User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive5

Regarding Lyndon LaRouche

Ambi, is it proper for you to protect a page, when you are a party to the controversy? --Herschelkrustofsky 00:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask you to stay out of the controversy, but I think it might be appropriate to refrain from using administrative powers on LaRouche-related pages. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of me and VeryVerily

Thanks for the advice on my talk page, Ambi. I have now requested comments on the issue (PNAC). Unfortunately I really think this guy is just a very bad Wikipedian who wants to do more than present his argument - he wants to remove evidence of opposing viewpoints from existence! Thanks anyway for the interest. CK 01:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

69.199.96.135 replied :)

FWIW, I got a mail from that guy I banned for vandalizing Ustase. He said how he can see why his commit would be considered provocative, but he thought our article was even more provocative. It particularly irked him that it wasn't just our article, but that a Google search on "Ustase" comes up with almost a dozen Wikipedia mirrors, and he accused us of promulgating a new "sacred truth" through our "minion network". And then there was several paragraphs of ranting on the topic itself. :) I tried to explain the concept of Wikipedia mirrors and pointed him to Talk:Ustase. --Joy [shallot] 17:30, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Truce

Lets make this one quick dispute resoultion, I will accept a truce on List of unrecognized countries until this is resolved with the current version (your version) standing until resoultion. Do you still like Canadians? --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

References

OK, I'll revert. If we get many more references it might be worthwhile breaking them up, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

re: speedy delete rules

Good afternoon, Ambi. Apologies if what I said came across as trying to circumvent you. I am quite frustrated right now that so many people are complaining about the deletion process in so many separate discussions but no one is taking the initiative to actually do anything. (Except Geogre who put a lot of time into the Managed Deletion proposal. Which appears to be failing.) I think that current practice has drifted badly away from the clear intent of the speedy process. As you say, I have failed to get enough interest in the discussion yet. That's all I'm trying to do. Drum up some interest in the discussion.

I also know that I've failed to convince you of my arguments and so far you've failed to convince me of yours. That's okay. That's why I think we need more minds working on the problem. By the way, I did not intend to imply that your reversion of my proposals was necessarily a bad thing. I meant it as a statement of fact to illustrate the question - again, a lever to try to get others to join the discussion. I've let myself get a bit sleep-deprived lately and if I worded my comments badly, I apologize. I know that we share the same goal - a high quality encyclopedia. I do value your opinions even when we disagree. Rossami 15:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already been bold and added a few lines in the speedy case list (clearly marked as Proposed). I think polls on the other scenarios make sense though we may want to put more work into the Managed Deletion precedent pages first. Much vanity is an obvious delete but every few weeks we get a "vanity" article that is just poorly written material about a notable person. (Most recently, that martial arts instructor.) Ads suffer the same problem. The Wikispam and webdirectory listings have to go but Lawson is a Fortune 500 company. Without very clear guidance, we will lose important articles. If we can expand on the precedent pages first, the polling might be clearer. Thanks. Rossami 15:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ambi - many thanks for supporting my adminship! I promise I will be neither ambivalent nor hysterical in using my new 'powers'. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sources for Australian biography

The Oxford Companion to Australian History, The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature, Australian Painters 1788-1970 (Gleeson). I might go through some of my other references later, there's lots more. Adam 07:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Australian Dictionary of Biography is based at the Australian National University and is currently available in printed form but is intended to be online from late 2004 or early 2005. Peter Ellis 05:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UNRWA

Hi,

In wake of the latest incident in Gaza, (see current events - October 1, 2004) I reorganized the section UNRWA and Israel, and expanded it a little. Since you was excellent mediator in the previous edit-war I would appriciate if you check the changes and leave your comments. MathKnight 12:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Norshore

I removed stations that I do not regard as being on the North Shore line. Yes trains that travel on the north shore line ALSO travel on to those other stations, but that is AFTER they have left the shore line. I also removed the list of Syd suburban stations, because there is another link to that list nearby. Thortful 14:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject: Brisbane

I'd be happy to set one up in the near future. I'm going to be fairly busy this week though . . . but certainly I will get around to it. Lacrimosus 19:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No real difference between Oct. and Dec.

