User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the current talk page.

Archive : March 2008

Contents

[edit] Melb LGAs

Well done, I saw you in action as I had the articles pre-watchlisted. FWIW, I'm just about to add a fragment to Moorabbin --Melburnian (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libs/Pyne

You'd think Pyne would be a bit more politically smarter than to describe his party publicly as hard right... Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Hume

Just a note to see what you think is the best approach with the neighbouring shires in infoboxes for the former LGAs along the NSW border. With Shire of Tallangatta and Shire of Upper Murray we currently have Greater Hume Shire Council shown as a neighbouring Council. Greater Hume was not created until 2004, 10 years after the the two Victorian shires were abolished. The problem is I am unsure if the neighboring council in 1994 was Hume Shire Council or Holbrook Shire Council (now both, along with Culcairn Shire Council part of Greater Hume). Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Many thanks for that barnstar - to someone with possibly the most appropriate name in the Wiki universe...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

According to Maxim's entry in the block log, the actual block was completely unrelated to the topic ban from AN/B. As Ryan said on AN/B, MickMacNee has blocks and warnings on his page for disruption in other areas - including an edit war warning directly above the unblock request. Avruch T 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you didn't see this comment. I can assure you, I'm not a vandal. Mr.Z-man 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, I agree, but I'm not sure why you point it out. The assertion was that Maxim blocked MMN for a week when he mentioned a six hour topic ban, and my point is that the two are unrelated. Avruch T 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The point tis that you unblocked a user who was, in part, blocked for incivility and disruption, even when he was still making personal attacks. Mr.Z-man 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew this was going to be controversial, as it's not a black-and-white situation and the user in question is hardly innocent - but I'd ask you to read both my rationale on MMN's talk page and also my response below. Orderinchaos 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The threading here is getting confusing! I didn't unblock anyone :-P Avruch T 01:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Bah, sorry, I just read the reply, not the sig! Mr.Z-man 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that. And I have no dispute with the fact the user needs to be more self-disciplined in the future, and needs to tone down attacks. A final warning (as given) means that another single offence will result in another (neutral) admin blocking him. A failure to change his approach will make that sooner rather than later. I think you can understand however that if an unsound block by an involved admin is allowed to stand, it is a net deficit as the user can justly challenge the action, and in a future dispute it makes irrelevancies assume an importance they shouldn't. I don't think handing out cheap point-scoring opportunities will solve the underlying issues. Orderinchaos 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Maxim may have been involved, but it was hardly "unsound." Mr.Z-man 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm disapointed with this unblock - the user was clearly involved in disruptive editing, and that was a major concern for Maxim when he blocked for a week. He had just come off a 72 hours block for edit warring, yet continued to edit war making a one week block a valid increase. I see no real rationale for the unblock, and you haven't taken into effect the other factors, let alone discussing it with Maxim. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have left the way open for any future incidents to be handled by a neutral admin with a block - I was very careful not to endorse the user's past behaviour, which I had investigated before doing the unblock and my conclusion was it was at the stage of "not quite, but almost". I would not have unblocked, or alternatively would have imposed a shorter block, had I seen otherwise. There was still room to cooperate, and I am hoping he will now take the opportunity to do such. I'm really not seeing the problem at this stage. Orderinchaos 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeing a problem considering the user is now able to keep on with his disruptive editing in verious areas. As I said, you did not take into account the full reasons for his block, failed to discuss it and then unblock with a perceived idea that the block was solely because of some comments on WP:AN/B. That's not good, and not how we do things. This user has clearly engaged in problematic editing for some time and the block was serving a protective measure for the encyclopedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As a somewhat possibly? involved party, I agree with OIC. Also, the block was not clear in its reasons. If a user is blocked it needs to be clear why. aliasd·U·T 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
With the number of admins who seem to be watching this, I have no doubt that if he was to "keep on with his disruptive editing in various areas", he'd be blocked by another admin, more likely sooner than later, and there'd be no question that that block would stand, as he's been appropriately warned, and he'd have no cause whatsoever to bring it up at a later stage in any proceedings which result. Orderinchaos 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Albanese

