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 : September-December 2008

thanks for the below Hope you don't mind me butting in - you asked Sarah to provide you with a copy of the deleted content, but as she has been busy offline, I thought I'd reply. I have pasted a copy at User:Rusty201/Number ones. I know nothing of the situation personally and am solely acting on this request after having reviewed that it is unproblematic to do so. Orderinchaos 17:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Rusty201 ( talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

whether you agree with this diff - just in case you didnt have it on watch http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Australian_electoral_system&diff=236132585&oldid=236031965 - cheers Satu Suro 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The editor's correct - to be illegal means that a law proscribes it. The law certainly contains a formula by which a vote must be constructed if it is to be valid, but then merely says a vote which is not constructed in such a manner cannot be counted. Orderinchaos 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Cheers thanks for that Satu Suro 01:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wongm's user page vndls need a watch i think :( Satu Suro 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Im just off - my most recent encounter just got an off template warning - as i had gone back and found all edits were - cheers Satu Suro 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The poll on this has been refactored to Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll. You may want to re-add your !vote. Stifle ( talk) 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I just thought it about time someone said thanks for your monumental efforts on wa election-related articles of late. Some brilliant work on current election, historical elections, candidates, districts etc. You name it, you've done it. Inspiring stuff. -- Glen Dillon ( talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If you have time could you look at Licensing breach [1] on the 104.1 Territory FM article. I'm wondering what your thoughts are in terms whether it should go or stay? Bidgee ( talk) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Can you tell me what this means? (I kinda think I know, but I'm checking.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{( t / c)} 19:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I was unfamiliar with the term. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{( t / c)} 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean, but what concerns me is that this looks very similar to my own editing style when I'm building up an article, or doing a major overhaul on it. Having lost a lost of hard work over the years do to various glitches, I use the preview button, but start to get nervous when a certain amount of work has built up and want to get it into the article, so I save and then continue working. Also, for some reason I find it easier to spot mistakes when I'm looking at the whole article rather than just a section, or even the whole article in preview. (I'm sure it's a psychological thing, but it's true.) The end result is a series of my edit slung together on the history ( this is probably my most egrgious example, because I worked on the article fairly exclusively over the course of many days, most of my examples would be considerably shorter). Of course, as you point out, I'm not doing it to confuse things or avoid responsibility, it's simple a style of working that's comfortable to me. I hope it's not going to get me into trouble some day! Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{( t / c)} 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The particular issue with the user on the AN/I involved edits mainly to Talk, Image talk: and Wikipedia: space. Ah! I hadn't picked up on that, which makes all the difference. Thanks, that makes me feel better. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{( t / c)} 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

When you want a free coffee or OJ and I could waste about 2 hours of your time giving you some interesting off wiki off the record blow by blow details :) - the feds walk over the state in terms of procedural detail Satu Suro 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Orderinchaos, why have you reverted my edits?-- Gepa ( talk) 05:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

There have been persistent problems at the GE page with employees of his PR company trying to modify the article in ways which contradict WP:NPOV. Your userpage effectively states that you are a single purpose account with the above aim in mind. Orderinchaos 05:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Orderinchaos, I am Dean Walters; Geoffrey Edelsten’s PR Representative and I assure you that I nor Geoffrey Edelsten have been editing this page until this day. Is there any policies I should be aware of because I do not believe I have overstepped the mark by fixing a reference and adding an external link. What do you advise?-- Gepa ( talk) 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Orderinchaos, I am Geoffrey Edelsten's PR Representative and I nor Geoffrey have been editing this article in question until this day. I wish to make edits to the Geoffrey Edelsten article to bring balance. Geoffrey Edelsten is concerned with this article's inaccuracy which reads to defame. Please advise how I may edit this article successfully, that is without having it reverted. If I can not make edits then what would you advise? Defamation is serious concern.-- Gepa ( talk) 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Orderinchaos, can you please provide me your phone number so we may speak in more depth? You can email me any time at dean@geoffedelsten.com.au. Thank you-- Gepa ( talk) 06:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No worries re yourself personally, I am happy to take that on good faith - I was always of the opinion that Geoffrey himself was rather removed from the problems going on here. If the facts as presented by reliable sources are negative to your client, there's unfortunately not a lot we can do. I believe editors have gone to some effort to present the positives as well, but on an encyclopaedia there is an obligation to tell the story neutrally. There is also significant concerns about linking a self-published source to Wikipedia which not only disagrees with reliable sources available on the subject but additionally makes threats against specific Wikipedians, as has been documented earlier in the debate. For transparency reasons, and especially as similarly neutral colleagues have been threatened by your client, I prefer to deal with these matters on Wikipedia in order that a full "paper trail" exists. I would also note that as one administrator amongst many I am not in a position to make private deals on content matters - what you need to do is go to the article's talk page and try and achieve consensus there for any changes (consensus is a bedrock principle at WP). Orderinchaos 06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

On a completely different tangent, I am going to be away from here for about two days for various personal reasons (one involving a relative who passed away last Thursday). I felt obliged to respond as I had taken action, but I think I have said all I can at this point, others will likely have their say on the article's talk page. Orderinchaos 06:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How may I edit the Geoffrey Edelsten article successfully? It is a major defamation concern. Much of the negative sources referenced in the article are wrong, such as the case name. Your assistance is appreciated. By the way of your tangent, my Condolences-- Gepa ( talk) 06:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Like I said - bring up proposed changes on the talk page, try to convince editors they should be changed. Even if you don't get agreement on every point you may get several sticking points resolved that way, i.e. incremental change. So if a name's wrong or if a detail's wrong and a reliable (non-self-published) source can be found which asserts contrary to what is in the article, provide the evidence for it. I don't doubt you'll get a few changes through that way and Wikipedia will be the better for it. A colleague of mine recently dealt with concerns relating to a politician's page and it turned out reliable sources were available for all sorts of things. What happened in part in that case is that most of the negative coverage remained but we found lots of good things to say about the guy that were non-trivial and could be backed up. Orderinchaos 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Was it really spelt Balkatta from 1904 to 1911? Bush shep ( talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I think there's a need for this, aside from the need to trim some of the generic material out of the 2 sections I started on the 2008 election page (Elec syst and Counting votes). Still feeling my way around, and not sure whether I should just go ahead and create it or discuss it somewhere else (where?) first. Your view? A quick look at the other states - doesn't appear to be anything similar in existence. For WA, the 'structural' aspects of the system are well covered by the Leg Council and Leg assembly articles but the mechanics/election process stuff needs separate treatment. An alternative to a seperate article on Electoral system would be a new section in the Parliament of WA Article but given the existing length of that one, a detailed treatment of the system would only serve to "unbalance" it. Your contribution on the 2008 election talk page re: significant past elections where the system was a factor was a real eye-opener by the way. Understand you've got a lot on so I won't hold my breath for a reply on this. Cheers.-- GlenDillon 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed that such is the way to go. Will definitely look into it once I'm back. I want to get the Nationals article written before I have to return my library books though (plus with the intense focus on them it might not be a bad idea to do it) so that is an ultra high priority on my return. Orderinchaos 05:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I had suggested the same off wiki - take care on your time off Satu Suro 08:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

redlinked! What have you been doing?!  ;) (just kidding - will look at it next 24-48hrs) Moondyne 07:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

lol :) if you want the Bio Reg entry copy just let me know by email. I can take a photo of it (don't have a scanner) and send it your way. Orderinchaos 07:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sounds good, thanks. Moondyne 08:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done and thanks again. Moondyne 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. In todays West (p.21) Paul Murray infers that Cowan said in 1984 that he'd support a coalition with a minority Burke Labor government. 3 NP pollies defected to the Libs as a result. Do you have any detail or refs on this? Moondyne 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Usual misinformation we've come to know and love from The West :). This relates to the fact there was two separate parties, the NCP and the NP, and in the merger negotiations leading to the 85 reunification, the MPs from one (the NCP) didn't like the deal which had many of the NP's talking points on it, and the three MPs (Old, Jones and Crane) quit just as (or just before) the merger was taking place and joined the Liberals. This was motivated almost entirely by hostility toward Cowan and Stephens and a belief that a party that was led by them was not their party. I looked in Elphick (which goes into almost overdrive on detail of the merger in p113-136, noting that he was a senior office holder in the party) and it mentions no such proposition re Labor. Harry Phillips in Black (1991, p232) says: "Since 1978, the NCP had sided with the Liberals, while the Nationals sat on the cross-benches. At the parliamentary level Dick Old, Peter Jones and Bert Crane of the NCP refused to accept the organisational decision, and all three stood as Liberals at the 1986 election, but only Crane succeeded in retaining his seat." Orderinchaos 05:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'll leave it out then. ;) Moondyne 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(Just from memory) an important factor around 1978-80 was the attempt by Lang Hancock to buy the WA Nationals (with a $500,000 donation)—rather similar to the failed (but terminally destructive) attempt by John Poynton, Harold Clough and others (using West editorial allies and John Samuel as a mole) to 'buy' the WA branch of the Democrats for $250,000 in 1992-3. ( See SMH ref). Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 02:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

