User talk:Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17


revert of article[edit]

Just wondering as to the reason for your reversion of my edit of the article Australian University Leaders and thus the ommision of the leaders of ECU. I have rectified this however please state a valid reason should you find it necessary to remove such content.

25th Hour article[edit]

Rebecca, this is really getting ridiculous. Must we continue to edit and re-edit this article? It seems like it'll go on forever. Let's work out a truce. Something that'll please both me and you. Write me back soon on the 25th Hour discussion page.

month/year/century links[edit]

Couldn't agree more. Tony 08:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


I just wanted to put forward my apologies to the debate happening over on the National Union of Students of Australia page. I wasn't aware of DarrenRay's dealings with MUSU and the RFAr. I hope you don't think I in anyway sort to discuss the merge of office bearers in the main NUS page as a vendetta on you or anything. I was simply seeking a reasonable alternative to just a huge page of tables and seemingly arbitrary names. I do think that students politics does have a place of Wikipedia. But I feel a centralised and informative article will achieve that goal much better. Anyway, I look forward to working with you on this in the future. Cheers, -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 02:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


How very perspicacious of you :-) Thanks, fixed now. Snottygobble 04:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your 10 Random Pages Test[edit]

Hi Ambi, I was inspired by your 10 Random Pages Test so I created my own (and gave you full credit of course!) The results were, well... not good! Take a peek here if you are interested... and thanks for the idea too! Glen :) §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti[edit]

Hi Ambi, I notice you've had prior involvement at this page. I'd appreciate your wise perspective on an editorial disagreement currently going on there. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for the note Ambi :-) Things have been that busy I didn't know where to turn, so sorry about the late reply! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC: should Category:Disbarred attorneys be linked to Category:Criminals via a see also reference[edit]

Hi I posted an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex as to whether the Category:Disbarred attorneys should be linked to Category:Criminals via a see also reference. One user and I did not agree and he suggested that we take it to RfC. The RfC has not engendered any further discussion. I was wondering if you would take a look at the issue at Category talk:Criminals#RfC 28 March 2006? I have asked you because you have taken an interest in legal issues. Many thanks--A Y Arktos\talk 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben Gray[edit]

Probably not as he didn't get elected. I am not particularly concerned whether his article is removed or not - but I am tilting towards a keep. The particularly high vote for the Greens (15% from memory) in a traditionally conservative electorate (Bragg) is fairly notable - and Ben would have been a significant driving force behind that. michael talk 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kim Booth[edit]

Hi Ambi, official results at -- Barrylb 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


I just noticed that Edith Cowan is marked on your to-do list as "needing work". What's the problem with it? (this is one of mine) Ambi 04:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for what probably appears a somewhat insulting comment. That was merely a terse and general note to myself indicating that there is a reason why I haven't crossed it off the list. In this case the issue is that there is a biography of Cowan (A Unique Position by Peter Cowan), and I didn't want to cross the article off the list until the biography has been referenced. Other than that I have no problem with the article; in fact I think it is better than most of my ones.
Since the to-do page is no longer for my eyes only, I'll redact the comment to something less apparently insulting. By the way you are welcome to edit or make use of anything you find in my user space. Snottygobble 04:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you reverting stuff about NSW Govt?[edit]

Please provide reference for gossip. and listing unis is only going to cause confusion. they receive no state govt funding (I work in state govt) and the state minister has no control over them.

dirty socks[edit]

If I understand this bizarre edit by my latest sockpuppet vengeance vandal, I stand accused of being your sockpuppet. For some reason that greatly amuses me. :-) Snottygobble 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed remedy[edit]

Greetings, Ambi. I have proposed a remedy to the date unpleasantness, and it can be found here. Your input is requested. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Re Talk:Joseph Gardiner

I've written Frederick Illingworth, but marked the Victorian land boom section {{sectstub}}. I can get Cannon (1966) by request through my public library. If you want to have a crack at it, got for it. Otherwise, I will do it after I'm done with the Drummonds. Snottygobble 00:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I unblocked Clyde...I'm pretty sure it was a April Fools joke...if you object you can put it back. Sorry....let me know if it's a problem, I don't think he was serious :(. Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He did a pretty cool gibberish generator, you should check it out. I think there's no reason to really block him, he was only doing it to friends of his. By the way I went around and "vandalised" the pages of a few friends using that tool too. ++Lar: t/c 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Cyde sell his account to User:SPUI or User:David Gerard? I can't decide.

CheckFool evidence indisputably proves that the 3 are sock puppets of each other. The evidence is because I say so, and it is unquestionable, undeniable, not to mention unverifiable. You cannot check this yourself, since you are no Fool, and only Fools can use CheckFool. See WP:CheckFool

  • -1 Foolish Cyde Weys 17:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • +1 Fair

Opposition leaders Tasmania[edit]

In regards to the article Leader of the Opposition of Tasmania howcome the table starts and then just stops half way through? why aren't the other names in the table. I was going to change it but i thouhght id ask first. Kyle sb 06:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, look forward to seeing the finished article! Kyle sb 06:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Leader of the Opposition (Western Australia)[edit]

Any chance of seeing this finished off? Ambi 07:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The reason I stopped at 1986 is because that is the edition of my WA Parliamentary Handbook :-( Next time I pop into my local public library I'll get the good oil from a newer edition. Probably Monday. Snottygobble 11:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been to the library this week, but I also haven't forgotten this. You have my word of honour as a Wikipedian that I'll follow through on it as soon as convenient. Snottygobble 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fucking Åmål and the Category:Fuck[edit]

Dear Rebecca, hello. I am the editor who added Fucking Åmål to Category:Fuck, which you reverted without comment. This was a good-faith addition, not a prank. A number of us are trying to establish an encyclopedic repository of concepts and articles semiotically related to the word "fuck", and this movie (which I saw and greatly admire, as I am a great fan of Rebecka Liljeberg's acting in particular) is a prime example, especially the fact of bowdlerizing its title in many countries where it was shown. Respectfully yours, -- Mareklug talk 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider populating a category original research? It's writing an encyclopedia -- grouping related material together for others who would use it as a tool in their research. As for the movie, I am well aware that the word "fucking" is used only once in the movie -- that is not significant, nor is anyone making any claim about that. The essential thing about the movie is that the movie title has caused the movie to be retitled in more than one country, while it is no big deal in many others. -- Mareklug talk 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hon[edit]

It was done when Labor gained control after the 2002 election. The existing version had all the MLCs with "Hon" except ministers, which was a bit strange. Adam 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Student pollies[edit]

What happened to Darren and Ben? Where they banned? Have they lost interest? Adam 01:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Qld pollies[edit]

I don't remember writing about Qld pollies - which articles do you mean? If you suggest me some names I'll see what I can come up with, though I am immersed in Thai election results and Khmer art at the moment. Adam 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh! That old stuff - I thought you meant Wikipedia articles. As I say, if you suggest a name I will see what I can find. I have some old Qld Parly Handbooks somewhere. Adam 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

NSW Pollie stubs[edit]

I've been looking around for some advice there re categories etc. - have left a question at WikiProject Australian politics talk page...? most of the articles today were created so that the links from electorates no longer point to the wrong person (ie persons with the same name as NSW politicians who already had articles on wiki) It won't be fixed today but it will get fixed. Yeah it's all boilerplate right now but I'm looking at a couple of sources to improve all of them. If they're speedied that probably won't matter too much - I'll populate my offline stuff a bit more then recreate. I will admit - I was probably more concerned then I needed to be about what should have been redlinked names, pointing to articles for someone completely different. Garrie 05:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

One other thing is - from the pc I'm working at - creating and editing is a bit prone to just "not happening" when I hit the Save Page button - so yeah from that regard I'd rather create a small stub and add small bits to it (similar small bits across a large number of pages one after the other) than create a number of pages, one big page at a time. I go through a lot of links before I get to the "real" internet and this wreaks havoc with my editing. (it just happened again editing this section!) still me :)