Would you mind taking a look at a contribution I take issue with that has WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and weasel word issues? The new user is insisting on keeping it. Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Same for Mark Arbib if you have time. Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
He also tried to interpret a source for his own POV pushing at H. R. Nicholls Society. He claims they oppose WorkChoices! Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
They do oppose WorkChoices! Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The legislation or the ideology? Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears they actually did condemn the legislation. "Ray Evans, the president of the conservative H. R. Nicholls Society, said yesterday the Government had created a "Soviet system of command and control", echoing comments by the ACTU secretary, Greg Combet." [1] However per WP:UNDUE I fail to see what this has to do with the H.R. Nicholls Society article - it belongs on the WorkChoices article if anywhere. Orderinchaos 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes they condemned it for not going far enough with labour market deregulation, and for too much red tape with what it did achieve. They didn't oppose the ideology behind it one iota, infact they were set up in the 1980s for this very reason - labour market deregulation. Auspoliticsbuff should fall on his sword for such gross misrepresentations. Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Essentially they opposed the legislation for the exact same reason the WA branch of the Liberal Party did - that if Labor got in federally, the amount of federal control the Liberals had forced could be utilised to achieve aims that would be anathema to their ideology. [2] Orderinchaos 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
They opposed it for several reasons, however, the fact remains that they did oppose it. Which was what my initial edit attempted to say. I NEVER said that they opposed labor market deregulation. My comments were specifically directed to WorkChoices and I specifically mentioned the reasons as excessive regulation etc. I was right and your initial revert, and your comments here, despite your attempts to backtrack, are incorrect. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your ambiguous wording did not indicate they supported the ideology behind it, simply the method in which it was implemented. But you'd fail to see that. Timeshift (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The entire rest of the article was there to indicate that they supported the ideology behind it! Stop trying to cover up the fact that you were mistaken. I admit I am new at Wiki, and perhaps my wording may not be the best. Rather than be hostile to anyone who dares challenge your worldview here, why don't you try to work to help with wording issues rather than making snide remarks and be, well, wrong. Anyway, if you want to take this up further might be best to do it on my wall rather than take up all this space here Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My worldview? Your wording was poor and gave different impressions to the reality, breaking various POV guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Guys, um, you know the article talk page is, um, that-a-way *points* :P Orderinchaos 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the notification of the TfD, much appreciated. Also, whilst im here could you revert this image back to the school logo. Thanks. Twenty Years 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heheh - victoria, not wa - doh - oh well its been one of those weekends :( SatuSuro 13:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Gmile on its way - cheers SatuSuro 08:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federation divisions

Hey, I noticed that the Division of Newcastle is the only federation division to be continuously held by a single party. Obviously this isn't possible with the Liberal Party of Australia as they weren't around then. However, are you aware of any divisions around since federation that were FT (or Prot), then CLP, then Nat, then UAP, then Lib exclusively? Timeshift (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a challenge as there's been so many changes to boundaries. For instance the electorate of Swan, which I believe was first held by Forrest, used to be pretty much the entire south west of the state and now is an inner urban electorate, so it had a decidedly conservative history but has been held by Labor more years than not in the last 30 years. The central Division of Sydney, created in 1968, replaced a Division of West Sydney which, together, have never been held by conservative parties, unless you count Hughes's switch mid-term (but the seat was gained by 1917 by a Labor candidate). Division of Melbourne and Division of Hunter have been pretty consistent, while Division of Gippsland has never been held by Labor, nor has Division of North Sydney or Division of Wentworth. Some of those have had one independent at some point past. Orderinchaos 06:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But in terms of the simple question of one party (or Prot/FT/ASP, CLP, Nat, UAP, Lib) regardless of changing boundaries, there are no more? The last two looked promising until I realised they had independents :P Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh - and lulz @ Buswell. He's emphatically ruled out any merger with the Nats in this state. :D Orderinchaos 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Buswell will get a say :P Either way, there will be pain ahead, merger or not. If they merge, they can kiss goodbye a few of the National electorates that will fall to Labor simply out of not wanting to be a part of the new Liberal Party (which face it, is what it would be). I also have trouble thinking what they'd call themselves that "does not give superiority to one party" which they have said is a prerequisite. They can't use Country for a major party, National has nationalist connotations and sounds too much like the Nationalist Party of Australia. The conservative party, the name Menzies tried to specifically avoid? Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My guess would be Conservative Party of Australia - I know some in the movement favour this (oddly enough, not only from the hard-conservative wing, either...). Orderinchaos 08:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
CPA? Menzies would be rolling in his grave! :P Timeshift (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i'm now older than Andrew Jones, controversial LCL/Liberal MP for the Division of Adelaide at the age of just 22 and a half! Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear OIC, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative Education merger