All been and gone - sorry to have bothered Satu Suro 11:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there OiC. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd go with lowercase. It's "parliament" in the not-proper-noun sense... Rebecca ( talk) 09:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That seems a fair view, I'll go with it. Orderinchaos 09:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Will be unavailable here until Wednesday evening (morning US time). Orderinchaos 10:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

After your marathon Wikipedian effort on everything election-related -especially the maths- in recent weeks, amid lots of other stuff happening for you, you SHOULD be unavailable for a while. GlenDillon 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks :) BTW if anyone's reading this that *does* have a bit of time, can someone watchlist Joh Bjelke-Petersen? There are two newbies, one pro and one against, having a battle of wills in there. Orderinchaos 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wills? hmph the legacy is dont you worry about that - chooks! Satu Suro 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Good to be back. I'll give you an update a bit later. cygnis insignis 10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I saw your comments on the recent AN/I report re this user, and was actually in the process of adding something when the thread was archived, which is fine, because I really wanted to comment to you. I've had a little experience with this user and, yes, he has a tendency toward what I'd call "impatient incivility." He seems to have improved, actually, and in the current edit warring flap he's been fairly restrained, given that he was being accused of bad faith. For starters, he went to WP:3O, an excellent move, that had good results. What I've seen before is that he responds to truly friendly warnings. I took to warning him in Talk for an involved article instead of on his Talk page, making the point that my warning wasn't a prelude to block, it was, quite simply, friendly, intended to help him keep out of trouble and to help keep article process on an even, civil keel. He responded, he stopped the uncivil edge, and the article became stable. With his continuing positive contributions. He's often "right." And I then removed my warning, since it had little to do with the article itself, long term. What he needs, and thus what we need, is some kind of friendly, supportive mentorship. Thanks.... -- Abd ( talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you restore the header on Talk:Coord? The number was correct when the header was set. My initial also lists the current number. Besides, Pigsonthewings commented on the number itself on WT:GEO where it's also cross-referenced. If you change it, it just confuses things.

If you like to start a new section with a different header, this is fine with me. -- User:Docu

<moved from User talk Docu>

Best to simply fix the crossreference. This is not considered editing another user's comment for the purposes of WP:TALK, as long as it fits solely within fixing a broken link. Orderinchaos 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

</moved from User talk Docu>

The link in my note above is red, but, as you might have understood, my post just referred to this edit. In regards to this, do you agree that the number isn't incorrect as such, no? Thus we can restore the header? -- User:Docu

It should be Template talk:Coord, but I actually had understood you correctly. The number *is* incorrect as it's declined by more than 300 since it was brought to community attention. Orderinchaos 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The section header doesn't imply that it needs to be updated continuously, besides, my initial post states what the current count is. Most comments in the thread were made under this heading so there is no use in re-writing history. BTW please avoid shortening Pigsonthewing's user name. -- User:Docu

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding re Jarrahwood (I thought it meant they had used jarrah for the sleepers!) I've visited WA once but live half a world away. NinetyCharacters ( talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, strange, it would appear that my assumption that the reference was to the timber, not the place, was half right! Btw: (a) Thanks for compliment in your earlier message; (b) your Wikiname is well chosen; (c) I've now looked at about 90% of "Towns in WA" pages; corrections mostly minor, but I hope helpful, and, in case you're wondering, my WA visit was in 1976 & included such places as Rottnest, Gnowangerup, Esperance, Scaddan, Norseman & Eucla, so it's been like a revisit. NinetyCharacters ( talk) 07:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I tried almost abusive comments to the point of ... regarding absurd and irrational tagging of Tasmanian inaccessible islands and rocks - and got ignored - amusing perhaps sad to see you removing em for WA:( sort of Satu Suro 12:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

At the end of the day if it's got a zero chance of ever getting a pic, I don't see how the tag's meant to be useful. During my last trip to Melbourne I had trouble itemising a list of places needing photos and ended up sticking to quite defined areas for lack of guidance. If someone's determined enough to get even 10 of the ones I'm removing (177 in all) they're probably able enough to either determine which of their projected destinations do not have photos, or are happy to risk duplication. Orderinchaos 12:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If youre not overworked - how about all the isolated oceanic rocks of tasmania that got tagged - I tried reasoning with the ed before becoming close to... - I gave up at a level of incredulity that some of the locations are difficult enough for human presence once in a blue moon - let alone one with a camera or intention to put it on commons - oh well up to you - i can think the logic of the tagging and the experience of the photo acqusition are so diff so many times - sometimes photos happen before arts - and arts follow later - oh well - you may get visited - the next talk item may be... dont say I didnt try to reason with the ed :( Satu Suro 12:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll certainly have a look, although it will probably be the weekend. What motivated this spurt of activity was seeing a tag on Aldersyde, my "default" minor town article. I will be getting onto Tasmanian things more generally later this year and during 2009 btw. Orderinchaos 12:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Why did you remove the reqphoto tag? It needs a picture, as all locations do. Zigzig20s ( talk) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

And this useless tag gets it one precisely how? Also, please cite a policy or guideline to back yourself up that "all locations" need a picture. Furthermore, per the Reqphoto template's instructions itself, which I quote: It is not a general-purpose "no image present" indicator. Editors placing this template on a talk page should provide information about what photographs are wanted. If you wish to readd the tag to the articles I have removed it from, please provide information specific to each article on:

• What photograph is requested
• For what purpose/in what way it improves the article.