Thanks for pointing out that I'm illiterate... I'll go ahead and claim that I was under the impression that months in Australia go backwards, since it's on the bottom of the world (kinda like how water goes down the drain backwards, and summer/winter are reversed from the way God intended them to be). Thanks :) Tuf-Kat 01:31, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Message from Haydes

moved from user page by —No-One Jones ^(m)
Hi ambi please do not block me I am trying to add things but someone keeps deleting anything I rite no matter how good it is so please dont block me. Haydes

No you didnt see it it was yesterday I made really long ones like for place cell and partialism both of which are requested articles but some one got rid of them. So I added a sentence to start up again because I dont want to have to do all the work again until people stop deleting them. Haydes

Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

See Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Anthony is challenging your right to make speedy deletions. Rick K 00:17, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm only challenging a few speedy deletions which don't appear to fit the criteria for speedy deletions. anthony (see warning) 00:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mike has not surpassed his limit. He is allowed to edit talk pages and his own namespace freely.If you have problems with Mike, bring it to the attention of Guanaco or myself. Danny 11:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

THose were October 3. He was warned, and he stopped. October 4 and 5 are fine. Considering that he hadnt made any edits for over a month leniency is in order. Having him accept the warning and then punishing him after the fact is not in anyone's interest. Danny 11:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On DiPierro

I didn't remove the case from RfA--I just moved the discussion to one page: I moved everything to one page to keep everything from getting too confusing, as I noted in the edit summary: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro.

Contrary to your assertion, I looked at what DiPierro did.

I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but I don't believe anyone's behavior in a request for arbitration should be called "trolling ways", "obvious garbage", or "nonsense". Please just stick to specific evidence rather than using negative characterizations. The Cunctator 19:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's admittedly debatable whether demeaning someone's actions is equivalent to demeaning that person. Don't feel singled out. You're right that I'm not like other members of the arbitration committee. What of it? All people are unique. If I think that people's behavior merits criticism, I'll say so. You're certainly free to ignore it, though I'd hope you wouldn't. So far as I can tell, Anthony has been exceedingly careful to abide within the (arbitrary) rules of the baroque deletion-undeletion fiefdom. Is it not true that several of the deletions he questioned did not follow the guidelines? In my opinion, it is those who break the rules that should be criticized, not the whistleblowers.

Wikipediahimsa says that it is as wrong to find offense where there is none as to cause offense.

I am sorry that you feel personally attacked by me. It is not my intention or desire. I just think it's wrong to call other Wikipedians' actions "obvious garbage". --The Cunctator 16:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Canberra

Hi Embi. I have added some information to the ANU page. Hopefully it is written well enough and doesn't have too many typos and spelling mistakes in it. With your list of Canberran Suburbs I notice you have linked to "Suburb name, Canberra" some other places around wikipedia I have seen "Suburb name, State" used, which is the more accepted form? Did you need some help creating suburb stubs like for Melbourne? Some useful webpages for suburbs might be the following: http://203.15.126.40/cgi-bin/search.pl for the naming origin of each suburb and http://www.suburbs.canberra.net.au/html/fsregion.htm for a good map of the location of the suburbs, though by the look of your list you may have already used this. Technically Hall and Tharwa, and possibly Oaks estate, the forestry settlments and HMAS Harmon (not too sure about these ones) are not part of Canberra but are located in the ACT.Martyman 22:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ANU moto is listed on the page above the table already. The crest is heavily defended by the publicity people and it's use would have to be approved. Martyman 06:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bob Brown

Yeah I thought so. A lot of the reason why I made the edit is because I can't exactly bear an edit from a User with the ID "Bobbrownisagayfaggot" regardless of its value (I'm ashamed) and because "when referring to people, as opposed to behavior, 'homosexual' is considered derogatory," and tends to be used by the far right (eg. homosexual marriage vs the more centrist same sex marriage)... - Aaron Hill 06:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Please protect again, as revert wars immediately restarted. Please check talk to find out whether you think the current version is the one that deserves protection. Get-back-world-respect 07:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boy was that fun. Sorry you had to be involved. Very Verily 08:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regular polytopes

You wrote :

Object barely. I'd like to see the lead section and a couple of paragraphs below that clarified - they're a little confusing to the non-mathematician. Apart from that, its very good. Ambi 07:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wrote:

- Ok, I've reworked the initial paras. Take a look? --mike40033 01:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, why did you vote against undeleting a page that would have just missed passing consensus to delete if I had beenaround to vote on it and knownit was on VfD? Wiwaxia 03:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You just deleted Place cell

If you had checked the most recent version before deletion you would have seen a stub in place of the 'context' line. It took a while to make that stub and I don't have a copy. If you can roll back to the old version, please do. The request for an article has been up a while and I am a psychologist. Please take more care.

