User talk:Mostlyharmless

I'm no longer on a wikibreak, but I'm trying to keep my use reasonable!

Thanks

Hello, i am a Human Rights Watch lobbyist in the UN. I changed the profile of your article about HRW without your permission. I would like to appoligize for that. However i want to make a request to you that would if it be possible for you to let the article be like that for few weeks as i have the permission of the HRW to use our data. we would appericate that. Anyways thanks for showing concerns about organization. our organization is alive with the help of spiritedpeople like you.Waqbi Paul Targoff 23:28, 30 October 2006

thanks for your note of support on my user page. i'm still deeply ambivalent about WP as well, but i'm still here too. i love knowledge, words, and the accurate use of the latter to increase the former. so i continue editing articles here and there, correcting typos, rewording things, and in rare cases contributing some actual knowledge or clarification to articles. it's fun, even with all the downsides. Anastrophe 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you two stopped attacking extrapolations with prediction confidence intervals clearly shown, it wouldn't seem like there are so many downsides. —James S. 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're rapidly making yourself a wikicrank, Nrcprm2026. this portion of the discussion had nothing to do with you. but then, it's the nature of the paranoic to believe everyone's out to get him. Anastrophe 05:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that your graph is original research and clearly contravenes the policy no original research that bugs me, James. There is plenty of evidence of the detrimental effects of climate change without having to create your own. Mostlyharmless 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be considered "original research" if it were submitted to a scientific journal. The extrapolation procedure is almost completely mechanical. I am sorry that you feel that people do not need the benefit of a direct presentation of the costs involved. —James S. 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a direct representation". no, not in the slightest. the original source data from IPCC, ending in 1998, is a direct representation. your graphs are flights of fancy. nothing more. nothing less. you could choose an entirely different mechanism for your predictions, and come up with entirely different results. again, i challenge you to run your software only on the data from 1994 to 1998. i'd love to see that curve. Anastrophe 05:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and boy, do these user talk page discussions show wikipedia's second worst aspect: wiki software for threaded discussion. it needs real forum software for this. it's damn near unmanageable as it stands. Anastrophe 05:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox revelation

Using userboxes I have determined that you are my long-lost fraternal twin. Greetings! Ashibaka tock 08:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, I haven't been on here to edit for a while. But I see in general you have taken a similar tack on the whole userbox thing. Certain admins have almost drove me away! But I decided I wasn't going to participate in The Great Userbox War any longer, as that time could be better used for maintaining the Wik. Who needs the stress, right? Sct72 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen userboxes

After marvelling at your userbox thingy, I have subsequently stolen all of interest. Thats quite a collection you got there!

well, they're all available at userbox, so go wild. Also, you can use four tildes to sign your name like this :) Mostlyharmless 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its sad how often I am forgetting to do that :| --BakugekiNZ 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun God Ra

thanks for your edits anyway.. too much knee jerking on wiki so its good to have a note from time to time, although i dont care much for formalities.. I just thought it was a good excuse to find out all about Ra and think about it from differnet angles; it occurred to me that I was assuming as well, what if Ben really did worship the 'Egyptian' sun god ? then i thought that maybe I would go and ask him!! i havent spoken to him actually, but i thought i might take my laptop down there and show him the page, and do a live interview direct to wiki!! cafenet enables me to do that, at ~$1 per mb. my nephew told me that he set him up a site a few years back, when they were at the other park, which is next door to where my nephew worked at the time. cheers.moza 13:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Western Sahara-related vote

===>Here Make your voice heard. Vote or die. And all that. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why vote stacking is a bad idea... Mostlyharmless 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangere Mountain

You're right, the Auckland Volcanic Field category would be better placed on an article about Mangere Mountain than on Mangere. I have created the article and shifted the tag there. It's just a brief stub - please feel free to contribute! -- Avenue 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit blocks

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Drini for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism Your IP address is 130.195.86.37. I'm starting to get frustrated by this. I'm always being blocked.

