Archive : January 2008
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orderinchaos/Archive_2008_01. |
exploding what? yuou keep such marvelopus company... happy new yuerts, new yorts or new yoghurts! trust the new youiur grabs you in the right locations. cheers from the hills of the coast with too many appelations (rain being the most operative at the moment) although gold and surfers etc happen Satu Suro 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't already aware: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cleanemupnowboys. I have no expectation on how you may or may not respond. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 10:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers and Happy New Year - yes back with some vengeance! -- VS talk 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to your post on my talk page ...
The only major work about the BKWSU is Dr John Walliss's book (not just his papers) Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Religion/ Director, Hope Centre for Millennialism Studies). The only other comparable is Dr Lawrence Babb's "Three Traditions ... etc" which is useful from both a historical and philosophical context as it was written in the 70s after he, as an anthropologist and expert in the Vallyabhacharya tradition of which Kripalani was part, spent time and lived with the Brahma Kumaris. It is "pure BK", useful as it is pre- (how do I put this professionally?) all the developing of marketing fronts targeted at Western expansion. There is a large work in German only but it was written by a very senior (in fact, the first I believe) Western BK who became an academic but is, sadly, factually incorrect or incomplete.
One thing I take into consideration in my contributions is that the Wikipedia is a "world" encyclopedia and the world includes the Indian experience. The BKs in India present themselves different, without the artifice I would say, than how the Western BKs do. This is part of problem. The BKs on the Wikipedia are Western BKs and, in my opinion, both want the topic to match the way BK is marketed to the West and are uncomfortable with straightforward documentation or exposures that are commonplace in India. You saw this in Appledell's comments about "not included in introductory course". In the West there is a "soft sell" and a focus on the diffusion products (values education, management training), as some of their beliefs are extreme (the channeling of God himself, exclusivity, the 5,000 cycle and dinosaurs etc); whereas in India, the BKs are by comparison modernish, fairly rational, almost Hindu revisionists and they tend to be entirely out front and, note by the academics, evangelical about their beliefs.
I think the topic should reflect the whole and I would ask you again to consider splitting it into at least; historical development, beliefs and practises. The main article could remain fairly stub-like and the sub-sequent articles be developed in detail. Thank you. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, Re your message that it's never necessary to file a sock report -> Yes, I agree (my point exactly, as long as one account is being used). My main point is that there appears to be a two-way COI and both sides need to refrain from personal attacks and aggressive editing.
Also, with Lucy, please note the pattern that if one agrees with the pro-BK camp, all of a sudden one's a meat puppet. If one disagrees, then one's uninformed and stupid and is commanded to go join BK for 6 months.
A case in point here is that from my academic reading of the group, there is mediumistic channeling. I put that in my third edit before this current protection. Lucy says that was factually wrong on my web page, yet it's in the version that he wants and in other places he argues this is what the group does. When I ask him for clarification he (again) ignores the request and fails to discuss it.
I appreciate the work you're doing putting people on notice about attacks and bogus reports. I also hope Lucy will actually start the sandbox. Cleanemupnowboys ( talk) 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Orderinchaos, Because of your earlier interest I thought it proper to inform you that I have now moved this discussion and titled it Naming convention (places) - renewed discussion - towards a single convention to here and have advertised same at WP:AWNB so as to invite all editors to provide their input. It will be interesting to see what interest is shown.-- VS talk 10:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Order,
Can you please respond to this third and this fourth unprovoked attack? ( Here is the first (scroll to end). I consider the rfcu the second, because it was an harassment tactic to divert attention from substance.)
This in particular is a clear example of WP:OWN.
I honestly see no good-faith efforts at focusing on substance; just a stubborn insistence that (a) any edit other than Lucy's is a BK PR team edit, and (b) Lucy's version is the only correct version with no room for movement. Where's the sandbox? Where's the answer to my question does he want mediumistic channeling or not? Nothing; just diversionary attacks.
Please help. Cleanemupnowboys ( talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate both of your responses but it seems like you're justifying inappropriate actions toward a user who did nothing to provoke these (myself!)!
