User talk:Lankiveil

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thanks :) just stopped by to make a few edits. Roke (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of large section of work done by others

One question only. It'd be nice if you could answer. Could you tell me why you believe these issues are inconsequential? (a laundry list). "Over the top" is just rubbish rhetoric.

• Sale of iconic Sandgate Post Office

• Patronised sale of public parkland for private development

• Closure of Sandgate Community Centre

Many thousands of dollars in FOI fees, notwithstanding time, was put in this.

I regard your deletion as an abuse of your power and grandiosity.

It's interesting that *after* you slashed and burned the whole section you needed to ask,

"Do you think this revision was over the top?" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orderinchaos

Otherwise, thanks for all your good work and I hope you can keep the "Gordon Nuttall" page current, since I and others cannot. Cablehorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cablehorn (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lanky,

"I'm no fan of corrupt politicians, but pretty much every politician ... "

In my humble opinion, your specious comment betrays you as an apologist for corrupt behavior. It is a comment a rusted-on party hack would use. The Gordon Nuttall page is about a particularly corrupt politician who will continue to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for the foreseeable future. As one of Australia's most corrupt politicians, the prisoner's previous activities in his own electorate, based on verifiable information (e.g. Hansard, newspapers, FOI correspondence, property sales information), are of public interest.

Further, in this case, I believe the "laundry list" presented is only the tip of the iceberg. Criminals generate laundry lists; that is a common feature of criminality. Ironically, this local laundry list is relevant information because of the "laundry list of charges" the prisoner has been convicted of and the current laundry list of charges. Based on the events so far, there may be a further laundry list of charges once the current trial has finished.

Do not denigrate all politicians on the basis of Nuttall's activities. The "they're all the same" line is not a valid reason for your section deletion.

Lastly, his local actions were not simply "unpopular decisions", they were typically autocratic and covert actions. By definition, covert actions are neither popular nor unpopular.

Didactik (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1906

Looked in gazette. The only thing I can definitely confirm was that John Crase was the incumbent mayor in notices posted in both June and August 1906. I may know more when I see the 1907 gazette. Orderinchaos 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilf Barber

I noticed, when having a quick look at this article that you proposed a merger a while ago with Wilfred Barber. As this is obviously the same person, I wondered if there was any reason why they haven't been merged yet? I'm guessing that no-one really cares! Seems straigtforward though. The only thing I can see being an issue is whether to have the article called Wilf or Wilfred (he was known as Wilf).--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Italic text== Your deletion of a large body of work re: Gordon Nuttall ==

You say to me (09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)),

"If you think I'm being a bit harsh, I'll be happy to bring this up at the BLP noticeboard or another venue for another independent look ..."

Could you let me know what other venues at which this issue could be arbitratrated. Thanks. Cablehorn (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

................................
................................

................................

Dear Lankiveil

Your contiuing censorship of verifiable facts on the "Gordon Nuttall" page is becoming quite strange and curious. Your rationales to me are sophistic and confirmation-biased.

You say on my talk page:

"I suggest either WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. Either way, once raised, please let me know where. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)."

I asked you to point me to an arbitration forum other than WP:BLPN. Thanks for the WP:ANI direction, but I think it would be fairer for you, in order your not accussed of conflict-of-interest, if you directed me to an area more outside your sphere of influence. Could you?

Why do you say, “Either way, once raised, please let me know where?”

Nine minutes later you say,

"I'll also point out that I'm not the one who protected the article, and nor did I ask Rebecca to do so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)"

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to communicate to me here. Do you mean I should appeal to "Rebecca", implying you are not able to unblock the page, or are you just attempting to lay blame elsewhere for some peculiar reason?

Your log,

"08:40, 4 February 2010 (hist | diff) Gordon Nuttall ‎ (→Issues in Sandgate Electorate: rm section - I'm no fan of corrupt politicians, but pretty much every politician makes unpopular decisions and this laundry list was over the top)

08:36, 4 February 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Roke ‎ (→Welcome Back!: new section) (top)",

indicates it took you, at most, four minutes to consider and censor an important ten years of history.

It'd restore my, and many others, faith in Wikipedia if you could, at least, respond to (all) my questions in a more logical manner than you have previously.

The simple, honourable, noble and courageous solution to this affair would be you replacing the censored piece of history and (if it's within your authority) unblocking the page.

Otherwise, I believe you have ruptured (corrupted) and poisoned the good name of Wikipedia. Cablehorn (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

............................. .............................

Your 'answer' on my talk page says,

"I have to say, I feel that I've been exceptionally patient with you, moreso than I needed to be, but I am no longer willing to abide these constant and unfounded character attacks. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I am wrong, which is why I suggested taking it to a third party, but I am not going to try and help if all I get is abuse for my efforts. Please feel free to take the matter up at a noticeboard or venue of your choice, but I am not going to restore what I (and others) view as a gross violation of our WP:BLP policies. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)." [my bolding]

Again and again and again, zero rationale as to why you censored veifiable facts on the Gordon Nuttall page.

You hold all the cards. I give up.

Please don't write to me again.

Bye

Cablehorn (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nundah

Dear Lanky

It is interesting that you are happy to have Mr Swan's electoral office listed as the "major attraction" in previous versions of the Nundah page but have removed reference to Mr Swan from the Gordon Nuttall page. I believe this to be the main reason for your section deletion on the Gordon Nuttall page. I feel sad for a community with an electoral office as their major attraction.

What irks me even more is your sloppy version of Nundah history. Leichhardt didn't simply "visit the mission". The Prussian Ludwig Leichhardt visited the mission during his historic expedition to the north of Australia.

Furthermore, they were not "German" Lutherans. One cannot emigrate from a country that has not yet been formed (Germany was formed in 1871). They were largely from Silesia i.e. Silesians (go to the Nundah cemetery you are so proud of and read some gravestones) and victims of religious persecution by the Prussians. See the Barossa Valley page for a more correct description of the Silesian emigrants. They were categorized as Germans by the British.

I congratulate you on your contributions to the Nundah page but this sloppy research by the Nundah history crew is often recanted by others. I'll let you fix the Nundah page.

cheers Didactik (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Lankiveil - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

Hello. In summarizing the results of the arbitration, you omitted FoF #1, "Locus of dispute". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You also forget to add the 'discuss this' links and set up the thread on WT:AC/N. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nev Warburton

On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nev Warburton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)