And hey if you think these politicians are bad have a look at some of the Suburbs and localities within the City of Fairfield - eg Lansvale. BTW I have updated Sam Toombs today. Hope that is more like it. But I will be away until after Easter.Garrie 00:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Hey Ambi. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with a query. An anon vandal had been continually reverting the University of New South Wales Revues to a completely POV and downright ludicrous version of the article over the last week or so. [1][2][3]. In some of their edit summaries they have actually said "Reverting vanadalism" to my edits, when in fact they are just undoing what I had just reverted. Now normally this wouldn't bother me except in the latest attempt of vandalism they have made the same changes but used the registed name of Ċhanlord in a clear mock of me. The edit was subsequently reverted by Curps [4] but I really don't like the idea of someone making vandalistic edits with a username almost exactly the same as mine. Do you have any advice on what I can do? -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 05:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ambi ^-^ -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Greetings. BobbleWik has now signed all four points, as have I. I was wondering if you would reconsider signing point four? If not, could you give a reason? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Greens categories[edit]

Ambi, there is a lack of consistency on how Australian Greens politicians are categorised - the WA ones have their own sub category while none of the others do. I put the Tasmanian Greens politicians under their own subcategory - which you have just reverted. What is the best approach for this? At present, there is bet each way and it is confusing (e.g. what makes WA so special, now that they are formally part of the Australian Greens?) Peter C Talk! 06:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Goforit's RFC[edit]

Hi, regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Go for it!, there has been much editing of the initial statement since you signed it. Please read it again and/or consider changing your edits/your signature to avoid the impression of inadequate procedure. Thank you. Kosebamse 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights RFC[edit]

Hi Ambi, can I get your thoughts on the inclusion of a paragraph at Gay rights in Australia. There seems to be POV editing on that page today (for some reason). Thanks. PSYCH 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you blanket reverting me? I think you should check your own POV. Just because some vandalising moron accuses me of being homophobic, doesn't mean I am. Xtra 23:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ambi, you're reverting Xtra without discussing things in the article talk page. Are you aware that User:PSYCH has got on his/her user page that he/she is leaving because X is a bigot? Is that the kind of thing a good faith contributor puts on a user page? Andjam 23:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi ambi, thanks for the revert, but once again only Xtra's opinion seems to be correct. Xtra, there was never an issue with that passage until you came along and started editing tha gay rights page, even andjam let it be, it was only until you showed up that it became problematic. Coincidence? For the record, I don't know if you are homophobic or not, but you yourself have said you oppose same-sex marriage. Now how can a person who wants to deny gay marriage "because it doesn't conform to [my] bible" have the authority to edit the gay rights page, AND the same-sex marriage page impartially?? PSYCH 03:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, I am not going to debate this troll here. Or anywhere else for that matter. Xtra 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Shane Stone[edit]

You are right about refs for his name, but the first cite is still sort of there and I do not know how to fix it. Also he did make himself Queen's Counsel but I guess we do need to find a source. It is interesting and important. --Bduke 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dar Williams photo[edit]

I'm glad you like the Dar Williams photo. I really did take that picture. It's the best I have among about a half dozen Dar photos. Unfortunately, I have no other celebrity photos to add to Wikipedia. I could give you a couple good sunsets though! PJMweb 14:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. As I get better at the hard stuff, I seem to get worse at the easy stuff. Snottygobble 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Netball[edit]

Not really that interested - apart from my general interest in Commonwealth sports. It was just a stub that was reasonably easy to expand. Sam Vimes 09:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)



I would really like to resolve this. It's been a trouble for all of us, and we've almost put it all behind us. But we're waiting on you. Could you please sign point #4, or else explain why you won't and possibly offer an alternate solution? It would mean a lot to me. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada and Australia[edit]

"I'm Australian. I like Canadians." And rightly so, Canada has much more to offer us than boring old imperialistic US of A. I myself differ from most other Australian in that I am not UK or US oriented in my thinking. I am a strong beleiver in the Australian difference. I am not a (US style) liberterian. Canada is a good example for us Australians to follow becuase in some ways they are more like Europe and less like United States. Did you know that Australian could have been bilingual as well a multicultural? We could have had an antipodean teutophone "Québec" (South Australia)? Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

How so? Didn't know of that... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess Barossa Deutsch has all the hallmarks of Quebec French. The Barossa is probably the last place in the world where Silesian is still spoken. Alas multiculturalism arrived a little too late for the Lutherans from the east. Ozdaren 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Electoral district of Goyder[edit]

Thanks for cleaning that up - obviously I didn't take a second glance. michael talk 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia[edit]

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar


Itis your policy just to ban who you want. It is quite obvious that you use both i.d.s to achieve your ends. Why would you revert a truer version of football? Why would you make a distinctly incorrect banning that suitd Snottygobble? Why would someone as obviously intelligent as you not simply lie about location and gender? Snottygobble is your sockuppet. Why else would you bother banning? Than spuriously delete the comment? What evidence do you have to ban me? Popoff567

Cool Wikimood thing[edit]

Thanks for having it on your userpage. I was just seeing your request for a username change, and I decide to click through and see this need little do-hickie you found. Thx! -- Zanimum 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (a Canuck)


You do not gain anything by insulting and calling trolls. In fact you cannot even ban for trolling which is what you did. 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)OKEYJisme


for the reversions. By the way, the sockmaster's one month ban expires in five days. Snottygobble 07:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

John Howard[edit]

People can click the link if they want to read about the reforms. That sentence is not an adequate summary. Xtra 11:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of all the provisions in the reforms is to free up the labor market to promot jobs growth (e.g. less unemployed). That is not rhetoric, biut the actual aim. If you write down one or two provisions without explaining the purpose that is meaninglessly skewing it. Xtra 12:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The ACTU only assume bad faith because their dominance is threatened. But that (being what i said above) is the actual reason for the reforms. The unions are scaremongering and crying wolf. (that does not mean to say that I don't think the reforms went to far, but their purpose is as i stated above) Xtra 12:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Ambi...I hope I'm not asking a stupid question here, but when you say "drop a line" where is your email address? Or is this talk thing here the way to go?

BTW where's your Law school...and why don't you have internet at home??

Ta jaker5


You don't like Stewart McArthur? (I would have not thought the result would make a difference to you) Xtra 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Melbtrip and spam[edit]

Thanks for stopping Melbtrip's spamming - I've been having a hard time explaining to him why it's inappropriate for him to be placing links to his site all over Wikipedia. Cheers. --Evan C (Talk) 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Invite to join/help organize Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies[edit]

Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Monash university[edit]