I understand your point that he's engaging in displaced aggression but I would appreciate consistent application of the policies -- especially when I'm trying very hard to civilly focus and re-focus the discussion on content (despite constant patronizing harassment and attacks).
Thank you.
Cleanemupnowboys (
talk)
20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
The contribution history of User:Vastconspiracy makes a good case for this being an alternate account for indefintely-blocked User:Joestella whose block log is here. If so, I assume this is considered sockpuppetry as the user has created a new account without seeking the lifting of the indefinite block on the old one. At the least the block log should be transferred to the new account. I have never reported a sockpuppet before - am happy to do so but wanted to check that I have not misinterpreted the policy. Euryalus ( talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy. Timeshift ( talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Orderinchaos, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for your good quantity constructive comments; I hope I meet your expectations in serving the community. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
Well done - judging by my watchlist you have hardly stopped for breath! I'm looking for bits and pieces to add (beyond obscure double-l's). I've got a small bit to add to Doncaster Templestowe soonish -- Melburnian ( talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd just like to say thank you for resolving the "Richard Daft affair" and restoring order from what seemed like interminable chaos. I should not have got involved in any discussions with that person but there are times when you feel you must make some kind of response. I will continue to contribute but not as BlackJack. I had already changed my username a month before this fiasco occurred. I'm afraid we may have lost User:AlbertMW, however. Thanks again and all the best in 2008. Regards. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, OIC. By the size of my watchlist, I can see there has been a big renaming program for Victorian LGAs. If you don't mind, can you fill me in on the rationale please? I am interested on its application elsewhere. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to the Gary Forrester article. Much appreciated. Say, are you in Australia? Sounds like it. I have a step-brother & step-sister living in Melbourne, and my dad is an artist in NSW. Cheers,-- Georgette.mccallum ( talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you like in northern new south wales geography - the articles on the tweed the richmond and i think clarence have no mention of flooding history at all yet my kids (2 of them) are possibly about to get stuck up there because of the issue - and the number of locations on the current mad form of the pacific highway have numerous floodways marked and identified (... hmmm....) also the sugar industry of the northern news south wales is zilch but my documents on that are on the slow boat to perth :( -- anyways at least its not raining in sydney :| Satu Suro 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to effectively block usage via IP addresses, but the banned user Richard Daft is still active on the site. Having originally posted via User talk:88.111.83.82 he is now active via User:88.111.101.5. Furthermore, he has blanked the Richard Daft talk page on which your violations notice was displayed.
His recent additions to cricket articles are harmless enough except that he is still "promoting" his association without any neutral sources to verify his comment, which seems to violate WP:RS for example. Do you think we should revert his comments? -- BlackJack | talk page 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Its easy to do. When making {{ Riverina}}, an early version had Robinvale listed! Like all of these places along the Murray, including Albury-Wodonga, Corowa- Wahgunyah, Yarrawonga- Mulwala and Cobram- Barooga, Barham-Koondrook is the one community divided by arbitrary colonial boundaries. Bolte wanted to annex the Riverina, it might have made things a lot easier if he got his way. :-) -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey is there something wrong with you?...what is it that you have to keep bringing up that because i know the mayor or because i have Thuringowa in my name that everything i do is wrong, i sick to death of it iand i just wish you would wake up and understand that i have nothing to do with the council. I know the mayor from my old job, when i went to his house with a bobcat and moved soil around his backyard, after i stayed back for a BBQ and we became friends, we are not best buddys we just know each other and every now and then we catch up....GOT IT.... and the reasion my name has Thuringowa in it, is just because i live in Thuringowa and though this name will do, but i have come to see that some single minded people on here see that another way. Now while im going at it So what if Thuringowa as a city will be no more after March, you comment on the Les Tyrell page is unreal, Les is running for the Mayor of the new Townsville so why delete the page.....he has been in office for about 19 years, and why is it that Les's page is up for deletion when Tony Moony's Page isn't and he is the Mayor of Townsville and might not be After march, as far as i can see this is looking like a pick on Thuringowa again or maybe a pick on me becasue i have put some work into the page's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuringowacityrep ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on the talk page. Was interested in what you think in mind of consistency with other articles. Michellecrisp ( talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So where have we got to?