Thanks for your input on this merger. I have also responded to comments made by Sherurcij which included misleading information. DiligentTerrier and friends has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jlong2008

I was thinking about starting again - i thought of making station signs like they do on the sydney and brisbane ststions... is that a good idea? Or Not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlong2008 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost in Forrest

I'm stuck, and I think you have explained this to me before. Can you dab this for me: [May] Holman was elected to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly seat of Forrest? in 1925 ... Ta, 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Forrest here

Only trees - I am intrigued by the number of Tasmanian career politicans who serve at both state and federal level at diff stages in their careers - in your wild and wide experience of the career pollies of this bronzed wild land - are there any lists or cats that deal with this marvellous species? are other states very diff on this or is it my tassie focus that somehow highlights them? curious to know your op on this one SatuSuro 07:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sharan Burrow

That's what I meant. I would have thought there would be some profiles in the press or discussion of her activities, controversies, etc...from her picture, it doesn't look like she holds much back. Flowanda | Talk 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your hard work on the changes to Local Government articles due to the March 15, 2008 amalgamations, I hereby award you this barnstar. Fosnez (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I see I was beaten to the punch on handing out a barnstar. Never mind, I heartily endorse this one. Great work. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Endorsed! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transperth train line map

I am currently making a transperth trainline map like the one on their trains - it will have some extra information on it unlike their one!--Jlong2008 (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thuringowa

Mate i was gutted when i heard that Thuringowa "as a city" will be no more, i was born in Thuringowa, as was my father and his mother, and her mother, alone with all my kids and sister, we all go way back, but i understand what your saying...thanks Thuringowacityrep (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Alternative Education

That's beautiful, on a technical level, is there some way to automatically have the table break down?

Article Status
Article 1 fair
Article 2 stub
Article 3 no article
Article 4 good
Article 5 stub
Article 6 needs work
Article 7 good
Article 8 good

I'm not sure if that's possible or not, but if it was, putting the entire table on its own page "WP:AE/listOfArticles" would be fantastic. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Awww, it's beautiful, even a sortable table! How would we transclude it so it appears in Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative education/list ? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] A request

Hi there...

I was really pleased to interact with you, on BKWSU page, especially you attempt at tone of one section, but as my wikipedia experience grew, i had to face some bitter experience as well, I was really surprised to see certain things, for example, when i initiated one COI notice against user:jossi who has admitted to be a paid member of one cult group, two different people came running after me, one is User:Reneeholle and other one is sethi (see my talk page). If you notice User:Reneeholle placed few warnings at my talk page for making personal attack [3], [4], [5] and if you notice the time there was no edit from my side during that time frame [6], then there was a notice about me, which lead to my block for one week, I was surprised to see that admin who blocked me failed to notice this deliberate attempt, from preventing me from editing wikipedia, not only did that user placed a notice at Administrators noticeboard, but also filed a notice at IU which was rejected [7]. I am really surprised to see this commitment from these two users, who wish to block me from editing wikipedia at any cost, one of them claims that i am metapuppet of User:4d-don see this [8] and other one is convinced that my name is shashwat pandey [9]. These things have somewhat convinced me, that they are paid members from respective cults and wish to manipulate information. I have noticed these four people working in close nexus jossi, renee, sethi and IPSOS, at many locations, recent attack on me, was probably triggered when i tried to restart a page which jossi deleted, and this deletion was not justified [10] I have collected sufficient information about that group, and will be starting a page about the same soon, but just needed to know what preventive measures i can take from these four people, can they be blocked from editing my talk page ? so that discussion remains at respective article pages ?