Thanks for restoring! For future ref.... is there any way to check the context links to a page that does not yet exist without first creating that page?

Strathfield

OK, consensus (as far as I can see) is that these are not stubs any more. I think I'll remove the stub status from the article and keep working on the article, as you and the bellman suggest. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Forgot to add... the only reason I've not divided it into Muncipality and suburb is because I'm still a bit unsure what to write about in the Municipality bit and what to write about in the suburb bit. Some suggestions/advise from a more experienced editor (like yourself) would be much appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiStress

Why so high? Everything OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, ic! Good to see you aren't too stressed... I thought my changes might have something to do with it for a second there! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

for your very kind comments on some of my nominations on FAC recently. Filiocht 14:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nicola Roxon image.

Greetings, Ambi. Way back in March, you uploaded Image:Nicolaroxon.jpg. Now I'm tagging images, and it doesn't seem to have any info on its source, or any image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 15:45, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Serb nationalist brigade

I've noticed that on GeneralPatton's talk page you said that "the Serb nationalist brigade is now targeting Republic of Serbian Krajina". Could you tell me who are members of that Serb nationalist brigade and what are they doing in general? Nikola 19:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, Nikola just removed my comments to you, like this is his own talk page. [1]. This is a major violation of wiki policy. GeneralPatton 20:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lies, as usual. I removed your insult to me. Nikola 21:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well buddy, i'd sure love to know where do you see an insult there? GeneralPatton 21:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You implied I am doing something bad to two articles. Nikola 03:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your vote on Neutrality

You appear to have voted twice on Neutrality's RfA. I tried to get your attention in IRC, but I guess you were AFK. I removed it for you. I don't suppose it's a big deal, but I figured I should let you know in case you go looking for it or if you get a notion to vote a third time :) Cheers. CryptoDerk 03:38, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Australian fauna

My idea is to get the lists up, then the articles, and then go back and create prose from all the information people have added to the articles. I think the small intro about uniqueness and isolation is probably enough for now.

I think List of Australian birds is a good example of how crap it looks if you go straight into prose.

Hopefully at the end of it (which is likely several months away) we should have both a general Australian fauna article and a host of List of Australian Native Species, List of marsupials, List of Australian spiders etc. Or perhaps they'd be better served as categories. I'm a bit confused about the thin line between category and list.--ZZ 07:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

For the welcome message. I made an account some time back, and really should remember to log in more often. Never been active enough to warrant it before, really. Shem 09:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has there been a policy change all of a sudden? Why all the page moves? Tannin 10:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, then there hasn't been a policy change, and the long-etablished and much considered existing convention still stands: i.e., that place names except for American ones (which have their own convention of the form city, state) appear in the shortest correct form that is not ambiguous. This is particularly so for Australian place names, as we do not speak American here.

If you wish to discuss changing the conventions, by all means start the topic over (yet again) in an appropriate place. Until there is an agreement to change the established convention, however, they need to go back where they were. Tannin 11:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahhhgh! Please, don't do that! This has been discussed over and over. Many times, and always the same answers come up: the simple name is the best way to allow free links. I have better things to do with my time than revert multiple page moves, but I srongly advise you to discuss and obtain concensus before you make changes like this. Tannin 12:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, but I've brought this up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)#Naming convention for Australia (take 2) -- Chuq 23:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks so much for your supportive comment! I sometimes feel I'm in a lonely battle, attacked both by the familes of sockpuppets on one hand and, on the other, by those who call me an edit warrer or worse for protecting these articles from ruin. Now, with Adam Carr quitting (and TDC on break?), I may literally be alone on the Cambodia articles, the frequent center of it all. Anyway, it means a lot to me to hear something positive from a regular in the midst of all the misery. Very Verily 12:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam

The problem is that just because LaRouche is a total nutter (And I agree wholeheartedly that he is) doesn't mean that his views don't need to be addressed and represented fairly and impartially on Lyndon LaRouche. That's what NPOV means. That even views from nutters get included sometimes. Especially when those views are really important views for an article, which for Lyndon LaRouche, the views of LaRouche pretty clearly are.