I have made the sandboxes, proposed and explained changes ... it strikes me that having achieve their objectives the BKs have no intent of developing the articles.
I would like to go back to when I entered into a detailed discussion of changes. I emphasize that this was NOT a sockpuppet account. I forgot my password and noted that in the following name change [1]. I put up for judgement, the editing done by that user. [2]
At what point, or with how much evidence does it take, to identify that what is going on here is not a genuine issue of "consensus" or discussion, or topic development? What is so critically wrong with the other developed version [3]. Most of the difference are merely good copy writing or formatting. I have to argue that there is nothing significantly different or damaging to the article but that for the BKs it is just a matter or removing the external links and downplaying the mediumship. To revert in totalis is just the easier thing to do ... and a good dissuader of further investment.
A the time, the page was under the effects of a then indefinitely banned IPSOS and acknowledge socks, who has since been banned again. I therefore argue that the climate that brought on this situation was artificial.
Thank you. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup Hesp has a point about the biggie - but i still reckon its a damned good project management tool that maybe only a few eds ever understand or appreciate where it works so well - Satu Suro 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Gawd - trawling around some of the mess in the place - ironstone - un disambiguated with an early name of mount morgan and not a drop of text in the art - this place hgt changed much :( Satu Suro 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replied. Thanks, Mattinbgn\ talk 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you ever run out of things to do :( - (how could I possible ask that you ask?) there is a minefield of tourist brochures and anecdote that need to be turned into articles - heheheh - anyways keep up the good work! Satu Suro 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Great work. — Moondyne 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards, Lester 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Even as even a few of our more hardline BLPers were amongst those who !voted "keep" in the instant discussion, I feared that someone would, noting, all too simplistically, that consensus developed at an insular XfD cannot override policy, etc., close this as delete; thanks, then, for acting sensibly here. Cheers, Joe 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand why most of these were done (had to change the UAP one as it was too similar to the Liberals), but I'm wondering what was wrong with the old independent colour. I personally prefer it, and find the new one a bit pale. Could you let me know your reasoning? Thanks. Frickeg ( talk) 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | ||
I, Rudget (not the compromised one :)), hereby give you a barnstar for your assumption of good faith even in extreme cases. I apologise for what happened with my account earlier, it caused a 'ight stir and I'll never leave my computer logged on again, at least whilst I'm not on it. I guess its back to editing then... Regards, Rudget . 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there, If you hadn't already seen, there's a meetup in planning for Melbourne soon. Please have a look and, if you can come, indicate your preference for a date at: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 9. Pass this message on to others you think might be interested.
Best, Witty Lama 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool. 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel misquoted. It was to show varying opinion. Even the people for a ban have different nuances of opinion. The quotes weren't meant to be list of "against ban" people. Archtransit ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry again. The intention was not bad. Archtransit ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that you changed the pop_rank for Newcastle from 2nd to 7th. Given that the article is about the UCL and the pop_rank of 7th is for the SD, which is twice as large, isn't that wrong? Thinking about it, there probably shouldn't be a pop_rank for the UCL at all. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just checking to see whether this category is actually needed. There seems to be a bewildering array of committees :) Orderinchaos 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | ||
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnan garra 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
I don't know how to give branstar, but you deserve that, especially for the work you have done in Brahma Kumari in divine indication section, with people like you, wikipedia is sure to remain what it is, and will not become what it is not. :) There is a difference between patience and infinite patience. and you have demonstrated that, which is very very rare. thanks for being here... -- Cult free world ( talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Mentor I plead help me decode the messages on fair use on my talk page. I can't make head or tail of it. I know I'm in the right, just a procedure thing I think. Strange how I added the two images about a year ago or something, must be a new bot on the beat.-- 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive : January 2008
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orderinchaos/Archive_2008_01. |
exploding what? yuou keep such marvelopus company... happy new yuerts, new yorts or new yoghurts! trust the new youiur grabs you in the right locations. cheers from the hills of the coast with too many appelations (rain being the most operative at the moment) although gold and surfers etc happen Satu Suro 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't already aware: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cleanemupnowboys. I have no expectation on how you may or may not respond. Regards Bksimonb ( talk) 10:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers and Happy New Year - yes back with some vengeance! -- VS talk 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to your post on my talk page ...
