I realise that the link I added to www.hes-all-right.blogspot.com is a blog, but so is Boltwatch, the link above that. I came across Boltwatch because of the wikipedia article and believe that the other side of the debate should be shown. This site was just started today, but if the wikipedia article linked to it alongside the link to Boltwatch, I believe it would get more publicity, hits and comments and would run as the flipside to Boltwatch and this would be valuable to everyone.

However, I will try adding the link at a later time when the content of the site is more complete. —This unsigned comment was added by 220.237.172.187 ( talk • contribs) .

Hello. I appreciate that BoltWatch is also a blog, but as I am sure you are aware, it is also a very popular blog with a decent history of its own. Generally Wikipedia articles don't link to blogs, except where they're particularly relevant. Most editors also consider it inappropriate for people to post links to Wikipedia in order to promote their website. If you would like some more information, see Wikipedia:External links.

By the way, you should consider registering an account, that way you won't be bothered with messages left for other users of the shared IP you are using. -- bainer ( talk) 08:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I agree that BoltWatchWatch should not be mentioned until it has been going for a while and achieved some significance. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should help people find notable blogs, not help make them notable. Chris Chittleborough 10:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for following up on this OTRS request and releasing the block of this IP address. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

<3 -- 72.160.73.242 12:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

:) still not as funny as WP:DEATHRAYS though. -- bainer ( talk) 12:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow, is there an echo in here...? pfctdayelise ( translate?) 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Uh-oh, strike two! One more and she's out/someone has to say something. Which other lectures is she doing, can you remember? I'm rewriting the Gurindji Strike (gonna move it to Wave Hill strike) right now, maybe I'll get some of that stuff into the lecture. -- bainer ( talk) 13:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Can't remember. The Gurindji Strike -- ah, that is the Paul Kelly song. I suspected it was. Don't move it, make Wave Hill a RDR!

I want to ask her where she's sourcing some of her multimedia stuff, at least. I loved that video today, how fantastic was it?! Just the thing commons: needs :) pfctdayelise ( translate?) 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Thebainer : ) Thank- you for switching the article name and cleaning up the article. I thought about doing that myself. Much better for you to do it. Hope the unsourced information stays out. -- FloNight ^talk 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, it seemed like the most sensible solution. I'll be watching the article closely from now on too. -- bainer ( talk) 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the dispute has died down now. I don't think anyone has any immediate plans to rename. :) Stevage 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes you're right, and thanks for reminding me (I had sort of forgotten :) ). -- bainer ( talk) 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, my name is Josh Wolf and earlier this week someone learned of my encounter with the grand jury and started an article about me under the name Joshua Wolf. The log reveals much about how people decided I wasn't notable after googling my name as Joshua; however, though I don't know whether I really am particularly notable, I'm certainly much more recognized as Josh Wolf than I am Joshua.

A few notable achievements: Was an early critical voice regarding Current TV's policies -- this resulted in TIME and Salon Coverage.

My footage has also been used in several legal cases on behalf of activists who were wrongly persecuted. Thanks for your consideration... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.146.120 ( talk • contribs) .

Hello Josh. The article that was started about you was deleted following the articles for deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Wolf. I didn't participate in the debate, I was simply carrying out the conclusion that was reached. If you have new information that wasn't available during the debate, or that people simply weren't aware of, that may have affected the outcome of the debate, then you can appeal the result of the debate to deletion review.

For example, if noone knew that you are better known as Josh Wolf, then they may not have found the Time or Salon coverage - if you can show a link to the coverage, then people may change their mind about whether you are notable or not. There are instructions for how to appeal a debate at the deletion review page, feel free to ask if you have any more questions. -- bainer ( talk) 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

--Thanks for the response, I'll go ahead and follow up on that -- is there any way for me to read the article that had been up on wikipedia about me? I'm curious how it was written... thanks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.146.120 ( talk • contribs) .

