User talk:Lacrimosus/Archive (June '04-April '05)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk Archives

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show Preview button to review your edits.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 01:59, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Cheers. I'm learning a lot in a short time, but enjoying it. Lacrimosus 14:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see someone at Escrivá

I see you have removed the Fernández things: that was good. I was planning to make a big edit to that article (it merely states "problematic issues" and says nothing of his life) but... it was six months ago and I have done nothing as yet :(

In any case, welcome to the wikipedia and I hope you enjoy working here. Pfortuny 07:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you! I'll admit I don't know all that much about his life, but I think it would be a difficult article to do satisfactorily. Beyond me at least. :).

[edit] I feel your pain...

Found you via the Network Ten page history, and just wanted to say I sympathise about the Chemical Brothers entry; I'm planning to extensively rewrite the entry for Lawrence Miles, which is in the same state. Guybrush 10:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Man, that one is much worse. Well, I'm sure you'll be able to tidy it up . . . keep up the good work :).

[edit] Railway stations

Nice job so far on the Brisbane articles! Good to see some of them outside of the Melbourne ones getting some attention. Have you seen what we've done there? Ambivalenthysteria 09:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen some of the Melbourne articles, and I've been quite impressed. Hopefully, I'll be steadily updating the Brisbane stations as time progresses,using Melbourne as a model. I've also got designs to do Brisbane suburbs. On another note, shouldn't somebody merge Central railway station, Sydney, with Central Station, Sydney?
Dysprosia has taken care of Central Sydney. If I can help at all with the Brisbane stuff, just give me a yell. :) Ambivalenthysteria 10:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's worth maintaining both the list and the templates. The former is part of a national set - we now have (to my knowledge) every open suburban railway station in Australia covered in the appropriate city articles, and the latter is useful for navigating between subpages.

On that note, I guess you've seen http://qroti.com/ - seems to be a pretty good resource for Brisbane railways.

And about John Kerry - thanks. That debate has been taking it's toll. *sighs* Ambi 08:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm still a bit hazy on copyright issues - do you think it would be possible to use some of the qroti site's images? Maybe I should ask permission first. (And it's interesting to see that Neutrality's "undertone of confrontation" has made Rex "feel uncomfortable" :). But at least now his phrasing is civil.)
It's probably doubtful that you could use those, as we can't just get permission to use people's image on this site, but we need to get permission to release them under the GFDL. For Melbourne, I've slowly set about taking them myself. *sigh* Ambi 10:12, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. (starts charging digital camera batteries)

I second the comment about Brisbane Railway Stations - good job! However, I do have a question. I find it a bit hard to read the name of the lines when they're displayed on the coloured background in the railway line pages and the railway station pages (especially Shorncliffe - blue on blue). Is it OK if I change the coloured bar denoting a line so it displays the name of the line with a little coloured box to the right of it, as in the [[List of Sydney railway stations]? Example:

  Shorncliffe Line

This might be a bit messy - should it be done using a template instead? I'm new here so all guidance is appreciated. Tookr 02:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Left-wing politics, anti-war movement

Please, please, please, what MathKnight and I agreed to in trying to sort out the NPOV dispute was that we would first try to get this material sorted out in the Left-wing politics article, then refactor. See Talk:Left-wing politics. I heartily agree that most of this doesn't ultimately belong in that article, but if you (or I) start making cuts now we will never resolve the dispute. We need to first come up with NPOV text, then refactor. -- Jmabel 23:02, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Also, we'll never resolve this with "many say". I've been doing my best to cite like mad; I'm also doing my best even to give the strongest and best cited arguments I can even for what I disagree with politically. From your edits, you and I are obviously in agreement about MathKnight's writing having been slanted. We have to be very careful not just to substitute a less censorious POV we find more amenable, but to actually move toward being comprehensive. -- Jmabel 23:07, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. My goal is to get a clean version that we can agree is NPOV, then refactor it out to an article of its own with a maybe two- or three- paragraph summary in Left-wing politics, headed by a note along the lines of See main article title of refactored article. -- Jmabel 23:27, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Democrats Shadow Cabinet