The only major work about the BKWSU is Dr John Walliss's book (not just his papers) Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Religion/ Director, Hope Centre for Millennialism Studies). The only other comparable is Dr Lawrence Babb's "Three Traditions ... etc" which is useful from both a historical and philosophical context as it was written in the 70s after he, as an anthropologist and expert in the Vallyabhacharya tradition of which Kripalani was part, spent time and lived with the Brahma Kumaris. It is "pure BK", useful as it is pre- (how do I put this professionally?) all the developing of marketing fronts targeted at Western expansion. There is a large work in German only but it was written by a very senior (in fact, the first I believe) Western BK who became an academic but is, sadly, factually incorrect or incomplete.
One thing I take into consideration in my contributions is that the Wikipedia is a "world" encyclopedia and the world includes the Indian experience. The BKs in India present themselves different, without the artifice I would say, than how the Western BKs do. This is part of problem. The BKs on the Wikipedia are Western BKs and, in my opinion, both want the topic to match the way BK is marketed to the West and are uncomfortable with straightforward documentation or exposures that are commonplace in India. You saw this in Appledell's comments about "not included in introductory course". In the West there is a "soft sell" and a focus on the diffusion products (values education, management training), as some of their beliefs are extreme (the channeling of God himself, exclusivity, the 5,000 cycle and dinosaurs etc); whereas in India, the BKs are by comparison modernish, fairly rational, almost Hindu revisionists and they tend to be entirely out front and, note by the academics, evangelical about their beliefs.
I think the topic should reflect the whole and I would ask you again to consider splitting it into at least; historical development, beliefs and practises. The main article could remain fairly stub-like and the sub-sequent articles be developed in detail. Thank you. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, Re your message that it's never necessary to file a sock report -> Yes, I agree (my point exactly, as long as one account is being used). My main point is that there appears to be a two-way COI and both sides need to refrain from personal attacks and aggressive editing.
Also, with Lucy, please note the pattern that if one agrees with the pro-BK camp, all of a sudden one's a meat puppet. If one disagrees, then one's uninformed and stupid and is commanded to go join BK for 6 months.
A case in point here is that from my academic reading of the group, there is mediumistic channeling. I put that in my third edit before this current protection. Lucy says that was factually wrong on my web page, yet it's in the version that he wants and in other places he argues this is what the group does. When I ask him for clarification he (again) ignores the request and fails to discuss it.
I appreciate the work you're doing putting people on notice about attacks and bogus reports. I also hope Lucy will actually start the sandbox. Cleanemupnowboys ( talk) 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Orderinchaos, Because of your earlier interest I thought it proper to inform you that I have now moved this discussion and titled it Naming convention (places) - renewed discussion - towards a single convention to here and have advertised same at WP:AWNB so as to invite all editors to provide their input. It will be interesting to see what interest is shown.-- VS talk 10:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Order,
Can you please respond to this third and this fourth unprovoked attack? ( Here is the first (scroll to end). I consider the rfcu the second, because it was an harassment tactic to divert attention from substance.)
This in particular is a clear example of WP:OWN.
I honestly see no good-faith efforts at focusing on substance; just a stubborn insistence that (a) any edit other than Lucy's is a BK PR team edit, and (b) Lucy's version is the only correct version with no room for movement. Where's the sandbox? Where's the answer to my question does he want mediumistic channeling or not? Nothing; just diversionary attacks.
Please help. Cleanemupnowboys ( talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate both of your responses but it seems like you're justifying inappropriate actions toward a user who did nothing to provoke these (myself!)!