I have repeatedly deleted the inaccurate statement: It is one of Australia's "Group of Eight" leading universities. I do not know why you are replacing it. I have given my reasons for removing it in the discussion, but you seem to believe you have the right to replace it without given reason. So here i go one more time. The Go8 is a LOBBY GROUP. Thats it. It is probably a good thing to have a reference to the Go8 in the article, but the statemen that it is part of the group of 8 leading universitys is misleading. The Go8 has nothing to do with being the leading universities. Its got to do with having the most money, but that is a debate thats not worth getting into. I dont care about a reference to the Go8, but the current statement makes the implication that it is one of the top eight universities in Australia rather than simply a member of a lobby group. --Maverick05 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You can spare me your high and mighty patronising crap. Obviously you know nothing about the Go8. "They are the eight universities with the highest entry scores" FALSE (yeah sure if you look at only the top couple of courses that’s true, but look at the whole picture and you will see that it is far from the truth, the University of Melbourne has two of the highest entry requirements for courses in Victoria, but they also have the two lowest in the state, don’t be selective), "the highest demand" FALSE(in Victoria, my area of expertise, the highest demand statistics showed up as a mix between Monash and Deakin, not a Go8 member), "the highest prestige" (true perhaps, but prestige is a ridiculous statistic, prestige is gained simply by the fact that these universities have been around the longest, who really cares, what SHOULD be the measurement of how good a university it is now not 100 years ago), "and the best job prospects" (prestigious stereotypes may lead this to be somewhat true, but in fact if you look at the detailed breakdown job entry rates from Melbourne and Monash the gap is very small, again archaic stereotypes lead people to believe that job entry is easier from these universities, they really hold very little advantage). "Spare your nonsense for someone else." Nonsense??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I’m sure your proud of whatever Go8 university you attend. I however manage to have an objective view on this through my work. I know personally that the Go8 sees itself as nothing more than a lobby group, a powerful arrogant and annoying lobby group but a lobby group nonetheless. Its fine for you to show Monash as being in the Go8, that’s a fact, saying in the Go8 page that it is a lobby group of the most prestigious groups is fine, but there is no mention in the sentence being disputed of the Go8 being a lobby group. It reads to the uninformed that Monash is one of the top 8 universities in Australia, even if that is true, membership of the Go8 is not a valid statistic that shows a university as in the top 8. Rephrase the sentence if you feel it is that important, do not however try to say that the sentence was not misleading, the sentence did not say that the Go8 was a lobby group it was misleading get over it. --Maverick05 11:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also you will notice that 6 out of the 8 universities in the Go8 did not make misleading statements in their articles. It was only Monash and Western Australia (now edited). They made corret statements about the Go8. --Maverick05 12:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR and civility[edit]

Per this edit [5], calling a fellow administrator a newbie in that context is quite incivil and I am glad Naconkantari doesn't seem irked by it. Also, you might look more closely at WP:3RR, it specifically says that editors aren't entitled to their 3 reverts a day, and edit warring is still blockable even if you don't actually make that taboo 4th revert. If you keep up the antics over this issue, and this is not a threat it's just fair disclosure, I will take this to WP:AN/I. Thank you for your time. --W.marsh 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh like I said, it wasn't a threat... sorry you took it that way. --W.marsh 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request[edit]

Hi, could you please compare User:John Stutz and User:Huper (as per Talk:John Stutz. Thanks :) porges 22:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


This is the user formally known as Licinius and I have been waiting for my ban to end and than when I logged in again, I had been banned indefinitely, why??? Not these accusations about sockpuppeting again, I have not used any sockpuppet for disruptive purposes??? I have actually been hard at it increasing this encyclopedia's knowledge, so why was the ban continued??? I suppose you are the wrong person to ask seeing you banned for spurious reasons in the first place??? But could you turn the ban off yeah??? Yeah what and why 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

List of unrecognized countries[edit]

It wasn't a grammar fix, it's repeated POV-pushing (the anon has been reverting to that version several times now) I attempted to make it more neutral, but he/she just reverted. Do you have any suggestion of what I should do? —Khoikhoi 08:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess you're right. It's just when people normally speak of "international recognition", they're talking about recognition by countries, not subnational entities. However, check out the anon's edits on the Cyprus page - a very clear example of POV-pushing. —Khoikhoi 09:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, about this, I guess the differences are obvious:
    • The only word (for countries)
    • The separation in two sentences, usually improves grammar. I am not an expert though, so maybe you could choose to rephrase the two sentences...  NikoSilve</b>r  (T) @ (C) 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar: I repeat: Splitting a sentence usually improves grammar. Since you continue focusing on the poor grammar, I'll try to rephrase the two sentences myself (although IANAL, so please help):

The only country that recognizes this state is Turkey. In the late 1990's, the subnational Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, an exclave of Azerbaijan, recognized it as well.

Only: Turkey invaded and Turkey is the only real country recognizing it... Isn't it worth stressing?

Native: I was tempted to include en-N in my babel, since I've always had an english-speaking nanny when I was a kid, I went to an American school where I was taught half the lessons in English, and I finished an American College. I chose to be modest with en-4. What other languages do you speak, by the way?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. I'll let you keep it as it is, so that instead of poor grammar it'll have inconclusive content due to insufficient stress. I am fed up too.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, you removed almost everything from the entry for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, with this comment : "Can we please just keep this simple? I'm sick of this page being used as yet another battleground for the Cyprus POV warriors". Allow me to respond with some points:

(1) Contentious and controversial issues need not be keep "simple" in order to avoid conflicting points of view. If we were to do that, we'd have no more than a phrase under the entry for Palestine - or maybe we'd be disputing the use of the very word!

(2) The removal of text as irrelevant to the main entry is sometimes correct, sometimes not. In the case of the countries (or "countries"!) listed in the entry List of unrecognized countries, a small, concise description of their background seems to me to be essential. As a wiki user who's looking for information about the not widely or universally recognized countries, I'd be most certainly interested to trace common elements in their background (if any), the ethnic mix involved, the political/economic aspect, and so on. The full treatise is to be left, of course, for the entry of the specific country, of course, but general information must be provided in that article. So, IMO background is essential. Merely stating which countries recognize the TRNC, for instance, doesn't say much.

(3) The deleted portions of the text were as factual and as objective as possible. I'd challenge, in fact any Greek- or Turkish-Cypriot to dispute (with facts) anything in the text you removed.

And which I have re-instated. I trust that the above explains why. My regards, The Gnome 08:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


He was blocked by Scott for 24 hours yesterday; that said he's about to come out of that. michael talk 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Now a week-long block. -Objectivist-C 02:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Burnside[edit]

Thankyou for the advice and kind comment! :D michael talk 10:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring[edit]

I closed that debate because it was wholly redundant with the argument on the talk page. The same arguments (both ways!) were being made, and, after all those comments, nobody offered a reason leaving that page on Wikipedia as a rejected proposal would hurt the project.

Since A) the utility of the proposal is still an open question and B) nobody gave any arguments except as to the utility of the proposal, I decided to close an MFD that served no purpose.

In the future, should you feel the need to edit or delete my closing comments, I would appreciate a courtesy note on my talk page at the very least. If you have a problem with one of my closes, please inform me and, if necessary, take the matter to deletion review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reward board[edit]


I've been looking at Wikipedia talk:Reward board and Wikipedia talk:Bounty board, and the posts you've made don't seem to discuss what objections you have to the Reward Board, or why you feel a consensus is needed for the Reward Board to proceed. That's making it difficult to respond to your position. Could you post on Wikipedia talk:Reward board giving your position on this matter? -- Creidieki 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your position, but I'm uncomfortable with you removing material without discussing this on Wikipedia talk:Reward board. You seem to be communicating your position through edit summaries, which makes it difficult to have a dialog with you. I suggested several potential guidelines or rules earlier on the talk page, to try and reduce the possibility of bias; I'd be interested in your comments on this. I'd prefer if you respond on the project talk page, rather than to me personally. Thank you. -- Creidieki 12:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser on Julianna Rose Mauriello[edit]

Can you check to see if this user has edited either from New York State, California, or Iceland? This user claims to be Julianna Rose Mauriello, who logically only should have been editing from these places. "Julianna" has made questionable edits recently, and been blocked for impersonation. -- Zanimum 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For reasons of accountability, would you mind making this at WP:RFCU? (This has also has the advantage that it will probably get to a better CheckUser than I...) Ambi 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh good, I couldn't find that page, though I knew it existed. Thanks! -- Zanimum 14:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Date proposal[edit]


I'm not sure if you're still following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I've been trying to rewrite the section on dates in the Manual of Style to be acceptable to everyone, so that we can avoid the constant arguments. You can read my current draft at User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal. As you were one of the main participants in the previous discussions, I'd really welcome your comments: would my new text be acceptable to you? Please do come and join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Stephen's proposal.

