User talk:Beneaththelandslide

/Archive1 10 01 06
/Archive2 10 04 06
/Archive3 10 06 06
/Archive4 10 09 06
/Archive5 10 12 06
/Archive6 10 03 07
/Archive7 10 08 07

Please leave comments below! If writing a message on a new topic, please start it beneath other topics at the bottom of the page and use a tier two heading (==text==). If you are elaborating on one already listed, please leave your message there. Don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). I'll reply on your talk page. Cheers! :)

Hispanics in World War II FAC

Your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II have been habitually incivil and comments such as these violate WP:AGF. Further such commentaries will result in a block for violations of these aforementioned policies. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

[1]--Jersey Devil 23:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's not gonna be happy when he reads this... Timeshift 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After having read the contributions, I want to place on the record my distain at this block. Timeshift 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Beneaththelandslide (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I fail to see how the removal of a pointless message from my talk page necessitates a block. In addition, I dispute the claim of "incivility" as nothing more than an inability to handle and reply to worthy criticism.

Decline reason:

Yes, attempting to derail a featured article nomination because other editors may be Hispanic and not because the article has editorial problems is very, very constructive. Spare me the hilarity, please. If you're going to attack the article on the fact of its existence, then don't throw allegations of ethnic nationalism without solid proof. — Kurykh 23:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wait--I'm blocked for pointing out the obvious? (and not my other comments) You should be de-sysoped, and blocked for wasting my time. Michael ^talk 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems regardless of their ethnicity or political orientation, [some most touchy] Americans are indeed fools. Michael ^talk 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a constructive comment given the circumstances BTL :P Timeshift 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhh it's only 48 hours. I think I can get away with it. Michael ^talk 04:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record this block seems a bit over the top. Firstly, I don't see more than one attempt to resolve the issue by other means, and secondly, 48 hours implies an earlier 24 hour has been exhausted and, while you got blocked way back in February over what one could argue are similar issues, that block got lifted per consensus as the unblock reason stated. If that block had been last month and not lifted, I would consider differently. Also, while there's nothing against the same admin warning and then blocking, it would have seemed more reasonable to involve a second person. I'm going to take a WP:BOLD decision and reduce it to 24 hours per the above reasoning. Orderinchaos 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my reset of the block does not constitute acceptance of the block, but the decision to unblock entirely is not mine to make. I've lodged a request for review in the appropriate place. Orderinchaos 07:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've lifted the block now after discussion at WP:ANI ([2]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's watching:

Cheers to my support squad, and admins who deserve their sys-op functions;
My criticism of the ethnic / cultural / whatever bandwagon has not been attended to, neither the defects with the article itself;
I am lax to attend to them due to my previous involvement.

Ta ta. Michael ^talk 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that the article is getting so many votes. Having said that you should keep an eye on the basketball articles being put on FAC and GAC with lots of hyperbole. On another note, I was surprised to check Ahmedabad and find that it had passed so easily despite a lot of the info not actually all being in the footnote. Since I didn't look too carefully at most of the stuff I didn't understand, I just honed into teh cricket and sport section. It was totally unsourced. To describe a player who played only 7 Tests (Jasu Patel) as a "legend" is out of order imho, and to say that Parthiv Patel (remember the Indian gloveman who toured Australia last time and dropped catches on a routine basis) as a "star" seems not right either. Especially when teh para cited those two as evidence of A'bad's rich sporting tradition. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sandy and Tony are the tough ones but they only seem to check the MOS and prose. You can pass heaps of things with black holes. Even with the Ahmedabad one heaps of the Indian FA writers (some with multiple and 10+ FAs) let the unsourced bits through anyway. As far as the content goes, it's possible to pass almost anything....(or lack thereof). Adam Gilchrist was passing rather handsomely until I stepped in and insisted that a few black holes be rectified. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately even the most experienced FA writers seem to put too much emphasis on prose and MOS imho. Although even if you have a strong writing contingent, there will always be some project members who don't write so much themselves and thus tend to support very liberally as they don't put such a high price on an FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me compare:Gilchrist Bill O'Reilly and Harbhajan FAs., Both are similar and both were copyedited by ALoan

Gilchrist (14 votes: 8 project supports: 1 Australian vote: not WProj member)

Harbhajan (18 votes: 9 project supports. 5 Indian votes, 3 of which are not Wikiproject members)

O'Reilly (12 votes: 10 project supports: 2 Aus votes, both project members)

We aren't patriotic enough. lol. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rudd

I noticed you reverted some material on the Kevin Rudd article. If you're interested, I've started a thread on the Talk page regarding those allegations, and you'd be welcome to join in the consensus-hashing there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a pedant, but...