Please note there is not a single comment from my side on their talk pages !

Kindly respond at my talk page.--talk-to-me! (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie!

DiligentTerrier and friends has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, Orderinchaos. You have new messages at Diligent Terrier's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] Block warning

I have reviewed the contributions in question and concluded the same as Sarah - speculation on real world information about Wikipedians is considered to be harassment and in particular is a violation of WP:OUTING. There have been several well known cases where contributors have been indefinitely blocked in the past for such behaviour, and I would encourage you to not continue to do so. Even so, it's not particularly useful to speculate, as it is essentially an ad hominem attack - as the old saying goes, play the ball, not the man. Orderinchaos 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

G'Day Orederinchaos. I have never intended to intimidate or harass anyone on wikipedia and if I have then I apologise. I have seen your contributions on other Sydney suburb articles over the last couple of years and you may have noticed mine. If you have, you would have noticed that my contributions have always been positive and have spent a lot of time and effort trying to remove vanddalism from so many articles. I have been particularly frustrated by the constant reverts and deleted contributions from all other editors on that particular article. As I said, no offence or harassment was ever intended and I regret this situation getting out of hand. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Edit Anniversary Day!

HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE

Wishing Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 03 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

— ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm now officially two wikiyears old. Soon I'll be able to walk upright! Orderinchaos 02:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE

Wishing Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 03 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

--Nadir D Steinmetz 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Thanks for bringing up WP:BLP for dermatologist part of Wrong Planet. I'm currently finding more sources. Perl (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD R2

In order to speedy delete something from CSD R2, it has to link from the mainspace, Wikipedia project space is OK. - DiligentTerrier and friends 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Might have to see what Redirects for Deletion will say about that. Sorry, youre almightily wrong DT. Twenty Years 17:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A. Twenty years, "almightily" isn't a word.
B. There is nothing wrong with having shortcuts to a cabal that aren't being used currently. I would understand if they were being used by something like, oh i don't know, a WikiProject! And I suppose we will se what redirects for deletion have to say about this. Kimu 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
To the first point - almightily, an adverb, is listed in both my Macquarie and my Oxford dictionaries in the subtext under "almighty". Secondly, running around creating "cabals" is primary school stuff. One gets over that stage of psychological development at about 12, usually. I would suggest to all concerned that they find articles to edit and improve to good article standard. Orderinchaos 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with cabals? After all, we are a community, and we serve a two purposes.
A. We are currently holding a random article contest, and the person that gets their article up to GA or FA status wins.
B. Comic relief
So what's wrong with cabals as long as we serve a purpose. Kimu 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, according to 1982 Noah Websters Dictionary, almightily is not a word. Kimu 19:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The Macquarie Dictionary is the official one used in Australia - I checked both 1981 and 1997 editions - while the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th ed 1999) is the official one for English as an international language, and a variety of it is the official one for Canada. As all three say it is a word, I have no wish to dispute them. Orderinchaos 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, I lived in australia for 8 years and they don't use it. ever. Besides that they have revised the dictionary since those versions so they are a bit outdated. Also, I am in America, so I speak american; not english. I, as an American, consider the Websters Dictionary the official dictionary of America, not english. One more thing, I am not here to discuss the progression of the languages of the world; I am here to talk about the Redirects for the nerd cabal. Thank You. Kimu 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Merriam Webster is indeed the official American dictionary, and, I'm afraid to say, it does contain almightily, as do two other US dictionaries. Also, the person you were criticising was a native speaker of Australian English (of which, by the way, the Macquarie is indeed the official record), even though that is now irrelevant as we've now established that it is a word in Australia, America and England. That out of the way, I have better things to do with my time than discuss, and I quote, "nerd cabals". If you want to be in a nerd cabal, I suggest joining a university computer club. Orderinchaos 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I was not refering to Merriam Websters; I was refering to Webster's first and original dictionary (of which I own a copy). Also, you are assuming that everybody that is a part of a university computer club is a nerd, this is not so. If you read the first oh... Four sentences of my userpage you would have found out that I am extremely athletic. Also, I am already a member of the nerd cabal, and would like to know, just what is wrong with cabals? Kimu 03:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Noah Webster died in 1843 - the language has moved on since then. I have several friends who are long standing members of university computer clubs, several since before the Internet hit the mass market. I'm not one of them—my interests are more in politics, geography and social sciences—but they're great people to know if you've done a systems proposal for a client and have absolutely no idea how to give it wheels. Some of them are quite athletic too, what gives? The need to create four cabals with almost identical memberships in one's user space suggests problems and needs beyond which Wikipedia was designed to manage. The need to pollute WP: space with redirects to them is something the community rightly needs to get a handle on. Orderinchaos 08:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on my talk page