Just for the record, the Democrats do officially allocate portfolios. However, the link itself made little sense, as they all have portfolios, so in a sense, they'd all be a cabinet (and thus are never referred to that way). Ambi 11:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, there's something I didn't know. Thanks. Meanwhile, do you think you could bring anything to U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement? I'm not happy with the entry currently and I thought it'd be good if a few people more knowledgeable than me about such matters could contribute, since it's of contemporary relevance. Lacrimosus 02:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think you're probably more likely to be more knowledgeable than me, but I'll do what I can. Any ideas in particular for improving it? Ambi 03:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought initially that the listing of proposed benefits to Oz was a little thin, because other than some vague reference to "increased access", I wasn't exactly sure how these benefits were quantified. But I supposed there's not really all that much to be added there. Ps. Glad you decided to stay. Noli illegitimi caborandum and all that. Lacrimosus 23:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

Hello. I was curious about your comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Unequals that economists are the only ones who profit from free trade. I find this rather strange since economists are, after all, social scientists, not pioneers of industry and their most common means of work are research and advisory roles. I'd love it if you could elaborate.

Certainly. My comment on Vfd was meant as a sarcastic jab at the content of the article, where it seemed to be implying, ludicrously, that economists are motivated by personal greed. This of course, as you recognise, is laughable. Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear. Lacrimosus 05:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed you are working on the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement entry. I would love to help expand this. I just need to read over some of the legislative language. I think with you working from the Australian POV with some knowledge of U.S. relations and I working from the U.S. POV with some knowledge of Australian relations, the entry could be great on the main page once the deal is ratified.

See you around, Skyler 12:11, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work, so far. Congratulations. I think the agreement has already passed the senate, so we'd better work quick in order to get it listed on Current Events (although I don't have any idea how to do that. . .) Thanks very much for chipping in and I'm sure we'll find other things to collaborate on as well.Lacrimosus 08:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I have answered you here. Rex071404 02:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Steam Punk

As I understand from the steam punk article, the genre proper only began in the 90's, and refers to retro Victorian settings. Why then are you adding classic Victorian scifi novels to the category? Lacrimosus 22:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even though the term "Steampunk" was coined and became generally accepted in the 1990s, that doesn't mean that the genre hasn't been around for years. For instance, The Wild Wild West television series of the 1960s or the Disney Jules Verne-inspired movies of the 1950s. I included the victorian-era SF novels because they contineue to be re-made into steampunk-genre movies: Time Machine, Aroud the World in 80 Days, War of the Worlds (2005). But you are probably correct about the source novels themselves not bing in the genre proper, since they were not written as "period pieces" when created and perhps should be limited to the modern re-tellings. Davodd 23:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] redstar2000

Please check the page for new info. I didn't create the page orginally and neither did redstar2000, who is a 60 year old man with little skill when it comes to computers. Anyways, I believe it is reasonable now.--Che y Marijuana 09:22, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Preview feature

Hi. I just noticed you made thirteen edits to Mark Latham at one time. I can understand this if these edits were the result of several separate bouts of research, but if otherwise, could you try to make use of the preview feature in future? Doing so reduces the crowding of article histories with lots of fairly minor edits. - Mark 05:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't mean to sound antagonistic or accusatory, by the way. We're all guilty of underuse of the preview button from time to time. :) - Mark 05:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Latham

Thanks for what you're doing there. It's a good start, but if we're going to get rid of the FA objection, we need a seperate references section, like on the bottom of Louis XIV of France. Ambi 05:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking down your previous username; and a belated welcome

HI and welcome from across the Ditch! Good luck in the NEXT netball series...
Noticed your comment that you "had made two or three edits under an earlier account but ... forgotten what it was". If you remember one of those edits you can find out who you "were" from the page history.
Seems the other Aussies have taken you under their wings, with good reciprocity developing.
If you ever want a day or two away from Wikipedia, you could continue improving your world with a look at my "Brisbane" assemblage on my favourite web directory.
Best wishes! Robin Patterson 00:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Latham

I have the full essay, but haven't read it all yet. Suffice to say that Latham's involvement in community forums seems to be fairly significant, as well as his previous involvement in local government. Not everyone likes him! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism

Now that I understand your intent, I took another shot at the paragraph. My edit probably also makes it clear why it is there: heading off POV wars be stating early on what the article is not about.