It's der Fuhrer, not das Fuhrer. German is a language with almost as many articles as Wikipedia, so it's easy enough to get confused. --Pete 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA ideas

Looking for an FA idea? How about Archibald Peake? He seems like your kinda guy, and had one of the more successful premier-ships in SA history... (needs fixing too, After Price's death, the Labor Party demanded the Premier position for its new leader John Verran. Price refused and was able to form a Government which lasted for a year makes no sense... Timeshift 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Downer's Wikipedia comments

What do want to do about these comments? [3] I think they are relevant to this website and can be quoted without bias. Do you want them out altogether or will you approve a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjblair (talk • contribs) 11:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Sigh..no matter how much you want to spin it, Alexander Downer's ignorance concerning Wikipedia IS notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastormaker (talk • contribs) 14:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Election boxes

Hi there. I see you've added an election box for the 2001 election on Division of Sturt. This is great! (I'm glad to see I'm not the only one doing these!) The only thing is, your one is in the order of the candidate with the most votes, whereas all the others are in ballot paper order. I've been struck by this recently, and I started a discussion on it here. Hope to hear from you soon. Frickeg 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good News

My "puff piece", "garbage" and "trash" article will now accompany your FA "puff pieces", "garbage" and "trash". No, really I'm only joking. There are no hard feelings on my part and as far as I'm concerned it is water under the bridge. Take care and keep up your good work. Tony the Marine 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Christopher Pyne

I realise you only mentioned it to deride it as a joke that it be included in the article, however in mentioning the specific rumour on the talk page you have left an openly available reference to the rumour on the talk page which Wikipedia could be liable for, just as liable as it would be if it was on the mainspace page. I would suggest an easy fix would be to delete the reference you have made to the specific rumour and replace it with a series of dashes (----). Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 09:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah thanks, I looked up the link from the history of the article and have been reading through the material, and I must agree with the blogger that the person who looks the worst from this is the journalist involved for using such nonsense as the basis for a story, throw sex into the mix and all ethics go out the door for some journo's. That's why I think there should be no reference to it on our pages, otherwise we're no better. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost suggested the same thing, but tried to find the relevant policy first, but I can't see anything at WP:BLP about removal of material from the history, but I'm sure I read something at some point about admins permanently deleting very controversial content. Wiki Townsvillia n 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Mark's College

Hi Beneaththelandslide, I'm currently in a discussion involving St Mark's College in North Adelaide and I wanted to get your opinion on it because I know you have contributed a lot to some featured articles related to South Australia. I have suggested including this paragraph in the article's history section:

In March 1991, The Advertiser reported student claims of sexual harassment and initiations at the college. It was claimed that male students forced female students to perform domestic tasks and that senior students initiated first year students by urinating and spitting on them. The then acting master of the college, Professor David Nicholas refuted the claims.

Other editors of the article want to use this paragraph instead because they say my version has undue weight:

In March 1991, The Advertiser reported student claims of sexual harassment and initiations at the college. The then acting master of the college, Professor David Nicholas refuted the claims.

I think the event is significant enough to have an extra sentence. My basis for thinking that is the event had two articles in The Advertiser, only one other event has had more in the last 20 years (the library database could only search back 20 years). What are your thoughts on the matter? Cheers, Username nought 11:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Username nought 05:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an23162467 Timeshift 04:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall Gully

Hi Michael. I was wondering if there was any possiblity of getting more inline refs for this thing... I did a survey of Australian FAs: User:Blnguyen/AusFA and this was only of the more thinly referenced FAs. A ref drive could avert the possibility of more work down the track from FAR paperwork and so forth. I could do it myself but I tried to get ABS stats before and could never find them :(.... Plus I would be more efficient at reffing those cricket articles. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Dunstan

Just wondering about your thoughts on the latest edits as well as the interestingly named editor. I'll leave for you to revert (or not revert). Timeshift 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luck of seven

Hello Noel Hidalgo is coming to Adelaide on Friday October 12 He will be at the Central Market for breakfast at Lucias 8am He is doing the http://luckofseven.com tour. He is interested in meeting open source and free culture folk around the world. Feel free to email me to check up about other times. eg. Perhaps the Richmnd Hotel upstairs after 5pm on Friday evening for coffee drinks chat kinds of things. Cheers Lucychili 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]