Otherwise they "may be deleted by any editor". Orderinchaos 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It improves the articles because it shows what the village/township looks like. Pictures of the main streets and buildings would be needed. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd love to see you try and *find* any buildings or streets of any kind whatsoever in about 80% of the places I have removed the tag from. (in the case of some places you may have real trouble finding any evidence the place ever existed - Congelin, Western Australia is a good example) That being said I have yet to hear any credible explanation that suggests these tags get photos. The sheer abundance of them means that nobody can navigate the list and so end up ignoring it anyway. Orderinchaos 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is a work in progress; someone will get round to it. In terms of research in the field of geography - or the philosophy of place - it is just as relevant to illustrate with a picture that the place has nothing to show as it is if it has much to show. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How many geographical articles have you actually written or contributed to? Orderinchaos 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Should I take this as a personal attack? Anyway, I have read books on the philosophy of geography. My main interest in places, nonplaces, placelessness and place-names these days comes from books of fiction I read though. Zigzig20s ( talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it was a fair and reasonable question. If you add to people's workload and render their worklists unusable for sheer bulk and lack of discrimination, I'd at least like to see that you do your own fair share too. I wasn't seeing that evidence from contributions and created articles, although there may have been something I missed, hence my question. I generally try to avoid adding to anyone's workload as I know how busy everyone is and how hard they already work on the project. My main interests for the record are Australian politics and governance as well as geography, history and music. Orderinchaos 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Surely by adding a reqphoto tag I am helping people - they can find the pages which need photos, don't you think? Zigzig20s ( talk) 19:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Nope. Actually hindering, as you've tagged *so many* that someone with 1 hour in the location won't have any idea what the priority is and is more likely to give up and not try for any of them. Orderinchaos 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Then perhaps we need more specific categories for reqphotos? Zigzig20s ( talk) 19:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(drop indent) Or maybe simply follow the guidance at Template:Reqphoto and use the template correctly to begin with - literally, for requesting a specific photo one actually wants to see rather than just a random and very large selection of uninspected articles. Also taking into account legal and other issues - there are many places one would never be allowed to take a photo of, or where people would be endangering their safety. Orderinchaos 19:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I remember there was a problem with pueblos in the midwest because of Native American rights - I found it interesting because some of them are mentioned and even described in Willa Cather's Death Comes for the Archbishop. Anyway, I would still aim towards requesting as much info as possible. Places of hamlets in "neglected" places are very interesting. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi OIC. Woke up this morning to find my watchlist going crazy. My 2c - I added many, if not most of the tags you have removed (from the town articles) and I did use the resultant categories to see what towns needed photos before setting off on photography trips. I guess I need to keep my own list now. Your argument "I'd love to see you try and *find* any buildings or streets of any kind whatsoever in about 80% of the places I have removed the tag from." doesn't quite make sense to me. Beaufort is quite a sizeable town (certainly bigger than Jerilderie, New South Wales, Urana, New South Wales and Oaklands, New South Wales) with plenty to photograph. The overwhelming majority of the Victorian articles (on my watchlist) with tags now removed were about actual towns rather than mere districts or localities and I had (and still have) plans to get to them. Also, it is quite possible to get meaningful photographs of districts and abandoned towns that add positively to an article; see Cashel, Victoria, a town that no longer exists (and I am planning on writing an article or Ruffy, Victoria. While one could add a description of the photo requested,wording along the lines of "I would like a selection of photos of the town for use in the article" doesn't really add much that the tag isn't already saying anyway. Was there a discussion about this mass de-tagging somewhere I missed? Any advice on how I can keep track of which articles on Australian towsn are missing articles would also be much appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I should clarify here I've got absolutely *no* objections to people getting photos. I would be the last to say so in fact - I've gotten some pictures of some rather obscure places, as I know have you - between us and Melburnian and Gnangarra and a couple of others there's a lot of that on the project. But the tag lists, which I see as a completely separate issue, were completely useless for any meaningful purpose, and were being built up by people (not just the one I have been dealing with, either) who had no intention of ever clarifying their requests or assisting themselves. I was actually in Melbourne late last year looking for shots to take and the tag list (which for Melbourne is well over 300 articles and includes many that *have* photos) was simply a who's what of every suburb in town and even the tram services! I don't mean that facetiously either, I only got around to removing the tram services tonight. I gave up trying to figure out this indiscriminate collection of information and ended up going out myself to get some, unfortunately scoring lots of duplicates in the process. I did ask around offline and noone I talked to seemed to have any use for the tag lists. I have always thought wikiproject to do lists are far better places for these things anyway as they can be prioritised, grouped, and whatever. Orderinchaos 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand your point and sympathise. I just feel that you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in some respects. The tags were a very simple way for me at least to keep a track on those towns needing photographs without having to maintain a separate list. If the categories were getting overwhelming, then they could possibly have been sub-categorised or gently weeded rather than a mass clear-out although I do agree that the onus should be on the tagger to do this work. Anyway, what's done is done and I am certainly not going to mass revert. Now I need to get started on a list! Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I did them pretty much in order so my 2nd account's contribs page may be of use for a cut/paste. Orderinchaos 22:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have to say that I strongly disagree with the mass deletion of required photo tags on location articles that have no photos, even in hard to access localities. I find the category useful for myself to check which articles require photos to get them myself (albeit at a much less prolific rate than Mattinbgn), or add the tags in the hope that others may get them. I do however agree that once an article has at least one photo, the tag should come off unless it it tied in with a request for the specific photo(s) required. Melburnian ( talk) 00:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

In the case of obscure Tasmanian offshore rocks, and undersea features (!) I believe the tag is absurd. However for mainland localities - I can see the above complainants point - the more the pity that the places project appears dead - that would have been the place for this discussion - probably before the delete :( Satu Suro 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Would there be any point in restoring the Victorian ones, given we have two people who use them? My main issue was that, on talking around, nobody I could find could see any use in them at all, and certainly that was the case in WA where 90%+ of the places tagged were completely inaccessible. They had been littered like confetti over Tasmania as well. Orderinchaos 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I've created a list of the Victorian ones I removed here. If you can see any that should not have tags, please remove them from the list. Otherwise I'll readd the tags at the weekend. Orderinchaos 05:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't forget we have good friends such as NASA, certain Flickr uploaders and Ernie Dingo who have made suitably licenced images that we can use. Melburnian ( talk) 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for restoring the Vic country tags, I really appreciate it. In reality that category was the only ones I was using; the Riverina towns have a finite list created at commons. No need to apologise; I completely understand your rationale. Thanks again, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 12:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I too am responsible for the tagging of a great deal of these article talk pages with an image request tag. Much like Mattinbgn has already said above, I also use the category as a personal checklist of sorts. I agree the categories have seen a lot of bloat, and that the tag could be improved a great deal, but for now I don't see any better ideas. We've tried todo lists before, which quickly become outdated and are harder to maintain. I went off on another tangent some time back and created the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Maintenance/Photographs so that we may track just how many of these tags are actually being used and to bring attention to the growing number of image requests outstanding. It can't be helped if people don't respond to image requests in a timely manner, but again, this is a work in progress. That's just the way it is. We can only ask that an image be supplied, and simply wait until one arrives. The tag serves its purpose, but I agree there's a lot of room for improvement on it's current usage. -- Longhair\ ^talk 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I think what we have to decide is what is going to be the most effective way to communicate genuine photo requests to users. At present there's simply no way to know. Most of the suburbs I managed to photograph in Melbourne were duplicates because I had no way of checking against the list. My personal approach would be to clear out all the geographic articles from the Melbourne list and then add back only the ones we actually want to request photos for, that way visitors/others know which ones are genuinely priority. Otherwise it's just talk page confetti with no real point. Orderinchaos 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Northern Territory reqphoto tag

I noticed you did remove some that had photos but you also removed one from an article without a photo [2]. Is it possible for you to do a fix for Template:Reqphoto so it points to Category:Wikipedians in the Northern Territory and not Category:Wikipedians in Northern Territory? Bidgee ( talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Requested photographs in Melbourne

Some sorting of the category contents would be useful, but I'm not sure of a satisfactory method for doing this. P.S. I once responded to a photo request for a tram route article:) [3]. Melburnian ( talk) 13:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you please replace the reqdphoto tags on the articles you removed them from (except where there is a photograph already there?) I like those lists and use them frequently in finding articles to photograph. There is no acceptable explanation for removing them other than the fact you don't like them. Reply here please. JRG ( talk) 03:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have replaced them for Victorian articles. I am content with those, and there are only 85 after all, that the two Victorian photographers, both of whom have a prolific history of photo generation, use the lists and that there is actually an intention to *clear* the lists rather than simply that they, as you put it, "like them". For the others, the answer is no. *Each one* must be *individually* justified per the instructions at Template:Reqphoto. The fact these instructions were ignored to begin with has created a mess of monumental proportions. There is a perfectly good explanation which I have given in various locations, and I would ask that you assume good faith with regards to my motives, as I am most definitely looking to help the encyclopaedia in a way that these tags do not. There are ways of making lists without resorting to talk page confetti. I have several to-do lists either online in my user space, and offline in countless text files in a particular directory on my hard drive, which I use in conjunction with AWB. If you wish to see my little system for them, you're welcome to email me and I can show you how I do it. No-one can possibly argue that the current scheme for Melbourne or for country NSW works in anyone's interests. As per the instructions at Template:Reqphoto, any user can delete the tags if they are incorrectly used. Orderinchaos 03:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