I'm a little hesitant to be drawn into more articles on broad political topics like Social Democracy. These are not my main area of interest; I've been "pulled" into Conservatism, Socialism, Liberalism, Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, and Left-right politics because I'd noticed a lot of actively false statements (mostly, I suspect, by young people with little knowledge of history or of countries other than the U.S., or occasionally some other one country) and POV wars in the absence of citations. That's half a dozen articles like this that I'm trying to keep honest and informative; I don't want to be pulled into too many others. But let me know if at some point you think you have something ready to go and want me to take one shot at reviewing it. -- Jmabel 17:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Australia before 1901

Hi, with regards to your edits of this page, do you have any references to material you used in your edits of this article? This was asked for on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks, Ta bu shi da yu 12:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Engrish

While I disagree, thank you for a more constructive and polite comment than was usual. Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, Vincent 01:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Australian wikipedians' message board

Hi Lacrimosus. I've created a page (with an idea blatantly plagiarised from our Irish counterparts) where any interested Australians can get together and coordinate efforts to fill some of the (rather large) holes in Australian content. If you're interested, it's at Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board. Any assistance you could give would be appreciated. Ambi 05:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since Ta bu shi got started with Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney, there's been talk of creating WikiProjects for some of the other capitals. As our main Brisbane person, what would you think about doing the same for Brisbane? Ambi 10:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Children overboard

i am moving this article to children overboard affair rather than scandal for NPOV and because it is the most common name used. The bellman 05:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ALP and White Australia

I'm tiring of Red Ted's antics concerning this. What can be done about him apart from contantly reverting his POV changes? - Aaron Hill 12:40, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I overreacted last night, but I'm just really annoyed this keeps happening. I have to admit, I laughed out loud when he called me conservative. - Aaron Hill 04:06, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

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

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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

I'm happy to comply with this. I'll add something to that effect on my user page shortly. Lacrimosus 05:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Communism

I have now read and understand Wikipedia rules about writing a NPOV. So I think understand why you removed my editing to this page and labelled it as POV. I will go back and try to rewrite it in a more NPOV way. But this time let me know exactly what is POV about it before you revert.

I am very concerned about what some of the communist-leaning Wikipedians are trying to do here. They are clealy not allowing both sides of the religious communism issue to be voice on Wikipedia. I really hope you are not trying to silence any particular side of this issue. The Communists here believe that Jesus and ancient Christians were the first to practice communism. That is their side of the issue. Another side of this issue is that some people believe, like myself, that Jesus and the early Christians practiced only certain aspects of communism, but did not believe in a stateless society, nor did they impose their communistic beliefs upon anyone. All those who practiced it did so by their own Free Will. Jesus therefore was not a Communist. Whether you agree or not is beside the point; we need to be NPOV right? In order to do so, all sides of an issue must be presented in a way as to portray each side clearly and truthfully; we will not be able to do this by silencing any one side. -Gaytan 18:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Communism. 172 08:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ALP Leadership

Apologies regarding late rebuttal, I went on holidays shortly before the edit. By this time however, you must have noticed in the media it is Smith being mentioned for the leadership over Swan. Prior to this, Smith still was regarded as a better candidate then Swan, and this is even more clear now with Latham's leadership collapsing. Evolver of Borg 16:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 203.164.184.197

that anon has created Australian Loser Party. i think he needs dealing with Xtra 06:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are you going to do - beat me to a pulp. - Anon
I've given this user a standard 24 hour time-out for failing to heed my warning. -- Hadal 07:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] begging the question

A comment has been left in response to you on the Talk:begging the question page.