I sign in and it makes no difference; I often have to try 3 or 4 times before I can make an edit. The IP in question belongs to Victoria University of Wellington an institution with over 20,000 students and staff. I suspect that I'm not the only one who suffers the same Mostlyharmless 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try to block the less ppossible this ip: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (from yesterday), but as they say, "always look at the bright side of life": If you find me editing or reading wikipedia I'm probably procrastinating and should be given a slap around the ears and told to get back to the VUW library! , so consider it a friendly slap. -- ( drini ☎ ) 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "non-Article"

Thanks, but I think I prefer it the way it was :) Grutness...wha? 23:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - re your recent blocking, you might like to look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal. I sffer the same way from vandals on the same IP. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; there is a difference between being bold and reckless! Mostlyharmless 07:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

My POLS classes are 417, 419, 423 and 428. so it looks like we are not in any classes together. Do you go to the room on the sixth floor of murphy that much? I'm up there quite a bit, so we may well have met each other, or at some time during undergrad. Hmmmmm --Midnight tonight 08:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least there is free printing in those rooms! And get back to work!!!--Midnight tonight 08:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand COTF

Hi Mostlyharmless, I saw the you voted in the three way tie breaker for Rugby union in New Zealand. Just letting you know that it did not win, but the original nomination still has 5 votes (and will likely ber picked next), so if you could vote for it under its normal heading that would be great, as tie-breaker votes do not get carried over. Cheers Cvene64 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

You put your message to User: Gregwriter on his userpage whilst messages should be placed on the talk page Thanks, Jean-Paul 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Te Ara

Thanks for creating the article, and now the redirect. I tried an internal search for the article, but it didn't find it, so the redirect is very necessary.-gadfium 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Union in New Zealand

Hi there, I noticed you voted for Rugby Union in New Zealand to be the next Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight. It is also being voted for on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Collaboration of the fortnight. Add your vote there and have a joint collaboration! --Midnight tonight 05:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Sue Bradford; Arne Næss; Sandra Goudie; Sue Kedgley; Mechanics Bay; Ponsonby, New Zealand; Mangere East; Prisoner of conscience; Point Chevalier; Ian Ewen-Street; Ngapuhi; The New Zealand Institute; Otahuhu; Mount Eden; Mount Albert, New Zealand; Waikowhai; New Zealand Cricket; Mount Wellington, Auckland; Epsom, New Zealand

Cleanup: Sweatshop; Precautionary principle; Happy slapping
Merge: Northcote, New Zealand; Environmental movement; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Add Sources: New Zealand Company; Permian-Triassic extinction event; Samuel Marsden
Wikify: WQDR-FM; Louis; Albert C. Martin
Expand: Xtra (ISP); Samaritan's Purse; Human rights in Iran

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Com / Human Rights Act

Hi Mostlyharmless, I see you've got the HRC up as a potentional article. I've been meaning to add the Act (the Human Rights Act 1993) to wiki for some time, since I created the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act article. Do you think they should be one in the same article? --Lholden 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be one and the same (I'm no expert on NZ human rights however, I'm learning as I go), simply because one is a physical institution, the other a piece of legislation. I'd probably start with a stub though, simply because it's easier. Mostlyharmless 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 17th


Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battling on

Good to see that you are still editing. On articles such as Ahmed Zaoui, you need to persevere. I get the impression you know a lot about Algerian politics, so it's important that you do so. I don't agree that your opponent there is a troll; just someone who is stubbornly fighting to keep the article neutral as he sees it. I realise that you ran out of time due to University pressures; perhaps you could revisit the issues once the academic year is over.-gadfium 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I don't know what would have given you the impression he knows a lot about Algerian politics, other than his chest thumping about having a corner on the truth. Though I suppose that when one is the possessor of such a beautiful thing, mundane rules of evidence, like citing sources, don't apply. But, what do I know, I'm a truth hating bastard who's never read any Kafka. Armon 01:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that he sees fit to use highly controversial sources when he sees fit (in other articles). I see he is still rolling back every change made by another user if he disagrees with the inclusion of some of that information, without any discussion (i.e. Keith Locke ) Thanks for the encouragement though! I will come back and sort things out. Tell me to get back to work! 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you give it a rest. Gadfium's willingness to continue to extend the assumption of good-faith to you in light of your behaviour is a testament to his saintliness and a challenge to you. Armon 01:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving it a rest. The Kafka edit was vandalism, and I accept that. I'm still bitter, and the less said the better. Tell me to get back to work! 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of acceptance of your personal attacks noted. You fail to notice that I haven't reported your behaviour thus far, but that's subject to change. Armon 03:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to apologise, you're looking in the wrong place. I'll be interested to see how the mediation turns out. Tell me to get back to work! 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's going nowhere, you refused to participate by vandalizing the page, throwing up a personal attack on your user page, and "quiting" WP. Armon 04:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the mediation other users have brought against you. And yes I am on an extended wikibreak. Tell me to get back to work! 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada

How is Canada at the moment? And the conference? Anyway, get back to writing those essays... you have WAY TOO MUCH to do to be spending any time on Wikipedia. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 10:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uni work

You didn't get my help because I'm not dating you! How did your essays go? --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 03:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be good to catch up once all the exams are over (so I can enforce this!), but looks like you might have an interesting trip ahead, just make sure it doesn't clash with uni work! (I meet Hana today....) --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 06:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian civil war

Thanks for the heads up. I too am generally on Wikivacation these days, but go back occasionally to keep an eye on my longest articles. Good luck. - Mustafaa 00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. [7] Armon 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostlyharmless, I suggest you avoid such comments as those Armon is objecting to above. I don't think they reach the level of personal attacks, but they make Wikipedia a more partisan and hostile environment.

Armon; don't respond to such comments, for the same reason.- gadfium 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just thought that the major author of the Algerian Civil War should know of any changes that might threaten the article's featured article standard. We're here to write an encyclopedia after all, and we should only report reliable sources, on controversial events especially. On Algeria, Robert Kaplan is not a reliable source. Mostlyharmless 07:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, please think about your editing style - the number of people you're in edit wars with is surely cause to think about the way you approach this encyclopedia. If I was the only one, I'd be much more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Muustafa wrote a FA class article, almost singlehandedly. You've come in with edits based around a highly suspect source, and rv'd anyone who challenges you. It isn't impolite at all to point out to what you were doing to that page. Cheers. Mostlyharmless 07:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWN and WP:RS, then review WP:TROLL. You've added absolutely nothing constructive to the article except to troll and rv. Given the evidence, I suggest you take your own advice. Armon 14:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried to edit on Algerian Civil War because I can't be bothered repeating what happened on Ahmed Zaoui. If I put anything in there, I have every confidence that you'll revert it out... Why should I waste my time trying to improve or write an article when it will be turned into rubbish? My specialist areas of study are political conflicts and human rights. I've pretty much stopped creating articles because there's no point creating something to see it fall apart. Things don't always get better on this encyclopedia (contrary to the evangelism of many wikipedians).

I say again - Robert Kaplan is NOT a worthwhile source in the context of the Algerian Civil War. I won't budge on that. Mostlyharmless 08:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TIGER:

A recent posting on WikiEN-l is particularly pertinent:
"Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral."
It is inescapably true that all of us fall prey to that particular conceit on occasion.

Reminds me of something I said to you. You can take that as a swipe if you like, but it's actually not meant as one. Forget WP, you'll be better in your field in the real world if you keep this in mind. Armon 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the most part I write with quite strong opinions, but try my hardest to keep them from the text (with the awareness that this will not always happen.) This, as you mention, is inevitable. The solution is to try and work together to get the most reliable text. Animal Testing is an excellent example of an article edited by editors with strong and vocal opinions doing this. To do this we need to use the most reliable, independent, expert, well recognised sources possible. Where this is not possible, or there is little consensus between these sources, their perspectives should be adequately summarised and presented as such. What I do object to however, is articles being turned into a series of contesting claims made by partisan sources.

Kaplan's quote does not belong in this article. 1. It is a POV piece, waxing lyrical about the death of democracy, and how awful the Islamists are. 2. There are far more respected and learned scholars expressing perspectives on the subject, some expressing the same as Kaplan. 3. He's intimately embedded with the US military, which has strong documented links to the Algerian military. It's very hard to see him as an objective source in this context. I wouldn't accept a quote by a GIA sympathiser expressing sorrow about an evil Algerian military unless there were strong reasons to. I expect the same for a quote from Kaplan. Plus, the guy has a terrible record of scholarship and tends to see the world in manichean terms. Mostlyharmless 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't take this as a swipe either, but perhaps you'd do well to take that advice - that is, when you approach a subject (wikipedia or not), actively search out and read the most respected thinkers on that subject, even if their opinions completely clash with your own. I've found it a useful excercise on many occasions, and it is now how I approach a subject I'm not familiar with. What can we do but stand on the shoulders of giants? Mostlyharmless 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRW dispute

All of the debate seems to be in the criticism section in this article, so I was hoping to move the POV tag to just that section. If you had any problems in the rest of the article though, just let me know. Thanks --Nosfartu 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bantering on HRW

This sort of thing doesn't help either of us. Why don't you cite specific passages from my edits to the article that you have issues with and we can talk about that.Hkelkar 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't help you. I have issues with you trying your hardest to make HRW out to be a "Indophobic" "terrorist" organisation. Mostlyharmless 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your most recent post is a comment on contributor, not content, making it a personal attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

diff:[8]Hkelkar 00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get off the grass Hkelkar. Your conduct is directly relevant to the article, and you know it. Mostlyharmless 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cease personal attacks please:

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Hkelkar 00:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truce

Let's stop this and discuss the edits to the article.Would you like medcab on this?Hkelkar 00:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you only decide to talk about the edits once you've been shown to be pushing a blatant POV :) No, I don't want to talk with you, I don't think it will get us anywhere. I've lost good faith in you. Mostlyharmless 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.Hkelkar 00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to talk to me then talk to a mediator.Hkelkar 00:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you intimate to me that you are willing to engage in third party mediation then I can initiate dispute resolution procedures.Hkelkar 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truce:Voluntary abstention?

Actually I think a truce would do us both good (I'm feeling pretty frustrated and don't want things to get worse) - how about we both have a voluntary abstention from anything to with HRW, HRW talk, our respective userpages, any disputes we might be having with each other? 24hrs? 48hrs? I don't think either of us want to have a scrap right now, and I have things I need to do in the real world :) Cheers, Mostlyharmless 00:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hrs. I agree. Will do nothing on HRW for one day (except, of course, revert vandalism should it occur). I wish you good luck with your other work and my apologies if I contributed to your feeling frustrated.I ask you to consider that, despite my views against HRW, I have strived to keep a neutral narrative and sourced my edits because I have respect for wikipedia's scholastic integrity.I will do research to see if Smita Narula or anyone else of HRW has done or said anything regarding this matter.Hkelkar 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Mostlyharmless 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji Coup

Hi there,

I noticed you updating 2006 Fijian coup d'état plot page at the same time I was!

I've been following this very closely for the last few weeks, and am quote concerned about the spin that the Australian and New Zealand media have been putting on the whole situation (I wish I'd kept the CNN article stating Australia declaring coup in Fiji or some such thing).

There has been no discussion of what the military's demands are specifically, thus the reason for the coup.

Also that this is more a counter-coup, seeing as it is being pushed by the precise individual who virtually single-handedly stopped the first one.

You are a student of politics so must know more about these things than a humble lay-person like myself.

I just listen to an ABC Radio National interview with an ANU (where I work) professor of politics currently in Suva, and in part of it he mentioned that the Aus and NZ media were regurgitating Fijian government disinformation and am really quite concerned about this.

I'd really like to discuss this with you further to avoid friction in posting.

Regards, Elena the Quiet 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)ElenatheQuiet[reply]

PS. I'm a nuts Adams fan (so-called "tragic"), and so really like your name if that is what it is a tribute to.

Hi Elena, thanks! It is indeed an Adams reference! I'm also concerned about the dire lack of context... I've tried to start a section at the top, based on my understanding as explained by my Fijian flatmate :) I think that the possibility of a strong Fijian Govt. viewpoint as regurgitated by NZ and Australia is quite possible in this article, and would like to put more in there to provide other viewpoints. RNZ had Qarase interviewed this morning, so it's very possible that they're not really stepping back from this crisis and presenting all viewpoints fairly. Mostlyharmless 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back and Thank You

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		For your excellent contributions to Human Rights-related articles on Wikipedia. On behalf of the voiceless,NinaEliza 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Please read about your new barnstar. The link to the page is here:[[9]]. Scroll down the page until you find it.

I've read much of what you written. It makes me happy to know that you're considering sticking around.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights]. Join.

You also might want to check out my recent user contributions:).NinaEliza 05:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page

Your trolling adds nothing. Thanks. <<-armon->> 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Armon means to say here is that your reasoned contributions to his talk page would be welcome, but saying "Ha Ha" a la Nelson achieves nothing.-gadfium 08:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I need to stay away from him, because I've lost the ability to be civil with him. His blanket reversions to articles and constant edit warring achieve nothing however, and he has constantly refused to address this, despite being confronted by a large number of other editors. I'm sure he's a good guy, but his conflictual POV edit pattern sucks, and almost drove me off this encyclopedia. I see other useful editors depart after being treated to the same behaviour by other users, so it is a very serious issue. I spose you're right Armon - I never want anything to do with you ever again, so staying off your user page would be a good place to start. Mostlyharmless 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this seems to prove my point... Mostlyharmless 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Consensus Mediation

You have been listed as a party in this mediation. As mediator, I would welcome your input. Thanks! --nkayesmith 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sup