-

How is a list of required photos a "mess"? For goodness sake, it's just a list of photos and I delete the templates once I've added the photo required. I don't care what the page says - the template changed after a while after most of them were added, so there is no reason to just remove them now unless they are not needed (if there is a picture there). Why didn't you seek to ask the individual editors what they think of the images that are needed rather than just deleting all the images? I have gone through countless pages and added those tags for the benefit of people looking for photos to add, so I'd like them kept. They are extremely useful. And please reply here like I asked you to. JRG ( talk) 03:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Look at the category for Melbourne. Tell me how anyone with an hour, a day or even eight days as I had can use that list in any constructive or meaningful way. I certainly couldn't, and I would consider myself fairly experienced. The entire category needs to be cleared and each one individually reappointed on the basis of the actual need for an actual photo. I intend on doing this soon if action is not taken. In Tasmania someone who doesn't even live in Australia had added hundreds of articles of offshore rocks. In WA, remote outstations and even the odd book was added. There is no need to consult with individual editors, as they did not consult with anybody when ignoring the text of Template:Reqphoto and adding ridiculous overhead to the WP Australia project. It is their mess I am sadly forced to fix. Orderinchaos 03:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I apologise for initially missing your advice as to where you wanted a reply. I have a visual impairment (not a severe one, but enough to cause me difficulty in reading the screen persistently) so I tend to read for "gist" and then formulate a response. I had initially mistaken the request for part of a signature, and only realised when I came back what it said. Orderinchaos 03:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Apology accepted about not replying here - totally understandable. I am going to have to disagree with you on the tag and categories though. I find the categories and tags incredibly useful - and I have used them for the Sydney pages (especially railway stations in the days before a couple of editors got together and took photos for most of them). There is usually a link for the relevant city or state WikiProject which links through to this category and that is where I and others discovered this in the first place. I really think deleting them all is going overboard - you need to find a compromise that keeps them all as articles without images but gets rid of your concerns. Take it to AWNB. JRG ( talk) 05:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way - I also tried to get some tram photos for Wiki back in July. Those categories do get used! JRG ( talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm quite happy to find such a compromise - I think WikiProject to do or action lists on subpages are a far better alternative personally. Not only are they more centralised but they allow categorisation, framing of requests by type or even by editor responsible, and do not require hundreds of edits to clear once actioned. Different subprojects will likely come to different solutions. But the redundant nature of the lists - we don't know whether the articles do or do not have images, whether the ones that do not are a complete list of the ones that do not, etc etc, along with the fact that in the Melbourne and NSW categories there are so many and the category contains no system of prioritisation enabling a visitor to help out, means that they serve very little practical purpose *in the general case* (with a few exceptions such as those you and the two Victorian editors highlighted). As I said to the user who had added 14,000 such tags in the section two above, tagging articles is a waste of effort as it does not actually generate photos of the place in question. Most of the ones I removed would never, under any circumstances, have an image, and if they do, the person involved would be almost certain to know none existed or one was very unlikely to exist. It was a carefully targetted prune (not a slash and burn) - no categories were emptied. Orderinchaos 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Orderinchaos you say circumstances of case in your edit summary and that you would have shortened the block could you explain to me what you mean by that. I would have no problem with the block being shortened or lifted but I am getting very annoyed with this accusation from Alison that he was tag teamed in to breaching 3RR on Ulster Special Constabulary article please check the history of it I have not been near that article since September 3rd or the other article he edit wared on that day Irish Volunteers which I never edited. I asked both Domer and The Thunderer to stop the edit war, so I really dont see why I am being mentioned as being a contributor to Thunderers actions thanks. BigDunc ^Talk 10:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Simple answer - the circumstances of the case were that one user (I did not see any other users involved) got very aggressive and personal in response to another user's efforts to engage. Both engaged in 3RR. One got blocked for a week in part because of the attacks and also multiple prior offences, while the other was blocked for 31 hours - longer than the usual 3RR block to accommodate the Troubles topics being a long standing issue. On considering the leadup, the level of provocation and abuse can't really be ignored, and the contrition of the user and willingness to admit their own mistakes was evidence that the block had served its purpose and could now be reduced to the normal length (I'd have said 18, others might argue 24.) I hope that clarifies the "circumstances of the case" to which I referred. Orderinchaos 11:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

just gotta love it. [4] . I see no issue on how it was. Bidgee ( talk) 05:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Neither do I. "Of" means "belongs to". "In" merely means "located within". Protected areas clearly should be an "of" as they pertain to the state or territory in which they are located and usually are created under some piece of state/territory legislation. If it was an "in" but not an "of", then it wouldn't legally speaking *be* a protected area. Orderinchaos 05:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

A good example of how a couple of CfD regulars can invent a convention. If you follow the discussion all the way back, someone made exactly that point with respect to national parks. Since they are national, they can't be of a state; they are of Australia but only in a state. So Category:National parks of New South Wales was moved to Category:National parks in New South Wales etc. This precedent was then used to establish the ludicrous convention that countries are always "of" and states are always "in", and all Australian protected area categories were speedily moved in accordance with that. :-( Hesperian 05:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The strangest part of it all is the only CfD I can find, back in May, linking the Northern Territory ones actually failed with almost everyone opposing the proposition. Not quite sure where and how it got through. Orderinchaos 05:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It was a speedy. [5] Hesperian 05:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I've asked the editor who runs the bot to revert the changes done by their bot [6]. Bidgee ( talk) 05:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment second from top in this section on the difference between in and of should be clearly made to the editor who initiated the change - otherwise there might be a situation where they are none the wiser :) Satu Suro 05:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Way it's going I may as well start an Australian Wiki. We work our butts off for this project and the way it's going I may as well go elsewhere. Bidgee ( talk) 05:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

My butt's still on, so I guess I'm not working as hard as you. :-) End of the day, it's only a two-letter preposition, changed in good faith by someone with neither clue nor courtesy. Hesperian 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Needs to be fixed, but there's no need to overreact. As Matt says maybe an RfC is necessary to address the seeming continuance of this kind of stuff, but I'm certainly not going to stop editing and contributing because of something like this. Orderinchaos 06:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Ahah therein lies the rub - many come and look, many go - and the old goldfishbowl rolls along - and some of us are around to tell the tales of long ago. In the planets history I am sure people have died over two-letter prepositions, but hey here in the bowl, I'd rather move on Satu Suro 06:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The user keeps reverting for no reason other then to add unsourced content and POV. Griffith Central and Griffin Plaza. Bidgee ( talk) 06:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I tend to agree that an RfC is needed but personally I feel it may be worth waiting until the DRV has run its course. If anyone else wants to raise one earlier, I would be happy to contribute. My initial thought was that the RfC would be on the conduct of all editors (myself included) in this farce but on reflection, I think our actions are epiphenomena of the ludicrous process of global category renaming at CfD. These types of mass nominations need further discussion about their appropriateness.

As I said at the DRV, these mass deletion/renamings are attempting to impose simple global solutions on often messy global realities. These sorts of mass nominations are frowned upon at AfD but somehow tacitly accepted at CfD; they shouldn't be. Each rename needs to be made on its merits.

Rightly or wrongly, CfD does not attract the interest that AfD does and as such those that frequent it tend be a very small subset of users with a tendency to converge on a common way of thinking. There does not appear to be any formal deletion sorting process (as per the AfD process) to let affected projects know that these discussions are taking place. Indeed, the thinking seems to be that it is the projects' fault for not having these categories watchlisted! Major decisions are being made on a global basis by a small group of like-minded editors; this should not be allowed to continue. Note that I do not think there is some conspiracy or cabal, just a natural development of unfortunate trends.

With this specific deletion/renaming, it has been a balls-up from start to finish and the perpetrators should have their actions held up for examination. The grossly inappropriate nomination, the huge change made based on a ludicriously small sample, the botching of the first renaming (and the admission by the closing editor that he did not understand the rationale he himslef made in closing the discussion but did not comment for fear of having it taken to DRV!!), the over the top defensiveness of the closing editor and other invovlved parties, the ridiculous wheel-warring and wiki-lawyering, even after the closing editor was informed of his error(s); all this deserves discussion.