Just ask any of the admins listed at Category:User undeletion, and they will undelete it into your user space (out of the encyclopaedia space). However, you should probably register an account first so that you have a user space to undelete the article in to. -- bainer ( talk) 23:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Cool, I think I did all that correctly... so far it seems I've not been deemed notable -- and that's totally cool, but at the same time, the fact that the entry for "Josh Wolf" is a re-direct for the soccer star "Josh Wolff" is somewhat frustrating given the fact that if people did feel that my history is worth creating a wikipedia entry, doing so would not be a simple operation... thanks again. Joshwolf 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I see you redirected the page Theni district, which I had nominated for deletion; thanks for cleaning that up. (On reflection, I probably could have checked that out myself. Live and learn.) I have a question about the four related pages I nominated at the same time. I've checked them out; they are all copyvios as well, and two of them are actually duplicates of each other. Now the deletion debate has closed, what - if anything - should I do about these? Eron 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Right, sorry I forgot to clean those up aswell, thanks for reminding me. You need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I've now done that for the four articles in question. -- bainer ( talk) 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You closed the debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey with speedy keep. Now the article is gone. Could you find out how (and if possible why) that happened? Thanks. Lambiam ^Talk 14:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the slow reply. It seems that El C deleted the article because it was a duplicate of content already at Armenian Genocide: deletion log. I think that El C thought that it could very likely turn into a POV fork. Do you know whether the content in Armenian Genocide was copied from the deleted article, or copied to the deleted article? -- bainer ( talk) 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I don't know if any content was copied in any direction between the articles. At the time of the AfD debate I thought the article was a fair start for factoring-out of material into a proper sub-article. This is called an article spinout in Wikipedia:Content forking. One can disagree on the amount of detail in reporting about the Turkish position in the Armenian Genocide debate. But what the official position of the Republic of Turkey is, is essentially a matter of record, and is relatively easy to treat from a neutral position. I think having such spinouts is a good way to reduce the battle in the main article, where people keep insisting on adding or removing material related to the points of view of the sides in the debate, whether by POV pushing or in a neutral way (in which case they will nevertheless be accused of being POV pushers). So I am somewhat disappointed that the article has been disappeared without proper debate. Is this within the range of normal things for admins to do? Now we have a much worse article: Armenian allegations, which will most likely get deleted after an acrimonious debate. Lambiam ^Talk 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I just came across Law of Australia and I have to say you did a fantastic job. KI 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The nominator attempted to nominate other articles along with this one..."

Noooo, the nominator investigated whether there were any precedents other than the one he remembered -- the Mariah Carey remix list discussion -- and finding none, asked people's opinion on the applicability of the same standard applied previously -- and possibly to be applied in the current nomination. -- Calton | Talk 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, this is the sentence that raised the issue: "If these lists are inappropriate, should these be nuked/merged, too?" At least one other editor ( Ned Scott) thought you were including those other three lists in the nomination, so I was making the situation clear to anyone else who might read the debate. -- bainer ( talk) 10:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireweed Democracy Project

Hmmm... I'd suggest that the close of this might have had less to do with voting and a bit more to do with WP:V. Are you open to discussing this a bit more? - brenneman ^{L} 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, I presume you're suggesting I should have been a little more flexible in determining the outcome of the debate? I'm of course open to it in appropriate cases, but I don't think there was much more than numbers in play here. It seems that the only argument raised was notability, which is usually quite subjective, and thus unfortunately numbers tend to be fairly decisive. Of course, I would have been open to considering WP:V beyond the numbers had anyone raised it in the debate, but I'm not going to bring completely new arguments into play. -- bainer ( talk) 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

To avoid split discussions I'll talk here and watch here, so replies can go here.
I cannot disagree with anything that you've said above. But letting an (arguably) bad decision stand doesn't sit well with me, either.
One potential (if odd) thing would be having the debate re-opened and the issue of verifivation raised. This avoids the taint of re-nominations, lets all the existing participants' recomendations stand, but also corrects a potential problem. I'm trying to find some better sources now, but if I can't find them would you consider doing that?
brenneman ^{L} 00:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I am new here and my entry has been nominated for deletion because of vanity. I reworked the entry as suggested, and am wondering what I do now?