Thank you,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


WP:ANI#Community ban for Licinius. Snottygobble 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. When I saw Stephen's edit summary "Date proposal", I thought for a moment he had asked you out for dinner and a movie! :-)

Licinius has posted an apology and promise to reform at User talk:J is me. There's currently a (counter-)proposal under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban for Licinius to unblock Licinius' IP to allow him to reform himself under a new account. As a long-term victim of his attacks, you might like to comment. Snottygobble 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello Ambi. A few questions. Is it a convention to make the text small, as in Template:Electoral districts of Queensland, or is that because there are 89 of them, and space needs to be saved? Also, is there any reason why you unalphabetized my alphabetization of that template? Finally, I was wondering where I could find a list of the previous members of electorates and stuff because the VIC and WLD electoral webpages do not seem to keep the complete list of members unlike the SA electoral office. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful RfC votes[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used in Australian rules

  • Delete. Die. Ambi 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify this? I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a personal attack, or some sort of cryptic comment regarding notability or verifiability, or what. -- Synapse 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 Victorian election article[edit]

Ambi, how long/big should an article such as the Victorian legislative election, 2006 I am working on get? Should some of the content (e.g. tables of members) be split off into separate articles?Peter C Talk! 12:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Irshad Manji[edit]

Irshad Manji is self professed lesbian. May I know why did you reveret my edit ? Siddiqui 07:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AIS open day[edit]

Hi Ambi,

I'm not sure if you live in Melbourne or Canberra (or a quantum superposition of the two) , but there's going to be an AIS open day which will apparently include some notable Australian netballers. Andjam 13:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Ambi, several people have asked me why Psephos doesn't rate an article, and why I don't write one. It is after all the world's largest online archive of election statistics, and quite unique now that Wilfried has folded Electionworld into Wikipedia. I don't however think it would appropriate for me to write an article about my own website, although I know of others who have done so. Since you spend a lot of time on election-related articles, perhaps you might have a try, or ask someone else to do so. Cheers Adam 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What have you called it? I am about to be banned for reverting communists at Elections in Cuba, of all absurd articles, so I may be taking a little wikibreak. Adam 10:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will send you some suggestions. Adam 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For once I agree with Adam. I'll go ahead and write the article. Cognition 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi, if you're around could you revert the edit by Sliat 1981 to the Australia article. Thanks.--nixie 06:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Please refrain from vandalising articles. You have been warned. Constructive improvements are welcome, as is discussion. Vandalism is not. Carl Kenner 10:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Carl Kenner[edit]


Since election in Cuba has been locked. Could you unblock Carl Kenner so that he could at least discuss things at the talk page? I am an wikipedia administrator too and I found locking an article at the same time with blocking editor is redundant over-protection, as well as non constructive.


CarlKenner block[edit]

Hi Ambi, I see that you issued a warning to CarlKenner to stop an edit war at 10:37, 5 May 2006 "Please don't revert elections in Cuba... if you do so again, you're asking to be blocked" I see that after your warning CarlKenner stopped reverting with his last edit being at 10:36UTC. Even though CarlKenner heeded your warning you blocked him anyway at 10:57UTC. Also I see that you personally joined in the same edit war at 10:35 and 10:39. It is curious that you only issued an edit war warning (and block) to one of the parties of the edit war, as I see that user Adam_Carr engaged in seven reverts as part of this edit war. This all seems odd, but I may not understand what happened, could you please clarify and explain your administrative actions? BruceHallman 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Ambi, have you had a chance yet to consider my request and provide an answer? BruceHallman 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply[6] to my request. Though your reply raises new questions. You mention that you warned Adam Carr[7]. But, your contribution record[8] does not confirm this. Please explain.
Also, you explain that you blocked CarlKenner because of his "clear his intention to continue". Is 'clear intention' a reason for a block? He actually stopped the edit war immediately after you warned him.
Also, you directly participated 'on the opposing side' of this edit war[9][10]. More, you publicly declared your intent to do so here[11] " I'll be happy to revert the latest nonsense". Please explain your administrative action to block the opponent in your edit war, there appears to be confict of interest. Perhaps I don't understand, so I am just asking to allow you to clear any misunderstanding. Do you believe that you have a duty as an administrator to recuse yourself from blocking 'opponents' in your edit wars when you have a conflict of interest? BruceHallman 15:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is sheer vandalism Flag of India.svg amit_jain_online (t a l k)[edit]

Some person bearing username Mastersofworld has edited or i must say vandalize my user page, has removed my email id and put his/her email id, now can i ask the moderators what action u are going to take against this vandalism, and do let me know if is there any way to protect my user page from being vandalise again.

Flag of India.svg amit_jain_online (t a l k) 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Aloha! Whilst editing, I came across an article using Image:Adenridgeway.jpg, which you uploaded. You've provided a licence, but unfortunately Wikipedia also requires that all images used in articles have source information, in order that the license can be verified. If you're still around, could you edit the image to include where you found the image, or if you created it yourself, a statement to that effect? If a source is not provided, the image may well be removed from Wikipedia without further notice. GeeJo (t)(c) • 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've sent you an email[edit]

Hi Ambi,

I sent you an email yesterday where I gave you my phone number, if you're interested in meeting up at the open day. If you're not interested in meeting me, that's fine, but can you reply just to confirm you got the email?

Thanks, Andjam 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

POV edits to Robert Doyle article[edit]


There are persistent POV edits to the Robert Doyle article - the sentence they keep adding s:

"Robert Doyle was a loyal and effective parliamentarian, serving the community of Victoria, his electorate of Malvern and the Victorian Liberal Party with aplomb, charisma and energy. More leaders like Mr Doyle are required to rail against the spin and economic mis-management of the Bracks Government."

Most recently by:

Can the article be protected against IP edits? Endless reversions & corrective edits are a waste of everybody's timePeter C Talk! 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So it is you[edit]

I thought for a moment someone was impersonating you. Why the name change? ;-)--cj | talk 08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering who this User:Rebecca was! Hello to the new you :P -- Chuq 12:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Number three wondering "Who is Rebecca?" --Scott Davis Talk 13:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Make that four - I was thinking - 'wow, with such an ordinary name, they must be an editor of long standing - how come I haven't heard of them?' Turns out I have! :) Slac speak up! 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rebecca,

I apologize for the edit waring that occurred at List of unrecognized countries. I don't know what I was thinking, I usually follow the 1RR on content disputes, but this time I treated it as vandalism. Why? Because the user was repeately removing content with no explanation. I guess I also did it based off {{test5}}, which says, "and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism". Anyways, I'm sorry again. Regards, —Khoikhoi 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


For consistently finding and fixing my silly errors, I hereby award you the compound eye of an Antarctic krill. Snottygobble 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your request[edit]

I have crafted up a short statement in regards to your request that someone write up a template for why we use ogg as our required file format.Ť

Wikipedia uses Ogg as it's file format because Ogg is not bound by patents and is entirely open source meaning that anyone can use it freely perpetually. Ogg is also desireable because using the many codecs (encoding and decoding addons) it is easily adaptable and has a wide number of possible uses.