I am afraid, however, if I raise this in the same RfC as the point about mass category renamings, the discussion will turn into one of mutual finger-pointing. Having never created an RfC before, I would be interested in your thoughts. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 08:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• For the record Matt I agree with your suggestion to wait until the DRV is finalised. I also agree (as I have noted at the DRV) that the defensiveness of the two (perhaps three) editors protecting their co-joined actions and whom are now not wishing to have the community be involved in a relist is particularly concerning (especially given they are senior editors and administrators) - if it therefore becomes necessary (and I fear it will given further developments at one of their pages) then an RfC discussion by the community will be added to by me. Indeed should I miss the RfC that you or any other editor places in regard to this matter I would ask that I am personally informed as an interested party.-- VS ^talk 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I also agree with Matt to wait. I would also like to be part of the RfC. Bidgee ( talk) 10:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

In my experience good RfCs are prepared RfCs. You only launch when you have a ready selection of facts. That takes time and collaboration to build up - the ArbCom have previously noted that that collaboration does not have to be on-wiki, it's just that whoever contributes to the initial statement would have to jointly endorse it and then we'd each be free to make our own statement separately. If an RfC is poorly focused or organised it risks getting off track and not dealing with the issue it was set up to resolve. Orderinchaos 10:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

and it just get even more interesting. Another close by Kbdank71 which was clearly no consensus [7]. Bidgee ( talk) 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Not only am I dealing with the Category issue and an Admin who closed a DRV request( [8] [9]) even though I said I would give a response late on since I was busy but a site is using an image of mine with out an attribution ( [10] Image:Wwcc.jpg) so sent them a request to attribute it or remove it (if they don't want to attribute it) or face damages. Just hop it works so they attribute it. Bidgee ( talk) 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the fixup of the spelling on my image :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 22#Category:Intermodal transportation authorities. -- NE2 07:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Funny you should say that; I had been thinking the same thing: how WikiProjects are a-constitutional in that same way that political parties are. Hesperian 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

My recent contribs on an american anthropologist of Java - please could you put it on watch there is some very odd stuff with the afd/drv going on and i might have it wrong so an oversight would be appreciated - either just watching it or whatever - thanks Satu Suro 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi :) Sorry to bother you, but I couldn't think of a forum to ask for help with low-level translation. I was doing a bit of maintenance on Australian articles (not that there are very many :P) on the Arabic Wikipedia, and came to some questions which my non-existent language skills, an Arabic transliterator and Google Translate were not answering 100% effectively. I understand you're quite busy, so if you know of a forum where these questions would be able to be answered, feel free to refer me to it.

1. Is كالغورلي a reasonable transliteration of Kalgoorlie (rhymes with "poorly") into Arabic? I changed it from كارغورلي, which looked wrong in the transliterator. It's a redlink anyway, but at least if it's spelt right then that's half the battle.
2. Re كيفن_رود ( Kevin Rudd), I am really just seeking a sanity check to make sure I didn't stuff anything up in trying to logically reorder the article.

Thanks in advance. Orderinchaos 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Ordeinchaos. Sure...

1. كالغورلي is the correct spelling.

1. كيفن_رود is correct for Kevin Rudd.

I hope I answered your questions. Don't hesitate if you got other stuff. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 05:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much :) Orderinchaos 05:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust it me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [11]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Added an image to the above article and noticed the name includes an ampersand. Just wondering if the name was officially gazetted with the symbol or should it be changed to "and"? Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Would contacting the Shire of Macedon Ranges for confirmation of the legal name be OR? If not, I am happy to email them and ask; with any luck they will reply :-). The name is not a big deal but we may as well get it right! -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The gazette seems to me to be the definitive source (rather than the ABS) and I suggest the name be changed to reflect this. I am happy to start if you have no objections. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the research—it's good to get lucky once in a while—and for picking up the non-transcluded links I missed. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I knew it's a suburb since it has the suburb signs (like all the other suburbs around it), everything located within the suburb is called Casuarina including the bus interchange (Bureau of Meteorology Forecasting Centre is located Casuarina). Living there for just over 12 months helps as well :P. Bidgee ( talk) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

There are a few others, you can have those :-) cygnis insignis 05:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

My life has been graced by knowing personally two deeply learned men from your same background, Frank Knopfelmacher (who lost 19 relatives) and Ernest Gellner. I'm told much of the city, even those who disagreed with him politically, turned out for the former's funeral. The day EG passed away, prematurely, left me feeling robbed, even if I'd only known him for a brief period of intense stimulation and cordial comraderie. As for Belfast, some of my relatives fled it, before it got as bad as it did. Your having grown up there, to show the equanimity you have displayed here, speaks volumes. Sorry for abusing wikispace for a private comment. I deeply appreciate the intelligence and understanding in your suggestion re Eleland. Thanks and best wishes. Nishidani ( talk) 07:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I made the link to Knopfelmacher without having read his page, and now that I have, note it says, 'every last one of his relatives'. I heard him say 19 were slain. Unfortunately, I will never have a source for this, as thus editing it in would be a violation of WP:OR. A pity. Some rules just stop the full record from being registered. Nishidani ( talk) 07:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Orderinchaos,
You probably had no intentions to make a comment which by-association judges my personal beliefs and I'm probably just being overly sensitive. Still, I would like to clarify that I do not value place of origin over human life although many countries do find it important to pledge allegiance to the state which provides you citizenship. My conversation with Nishidani, to further clarify, revolves around his misunderstanding of what the majority of the Jewish people (as well as others) find offensive (such as being called "Nazi goose-stepper") - which includes, among overt antisemitism, commentary which supports hard to justify "political" moves, Hamas Political violence and Hezbollah's extremism just because they disapprove of Israeli Arab-Israeli conflict-related activity and imagine Israel to be Goliath while failing to see the bigger picture. I hope you won't find this comment offensive -- as I've seen you found offense in the documented claim that Muslims occupied the Levant (as well as a few other places) -- and that we'll be able to collaborate in the future without bad blood between us despite possibly differing perspectives.
Cheers, Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Two points. Firstly, apologies if anything I said was taken as aimed at you - it certainly was not intended as such. My commentary related to a somewhat unrelated AN/I discussion which I had gone to notify Nishidani of as s/he was a major participant there and some developments had taken place. I didn't actually read more than a few parts of the exchange above where I posted on the user talk page, and after doing so posted, "(All of the above reminds me why I stay out of anything to do with nationalism as a topic on WP.)" I normally contribute here on Australian politics and geography topics which, even at their worst, are not terribly controversial, that much of the comment was on the tenor of debate rather than reflecting on the participants. Secondly, I wasn't at all *offended*, I just saw it as *hopelessly counterproductive* from a point of view of building any form of collaboration. Generally in building common ground, one looks for similarities rather than points of difference (let alone sloganeering). Offense implies an emotional investment in the issue which I simply don't have. Also, I didn't think of the Ottoman connection, given the use of the term "Eretz Israel" which I understand to be a fairly loaded political term in an entirely modern contest in much the way that "Remember 1690" was in my homeland. Orderinchaos 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your response and I'd like to make a couple of minor clarifications.

(A) Eretz Israel is the Hebrew name for Israel. The Israeli national anthem and the reason Israel was established is based on the concept of 'historical homeland' and 'national sanctuary' for a persecuted people. I don't know that much about Northern Irish or Czech histories, but I doubt many peoples have endured pogroms and blood-libels quite like the Jews.(couple samples: The forgotten refugees, Blaming the Jews)

(B) Nishidani has the bad habit of soapboxing about the Israeli occupation and his views on Israeli settlers and in that context, there is nothing provocative in someone asking him to stop making a " hoopla" of it by using a (quite valid) opposite analogy. At least, that's how I'm reading into that comment. I also agree that the horn-blower comment was extremely insensitive as was Eleland's recent use of a cartoon by an anti-Israel " artist" (see second part of linked comment) to further promote his new angle as martyr.