To my knowledge neither article got a bunch of unsourced material added. If there is a chunk somewhere, though, please point that out on a talk page. I will ask Herschel and company to go tag it with source information. Because that's what should be done.

Yes, I agree that the article Herschel wanted to write was problematic. It was pro-LaRouche trash. The problem is that Adam's proposed article was just as bad. And whereas, in the end, Herschel has been willing to try to leave the article in a form that presents all the facts, sourced to each side, Adam was not.

I find this unfortunate, and if the article is biased towards LaRouche right now, frankly, the degree to which the LaRouche opponents were unwilling to accept any compromise or inclusion of the LaRouche POVs bears a lot of responsibility for that.

But NPOV is about mustering all the facts and evidence for all sides of an argument and laying it out. Frankly, Herschel has been more willing to do that than Adam. And so, while I think Adam is the better writer, the smarter person, the person I agree with more, and the person I'd rather go for a drink with, I have to say, on this matter, Herschel is being the better Wikipedia contributor. Snowspinner 15:53, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerily

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

It appears that I've been put up for adminship. Want to cast your vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aw! shucks :-) Thanks Ambi! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:09, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

PNAC

I'd say the accusation is less that the PNAC per se exploited 9/11, but Bush and some PNAC members did. (A hair, to be sure.) My understanding is that the PNAC itself is fairly inactive right now, since its main members got actual jobs. But yes the exploitation of 9/11 is a common accusation and deserves to be mentioned, perhaps in this very article. Many other valid criticisms could be added in, such as the costs of the project, the dangers of relying on might, the importance of allies, and so on and so forth. But instead this crowd is trying to base their entire case on a fluke mention of "a new Pearl Harbor" in the midst of one 80+ page report from the PNAC, which means in context nothing like what they say. That's why I say this is tabloid-worthy.

This offhand comment is not noteworthy at all (and indeed was removed from the article for a while), except perhaps to mention that it has been widely (mis)quoted. My impression there is that some lefty zine noted it, reported it without explanation to scare its readership, and through the usual routes the non-story spread. All the while there is serious criticism out there which would be informative and thought-provoking.

The survey is a joke. It's a laundry list of their quibbles with "my" version (actually proposed as a compromise) along with tortuous reasoning for why it's so important, with the survey laid out in a way so that one cannot oppose just some of the statements. The "inherently POV" part was silly, as Bryan conceded, but he kept it anyway. Meanwhile, none of my objections to the other version are even suggested. For instance, there is the sheer illogic of the structure, "A said X would bring about Y. Critics say X later occured." (I like my "In 1999 the Florida Weather Service announced that a Category 3 hurricane could cause extensive damage to ship docks on Miami Beach. Critics of the FWS have suggested that Ivan was just such a hurricane." the best.) Of course, what they're trying to do is use slippery logic to make a prediction into the announcement of a devious plan. Anyway, to stop my own rambling, the point is my concerns weren't addressed.

(There is also the matter of imputing to "supporters of the PNAC" what anyone who read the report could plainly see. My analogy was, "Supporters of Bush say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of reptilian humanoids.")

Anyway, Shorne is trolling the page (he's stalking me now), but other than that it, like most surveys, is getting ignored. The meaningless and one-choice-only questions are not even going to be answered. They'll declare victory anyway and we'll wind up in arbitration, where the ArbCom will ignore us for a month or so and then, well, who's to say?

Sorry this is so long.

Very Verily 09:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the long para above was not intended to enumerate all the problems with the survey, of which there are clearly many more. Very Verily 01:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You just did deletion on conscription

Please participate in the talk page and justify your action. -- thanx, --Silverback 08:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne

I originally thought so, but his / her vocabulary is rather different to Hanpuk's, although that may just be a deliberate deception. So I don't know. Not that it matters much, they should both be banned. Adam 09:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requesting your mediation

I am requesting you as a mediator at Requests for Mediation. Thanks. -- Xed 11:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

was I being bold or reckless?