-Catskul 20:50, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment about the Liberal Party

Hello. You posted a response to the anonymous user on the archived talk page Talk:Liberal Party of Australia/archive meaning of neo-liberal. Unfortunately this archive was created improperly, and I will be forced to delete the archive at its current title. Do you want me to go to the effort of merging the archive history with the talk page history, so the history of your post is kept? Or can I just paste it back in myself? Merging the histories of the two pages looks a bit icky, considering the anon user posted different messages to both at the same time. - Mark 12:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I have started an arbitration against that user. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH for information. Xtra 22:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Social democracy

Hi. I see you've been fighting the good fight with our Michaelm. I don't know what this guy is about. For a while, I was wondering if he might be a troll just trying to wind us up, but he is too persistent and consistent to be a troll. You can see on his talk page some of my previous discussions with him. A particularly amusing episode was the debate over Belinda Stronach, who was instrumental in bringing together two Canadian conservative parties, and who ran for the leadership of the merged party. Michaelm, however, has it in his mind that she is a social democrat. The first part of this debate was somehow erased from the history pages, but there remains evidence of the second round. Anyway, I wish you good luck and fortitude in this. Kevintoronto 15:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queensland is doomed

Thanks for the tip. The residents of the affected areas were in my mind when I removed the "Queensland is doomed" comment from the article. One Salient Oversight 01:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yay!

My first every barnstar :) thanx! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Australia

So far as I can see, your new redict forms a perfect closed loop between Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution of Australia. Each of these articles redirects to the other, and neither of them contain any article. --SilasM 08:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ignore that comment. I see I'd caught you in mid-stride. --SilasM 08:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelm

Your RfC is very thorough, well-thought-out, and well-written. It is a pity that it has come to this, but I can't think of any other way of handling the situation. good work. Kevintoronto 13:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] boxes

Please don't start again with the boxes. They are ugly and unnecessary and I will delete them. Adam 00:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that they serve any useful purpose at all. Adam 00:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] federal executive council

you wrote that the vice president is usually a minister without portfolio. however all the vice presidents that i know of have a portfolio. Xtra 06:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

david kemp was the last one. i think nick minchin is currently. Xtra 06:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping the gun slightly

Hayes isn't a member of the House until he is sworn in, and he isn't even elected until the seat is declared. Adam 11:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The House determines its own membership, not the AEC. Members aren't members until they are sworn in. The AEC certifies to the Speaker that Hayes has been duly elected, the Speaker writes to Hayes inviting him to attend the next sitting day (which will be in May), then he is sworn in. Adam 11:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Social Democrats

Judson is a friend of mine and I emailed him to vote to keep. The reason I think it should be kept is that I think it's informative to have list of various people by their political ideology. In fact we already do. [1], [2]. -- Old Right 02:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GRider

Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 12:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herald Sun

Have a look through Herald Sun - see if you want to add anything. PMA 22:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ok I will stop

Ok remove the list but will you withdraw the report.Michaelm 04:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Lacrimosus. Thank you for filing the request for comment against Michaelm at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michaelm. With regards to the discussion between yourself and Michaelm about the removal of the RfC, I wanted to state that I feel much more is needed from Michaelm than just an agreement to comply with proper Wikipedia behaviour, as you have suggested on his talk page. Michaelm's actions have likely cumulatively cost editors hours of time that were devoted to correcting his edits and attemping to reason with him. At a minimum Michaelm should explain in detail what was wrong with his previous behaviour, and he should describe how he will behave in the future. When confronted he has already stated "Ok I will stop" several times, only for problems to continue. Kurieeto 01:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gough Whitlam

If you put a succession box for every portfolio Whitlam held during the Duumvirate it will be hideous and longer than the article itself. I have been very tolerant of this ugly and pointless box fetish, but enough already! Adam 09:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gregor McGregor

His eidetic memory - you know this how? Adam 04:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My copy of Light on the Hill has gone missing, but in Travesty McMullin says only that McGregor had an "astounding" memory, a facility many blind people no doubt cultivate. Must we use an obscure medical term to describe this? In any case my medical dictionary says that eiditic memory relates to imagery, not to facts and statistics. Adam 06:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Misschic