I understand your point that he's engaging in displaced aggression but I would appreciate consistent application of the policies -- especially when I'm trying very hard to civilly focus and re-focus the discussion on content (despite constant patronizing harassment and attacks).
Thank you.
Cleanemupnowboys (
talk)
20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
The contribution history of User:Vastconspiracy makes a good case for this being an alternate account for indefintely-blocked User:Joestella whose block log is here. If so, I assume this is considered sockpuppetry as the user has created a new account without seeking the lifting of the indefinite block on the old one. At the least the block log should be transferred to the new account. I have never reported a sockpuppet before - am happy to do so but wanted to check that I have not misinterpreted the policy. Euryalus ( talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy. Timeshift ( talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Orderinchaos, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for your good quantity constructive comments; I hope I meet your expectations in serving the community. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
Well done - judging by my watchlist you have hardly stopped for breath! I'm looking for bits and pieces to add (beyond obscure double-l's). I've got a small bit to add to Doncaster Templestowe soonish -- Melburnian ( talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd just like to say thank you for resolving the "Richard Daft affair" and restoring order from what seemed like interminable chaos. I should not have got involved in any discussions with that person but there are times when you feel you must make some kind of response. I will continue to contribute but not as BlackJack. I had already changed my username a month before this fiasco occurred. I'm afraid we may have lost User:AlbertMW, however. Thanks again and all the best in 2008. Regards. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, OIC. By the size of my watchlist, I can see there has been a big renaming program for Victorian LGAs. If you don't mind, can you fill me in on the rationale please? I am interested on its application elsewhere. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to the Gary Forrester article. Much appreciated. Say, are you in Australia? Sounds like it. I have a step-brother & step-sister living in Melbourne, and my dad is an artist in NSW. Cheers,-- Georgette.mccallum ( talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you like in northern new south wales geography - the articles on the tweed the richmond and i think clarence have no mention of flooding history at all yet my kids (2 of them) are possibly about to get stuck up there because of the issue - and the number of locations on the current mad form of the pacific highway have numerous floodways marked and identified (... hmmm....) also the sugar industry of the northern news south wales is zilch but my documents on that are on the slow boat to perth :( -- anyways at least its not raining in sydney :| Satu Suro 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to effectively block usage via IP addresses, but the banned user Richard Daft is still active on the site. Having originally posted via User talk:88.111.83.82 he is now active via User:88.111.101.5. Furthermore, he has blanked the Richard Daft talk page on which your violations notice was displayed.
His recent additions to cricket articles are harmless enough except that he is still "promoting" his association without any neutral sources to verify his comment, which seems to violate WP:RS for example. Do you think we should revert his comments? -- BlackJack | talk page 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Its easy to do. When making {{ Riverina}}, an early version had Robinvale listed! Like all of these places along the Murray, including Albury-Wodonga, Corowa- Wahgunyah, Yarrawonga- Mulwala and Cobram- Barooga, Barham-Koondrook is the one community divided by arbitrary colonial boundaries. Bolte wanted to annex the Riverina, it might have made things a lot easier if he got his way. :-) -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey is there something wrong with you?...what is it that you have to keep bringing up that because i know the mayor or because i have Thuringowa in my name that everything i do is wrong, i sick to death of it iand i just wish you would wake up and understand that i have nothing to do with the council. I know the mayor from my old job, when i went to his house with a bobcat and moved soil around his backyard, after i stayed back for a BBQ and we became friends, we are not best buddys we just know each other and every now and then we catch up....GOT IT.... and the reasion my name has Thuringowa in it, is just because i live in Thuringowa and though this name will do, but i have come to see that some single minded people on here see that another way. Now while im going at it So what if Thuringowa as a city will be no more after March, you comment on the Les Tyrell page is unreal, Les is running for the Mayor of the new Townsville so why delete the page.....he has been in office for about 19 years, and why is it that Les's page is up for deletion when Tony Moony's Page isn't and he is the Mayor of Townsville and might not be After march, as far as i can see this is looking like a pick on Thuringowa again or maybe a pick on me becasue i have put some work into the page's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuringowacityrep ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on the talk page. Was interested in what you think in mind of consistency with other articles. Michellecrisp ( talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So where have we got to?