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. -- Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Thebainer, I saw your comments about mediation on Adam's rfc page. It would be a great boost if you could persuade Adam to constructively comment on the content and drop his "robust" tactics". No one’s asking Adam to concede his beliefs, it’s just that we feel he should be more inclusive, respect others and share editorial control. A cup of tea would suit me fine!  ;) -- Zleitzen 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been rather busy lately. What I meant on that page was that I'd be happy to mediate the content at Cuba, I find that it's usually easier to try to fix the content rather than trying to fix behaviour. It tends to work fairly well by taking away the basis for arguments. -- bainer ( talk) 14:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I am presently coordinating a team of advocates re: my RfC for harassment by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your consideration and nice photo ;>. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 19:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Joel, I presume you saw me in the list of advocates at the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm afraid I'm a little busy at the moment to do any advocacy work, but I see you've recieved some good advice already. I might have a look into the RfCs if I have time, however. -- bainer ( talk) 15:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The Wiki community which should rid itself of all personal attacks. We can use an eyeball and fair comment from you on this RfC. You deserve much praise for your good work. Bonnieisrael 15:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for stepping up. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

In the past 24 hours there has been an escalation in the war of the words between user:Israelbeach and user:Woggly. Woggly who never apologized for her personal attacks against Israelbeach was never addressed or blocked for these attacks by the administrators. In fact, she has been attacking Israelbeach, whose identity is for all to see, from an anonymous position. Not very fair or ethical!

Israelbeach, in turn, revealed Woggly's identity, something he was wrong for doing. According to Wiki policy: "This sort of behavior is blockable on its own (for example, moving another user's User Talk page), but should be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 1 day ban might become a 1 week ban if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. The block should only be enforced after warning the user and these pleas go ignored."

Israelbeach was warned by user:jpgordon and according to the logs deleted all material within minutes. Israelbeach should not have been blocked according to Wiki policy as he never ignored any warnings by adm but reacted quickly to them.

Woggly is now rightfully worried about legal action that Israelbeach can take against her for stating, without substance, that he was "dangerous" and other accusations made in front of his local community and the world public. She now appears to be leaving Wikipedia on her own.

Solution: Both Israelbeach and Woggly are professional editors and should be encouraged to stay with the Wiki project. The block on Israelbeach should be removed immediately, as it only serves to increase conflict. Remember, after a first warning, Israelbeach on his own removed all personal data even though he thought he was correct due to that personal information regarding Woggly was posted by Woggly with a direct link to Wikipedia that anyone can find on a simple Google search.

Both Israelbeach and Woggly should be warned with no punitive action taken and instructed not to interact with one another on Wikipedia. These are two professionals with tremendous pride - do not expect either to aplogize at this point. We must encourage both users to stay, to avoid court action (with the documentation that Israelbeach has on these clear personal attacks, no judge would deny Woggly's guilt) and keep Wikipedia operating with less negative news coverage.

I do not blame Woggly or Israelbeach for their now wanting to resign from Wikipedia, I place the blame solely on the desk of the administrators who could have taken action on the personal attacks which started this conflict. Woggly and Israelbeach are both assets to Wikipedia, all action should be taken to keep them here. I will be posting message in how to resolve this matter this on other pages. Nancetlv 12:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Firstly, I'll refer you to the blocking policy, which says "Users who post personal details about other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated." After discussing the issue with some other admins on IRC, I decided to block Israelbeach indefinitely, until he apologised to Woggly and Woggly accepted the apology. This was the response: [1]

Secondly, I'll refer you to the discussion on WP:ANI, where User:Jpgordon said: "I did chastise Israelbeach for posting the information, and he kinda-halfway removed it while announcing to the world where it could be found; I was lenient only because I've been involved... otherwise I'd have blocked him immediately for disruption and harassment." All admins who have considered this issue so far are in agreement about the block and its conditions. I suggest you raise the issue further at WP:ANI if you have a problem with the block.