How's Auckland? Pity we couldn't organise a dinner or something for your leaving. Are you planning to be in Wellington any time soon? --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey Mid! I'm missing Wellington already! I'll probably be back down sometime in the next few months. I've picked an interesting thesis topic, and I'll very likely want to use some of the Wellington libraries and research institutions before I cross the Tasman. You should find an excuse to come up here for research sakes too... :) Mostlyharmless 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard from any Aussie universities yet? I'd only go up to Auckland to talk to Raymond Miller, I try to avoid the place. So what's your topic? --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I haven't heard back from any yet, no. I'm hoping to look at NZ and Au foreign policy towards the West Papua issue... Mostlyharmless 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NZ artists

Good to see a few new NZ artist stubs appearing - it's something I've been meaning to do for a while but never got round to - I even made a list of 20 or so that should be done (including Albrecht, Friedlander and Killeen). Keep up the good work! Grutness...wha? 10:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. -gadfium 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False flag

Hello! thanks for warning me... I've included again, but I do understand your concerns... and why nothing of the sort seem to be included. It seems really incredible to manage to have an article on the war without any mention whatsoever of security forces' massacres. I'll watch the page, and do hope that nobody is "kicked" out of anywhere. Let's see how it goes, cheers! Tazmaniacs 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've started becoming a bit more familiar with the Algerian Civil War page and its relevant Talk:Algerian Civil War. I just love the US word "conspiracy theory" with which people dismiss anything that upset their mind — although I would be the last one to deny the wide-spread existence of paranoia, especially concerning the 11-September attacks. People have a tendency to go from total naivete to total paranoia, it seems there is no middle ground possible. And it seems that dear user of you thinks pointing out what the security forces did during the war is supporting Islamist terrorism. In all cases, I believe we can deal with this by finding an appropriate structure for the article - although, like the long-time contributor to the article, I dislike people not adressing the facts and keeping to opinion and so-and-so believe that, it is sometimes necessary. Maybe a more or less chronological account of the war, as it exist today, could be complemented by a "commentary" section and by an "allegations of false flag attacks". In this "allegations..." subsection, we could work out to put the best references you & others know about, and I'm sure the reader can make up his mind on his own. Tell me what you think? Concerning Babel, I wasn't aware of it, but I've been, like you, recently too much present on Wikipedia, and should really be doing other things. Cheers! PS: I think we could also greatly improves the Algerian War article, and even French rule in Algeria, which would certainly help understanding the global picture. PPS: in a surprising manner, the French version of "Algerian civil war" has been translated from English, with absolutely no criticism (current thing in translation, don't ask me why). I may be a bit Babelized, but not enough to read the Arabic version of it: maybe some content could be transfered in the English version? Arabic sources are of course acceptable in this case, and even welcome... Tazmaniacs 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mostlyharmless! I wondered if you had some time to check-up Torture during the Algerian War, I've done my best to clean-it up after criticisms on talk page, but I guess you could both check on syntax, cut out too long sentences (I'm not used to the short sentences used in English...) and maybe make some criticism on the presentation of the facts. And, other thing, it would be a good thing to do an article on Algeria Watch, because although I do understand to some point your comment on the "civil war" page, I totally disagree, and so does Wikipedia guidelines, of not considering human rights NGO as WP:RS. It is always a good thing to make articles on sources. Thanks, Tazmaniacs 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Thanks for the barnstar, you didn't sign your post so I had to look at the history to find you. Sneaky ;) --Monotonehell 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions

Hi, I noticed you participated in at least one of these three deletion discussions:

All three discussions have similar issues but are leaning in different directions, so you may want to participate in the others, if only for the sake of consistencey and to avoid accusations that Wikipedians are being unfair to some group or groups (which is something that concerns me). I'm asking everyone who participated in one discussion to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in the others. Best wishes, Noroton 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I'm presuming it was an unintentional error that you deleted the summary of the film's argument/claims. Therefore I've restored the text in that section.

Your Deletion of "The Great Global Warming Swindle's" "Claims" section.

The article contained a reporting of the film's claims, presented as "Claims". It is factual that the film makes these claims.

There is no suggestion in the article that the claims themselves are factual.

The article's subject is the film, and should be judged on whether it faithfully reports and describes the film. Whether the film itself is truthful or not is quite a different matter.

If you disagree with the article's summary of the film's claims, you are welcome to post a correction, reporting more faithfully the film's claims, but if you remove any description of the film's claims, then you vandalize an article, destroying information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Headland (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oi, you.

I asked you a question. Well?