With respect, Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Like I said at the AN/I and also at Nishidani's page, I think Wikipedia would be far better off if everyone didn't treat this like a replay of the real war. I have seen some fantastic examples on this place where people one would normally expect to be implacably opposed for outside geopolitical reasons can work together soundly on articles about the very topic on which they are divided right here - perhaps even come to an understanding of rival points of view, seeing where they come from even while maybe still entirely disagreeing with them or thinking them misguided. Sadly, they are in the minority, and hence why I-P, Azerbaijan-Armenia, Northern Ireland and India-Pakistan are perceived as "no go" zones on Wikipedia by many well meaning editors who just don't need the stress. Thinking of Wikipedia as an academic endeavour (I speak as someone with one degree and well on the way to my second), it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest people with entirely opposed personal views can in fact collaborate and produce a common work of which they can both be proud. Orderinchaos 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Certainly. Collaboration is a great concept and I support it 100%. It's a real shame when editors use the collaboration platform to try and impose their personal perspective though. Bullying, cursing, and soapboxing - as well as gaming -- are a major hindrance IMHO for the improvement of these conflict articles. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 15:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi OIC- would you be able to userfy Emmalina to my page. The closing mod from the AfD two weeks ago repeatedly refuses to userfy the page to my account even though I asked for it in the AfD. There are no BLP issues as the article refers to an online internet personality not a real person as such. I can't find the image on Wiki anymore but if that has been deleted it would be good to restore that too. JRG ( talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If the closing admin has declined, then I can't help you without speaking to them about it. Orderinchaos 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Come on, don't be slack. It was a legitimate request and there were no issues by other participants in the debate. JRG ( talk) 07:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've exceeded my rouge action quota for the week (see Ashley Todd section above). Orderinchaos 07:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm really disappointed in you. I thought you were more trustworthy than that. And to go without even telling me and argue not in favour of userfication when I had specifically asked you to help out is completely slack. How dare you. JRG ( talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey hey, easy with the strong words, there. I think now might be time for some WP:TEA. You guys want me to delete some Australia-related categories without telling anyone so you can get back on the same team? -- Kbdank71 13:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL, and thanks... :) Look, JRG at the end of the day as an admin I have to uphold policy. Arbcom decision after arbcom decision is coming out talking about BLP, each stronger and/or clearer than the last. It's pretty clear its become the predominant policy on Wikipedia at the moment. The subject *requested* deletion. That's a fairly big deal. The subject is not a state MP or someone who we need to scrutinise the actions of. We're not always going to agree. You and I often agree on images and railway articles and the like, we sometimes disagree too, and I really dont have any problem with that. As for telling you - you opened the DRV, I would have notified you had you not already opened or commented. At the time I wrote *here* I didn't know what way I was leaning, but I looked into the whole situation and by the time I knew, I ran it by a fellow admin whom I trust, they said "do you know there's a DRV open on this now?" so I thought it fair to comment there. Orderinchaos 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No worries, will keep in mind as I cruise through the Towns list in future. BTW, hows the teaching going? Have you finished your course yet? Regards-- Hughesdarren ( talk) 09:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments on it. in total agreement (except for the "Keep" of course), I've seen time and time again, editors say schools are inherently notable in AfD discussions without providing any reliable evidence of the notability of the school in question. Of some some schools are notable, but others only deserve a one line mention in a city or suburb article. I'd also be interested in your thoughts on year 12 "high achievers" that is creeping into the article. Talk:Chester Hill High School Michellecrisp ( talk) 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If it's the same area I'm thinking of, it's fairly culturally diverse and if I had more time to look into it, I'd be hitting the social sciences journals to see if any research had been conducted from its student population. The setting up of the school, changes over time and things like any books about education in Western Sydney, government gazettes and the like would be useful (I find GG's very useful for WA topics). Year 12s, sadly, are rarely notable for any reason and in a school article context have a very transient notability - it's one thing to have like Ian Thorpe or Kim Beazley go to the school, it's quite another to have a first-among-equals situation where the person's only really known for what they did at or for the school and forgotten and replaced when they move on. Orderinchaos 01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

All their edits are vandalism, not just distances. I've reported for vandal only account. Michellecrisp ( talk) 05:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Does Wikimedia Australia have a WA branch? How can I get involved? How can I donate? Is there anyone here that I can contact off-line (including phone or P.O. Boxes)? Do you feel the west coast is the best coast ^_^ ? :)-- Thecurran ( talk) 20:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Kambalda art needs your eagle eye - there is anoddity my glasses cannot penetrate Satu Suro 03:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you please close out the OTRS ticket you had User:Matthewedwards tag. See the discussion at permanent link to discussion with Matthewedwards. Basically you had him tag a few images (all of them on that ticket?) and never closed out the actual ticket. If all the images are "ok", please reply to the person telling them "thanks for the images" (if you don't know, it is one of the dropdown standard replies). —— nix eagle 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I was asked to review an existing situation, and offered an opinion on it. I'll close it now. Orderinchaos 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

You deleted a verifiable and sourced entry of mine. This is both unfair and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Dcfc adelaide ( talk) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi OIC, as the result of a gentle rollback I performed on the article Galah, Victoria a friendly discussion has ensued here. Whilst it may not ultimately be the best location for such a communication to fully develop, for now, if you have the time and/or interest, can you provide your thoughts also? With thanks. -- VS ^talk 09:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, and for your, Hesperian's and Sarah's encouragement before it started. Oddly enough you were the first admin I ever became aware of when I started editing (can't remember why, probably an Auspolitics article), and you've been something of a role model on how to collaborate with others on articles and to resolve disputes. I don't agree with you on "Image wanted" tags, but that's a minor triviality. :)

There's a great deal to read and learn,a nd no doubt there'll be some silly mistakes along the way. Feel free to pass on any advice or suggestions, especially if you think I've made a foolish error and need a push in the right direction. And thanks again. Euryalus ( talk) 11:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Heya OIC, If you still have your written sources, would you be able to repair this edit? I'm sure you will realise immediately when visiting this diff what went wrong :) aliasd· U· T 00:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that article I've grabbed it. SeventhHell ( talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

In accordance with Wikipedia rules, i am duly informing you that i have filed a complaint of "edit warring" regarding your behaviour on the Lindsay Tanner article. There is no need to respond to (or retain) this message. Dissembly ( talk) 07:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

No worries. If anyone serious (i.e. without an agenda) concludes I have edit warred, I will defer to their opinion. Orderinchaos 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

It wouldn't be right if he stopped trying ;) Here's the newest sock: Isisgeebigfanista ( talk · contribs). Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

On my talk page you wrote:

I shouldn't need to warn you *again* that misuse of sources is a very serious issue. In your modification to Gough Whitlam, you added [12] as a source for the statement "Whitlam government's own economic policies — such as the controversial 1973 decision to reduce tariffs across the board by 25% — were partly responsible for the Whitlam demise." I can find absolutely no evidence for this contention from the source provided, and I hope this isn't a continuation of the stuff from last week where you were incorrectly using sources to put your own opinion. I mean, you're coming to my talk page complaining about a user placing bloggish stuff on a userpage as being a policy violation, but your own stuff is undermining the credibility of the encyclopaedia and destroying trust. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ( WP:REDFLAG), and any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material... shall be removed immediately ( WP:BLP). You're only getting one warning. Orderinchaos 09:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think you are being a bit unfair here. That revert I did [13] restored text that had been in the article since June 2008 as evidenced by this diff. I was hardly pushing a POV - all I was trying to do was avoid weasel words. In fact, similar text goes back years before, I think. The reference I provided was a transcript of the ABC's 7:30 report show. Perhaps not strictly a WP:RS, but not far from. The reference has this text near the lead:

In just a few months university fees were abolished, the Defence Force got a shake-up, ASIO found itself under attack and industry had to cope with a 25 per cent tariff cut. Meanwhile ministers, new to government, were spending up big. But those same cabinet documents make it clear there was a deep tension at work inside the Labor Government. Indeed it's fair to say the cabinet papers of 1973 make it pretty clear the preconditions for the fall of the Whitlam Government were laid out in its first 12 months.

(emphasis mine) compare this with the text I restored:

But the Whitlam government's own economic policies — such as the controversial 1973 decision to reduce tariffs across the board by 25% — were partly responsible for the Whitlam demise.