It's just a start but it's better than not having any message at all. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user subpages/user talk archives[edit]

Your user subpages/user talk archives are still under Ambi/. Would you like them moved under Rebecca/ (to conform with your new username)? Editor88 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories[edit]

What would you think of converting this article in a overarching Electoral systems in Australia covering the Commonwealth and the states and territories? Each jurisdiction could then be dealt with appropriately in a daughter article much like Australian electoral system.--cj | talk 03:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other inaccuracies, yes. I'm not sure of the exact rules in each state, so I don't want to touch those just yet.
It wouldn't differ significantly from the existing article; the change would essentially mean renaming the article; covering the Commonwealth; and condensing it overall as a summary article with forks for each system. It just seems more logical the current circumstance. You're right that most of this could and probably should be covered in the actual legislature articles, though. So perhaps instead of separate articles, we just utilise the "parliament of X" articles.--cj | talk 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Sgrayban (talk · contribs), the user who was blocked indefinately by James Forrester for threatening Adam Carr, has been unblocked by El C. Could you please take a look at this matter. Thanks. 172 | Talk 09:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Politicians from Western Australia[edit]

With the WA cats, you might want to subordinate Politicians of WA to People of WA and remove the latter from articles. Ambi 00:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (in a hurry so being terse)

Thanks. Yep, I'll get to it eventually. I'm playing with Senator by state categories at the moment. Snottygobble 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your quotes[edit]

I had not directly seen many of those, and I had never seen your quote collection, but I was nearly spitting my drink out my nose reading them. You had to be there (or near at least) for most of them, but thanks for the laughs. Like the new name by the way :) - Taxman Talk 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


:-) You like Canadians, eh? Awww, thats nice, I like Australians! :-)))

You seem like a nice person, all the best :-) --serbiana - talk 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Australians are much better than French Canadians for sure eh?, hehe Joke. :) Noxchi Borz 15:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, for sure ;-) --serbiana - talk 23:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 :) BTW you did a wounderful job on Serbija articles. But i find it very wrong to declare Kosovo as "independent". Serb historical roots are much too deep in Kosovo. But i still dont understand why Rebecca likes Canadians :) All the best. Noxchi Borz 02:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


This seems to be a somewhat inactive project. Do you have any plans to do anything to get the project going again? No offense, but when joining it I expected to actually have to do some work! Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just a friendly question. Thank you! --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Nobody had taken this name already? A common first name? Everyking 10:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Well, I remember hearing many times that taking over another person's name like that would not be done. So my suspicion is they made a special exception for you. Everyking 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Bully? I refer to you ArbCom cases EK1, 2, and 3, and also the log of my blocks. A bully who routinely gets the crap kicked out of him by those he supposedly bullies is not much of a bully. Everyking 04:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, my last ArbCom restrictions were imposed in large part because I was trying to keep people from being bullied. And was doing so by attempting reason and discussion—not the punches and kicks represented by the blocks used by my opponents. Everyking 04:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

More fun if you're interested[edit]

Please see Exmormonism - it has had several changes by both Mormons and Exmormons, not to mention harsh discussion. (I'm probably one of the worst.) Anyway, it could use a non-intersted party. Greenw47 05:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


"Plainly not notable" indeed! If I wasn´t in Berlin on a glorious spring morning with much better things to do, I´d be very offended. Adam 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


His continual creation of attack pages against Adam Carr is getting rediculous. Xtra 10:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

John Howard[edit]

I wanted to mention the article to show why he is called Honest John. I lived in Australia a long time, and he was always being called that. However, it was not my intention to show that he really is honest. It could be read that way, though. Wallie 08:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

MP lists[edit]

I noticed that you're adding lists of MPs to the talk pages of articles that already have them. What's that for? Rebecca 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm finding that the big list is getting out of synch with the ones on the articles - so I moving them to the talk pages first and then checking them one-by-one to update the article version. The other ones that don't have an article version would remain in the talk pages until they are complete. -- Newhoggy | Talk 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Project page for electorate work?[edit]

Hi Rebecca,

Is there a project page for Australian electorates?

-- Newhoggy | Talk 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Hi Rebecca,

John Howard 2[edit]

I did live in Australia from 1980 to 1988. The problem is one I am find a lot with Wikipedia, is that young people like yourself tend to think that us older folk are not honest. Actually, I think some are trying to shut us out. I find the cynicism in youth today very disappointing. I really dread what the people of today will be like at my age. I can only hope the young people in, say 2035, revolt. In the 1980s, John Howard was certainly thought of as being honest, and the label was really meant then. I was struggling in your country, and John Howard personally helped me out. I was told my name is even mentioned in Hansard, but I don't know how to confirm this. You probably think I am making this up. But it is the truth. and I swear that it is so. You may understand that, being a lawyer. Wallie 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Victoria University in Echuca[edit]

[12] is an example of a 2006 unit taught in Echuca. Two degree programs are taught there, a BA(Nyerna Studies) and a BEd(Nyerna Studies). matturn 08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, VU has never promoted the campus anywhere except perhaps in Echuca. I think they plan to close it now. I was a student at one of VU's Melbourne campuses when they opened it, and nothing was said other than a media release. City Queen wasn't listed in most things when it opened, but that soon changed. The Student Village often gets listed as a campus despite the lack of courses taught there. VU is generally inept, but that's another story...matturn 08:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Pleae see Discussion, where you articulate issues and arguments BEFORE you amend or edit articles, for Ted Baillieu. Thanks.


Hey Ambi (Rebecca :)) I slated Hyperactive Forums for deletion and it's gotten a bit overheated on its deletion page since posters on the forum are coming on and creating a fuss. Anyway, on this page, forum posters are talking about complaining to my place of business (which i mention on my user page) and complaining about my usage of wikipedia at work. Where can i place a request to have my userpage deleted? I'm not worried but I'd rather start a-fresh and make myself more anonymous. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Chanlord, I saw this message and immediately deleted your user and talk pages. Think of this as a stopgap measure; the pages can be undeleted if you change your mind, or if another admin opposes this action. (Beck, sorry for using your talk page to talk to Chanlord, but he doesn't have a talk page any more :-) ) Snottygobble 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Snottygobble and Ambi (for letting me use your userpage for me to communicate. I'll start afresh with my userpage. Is it possible to restore my talk page? I just wanted to deleted the references to my place of business on my userpage. Cheers -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 11:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've restored your talk page.--cj | talk 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of the block on User:IZAK[edit]

Dear Rebecca: I wonder if I might perhaps ask you why it was that you removed the 24-hour block on IZAK (talk · contribs) that I set? Of course, I am always open to feedback as to the administrative actions I apply (especially from such an experienced person such as yourself) but your unblock summary "erm, no" isn't really terribly helpful for me, as I can't really work out why the block was incorrect - especially since it was, after all, only a cautionary 24-hr block to attempt to get IZAK to conform to standard levels of civility. For example, IZAK had been fairly vile towards User:PZFUN over the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein, and had really taken things beyond all sensible proportion on that AfD. I would also have perhaps appreciated it if you had left me a talk page message to inform me that you had removed the block and why, as per the general consensus that admins shouldn't reverse each other's actions without discussion; although, of course, it is quite possible I may have been incorrect, in which case I'd appreciate it if I could know why. Thanks for your help. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK was emotional. He'd had to deal with some rather vile attacks on himself, and while perhaps not ideal, was hardly asking for a block. I see nothing particularly severe there, and certainly nothing that warrants the blocking of a respected, long-term contributor. Blocks are meant to be used as a last resort, not because someone gets on your nerves, and minor civility issues neither are, nor have ever been, grounds for blocking. Rebecca 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Rebecca: Thank you very much for your prompt response. Your reasoning is perfectly sound, and I defer to your better judgement. It's just he had been a bit acrimonious in general not just over this particular AfD and I thought perhaps a block might have been a mechanism in order to try to get him to see the gravity of needing to be civil; but you are right that blocks are meant to be a last resort, and that usually minor civility issues aren't inherently conducive towards being blocked. However since the pattern of incivility seemed to have extended over a long period of time I thought it was appropriate - and on occasions it could hardly be described as minor - although I accept that it was perhaps heavy-handed and will be more careful in future. Thanks for your assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second this. We shouldn't just willy nilly be reversing each other's actions without even the courtesy of discussing it. In this instance you didn't even post anything on-wiki, you just went ahead and did it. We admins need to have more respect for each other. --Cyde Weys 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is User:NicholasTurnbull out of control?[edit]