Hi, I was just wondering what the purpose was of this edit. It didn't look like vandalism to me. FusionMix 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a user was attempting to harass another user by drawing attention from a supposedly sympathetic audience (i.e. the entire membership of a WikiProject - contribs and membership) to their comments on his own talk page. This is considered both canvassing and a form of harassment, and Wikipedia has a "shoot on sight" attitude to this kind of unproductive behaviour. Hence, all such edits were reverted and the user warned at their talk page. Orderinchaos 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I thought it was just a mis-post. Thanks for fixing that. FusionMix 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. :) Have a good rest of your Easter. Orderinchaos 17:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross posting notice

Um, I just thought that people that were a part of the homeschooling WikiProject would be interested in knowing what another user thought of our project. I did not know that I was violating a WP policy, and I will look into the subject. But I do have a question: What exactly is cross-posting anyway? Kimu 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was not trying to draw condemnation of a particular editor; as that was not my purpose. I just wanted the other members of the WikiProject to know what other people thought of the WikiProject. Kimu 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That was a pretty brave accusation; a pity it isn't true. I was not trying to be a bully, or encourage it. Also, just what was he trying to hold me to account of? I have nothing to be ashamed of. What is wrong with someone trying to tell other users just what is thought of a wikiptroject they are a part of? Kimu 18:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We are still in the building stage of WikiProject and would like to be taken seriously. You have misinterpreted my posts. My sole purpose was to show people that, even in the ranks of our members, we are not taken sriiously and need to step up to the plate and prove the pople that think that wrong. I am sorry if I violated any WP policies, and I will not do again. But, do my invitations to WikiProjects count as "spamming"? Also, I would like to ask that you reinstate my edit on User talk:Diligent Terrier and User talk:Burner0718, as he is the founder of this project and has a right to know and Burner is one of my best friends and would like to know. BTW, I am well aware of twenty years' impressive record and would like to inform you that imao I have an impressive record myself; founding the idea of several Wikiprojects; creating a few categories, etc. Kimu 19:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Our problem is that we can't get organized. Did you know that this month only 3 people have voted for next months collaboration? Anyway, so I've go an Idea that I need to get out there and a few people have just been slowing me down. I'm already experiencing reduced activity (although I'm still more active than Jimbo :)) this month cuz of viruses and such. Anywho, so I've got to get on the ball and DT hasn't been active today and I really need to talk to him and it's just really frustating and so I'm not as patient with users as I normally would be. And besides all that I have no way to burn off steam so I'm about to scream. But I guess there's no reason complaining. Kimu 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting content, are we?