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupied Palestinian Territories... BACbKA 22:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Richardson & Ruzwana Bashir VfDs

Please check both sections of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir to be sure your vote(s) got recorded as you intended. The two debates share a subpage(!), and my guess is that your edits of the sections may have overlapped, since it resulted in a doubling of the first section. (My guess is that your votes were OK, and the only hazard was that someone would vote in the wrong copy of her debate. But IMO you should check it.) --Jerzy (t) 00:40, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Requesting your mediation

I am requesting you as a mediator at Requests for Mediation. You have yet to respond. Thanks. -- Xed 11:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Election FAC

I don't think getting consensus is about a month's time will be difficult enough, I think that this is just too early. I was also seriously considering nominating this but I decided that we would be more likely to be seriously considered without the fact that it was a current event. I must admit, I am in two minds about this, I will switch to neutral or water down my objection. I still don't think that the article will become featured in October but it will be featured in November. - Aaron Hill 10:53, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom inuse tag removal

Thanks :) →Raul654 07:22, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1998-2001

Re this, you will need to check the "Hons" in front of people's names. For example, Gareth Evans was an Hon but Julie Bishop in that Parliament was not. Adam 07:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ron Paul

You protected the vandalized verison of the page..... Just take a look at the link given as the source for the quote on race and relize that only half the sentence is put in, to make it seem worse... as an admin you should be able to at least make a minor change to the protect page to not leave the vandalized verison up

AMBI is a rather inconsiderate admin that likes to try and marginzile and hurt wikipedians feelings.

Ambi, thank you for your quick action to protect the page from the persistent vandalism of ChuckF/anonymous. It's a shame something cannot be done about him. Guido1970 13:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I was actually a wise and calm and vool/collective man who didn't act like a child in terms of wars I wouldn't be doing this, but it looks like sadly I i'm so: Ambi, thank you for not Listenting to Guideo/Reithy as's Reithy... Request for comments has about 11 more singatures then mine..... and he should know just changing his user name doesn't acculamte to people suddenly thinking he's a changed person in terms of neturality

Talk:Kosovo

If not to remove, what should I do then? GeneralPatton simply lies against me whenever he writes anything on me. I used to pay no attention, but now I see that some people have believed him and I want to stop this. "Nikola tends to ignore talk". This is lie, of my last 500 edits 58 were on article talk pages, while, for example, you, have 26 (I'm not saying that you don't talk enough, just that I do). "He's even admitted in chat that he systematically promotes a certain positions on things (i.e. Serbian hard-line one)." You were also following that chat session and you know that I said of no such thing. But now anyone who reads the talk page will think of me as some Serbian hard-liner who never discusses anything in Talk. If you think that I shouldn't remove the comments, will you remove them? Nikola 13:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The comments are offensive but they don't look offensive. This is why they don't make the perpetrator look bad, but me; and this is why they should be removed, one way or another. Nikola 13:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DC Revisions

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review regarding Dawson's Creek. I went through and did some tidying, cut a few lines here and there, and moved the broadcast history list up to immediately follow the synopsis. Originally when I wrote the article, that was the first thing after the lead. One query to you. You said the credits could be turned into prose; I'm not quite sure what you mean by that and would appreciate a clarification. Again, thanks for your help. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:59, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - will keep it in mind. good luck with your VCE - are you going to your schools formal/Prom? I didn't go to mine (or the graduation night) cause the other kids had made it clear they didnt want me there - they'd excluded me socially for all my years at that high school anyway. PMA 05:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK - to each there own i suppose - by the way what do you think of the Prom article - i got alot of emails from girls telling me my point about wearing pants to Prom was right. PMA 17:24, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please stop breaking the existing naming conventions re Australian town names. If you want to change them, GET A CONSENSUS FIRST. THis far, you are NOWEHEAR NEAR getting general agreement to your changes. Tannin 23:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speaking from a state that has done away with the anachronism that is centralised final exams, good luck! See you when you emerge on the other side! Lacrimosus 07:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh what a load of self-serving nonsense you just wrote (on my talk page). There is absolutely no doubt whatever about the primary rule that governs naming here: i.e., use the simplest, most common unambiguous name. This is the convention your proposed change breaks. The second thing you are doing wrong is barging ahead without any attempt to consult withother users or gain a consensus for change. And the third is hurling accusations at me which, in fact, have no merit whatsoever. It is you who has gone on the renaming spree, and it's high time the community stepped in and put a stop to your high-handed and anti-social behaviour in this matter. Now, if you want to change the naming rules, that's fine. I don't agree with your proposed change, but I will bow to community consensus if and only if you can demonstrate it. So far, you haven't even tried, simply hurled mud at me. Tannin 08:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies

According to the Wikipedia:Undeletion policy for pages "deleted 'out of process' (ie- not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately." Please tell me where it states that a VfD vote trumps a wider consensus? - SimonP 08:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

What policy did you follow to redelete those pages. Wikipedia severly frowns on deletion wars, please do not continue. - SimonP 08:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

You are accusing me of violating polices but you then go and call them "guidelines" Wikipedia:Deletion policy is said to be "Wikipedia official policy" I would interpret that as something more than a "guideline."

Moreover what damage does it do to keep these seven articles for a time? Every step of the way I have made it clear that Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies is temporary, and that if consensus forms against it that I will personally get rid of it. So far, other than the posse rounded up by Postdlf, as many people have spoken in my favour as have opposed the idea. If the existence of the articles was so much of a problem I offered to move them to a different namespace. It is very difficult to debate whether such articles should be kept if they are deleted and only accessible to the minority of us who are admins. - SimonP 08:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have always felt VfD works magnificently. When something is proposed for deletion and listed as "not notable" the debate that follows is on whether the subject of the article is notable or not, not on whether notability is a valid reason for deletion. VfD focuses on the specific issues and ignores the meta debates. This is where the VfD process breaks down. What do you think of my proposal to have a poll at Wikipedia talk:VfD decisions not backed by current policies? - SimonP 08:46, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Shrine of Remembrance

The only source I used apart from the Shrine's website was Geoffrey Serle's John Monash: A Biography, Melbourne University Press, 1982. The rest came from my general knowledge. Adam 14:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Peace!

Ambi, I know both you and ZayZayEM mean well, and are both fully committed to Wikipedia. You are both valued contributors, who are quite mature in your dealings with the 'pedia. Perhaps we could cease reverting temporarily at WP:ACOTW until we can work out what needs to be done here? I've left a message on both your talk pages. "We shall know peace in our time!" - Ta bu shi da yu 15:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ron Paul

FYI, I just unprotected Ron Paul, since it's been over a week. Cross your fingers! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I have created a preliminary version of Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Your comments would be much appreciated. - SimonP 17:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Eric Bogle

I've been familiar with his work long enough to say that the first recording of his that I bought was on LP. I even managed to attend one of his concerts when he visited Vancouver. I still buy his records when they sporadically show up at the stores, but I'm sure you have more available where you are. I confess to a perverse delight for inserting casual allusions to relatively unknown individuals like Bogle in my mailing list comments. This turns to joy when someone else understands my allusion. Eclecticology 22:45, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

"Terrorism" straw poll

Ambi, there is a straw poll going on at Straw poll on use of the term "terrorist" on whether or not to use the term "terrorist" to describe the 9/11 attacks. I'd be interested in hearing your view on the subject. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 23:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin

Maybe you can add some blank lines in between the refs instead of ugly headings? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:19, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I would welcome your mediation between me and RaffoKojian. Where should we discuss this issue? You may want to leave a message on Raffi's talk page and/or History of Turkey article's talk page. at0 21:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Communist Party of Australia

Please stop arsing about with the CPA page. Most of us are annoyed with the conservative hatchet-job that was done on the CPA in the article. --Red ted 08:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1982 Invasion of Lebanon

Why are you trying to remove cited information and the cite itself? Please justify your revert on talk. --style 09:09, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

If you dispute that Israel used cluster bombs against civilians in the war, then provide evidence (preferably cited) that Israel did not use cluster bombs. Qualification is only needed when there is there is real dispute about a fact. You are not supposed to write, for example, "Person X claims the sky is blue". And Fisk is an internationally acclaimed, award-winning veteran war reporter. Accusing him of dishonesty is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Regardless, there is no justification whatsoever for removing the cite, which gives the page number as an aid to readers.

And why do you continually abuse admin rollback, which is meant for vandalism? You are only hurting Wikipedia by ruining the edit history with automatic summaries. --style 09:38, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

And justify your reverts on the article's talk page, like everyone else. --style 09:40, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I justified my reverts to you. No, you didn't.