Hi, I only wish to comment about User:NicholasTurnbull's unannounced blocking which may be a serious abuse of his admin powers. Why does he not give any advance warnings that he intends to block someone? He recently blocked me without any warning whatsoever. He was not part of the heated discussion that I had been involved in, but prefers to swoop in from nowhere UNannounced and summarily block people, using ever-so-polite "hello and goodbye" messages. This is dictatorial behavior and should be stopped. IZAK 06:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cynna Neele ->Cynna Kydd[edit]

I'm not sure if this is big deal or not, but I took the liberty of moving the FAC page as well, so that the link on the talk page works. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Virginia Trioli[edit]

I am second that Virginia Trioli is a notable journalist, who deserves to have an article. So far the article does not explain her importance and could be deleted in any minute. Would you consider to extend the stub by at least a couple of sentences, so that Trioli's notability would be acknowledged? abakharev 05:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Get a life. Tony 10:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, both of you, it is much more difficult to achieve our aims if we do not adhere to the well-known guidelines of civility and assume good faith. --Blainster 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, ever since you had a major tizz about the removal of useless chronological links from the Patrick White article, and then staged a petulant walk-out, I've wondered about your priorities on WP. Your role in that ongoing WP dispute makes me highly suspicious of your bona fides.

I see that you were a member of some mediation committee below. I ... can't believe that. Demonstrate to me that you're an appropriate person to be mediating other people's disputes, please.

By the way, I do think that you're an excellent writer, especially given your youth. I've said that to you before, but I'm repeating it because I want to balance my remarks above. Tony 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I'd not bear so much ill-will towards you if you'd justified your views, point by point, in relation to my take on the issue. I've asked you to do so before, but you didn't. (Perhaps now is not the time to do this, though.) Tony 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Which one are you? Skinnyweed 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello from the Mediation Committee[edit]

Dear Mediators Emeriti:

I'm writing to all former/inactive mediators (now called "Mediators Emeriti" to emphasize the ability of any mediator to return at will to active participation on the Committee), to encourage each of you to share your wisdom and experience on the Committee by commenting on requests by new individuals to join the Committee.

The current Committee respects and appreciates the time you spent on the Committee, and the insight you can provide, and encourages you to take part in these discussions. Additionally, any mediator emeritus who has the time and would like to return to active mediation would be welcomed with great enthusiasm.

Yours respectfully, Essjay (TalkConnect) 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(I recognize that many of you left the Committee to go on to other responsibilities, particularly Arbitration and the Board, but we still welcome your input on new committee members and encourage your participation. Please don't feel guilty if you cannot participate; we just want to remind everyone that they are welcome to do so.)

User:Ambi vs User:Rebecca[edit]

If you are only maintaining one talk page... why edit under two accounts? This is not meant to be a hostile question I am puzzled - don't take offence. Garrie 04:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am being threatened by user:Grandmaster[edit]

User:Grandmaster is threatening me on grounds of freedom of speech just by creating a user box for the Project page which I am a member of. He also strategically places himself and another editor on certain articles and outweighs other editors work and edits by sheer numbers. This is grossly unfair. He additionally deletes information of relevanc and disending view on the talk pages. I want administrative involvment, please.

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles[edit]

I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.
Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:
1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).
2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.
As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.
This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.
Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.
Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.
Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Russian federal subjects[edit]

Hi, Rebecca! I am indeed still involved in this project and will eventually return to it. If you are interested in joining—by all means please do so. If you need a list of high-priority things to-do, let me know, or just dive in and contribute in the areas you feel need most work. Thanks much for your interest and willingness to help!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, it's probably even better than you don't have much background knowledge, because the most important thing to do (well, to complete I should say) is the infoboxes. Currently the majority of entries on Russian republics have infoboxes, but ideally all federal subjects should have them. Infoboxes are definitely a priority number one at this time. Adding them is fairly easy, but will require lots of research in your case, allowing you to understand the topic better and to build a foundation for you to make further improvements; all without going too deep into the details. Also, I recently added a new line ("legislature") to the infoboxes, but did not follow through with it. Most of the republics' infoboxes do not have this line filled—that's another task you may want to consider.
Anyway, that's just a suggestion. I'd love to see infoboxes done first, but if you are not going to have fun in the process, that can certainly wait. Another course of action can be taking any stub (Magadan Oblast, for example, is as good as any) and trying to expand it according to the guidelines of the project; perhaps one section at a time. I'm afraid I won't be of much help when it comes to the English-language resources (understandably, I prefer to use Russian sources and references), so if you find any good ones while you work, I'd much appreciate if you could share them with the rest of the project's participants (and, by the way, please add yourself if you decide to stay). And of course, feel free to contact me any time if you have questions. Again, thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You reverted me[edit]

You suggested that I "had an agenda" in putting the "Honest John" statement in my article. You also said that the supporting article did not support this. I responded to you, and you did not even have the courtesy to reply. Wallie 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your replied to me:
I stand by what I said. You're writing about your own, personal, twenty year old fond memories of someone, which is not neutral. I really don't aim to get into a pissing contest with you over this, but please take the word of everyone else who has commented on this matter (who have actually lived in Australia since the 1980s) in saying that this is not the contemporary meaning of the label. If this stood for any length of time, I guarantee Wikipedia would wind up getting quite publicly laughed at in The Age or the Sydney Morning Herald. Rebecca 03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I simply gave my experiences to show that I did not "have an agenda". My personal viewpoint is irrelevent. What I put in the article should at issue, not me. Your use word "contemporary" worries me also... I think there is an important issue here. I mentioned that John Howard was called "Honest John" and that he is thought of by the public in that way. To back this up, I supported it with an article, which said he had a sixty percent approval rating by the public, which has remained reasonably constant over time. On a personal note, I have not said anything about you, so why should you make value judgements on me? There is all to much emphasis on chipping away at a person's credibility to win a point, and not discussing the issue. Wallie 05:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Good. Now you're "on the topic". That is why I took away the bit about the public perception. On the subject of popularity, if you read the article on John Howard, you would think he was very unpopular. The article, any article, to my mind will reflect the overall POV of the sum of the contributors. I guess that I get annoyed when I put something in an article, and someone else takes it out, assuming that I just put it in to cause trouble. My intention is certainly not to "get at you" personally, as I am sure you are a nice person. However, I don't want people to go away with the wrong idea about me either. Personal relationships of contributors are very important, to my mind, as bad relationships can have effects like bush fires do in your country, and be very destructive. Wallie 06:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. In a month or so's time. I have placed myself in the sin-bin, to cool down from Aust-NZ political articles. I had run afoul of a NZ Admin earlier, and didn't want attract undue attention from Aust ones too. Wallie 08:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rebecca, if you're the Ambi that used to revert Bobblewik's delinking of dates, would you care to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Bobblewik is at it again (80 edits in 30 minutes)? - thanks! (please read the whole discussion of that section on the WP:BOTS talk page) --Francis Schonken 14:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Port Arthur[edit]

Could you look at this diff please? It looks to me that the end result is that you've inadvertently added a fair bit more rubbish than has been removed. Most of it came from a long series of anon edits, and maybe you've removed some of it, but by no means all. Most of this material is very poorly written and depends on inline links from pro-conspiracy websites. --Surgeonsmate 08:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Four in the morning here and it looks like Thebainer has managed to clean up another attack of the overnight crazies, including one fine edit apparently disputing the fact that it was a murder. I'll keep an eye on the article. --Surgeonsmate 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

David Vigor and Early politicial parties[edit]

The Liberal Federation is on my list of articles to write (along with about 30 other articles). Something should be ready soonish. Keep up the good work with the SA related articles; South Australia seems oddly underrepresented in politics related articles. --Roisterer 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jena Malone revert[edit]