Even if you are going to argue that the 7:30 report transcript is not a WP:RS, I don't think it is fair to assert that I was misusing a reference. This is why I dislike Timeshift9's constant trucking out of a six-month-old quote of my interpretation of NPOV. It is poisoning otherwise sensible editors - even admins such as yourself - against me. -- Surturz ( talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Pretty long bow to draw from the text - you've drawn three quite disparate parts of the paragraph together ( WP:SYN) to draw a conclusion that the text does not state. They have drawn a conclusion which seems to be in toto and have merely listed some of the things which happened as background material. The natural conclusion from that paragraph is that the "deep tension at work inside" the Labor government (hence the "indeed" to link) was the precondition, not anything to do with "government's own economic policies", and in particular that one. Orderinchaos 13:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

No, a user inserted some weasel words, so I went looking for a reference to support the text that had existed there in some form for over two years. I did not set about 'undermining the credibility of the encyclopaedia and destroying trust' as you put it. I don't think I deserve such allegations levelled against me by an admin without that admin at least checking the edit history of the article. You allege I "put in my own opinion", when all I did was revert, which is plain from the edit history. Do you still believe that my edit deserved the very harsh rebuke you gave it? -- Surturz ( talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, I disagree with your analysis. The last sentence is clear that the events of the first 12 months were preconditions of the fall of the Whitlam government. The preceeding sentence (linked by 'indeed') refers to cabinet papers cover both the events and the deep tensions ("those same"). The rest of the article is clear that the deep divisions were *about* the decisions described. -- Surturz ( talk) 14:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The word "but" indicates the things described are *good* things from the article writer's POV, though. It was the use of the source I was attacking, not the edit (although I disagreed with the edit, as it was the encyclopaedia expressing an opinion rather than reporting views, it was not my particular issue which inspired me to write on your talk page.) Orderinchaos 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's cut to the chase, do you still think I was POV-pushing or editing in bad faith when I added the ref? -- Surturz ( talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Not deliberately, no. I think you had a strong point of view and went looking for a RS which you felt supported it. That's actually fair enough, just make sure it actually does. The wording in that sentence was making an absolute statement rather than a "Some, however, believed that..." kind of weighting that it should have had. There are some, and I've met them, who believe just as strongly that Whitlam was almost a saint and he was deliberately sabotaged by the Right in his own party and sections of the public service. But if that were in, that would need both a source and some fair level of dilution to indicate that is an opinion of some rather than some sort of fact. Orderinchaos 02:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Is it that hard to say sorry? I have already said that I was merely restoring the status quo text against a weasel word addition. I don't have a strong view about Gough Whitlam... he's before my time. I don't remember the Dismissal, I barely remember Fraser. That edit did not deserve your strong reaction to it. I don't know what my complaints about Timeshift have to do with Gough Whitlam. One is about your inaction over what I see as a personal attack, the other is an extremely minor content dispute. -- Surturz ( talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I do not need to apologise for enforcing policy. I am not the only person on AUSPOL who has commented on the need to use sources in the way they were written and not get overly interpretative about them. You added a source which did not say what the text it was allegedly justifying referred to, I've already said that my major issue was not over the wording of the text itself. You then made a pointy appeal to a RS noticeboard suggesting that the issue was rather different from what it was. Acting in a misleading way regarding sourcing is one of the worst things you can do on this project, as it undermines the entire venture's credibility and reliability.

Re second points - What you see as a personal attack is your choice but policy is not agreeing with you on that; the only reason I made a point earlier re your complaints about Timeshift is that at one point you were accusing him of exactly what you yourself were doing and I felt that to be hypocritical. I don't need to say again that I don't always agree with or endorse what Timeshift says or does, but it's not my job to police behaviour, it's my job to enforce the rules such as they are and have been decided by a much wider consensus than we'd ever hope to achieve on AUSPOL. Orderinchaos 07:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

(outdent) On what basis are you claiming that I "made a pointy appeal to a RS noticeboard suggesting that the issue was rather different from what it was"? My question there was about a reference I wanted to use for the Philip Dorling article that I started. I was unsure about 7.30 report transcripts because of your doubts here. I didn't feel comfortable asking you because I didn't want to be accused of flooding you with pointy questions. I found out about the RS noticeboard here: User_talk:Fyslee#Alston_BLP_vio. You are the one that linked it to this discussion. Rather than viewing every edit of mine through the lens of some grand plan of mine to destroy wikipedia, how about you assume good faith, and realise that I am merely trying to make some positive contributions that I won't get berated for. I'm not edit warring. I'm seeking out reliable references for any edits I make. If you had simply reverted the addition of the reference in Gough Whitlam I would not have restored it - I don't give two hoots about the text or the reference. It is the admonishment from you that I felt the need to respond to. You're now calling me hypocritical, yet I have not quoted Timeshift on my user page at all! I can't seem to do anything right in your eyes; if I ask you for help, I'm treating you like a complaints department. If I ask someone else for help I'm making pointy accusations. Where the hell can I get some help without you accusing me of something? -- Surturz ( talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

While there's definitely a campaign being waged and indeed I'm seeing evidence of it all over my watchlist on a daily basis with only the weekend for let-up, I admit after reading your response at that location that I got it wrong re the 7:30 report. It seemed that you were trying to deal with my objection to the edit by having an irrelevant point independently ruled. Your behaviour in recent days of raising red herrings to deal with legitimate objections had led me to conclude this was yet another effort in the same direction - so I apologise for the misfire. (That article, by the way, probably should be deleted - it's currently in violation of BLP and I see no grounds of notability under which it could be maintained.) Orderinchaos 12:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, thanks for acknowledging that at least. If you are seeing me all over your watchlist, it is probably because I've been editing lots of AUSPOL articles lately, and the other auspol-interested editors don't seem to be editing much. Maybe they are out getting laid or something.

I'm not convinced the Philip Dorling article is notable either, but I noticed there are barnstars for rescuing articles from deletion, and his story is a little bit interesting to me at least, so I thought it a worthy endeavour to research him a bit and see if there is enough notable material to justify keeping the article. -- Surturz ( talk) 12:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Orderinchaos. You reverted my change here with the edit summary i think we should avoid WP:RECENT/WP:UNDUE issues - commenting on ministers in their line of work is a bit silly in biographical entries.). Now I am happy to admit WP:RECENT was enough grounds to revert my change, but the rest of your comment puzzles me. Have a look at Philip Ruddock - there is plenty of commentary there on his work as minister. I don't understand what you were trying to say. -- Surturz ( talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Just because other content that should be removed exists on the encyclopaedia does not justify creating it in other areas (and indeed, much of the stuff in that Ruddock article is utterly irrelevant to his biography and belongs with an article on the government of the day). This is a point I've made at Howard and in many other places - it's hardly a new one. Basically, a minister operating as part of a cabinet in many ways cannot be distinguished from the cabinet itself - indeed, if they do, they usually get sacked for breaching cabinet solidarity - unless they are acting in their personal capacity. That is to say, a person may be expected to behave entirely differently as a minister in a cabinet with particular agreed policies under a legal system with laws passed in Parliament which they may disagree with but still have to implement and even defend. There are cases, however, of ministers doing things they really shouldn't in their role - either corrupt behaviour or thoroughly mistaken behaviour, or just straight out bloopers like Ros Kelly's "whiteboard" comment, which would clearly pertain to their personal profiles. We are in the process of getting ministry articles together and parallel articles on governments (one exists on the Howard government but is both quite incomplete and not yet well structured) and this is really where most of that sort of stuff should go. Efforts to coordinate such with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT mean it's quite a challenge, obviously, but it's something we should definitely try for. If it wasn't for the fact that everything in federal politics seems to be so contested and end up in so much drama, I'd actually consider doing the necessary work myself, as I have been trying to do for the state level of politics, with my somewhat limited spare time. Orderinchaos 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

So you are saying just as how the Howard Government article got spun off from the John Howard article (something I supported btw), the bulk of ministerial policies/actions should appear in an article on the department, or the government? That makes sense. Just out of interest, where would you see such material going for someone like Philip Ruddock, should it go in Howard Government? Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Australia)? Department of Immigration and Citizenship (Australia)? Somewhere else? -- Surturz ( talk) 02:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Not actually sure - that's something the project would need to decide - my opinion would be that the sort of general commentary on the Government would be in the government article. A lot of the stuff I just removed from the Ruddock article, however, shouldn't even be on Wikipedia at all - it's a chronic issue of WP:UNDUE. Orderinchaos 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:COATRACK is also worth a mention which was recently enforced at Stephen Conroy. Timeshift ( talk) 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

OIC, I respect your opinions and hope you will understand how I feel. I need to speak my mind about how the wiki should be run. You'll notice that I supported WJBscribe, in spite of past disagreements between us. I decided to leave him a caveat because I think that will be important info for him going forward.

