left up to the Labor Unity members of the Public Office Selection Committtee. If Pakula had won the local vote or came close it would have been very interesting what happened. This all gives us some insight into how misleading The Age can be and why it should be very carefully used as a source. Those who read it and take it seriously get a very limited insight into what happens. --2006BC 04:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many of those claims are relevant here, but I do agree that we are a bit limited in terms of how these events are being reported. There just isn't enough verifiable information available to us, Brendanfox 10:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
Fair enough point, the relevance was my attempt to convey that to my knowledge the issues of which you speak are quite complex. I suppose that's why at times it can be interesting. --2006BC 10:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My copyedits

Look, I don't know why you keep on removing my copyedits. Are you wanting to start an edit war with me or something? You also said on the edit summary that I don't want to discuss change? Don't you have the patience to wait? I know what I am doing because I am a copyeditor for a University paper and I am an English major focusing on linguistics. I know it sounds weird to most of you people out there thinking it's wrong, but the usage is correct! I see that you are from Australia so that explains it. American English is different. "The Surpremes" is a proper noun and so are all band names. Therefore, they are treated differently. I have seen many wars and arguments throughout Wikipedia about this and people who support the correct singular usage are tired of explaning to people like you who are so adament that it's wrong and you are right. Stop changing my copyedits! I am discussing this with you right now so don't leave an edit summary saying that I won't discuss it. I understand that is correct to say "The Supremes are" in non-American English. I am, however, an American so that bugs me to say it like that. If you want to reply to this, you can reply here on your talk page and I will watch. Please, just leave my copyedits alone. Whoever wrote that Wikipedia entry for differences between British and American English is wrong. Sarbox 12:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarbox, thanks for taking the time to reply. Let me firstly say, I have no intention of starting an edit war. I think you can understand my frustration however, when a user defies the relevant wikipedia guidelines and the general consensus among editors, without offering any explanation. I think the best course of action would be for you to work at getting the guideline changed. Until then, given that the guideline explicity states we should use 'were/are' instead of 'was/is', I can't accept your position. You seem unable to accept that 'The Supremes' and "The Walkmen" aren't simply 'proper nouns', but additionally they take a plural form and so the exception must apply: "Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both American and British English" (from the wikipedia guideline). Regards, Brendanfox 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WikiProject NBL

Hey Brendanfox

I am wondering if you would like to join WikiProject NBL. I believe that this is something that you might be able to help me with, by creating user boxes and player boxes for it or even adding articles about Players

Cheers

[edit] AFL season article naming convention

As a participant of WikiProject AFL I thought you might be interested in this. I have started a vote to get a consensus on the naming convention for AFL season articles. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL#AFL season article naming convention. Cheers. Remy B 13:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluid Dynamics Project

I have created {{Fluid}} and the relevant categories. Can anyone come up with an image to use and can we start tagging articles. I think this will (hopefully) mean that if people move into this section (or away from it) it will be easier to keep track of what has been done and what needs to be done. Is this a good idea, have you any feedback? Rex the first talk | contribs 23:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, it's great to see some renewed interest in this project. Template looks really good, as far as images go, I don't know of many - there's this one [4], which is a Nasa one, but it'd be better to have a simple image of fluid flow. Nasa are probably a good source of FD images which would be within copyright allowances. Brendanfox 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have created WikiProject Fluid dynamics this but I don't like it very much. I'm not sure if it is better than the WikiProject Fluid dynamics but I have used for now. I am going to start tagging pages. Kaszeta also said they would look for something. Rex the first talk | contribs 13:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/e/User_talk%7EBrendanfox_abd7.html"