User talk:Moondyne

Dear Moondyne ...

Thanks for editing out the defamatory stuff put in by the last editor. I am keeping an eye on this site too, as are various bots, and will make sure that any such future edits are removed. Should anything further defamatory appear we are prepared to take legal action against the perpetrators.

Canonprecentor

Christ Church Grammar School

Dear Moondyne,

I find what you wrote quite insulting. I will have you know that I have made tons of edits to Wikipedia and here is my back up for what I wrote (if people are blocked from making correct edits, then I am appaled):

a) See the talk page for proof that the number of hours of sport is 12

b) Sports for 12 hours a week is compulsory

I did not add the Wil Wheaton bit initially but such a person really does exist. Since my edits are not considered constructive, I can cease from editing that page provided that all of this is forgotten. However, I am completely serious in what I wrote about 12 hours of sport being compulsory. Sorry if what I wrote about the school focusing on very few areas of study is inaccurate. But please add that 12 hours of sport/week is compulsory.

Topology Expert (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that you are an established editor and am therefore doubly disappointed that you do not seem to understand or are prepared to comply with the several policies which have been pointed out to you over the last few days, nor have you taken heed of the several warnings regarding edit warring. I refer to Original research and neutral point of view for a start. –Moondyne 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for any incorrect claims that I have made and I won't repeat this in future. When I find some proper citations, can I add back what I wrote?

Topology Expert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The claims you refer to are trivial and innapropriate for encyclopaedia content, in my view. That is quite apart from the fact that they appear to be unverified and your own interpretation of school policies. Rather than starting another edit war and risking a speedy block, I suggest that you firstly post what you propose on the article talk page for input from others. –Moondyne 04:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, you have followed the wrong guidelines for dealing with 'disruptive editors'. See this and note that I have accepted my fault.

Topology Expert (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics

Do you know any mathematics? I presume not. Just because I had an argument with something non-mathematical does not mean that you have to trace my edits and revert. Furthermore, you would not understand the difference between the two images in question. If you are a mathematician, I apologize for what I have just written but otherwise, I will not.

Topology Expert (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that you changed an established stub template without discussion, and when another user reverted this you reverted with a demand the he discuss his change. Come on, that is not how it works. Further, apparently you waged an identical battle at Template:Geometry-stub Template:Algebra-stub before finally accepting consensus. This smacks of WP:POINT. And lastly, drop the ad-hominem attacks OK? –Moondyne 11:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. Notice how long the discussion went just to change one stub template. I don't want to revert your edit in the fear of edit warring but the algebra stub template was also there for a long time and was recently changed.

By the way, I expect you don't watch that page so how do you know that I changed it? Please don't trace my edits and revert them unless they clearly violate Wikipedia rules. Anyway, there a mathematics admins who do that (if at all it is necessary).

I am simaltaneously initiating a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject mathematics regarding your reverts so please don't block me for reverting your edit (which I will do so know). It is up to Wikipedians there to decide.

Topology Expert (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the link provided; I already discussed this on the talk page so you have no right to accuse me of not doing so.

Topology Expert (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have every right. That discussion was about the algebra template; here we are discussing the geometry template. –Moondyne 12:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I read that discussion a few days ago an caught up on it again this afternoon. You assume an awful lot don't you? –Moondyne 11:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd revert the article back to the original version, but as you've started a discussion at WT:WPM I'll stand off. BTW, which mathematics stub template do you intend to improve next? –Moondyne 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

None. I am alergic to them.

Topology Expert (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub templates

I will post something about this on the administrators noticeboard (and Wikiquette alerts) if you continue spamming my talk page. If you really strongly are against me, then I suggest we contact User:CBM (a mathematics administrator) for his opinion. In fact I will contact him. However, until them, spamming my talk page will make me angry and won't resolve the issue (I am disappointed that an admin can know so little about these policies).

Before you block me, consider the following:

a) Will it help, threatening to block me three times?

b) Blocking me will be disruptive because I make 20 contributions (usually) per day.

However, if you still feel the same way, I will report you to Wikiquette alerts but first I will contact User:CBM.

Topology Expert (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted User:CBM as promised. I won't post any accusations on the admin noticeboard because I am really tired of disputes (and I really can't edit Wikipedia next week because I will be on a plane). So please don't threaten to block me, stop spamming my talk page and stop tracing down my edits. I don't mean this is a rude way but I think that there are other people who can do this job anyway. Since you are an expert on Western Australia, may I suggest that you use your knowledge wisely and edit those pages?

Topology Expert (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please respond to this:

Anyhow, you have followed the wrong guidelines for dealing with 'disruptive editors'. See this and note that I have accepted my fault.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone reject that image (explicitly in words)? I presume not. However, let User:CBM decide and when I get the chance, I will consider filing a complaint against you at the admin noticeboard (threatening to block 'good users' is against the rules and you still have not responded to the above comment. Please do so.)

Topology Expert (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A-G

Dredging up my ancient memories of the situation... IIRC, it boils down to a lack of data: the Parliamentary Handbook lists the A-Gs up to 1890, but not subsequently.

I have a vague idea that there was a legitimate reason for the Handbook to do so: the A-G was an "official" executive appointment before 1890, but after 1890 it was just another portfolio. I'm not sure what I mean by "official" here; maybe it was originally written into the constitution that someone had to be appointed A-G, and the A-G had to be a member of the executive.

I'll have a look at the Handbook tonight.

Hesperian 03:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see OIC's just dumped his data on the talk page; ask and ye shall receive! Hesperian 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Singaporean Rhodes scholars

Hi! I notice you've made Category:Singaporean Rhodes scholars a subcategory of three other categories. I think Category:Rhodes scholars and Category:Singaporean people are obvious choices, but I don't agree with Category:Singaporean academics for several reasons.
First, very few Rhodes Scholars have gone on to be academics (c.f. Notable Rhodes Scholars).
Second, neither of the two current members of the category are academics: one is a headmaster, the other is a student.
Unless you have some reason not to do so, I suggest this category be removed.
Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)