Sarah, unfortunately, left nebulous criticisms for me. I have asked her to provide specifics. I am disappointed that her prior support for me, and now opposition, appears to be unconnected to anything related to articles. Fundamentally, we are here to write articles. Every decision I make resolves down to the question of how will this affect the articles. Many during this election have said that they can't figure me out. That's because there's nothing to figure. Over time I have learned to reject all ideas of alliances, loyalties, animosities, or voting blocks. Instead, I base decisions on what will be best for the articles. One day I may support somebody in one matter, and the next day I might oppose them in a different one. If this upsets some people, so be it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It's very bad when people get so overheated that they cannot even talk to one another. I am sad that it came to this, and I have withdrawn from the election as a result. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Likewise I do not believe in alliances or loyalties - people earn my support through merit, even if they are friends, and I'm not averse to agreeing with an adversary if they are right, and have done so on at least two occasions. At times I know that I have upset friends through opposing them on here on various issues (sometimes even getting blocked on MSN for it), but if I strongly believe that they are wrong and that there's a wider principle involved, I would not be doing my duty to my own conscience (or to the project, arguably, as it voted for me to be an admin and hence expects me to do such things) if I did not act. People will obviously disagree about right and wrong, each person has their own barometer for what issues are critical and which can be left, etc. Certainly at this end I have not felt overheated - stunned, yes, in some ways disappointed, yes, but I've felt relatively little intense emotion about anything to do with Wikipedia for quite a while now. Orderinchaos 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's talk about things. I recognize that I acted out of frustration and should not have posted my remark to Sarah's talk page. I'd really like to understand why she mistrusts me. Then I'd be able to address her concerns or change my behavior. As things stand now, I am just left with nebulous criticism that is unactionable. Specific criticism has value. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that it's better to know what to change in order to change it, rather than just be aware there *are* concerns, but I'm probably not the most helpful person here, as you're asking about her concerns, not mine. Orderinchaos 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course. Hopefully she'll let me know some day. I've heard through the grape vine about some rumors that were circulated about me. This leads me to believe that some folks may have heard stuff and made judgments without asking me. Hopefully the word will get out that I am approachable and do not mind specific criticism. Thank you for refactoring that thread. We do often agree, and hopefully we'll be able to work together when the chance arrises. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "Solid candidate with a good manner" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey; I used the University of Western Australia's elections site, at [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Regent ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

What is your opinion of this? Hesperian 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I think you have to go through a hazing first: ten years of doorknocking for the benefit of the applicants that proceed you. Hesperian 03:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:OR again, but my recollection is that Diana was just sick of being forever in opposition and decided to hand over to a younger player. There was no by-election and I'm sure she wasn't pushed, but who knows?. Bill was possibly unwell at that stage also which may have had some bearing on the decision. Adelle Farina was initially mooted as the pre-selection candidate but she lost after some corruption charge. – Moondyne 08:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC) I'm probably saying nothing you don't know. – Moondyne 08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

That was actually my recollection too (that she didn't hold much hope of Labor winning and was sick of being in opposition). Orderinchaos 08:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

And as it turned out Gallop bolted in. – Moondyne 12:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't remember reading anything about her being pushed, but did you get the message I left on AWNB about that change? Rebecca ( talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Generally looks good to me - made a couple of change to wording, but I don't know much except what I found when I was researching the Farina article years ago. Rebecca ( talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd appreciate any input you can give at Talk:Philip_Dorling#Notability -- Surturz ( talk) 05:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Would you kindly move this back where it was please.
The discussion was not closed, there was nothing even vaguely like concensus, and your unsupported annecdotal personal opinion is insufficient reason to justify anything, much less that which you have done.
Pdfpdf ( talk) 07:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Find me one independent reliable source which refers to Adelaide as a suburb (and ABS's "state suburb" designation doesn't count, as it includes many things which are not suburbs). It seems to have been forgotten here that it was moved only a few days ago from its established location without consensus (or even discussion), and there was no justification given that didn't qualify as WP:OR to have it at "Adelaide (suburb)". Therefore, it's up to those wanting (suburb) to justify *their* change. Orderinchaos 07:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps so. But that is insufficient justification for your actions. Please continue the discussion on the talk page - not prematurely terminate it and change the page name. Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

P.S. I think your response above would be an excellent addition to the discussion on the talk page.

P.P.S. Please note that I am not the one behind the change; I just think that from the arguments and information presented, "Adelaide city centre" is il-defined. Also, nothing has been forgotten, and it is inaccurate to say "no justification was given", there's quite a lengthy justification there; that fact that you either don't like it or don't agree with it should be part of the discussion, not a tool to be used as a blugeon. Perhaps a less heated version of your response above would be an excellent addition to the discussion on the talk page? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Not one valid point has yet been made in favour of the change (and it was a pretty radical change). And I *already* expressed my considered view on the talk page - nobody bothered to respond, however. Orderinchaos 08:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk Contribs, 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot ( talk) 07:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding [15] I'm not aware of disagreeing with you about a lot of stuff. What are you referring to? JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Nothing serious - just on a number of occasions we have ended up in opposing camps on AN/Is and AfDs, although rarely directly opposed or arguing as such (i.e. there are two parties or two views in a dispute, you and a whole bunch of other people back one view, I and a whole bunch of other people back another.) The only time I can remember an actual clash was the Corey Worthington saga. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with differing Wikiphilosophies, though. Orderinchaos 05:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah. The comment on that page made it sound much more serious. I know you are a bit more deletionist than I am. I didn't actually recall the Worthington thing as a clash. If my memory serves me we disagreed on how to interpret the first DRV's close. If you do want to go argue about that again though I'm actually strongly considering DRVing Worthington again since he has been in the news a fair bit since the last DRV. He was involved in a public program to get teens to be more respectful (or some crap like that) and he's been on and off in a few other stuff. JoshuaZ ( talk) 05:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I think our views on BLP also differ - I tend to favour a stronger interpretation of it. Re CW: he's been basically completely forgotten about since about April, despite the efforts of his promoter (who has succeeded in getting him *mentioned* in the press here and there, but that doesn't reflect notability - a careful reading of WP:RS would put paid to every single reference involved). It's what's known as tabloid trash - I'm sure if the Paxton family had happened after the advent of Wikipedia, people would be disagreeing over their notability too (and now I look, they've even been discussed in academic literature and books by respected authors, something which never happened to Corey). Ultimately I believe I was proved right that CW was a fad in a slow news week that would pass rather quickly. Orderinchaos 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 19:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Given your current enthusiasm for historic members of the Tasmanian parliament (great work BTW), you might be able to shed some light on this little anomaly. Tasmanian Legislative Council claims that it was founded in 1852, while Charles Swanston claims he was a member some time before 1850, when he died? The Swanston claim is unsourced but doesn't sound unreasonable, except that it contradicts the LC article. Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

According to [16]

• All MLCs were appointed between 1825 and 1851
• From 1851 to 1856 two thirds of the Members were elected and one third appointed
• From December 1856 all Members of the Legislative Council and House of Assembly were elected.

I'll update the TLC page to reflect that :) It suggests an approximate term of 1833 to 1848 for Swanston. Orderinchaos 01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

OIC, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.-- VS ^talk 11:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Have a great Christmas, Mr.Australia! Keep up the guitar playing! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I hope Santa brings me new strings :( LOL ... Same to you. :) Orderinchaos 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

And a happy new year too. Five Years 13:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas to you as well; it's been a long time since we've spoken, many changes. I look forward to a Happy New Year, and hope you do, too. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I used the wrong adjective, and meant meant global pan-religious not unitarian (i.e. uniting church), now for alot of reversions/amendations...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems playing this file? See media help. Orderinchaos, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas from Promethean

I'm glad someone else is taking an active interest in those categories. So I trust that you left them hanging together better than how I found them, which had many anomalies. Robin Patterson ( talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC) reply

"Administrators' noticeboard is ignored by most admins as most of the time it's simply a hotbed of drama with nothing of interest or use to them." - Boy, do I agree with that statement! Every problem gets directed to ANI (such as here), while messages that do require admin attention get overlooked archived into oblivion within less than 24 hours (such as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Anhydrobiosis). A year ago, I tried to advocate a solution that would emulate tickets by allowing users to enter them in one central location as a transcluded page, which then would simply be moved to the appropriate forum. Unfortunately, that didn't fly because I proposed it at the wrong place - WT:AN. Naturally, people who frequent AN are more likely to like it the way it is than administrators who have given up on AN. — Sebastian 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I've noticed the same problem that you fixed 10½ months ago for WP QLD needs fixing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales/To-do page. Can you fix that? - Shiftchange ( talk) 07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC) reply