I am not suggesting any of the information is false in the Jena Malone article. I am suggesting that the information in it (much of which I've read in other sources) must be cited and referenced. Does that clarify my edits? -- backburner001 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to avoid a edit war, I have not yet reverted your last edit to Jena Malone. However, I would like an explanation of why you made the last edit without adding any additional commentary to your edit summary or making an attempt at discussion on my talk page or the article talk page. Please provide an explanation within 48 hours or I will revert back to my version of the article. -- backburner001 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits on Jena Malone and began adding inline citations to the article. Any further changes made to the article that revert my attempts to have the article referenced will be treated as vandalism. Please work with me to improve the article instead of stalling the process. -- backburner001 17:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

Its hopefully my third FA - but I'll be doing the rounds asking everyone to take a look and submitting a peer review first. Feel free to check it / offer any further comments (although the one you've already made certainly is promising!). Cheers, michael talk 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Adele Farina[edit]

The subject is complaining via email and the article does lack sources. Is there some additional history behind this matter that we should be aware of before responding? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the article does not especially look good in it's current form and it definitely does not fall into the MOS I was wondering what if any ideas you might have to cleanup the article without "mangling the continuity" as you categorized my cleanup work. I also think that some of the facts for the article need proper sources as well which is something I'll try to look up tommorow. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Australian poets[edit]

Thanks for the note about the Red Links, I was told that if there was no article then the links should be removed. I will take your comment into consideration and thanks for contacting e on the Talk Page. WayneRay 18:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay


172 and Rebecca, thanks for your messages, which I appreciate. I think I will nevertheless take a break from the Cuba articles, since they are taking too much of my time and I don't feel like further aggro just now. The articles Cuba, Elections in Cuba, Human rights in Cuba and Cuban legislative election, 2003 all need vigilance, apart from the specific issue of the stupid "election results" tables at the last-named of these. BruceHallman is a simple-minded communist and/or fool who ought to be banned. Zleitzen is a bit more sophisticated but just as bad in practice. On the other hand the fanatical anti-comm Cuban editors like El Jigue are well-intentioned but not very helpful. Have fun. Adam 07:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Varela Project[edit]

I'm sorry to see we've lost Adam on this battle. Bruce Hallman is going beyond his earlier borders to infuse the Varela Project article with Communist propaganda. -- FRCP11 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rebecca. Thanks for taking me up on the offer to let anyone revert my edit. :o) [13] However, I was just curious, what does WP:BEANS have to do with it? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; I can certainly see your point. One of the reasons I decided to change it is that it seems to give people false hope. I've seen several times where people have self-nominated with ~1,500 edits, and then are baffled when they get lots of opposes based on edit counts ("but the page said 1,000 was enough?"). Perhaps we should consider removing that sentence altogether? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've made an edit to that page [14] with a corresponding edit to the talk page [15] (I hope you don't mind me quoting you). Let me know what you think, or you can comment on the talk page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Gumble, grumble, grumble. Just because others use ugly modish Americanisms doesn't mean we have to. Adam 05:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New user with similar name to yours[edit]

Hi Rebecca: Hope all goes well. Came across the name of a new user by the name of User:RivkaRebecca that seems so much like yours and wanted to let you know about it in case any confusion arises about any edits or other possible "cross-wires". Best wishes, IZAK 16:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik (after one week block)[edit]

Hi Rebecca, sorry to bother you again. With this: User talk:Bobblewik#Editing at bot speed again?.

I didn't list anything at WP:AN/I yet... it might have been just an unconscious slip... give Bobblewik the time to reply... but thought you should know...

Mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Bobblewik is at it again (80 edits in 30 minutes) already again though. Afaik this is only an "editing at bot speed" problem (thus far). --Francis Schonken 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA[edit]

100px Hello Rebecca. Thank you for your absolute support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation, especially with the number of highly ranked veterans such as yourself who made a rare visit to RfA in order to support. Of course, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Third-wave feminism[edit]

Hi, Rebecca: you removed my expansion tag from the Twf article without saying why, and I'm wondering... why?--Anchoress 04:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

in re jewish musician Ms. Rachael Sage[edit]

Please note that in Ms. Sage's official bio she say "When I started," she says, " I was writing a lot of music that sounded like Elton John - if he'd been a nice Jewish girl from a long line of Russian cantors."

Additionally further along it says As a teenager, Sage recorded hundreds of demos in the basement on a four-track (her Bat Mitzvah present), arriving at a provocative lyrical and vocal style recently described by Judy Collins as "a great gift...of incredible talent and beauty."

Both quotes are from her biography[16], which is listed under External links the bottom of the page. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ANU housing[edit]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I mean the main ANU campus; I'm taking up a lectureship there. Were you referring to this database, or something else? I was hoping for a bit more choice than that, but maybe that's unrealistic for a smaller city ... I'm used to San Francisco. Thanks again. Derex 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice on removing gender bias in hockey articles[edit]

Hi there, newer wikipedian here. Defenceman is an ice hockey player who plays the defence position. How do I get the article renamed 'defence player' or 'defence (ice hockey)'? I could start a discussion on the talk page, but I'm not sure that the typical hockey fan, or members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey are all that interested in removing gender bias. My only idea was to copy the article into a new one (with the gender-neutral name), then go and change all the pages that link to the old 'defenceman' page so they point to the new one, then nominate 'defenceman' for delation. I don't mind taking the time to do it, but is there a better way? Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks ColtsScore 05:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Page swap requested[edit]

Hi Rebecca, Can I please get a page swap so that the current Brighton-le-Sands, New South Wales article gets moved to Brighton-Le-Sands, New South Wales (capital L), and the redirect currently at Brighton-Le-Sands, New South Wales points to the small 'l' version? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've already done it. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Loney[edit]

If you are unwilling or unable to abide by the guidelines set forth in WP:CIVIL, you are no longer welcome to leave messages on my talk page. --Folajimi 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I need your help regarding the possible renaming and redirecting of deleted article on Male Unbifurcated Garment[edit]

Hi Rebecca! I was working with a few people on this article before it was deleted after a deletion vote about three weeks ago. It was sent to deletion review where also it was deleted. The main reason according to the admins was that the term is not very popular but the phenomenon itself is very common. So we were considering a vote on renaming it as Man-Skirt. I wanted to know how that vote can be done. I will be very obliged if you can help me. Unitedroad 21:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories[edit]

On 10 May you tagged Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories with {{accuracy}} and the comment in the edit summary of "tagging with disputed accuracy - some of the new changes are demonstratably wrong, and I don't have the knowledge to evaluate the rest". Comments in edit summaries are no substitution for comments on talk pages which are prescribed by the tag. Please share on the talk page which "new changes are demonstrable wrong".--A Y Arktos\talk 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts for Danny Nalliah[edit]

Can you have a look at your revert on Danny Nalliah, and check if you meant to revert everything you did? Some of the reverts you did that I found surprising included re-inserting "The Age newspaper quoted him as stating" and deleting <references/>. (This unsigned comment was by me - Andjam 10:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Mining in Australia is the new ACOTF[edit]

Hi. You voted for Mining in Australia for Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so please help to improve the article in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 13:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Info on the user Sgrayban[edit]

He's currently listed on WP:BU, but a commented request for more info. Do you remember if it was discussed anywhere, or if his legal threat is still around for evidence? Thanx. 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Orchestrated disruption[edit]

Hi Rebecca. Is there any grounds for banning people if they proclaim that they have/will be getting hundreds of IP addresses, so that they can engage in swamping out opponents in edit-wars?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely? a month? Would that mean that subsequent socks will also be blocked automatically for off-site disruption - as they would never have the same IP? I will post to WP:AN/I for review, obviously. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
you've got mail.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Danny Nalliah again[edit]

This is regarding Danny Nalliah. Please stop making careless reversions that destroy unarguably good improvements (such as <references/>) along with the stuff you disagree with, and please give useful edit summaries (or even use the talk page) regarding the portions you disagree with. Andjam 10:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is regarding [17] It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Also, I didn't remove the "known for" sentence this time. Since you did not discuss the edit on the article's talk page, I'll restore Capitalist Roadster's edit. Andjam 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You edited the talk page after you edited the article. I'm sorry that I didn't see that you had edited the talk page before I edited the article.