You know perfectly well why I'm reverting - and you know perfectly well why that paragraph isn't neutral. No, I don't. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. The two should not be treated like the other. It is a fact that Israel used cluster bombs against civilians, unless you have evidence otherwise.

If the cite is so important, add it in without trashing the article's neutrality. Yes, cites are essential, particularly in controversial articles like this. As stated in the edit policy, the obligation is upon editors not to delete important information: whatever you do, try to preserve information.. If you think you can just delete information and expect others to pick up the pieces, think again. --style 09:53, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

2007 Election

Several things. Remembering that the circumstances in which Nettle was elected are similar to that of Steve Fielding of FF, that is through a lot of preferences. Democrat preferences would have gone to Nettle in 2001, but in 2001 many of these preferences won't be there because there won't be many Democrat voters. With the knowledge that the Libs picked up a Democrats seat the Greens were meant to have won because of their "increased vote", it would be harder for Nettle to be re-elected in 2007. In Brown's case, true, he most likely would be re-elected, but remembering that Tasmania's vote is ampliphied in the Senate.

On the topic of Alison and Stock-Despoja. It is not that likely that Alison will lose her seats to the Greens, as her votes aren't all going to the Greens. You also should remember that the minor parties do not have a big presence in Victoria, and many people who have previously voted Democrats for Senate and Lib/Labor for the lower house will just vote straight lib or labor. Stock-Despoja could be replaced by a Green, but the same was said about Meg Lees. Evolver of Borg 21:00, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Zionist Revisionism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial

To purge your page to see what others have added, click here

What we have here is a very complicated situation. There appears to have been a copy and paste move done between Zionist Revisionism and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I am quite happy to merge the two and setup a redirect, however because Zionist Revisionism is on VfD at the moment I don't want to do anything like this right at this moment. Also, it is further complicated by the fact that there is another article called Israeli-Palestinian history denial, that's almost exactly the same as the other two. I'm sending a message to all participants so far, requesting their comments on what they think we should do. My own preference is to merge into a more appropriately named article, something like Historical perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians (as that's what this is all about), but I'm flexible. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu shi da yu, Zionist Revisionism was the original article. I had moved it to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict in an attempt to NPOV it, but Alberuni undid the changes and the move, without redirecting the other article. I have since redirected the 2nd article to another page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, or you could just merge all three into Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. As long as you merge information rather than deleting it, as some have a habit of doing. Don't worry about the VfD entry for Zionist Revisionism; it is invalid. Josiah has, yet again, failed to provide valid reasons for the listing. --style 13:01, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
- Yet again? You obviously don't watch anything I actually do, as 1) That was the first page I had ever put up for deletion - the fact that I had done it wrong should be proof of that, and 2) I and others listed perfectly good reason on the VfD page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I would avoid POV titles that are bound to be challenged. As for the VfD entry, it is perfectly valid to list the article for VfD, and the entry will be dealt with via the usual VfD process. Jayjg 15:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest not to use the word "revisionism" in the title at all. It it nothing but an allusion to historical revisionism (a.k.a. Holocaust denial). Since none of the holders of these views on either side consider their views "revisionism", it would be better if the title did not contain this word. Finally, the potential for confusion with te unrelated Revisionist Zionism is enormous. More seriously, I also cannot see how any such page would contain anything but POV fights. Is that really what we need? Does it make sense to keep a list of historical points were Alberuni disagrees with Jayjg? Is that encyclopedic? Gadykozma 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You have neatly summarized exactly what is wrong with the word "Revisionism", thank you. Jayjg 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have merged most of the information in the article Zionist Revisionism into the article Israeli-Palestinian history denial. I have not attempted to NPOV it, I just merged it. Please feel free to NPOV the Israeli-Palestinian history denial article. Please do not think I am endorsing the views of either side. I'm not. I'm just trying to sort out merging of articles. I would next like to merge page histories, if that's OK with people. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have now merged the edit histories of Israeli-Palestinian history denial and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. At least this bit is sorted out now. If someone wants a better title, please use the move tool in future! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oi you

Hey, you still online, or are you finally studying? And darn it: archive your page! :P - Ta bu shi da yu 13:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)