Hi. You just posted a comment on this user's user page. Perhaps it would be better on the talk page! I've moved it. Smoddy (tgeck) 10:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Elia tirade

This was a significant (and funny) event for Cub fans, not just a quote. I think it is encylopedic. But even it I were to concede your point, why did you remove my opening paragraph, where I put it in some context? Rogerd 03:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Dennis Murphy

By moving Dennis manually, you lost the history of the page. It now looks like I was the first author of the dab page instead of the first author of Dennis' page. You should have used move, or if not possible, asked an admin. -- Samuel Wantman 01:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How odd. You moved Dennis Murphy to Dennis Murphy (composer)? -- Samuel Wantman 01:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the histories of the pages involved, and it looks like Dennis Murphy was moved to Dennis Murphy (disambiguation) and then a minute later most of the text was moved to a new article named Dennis Murphy (composer). Instead of making moves, you could have just just created the disambiguation page and left Dennis the composer where he was. Now the histories are wrong. But I have a way to fix it. Dennis the composer is as much a musician as composer, so I will just move the dab page there and fix everything. -- Samuel Wantman 08:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing vfds

In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Seven forms of lightsaber combat, you wrote:

The procedure is for the page to remain on VfD for a week: don't worry, it's not in any danger as there's a consensus to keep. Standard procedure is usually for an admin to remove the box after the page is removed from the VfD listings. You can ask an admin to delist the page, but there's an anomaly if it's listed here without the box appearing on the page itself. So while this VfD discussion is still live, I think the box should stay. Slac speak up! 05:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This isn't strictly true; you only need to be an administrator to close vfds that result in delete, and, in fact, all other results usually take longer to close (especially merges). See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for deletion#Vote to merge, and Wikipedia:Deletion process for the steps required. —Korath (Talk) 02:06, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work!

I've just been reading some of your new Queensland political articles (Rob Borbidge, Bob Quinn, etc.) - they're excellent. Thanks for fixing up the Queensland Legislative Assembly article and member list too - we've now got every parliament done in the country. Ambi 01:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wikisource

You might want to put up a note on the definitions of capitalism article as well. RJII 02:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Definitions of capitalism to Wikisource

I suggest you discuss this on the talk page of the Capitalism article. The definitions of capitalism page is part of an arbitration case, is used extensively in discussions about the Capitalism article, is edited often, and the sorting and collection arguably makes it more than the original sources. It was created primarily to counter repeated attempts to define capitalism in accordance with particular ideologues. Ultramarine 04:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images and media for deletion

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicit photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 04:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] VENONA project block deletion

I have reverted your block deletion at VENONA project, because:

  1. You deleted the entirety of all information about Austalia and VENONA, saying you would replace it, and as yet (a day later) you haven't;
  2. You deleted a bunch of material that was unrelated to your edit summary;
  3. The complaint made in your edit summary is incorrect, because the deleted text does not assert that Evatt was a spy—it said that it was suspected that either he or his private secretary was a spy. And that is true, see e.g. this ABC documentary where Ray Whitrod said "Evatt was in our frame. We saw Evatt as a source, unconscious or otherwise of espionage material."

By all means edit it if you feel the expression was unclear, but please don't just delete the entire section. This is an extremely important part of modern Australian history, and the declassification of VENONA has cast remarkable new light on what was going on behind the scenes. Securiger 12:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Securiger 10:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queensland Parliamentary Handbook?

Would you know if there is such a thing? I wrote my first new article in a while today (Liz Cunningham), but I can't seem to find her birthdate anywhere, which makes the article look funny. Ambi 14:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I'm a bit surprised that none of the ANU libraries seem to have a copy (or indeed, of any other similar publications from other states). The National Library does, though, so I might have to take off down there when I get back from Victoria next week. Also, if you're also interested - you may find this helpful. Strangely, though, it doesn't have Liz Cunningham's birthdate (though it has nearly everyone else's). Ambi 00:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)