Can explain why <references/> isn't unarguably good? Thanks? Andjam 06:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've thrown up a NPOV label. Please do not remove it whilst there is conflict. michael talk 06:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Do we have an article for the Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT)? If not, should we? The bastards can't even present a rational justification...--cj | talk 07:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi-Lite Park[edit]

Back in April we crossed paths at Talk:Hi-Lite Park. I managed to locate a photograph of the old amusement park on the Geelong waterfront, though it's not in the public domain. See here. Unfortunately, the image doesn't show much at all. There's gotta be a local sitting on a pile of this stuff I'm sure. -- Longhair 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of rollback button[edit]

Hi Rebecca. Using the rollback button to revert content disputes - as you have here, here, here and here is not what the button is for. Please do not use the rollback button in this way again. Proto||type 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Law selections[edit]

Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rollback II[edit]

Lordy. I didn't quote a policy to you, and I wouldn't even if it was policied against. But you know full well it's not what it's for. And if you can't be bothered reverting the guy civilly, why not ask him via his talk page to stop doing it, and if he continues ask an uninvolved admin to intervene? It's gotta be better than continually reverting on what is just a content quibble. Proto||type 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Please do concentrate on your law exams - I hope they go well :-). I wil have a look at Stanhope and Barr - moreover, they will still be around after the exams!--A Y Arktos\talk 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Altona, Victoria
The Baltimore Sun
Cranbourne railway station, Melbourne
Humboldt's Gift
John Strohmeyer
Richard Shindell
Toorak railway station, Melbourne
Glen Waverley railway line, Melbourne
Great Ocean Road
Tales of the South Pacific
John M. Crewdson
City of Darebin
Cranbourne, Victoria
North Melbourne railway station
South Yarra, Victoria
Burwood, Victoria
Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti
John Patrick Shanley
Sadanori Nomura
Victoria Police
Bernard Bailyn
William Barak
Local Government Areas of New South Wales
Add Sources
Coles Myer
Frank Crean
John Fischetti
Brazilian Army
Name at birth
Chinese Super League 2004
Australia Prize
Maggie Gallagher
Luke Kelly

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 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

blocking a user from making changes[edit]

the user Rrude made false acusations on Saul Steinberg (business) page I consider what he put up libel and although I have made the proper corrections to the page I want to know that he is blocked from making any further accusations this is particularly personal because Saul Steinberg happens to be my father and the only reason I found out was because a friend was doing a search on him for paper on 70's corporate raiders and she was shocked to find that my father had allegedly broken certain business laws but was not prosecuted also there is an ongoing law suit against my father about his last corporation which the insurance regulaters commitee cleared him of any wrong doing but since there are people still suing us saying inflamatory and unfactual things on website that claims to be an encyclopedia is a real problem for me as well as my family I willing to leave this dispute at this as long the user in question is no longer allowed to make changes Thank You Holden Steinberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holden Steinberg (talkcontribs)

blocking a user from making changes[edit]

the user Rrude made false acusations on Saul Steinberg (business) page I consider what he put up libel and although I have made the proper corrections to the page I want to know that he is blocked from making any further accusations this is particularly personal because Saul Steinberg happens to be my father and the only reason I found out was because a friend was doing a search on him for paper on 70's corporate raiders and she was shocked to find that my father had allegedly broken certain business laws but was not prosecuted also there is an ongoing law suit against my father about his last corporation which the insurance regulaters commitee cleared him of any wrong doing but since there are people still suing us saying inflamatory and unfactual things on website that claims to be an encyclopedia is a real problem for me as well as my family I willing to leave this dispute at this as long the user in question is no longer allowed to make changes Thank You

          Holden Steinberg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Holden Steinberg (talkcontribs)


What is the point of wikifying 1916 when it is someone's birthdate but not wikifying it elsewhere? Adam 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Branch stacking[edit]

I have never seen a reference to "branch stacking" in relation to either the Greens or the Democrats. I'm not aware that these parties even have branches to "stack." Branch stacking in both the ALP and Liberal Party is a by-product of factional conflict. I have never seen any reference to the existence of formal factions or factional conflict in either the Greens or Democrats. They may well have leadership contests and policy disputes, but I don't think they have "branch stacking" in the sense that the term is defined in this article. What is your evidence that they do? Adam 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Technical High School[edit]

I was wondering if I could ask for your opinion on this edit - some users have been trying to insert a link to the class of 1984's website. I think it is most unencyclopedic, and there has been some heated discussion on my user talk page at User_talk:Enochlau#Removal_of_Class_of_1984_external_link, where no-one is budging. What do you think? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work![edit]

Hey Rebecca. I really like the work you have put into updating and creating pages on Melbourne Metropolitan Train Stations! With all that work, one would think you might be a Gunzel! :P --DennyCrane Talk 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal criticism[edit]

This is triggered by this comment, but comes on top of other comments such as "apparent refusal to discuss on talk", "POV-pushing", "Please, spare us the "unarguably good" rhetoric and control your biases.". Can you please try to tone down your statements? I also feel your allegations of POV are a bit off - if I'm a homophobe, why would I have created an article on Thomas McCosker, and Gay rights in Australia? Andjam 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What mistakes did I make in the gay rights in Australia article? Did I claim that IV drug users are allowed to give blood? And believe me, if I wanted to be provocative about Danny Nalliah, I wouldn't have started a talk section proposing the deletion of a word, and waited a few days on it. The sooner that's resolved, the sooner I can discuss other issues in the article. Andjam 11:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so my creation of an article on McCosker is a sign that I'm a homophobe? By the way, if you're proposing that an article get deleted, it's usually worthwhile writing something in an edit summary. On a serious note, isn't someone managing to get a law overturned as unconstitutional noteworthy? Andjam 12:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion[edit]

Insinuation of homophobia[edit]

I strongly protest you allegations made on my talk page, that the article exists because someone finds "him being a gay pedophile very interesting". (Since when is sex with a 23-year old pedophilia?) I was prompted to write an article about him in response to a blog post by Antony Loewenstein complaining about the lack of government support for McCosker.

And no, I haven't assumed you're "rabidly anti-conservative" based on you being "queer". I've raised the suspicion that you've over-used the word "conservative" based on your edit history. Andjam 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For the above: 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 admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Andjam 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't accuse of you of vandalism, I accused you of personal attacks. I don't think you're "rabidly anti-conservative", but I suspect you aren't a big fan of Danny Nalliah. Most of my criticisms of the article have received support from others, which wouldn't be the case if my criticisms were made in bad faith. Andjam 03:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've felt that I've commented on the article, not on the editor, with regards to Danny Nalliah. The main exception was when I was complaining about the way you reverting. One reason I thought you weren't a fan of Danny was that you made an unverified accusation of Danny saying bad stuff about Jews, though you later fixed that.

With regards to McCosker, do you wish to retract your accusation that the article exists because someone wanted to link homosexuality with pedophilia? Andjam 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your retraction. Andjam 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Janet and me[edit]

  • Thanks for your kind comment on my talk page.
  • At Janet Albrechtsen, I think "skanky ho" needs to be defined, or else it will have to be linked to a new article, which would be unfortunate.
  • Please archive this page. Adam 03:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)