I have made the sandboxes, proposed and explained changes ... it strikes me that having achieve their objectives the BKs have no intent of developing the articles.
I would like to go back to when I entered into a detailed discussion of changes. I emphasize that this was NOT a sockpuppet account. I forgot my password and noted that in the following name change [1]. I put up for judgement, the editing done by that user. [2]
At what point, or with how much evidence does it take, to identify that what is going on here is not a genuine issue of "consensus" or discussion, or topic development? What is so critically wrong with the other developed version [3]. Most of the difference are merely good copy writing or formatting. I have to argue that there is nothing significantly different or damaging to the article but that for the BKs it is just a matter or removing the external links and downplaying the mediumship. To revert in totalis is just the easier thing to do ... and a good dissuader of further investment.
A the time, the page was under the effects of a then indefinitely banned IPSOS and acknowledge socks, who has since been banned again. I therefore argue that the climate that brought on this situation was artificial.
Thank you. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup Hesp has a point about the biggie - but i still reckon its a damned good project management tool that maybe only a few eds ever understand or appreciate where it works so well - Satu Suro 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Gawd - trawling around some of the mess in the place - ironstone - un disambiguated with an early name of mount morgan and not a drop of text in the art - this place hgt changed much :( Satu Suro 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replied. Thanks, Mattinbgn\ talk 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you ever run out of things to do :( - (how could I possible ask that you ask?) there is a minefield of tourist brochures and anecdote that need to be turned into articles - heheheh - anyways keep up the good work! Satu Suro 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Great work. — Moondyne 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards, Lester 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Even as even a few of our more hardline BLPers were amongst those who !voted "keep" in the instant discussion, I feared that someone would, noting, all too simplistically, that consensus developed at an insular XfD cannot override policy, etc., close this as delete; thanks, then, for acting sensibly here. Cheers, Joe 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand why most of these were done (had to change the UAP one as it was too similar to the Liberals), but I'm wondering what was wrong with the old independent colour. I personally prefer it, and find the new one a bit pale. Could you let me know your reasoning? Thanks. Frickeg ( talk) 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | ||
I, Rudget (not the compromised one :)), hereby give you a barnstar for your assumption of good faith even in extreme cases. I apologise for what happened with my account earlier, it caused a 'ight stir and I'll never leave my computer logged on again, at least whilst I'm not on it. I guess its back to editing then... Regards, Rudget . 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there, If you hadn't already seen, there's a meetup in planning for Melbourne soon. Please have a look and, if you can come, indicate your preference for a date at: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 9. Pass this message on to others you think might be interested.
Best, Witty Lama 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool. 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel misquoted. It was to show varying opinion. Even the people for a ban have different nuances of opinion. The quotes weren't meant to be list of "against ban" people. Archtransit ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry again. The intention was not bad. Archtransit ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that you changed the pop_rank for Newcastle from 2nd to 7th. Given that the article is about the UCL and the pop_rank of 7th is for the SD, which is twice as large, isn't that wrong? Thinking about it, there probably shouldn't be a pop_rank for the UCL at all. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just checking to see whether this category is actually needed. There seems to be a bewildering array of committees :) Orderinchaos 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | ||
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnan garra 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
I don't know how to give branstar, but you deserve that, especially for the work you have done in Brahma Kumari in divine indication section, with people like you, wikipedia is sure to remain what it is, and will not become what it is not. :) There is a difference between patience and infinite patience. and you have demonstrated that, which is very very rare. thanks for being here... -- Cult free world ( talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Mentor I plead help me decode the messages on fair use on my talk page. I can't make head or tail of it. I know I'm in the right, just a procedure thing I think. Strange how I added the two images about a year ago or something, must be a new bot on the beat.-- 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)