I saw this edit to my talk page, and would like to know exactly what you are doing. This is clearly not vandalism, it was simply providing facts to me, to use at my discretion. Not only is this not your talk page, you have absolutely no right to delete my messages. It's my talk page, and I will do with it what I please. I have no idea what you have against my friend, but going and deleting messages that he sends people is unethical and rude. Please refrain, or I will alert an admin. elisatalk. 19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly the same thing. Please do not remove comments from my talk page ever, even if you think they violate policy. I intend to read every comment that comes to my talk page. Thanks. - DiligentTerrier and friends 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but stating the fact that you are an admin makes the situation even worse. We're supposed to be able to trust admins, and how can we do that if they violate policy? Maybe I would have understood if you had alerted me, said something, anything, regarding your edits to my talk page. But you just blanked info without even so much as a notification. elisatalk. 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, even if someone was spamming my talk page, I really don't care, and I would undo edits that remove spamming in the future. With that being said, please remove me from your non-helpful spam reverts. Also, on my talk page you said that "a way forward for the homeschooling project was discussed". Where is that discussion? - DiligentTerrier and friends 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Its right above, and on the associated users talk page. Twenty Years 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's not Outing

This is in response to your post on my user page concerning my protest against defamation of my name and character by user IsabellaW on the ARB page about the Prem Rawat articles. For your information, the issue isn't one of my being outed or having private or personal material about myself and other named individuals on Wikipedia exposed here. It's a matter of people using Wikipedia for the purpose of libelling and discrediting myself and other editors by labelling us as a hate-group. I've used my real name here on many occasions, as have other former followers of Prem Rawat, who in fact have as their usernames, their real names. Outing is not the point or the issue. But, I noticed that IsabellaW has escalated and added more retaliatory "stuff" to her section, so I don't know what the solution to this situation might be today. There really is nothing in IsabellaW's posts that would, could, or should be considered as evidence that deserves a response, and I think it's inappropriate for me to respond to her because her diatribe has nothing to do with the Prem Rawat articles. I definitely am not into engaging in a "tit-for-tat," roll in the mud with IsabellaW, because she seems to be quite volitile right now and on a full-blown smear campaign. At this point I'll confine my participation on the ARB to the discussion page and for now will take a wait and see attitude concerning this. Thanks for your response and concern. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

thanks for the heads up. cheers Michellecrisp (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As noted in the checkuser discussion, the two editors are not editing at the same time. I think conflict of interest is reasonably apparent in their edits but as WP:COI is only a guideline, I think any response to the editor should take into account policy breaches, such as introducing bias into the article by removing material which is referenced by reliable sources and cannot be shown to be of undue weight - thus the editor breaches WP:NPOV policy.--Matilda talk 05:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought 2 editors at the same time would be a sockpuppet case rather than conflict of interest, due to the nature of this person's edits, it seems they are closely connected to Edelsten. I did previously warn Zeumic about inserting fake references to glorify Edelsten. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's why it doesn't become blockable. It's something we have an awareness of now in dealing with the situation, rather than an extra thing in and of itself. If the user kept up the behaviour they have been displaying in recent days, though, they might find themselves blocked for entirely other reasons (i.e. WP:DISRUPT/WP:EDITWAR). Orderinchaos 05:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Twenty Years

CheckUser came back as unrelated, and since you and a few other users are willing to vouch for him, consider the issue a moot point now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different to

Sorry, I'd no idea. I just removed every occurrence of "different to" from every article I could find it in. I guess they'll revert to normal Australian form in due course, so if I spot those reverts I'll pop them into my exclusion list so they don't get accidentally picked up again. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/I

According to your comments, you said that I was mistaken with TY being a member of WP homeschooling. I was not, and he did recently quit the project. If you don't believe me then you can check the history of the Project page. Kimu 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)