Thirdly, even if the block for posting personal information were to be removed, Israelbeach is still under a block for contravening the no legal threats policy: [2]. The block is indefinite while legal threats are outstanding. -- bainer ( talk) 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Then you must block Woggly as well for her legal threats. Nancetlv 13:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think that all this has been blown way out of proportion. The original issue raised by Israelbeach was related to father's rights in Ra'anana, a very legitimate news item for discussion. Whether or not this is the appropriate forum for discussion of the news item (i.e. Wikipedia rather than the press) has long been forgotten. Woggly's personal attacks and legal threats towards Israelbeach and the claim that she is afraid for herself and her children are unfounded and imply that Israelbeach is a dangerous person. What is Woggly's agenda for doing this? I did suggest that she contact me and that I would try to help resolve this issue but Woggly declined. I agree that Israelbeach should not have published personal information. But he was warned and he immediately removed the information as requested. He also stated that he found Woggly's information in a simple google search. The search yielded a site that had a link to Woggly's wikipedia page. In addition, I think the administrator, by blocking Israelbeach, has given unwarranted credibility and support to Woggly personal attacks. harrassment and legal threats. If Israelbeach is blocked for legal threats than Woggly should be blocked for making personal attacks and legal threats as well. Moreover, I agree with nancetlv - the rules have to be enforced equally. It's time to get back on track and stop this unnecessary digression from the real issues. In order to resolve this once and for all, unblock Israelbeach and address Woggly's persistent use of personal attacks and threats. It's time to resolve this and let these two capable editiors continue their work on Wikipedia. Bonnieisrael 17:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with both Bonnie and Nancy. ::Why is Israelbeach blocked for legal threats and Woggly is not? There does not appear to be equal enforcement of Wikipedia rules in this case. When will Israelbeach's block be lifted? As many others have stated, this blocks serves to create more conflict, not reduce it. Israelbeach states that he acted in good faith. It appears his posting of private information was due to ignorance, not malice as it is documented that he immediately responded to an adm's first warning of deleting all data. By looking at his extensive experience (Newsday, UPI, Jerusalem, Israel News Agency, Google News) Israelbeach normally gets paid well for his copywriting and professional editing skills, here Wiki gets it for free. He has in addition made every effort to resolve this dispute with Woggly, who has rejected his every overture. We should encourage Israelbeach to stay and develop this project. Davidstone 08:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

After reading all the facts of this dispute - I really don't understand why Israelbeach has been blocked while Woogly goes on editing after making very clear and transparent personal attacks, legal threats and overall harrasments against Israelbeach.

I would expect that the managment of Wikipedia and its volunteer administrators would have enforced Wikipedia policy equaly for both sides. Wikipedia could have prevented the above lawsuit if it acted properly and swiftly. Maybe there is still time to avoid it.

I have also been a victim of personal attacks by Woggly (being named a "sockpuppet" without any evidence). If anyone here is willing to meet or speak with me - you are most welcome.

Some editors here are playing childish but very harmful games to other's personal and commercial reputations instead of focusing on the real mission of Wikipedia - creating a fine community service. Bluegrasstom 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

is on DRV. Kotepho 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to start another fight, I'm just interested... what led you to the decision to keep this article? Kinitawowi 09:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The debate in question was a deletion review, which reviews deletions and the outcomes of deletion debates. In this case, the action being reviewed was a deletion by User:Zoe, after this deletion debate. I merely interpreted the result of the vote in the review, and since a majority voted to restore the article, that was the outcome. -- bainer ( talk) 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. Kinitawowi 11:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You've just protected two templates that we reached an agreement about a few minutes ago, so one of us needs to make an edit to add the agreed text to the pages. Please let me know if you have a problem with that; if not, I'll go ahead, or you may prefer to do it yourself. The agreed text of the third sentence (the one that was in dispute) is: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." See Template talk:Policy#Suggestions. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Absolutely no problem at all, I protected them because of WP:HRT and the general high visibility rule, I was surprised they weren't protected already. -- bainer ( talk) 05:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Stephen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I hate to bother you on your talk page, but seeing as how 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, or misspelled statements of opinion without sources, I was wondering if you could please remove your warning tags from my talk page, or give me your permission to do so myself.

Ase500's comment had no place in the article: While it is easy to see how critics may come to this conclution, Wal-Mart did have plans to close this store prior to the union vote. Infact the union vote was a last ditch effort by associates to keep the store open. And, as you are well aware, 3RR does not mean to let this sort of thing remain just because it has survived three reverts.

Thank you for your time. Kamikaze Highlander 15:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The 3RR does not apply to simple vandalism, the emphasis being on "simple". Adding graffiti, blanking whole articles, that sort of thing is simple vandalism. An argument about whether or not to include a certain sentence is a content dispute, not vandalism. As William M. Connolley put it, "Anything that is *real* vandalism will be picked up by others. If only you think its vandalism, it isn't." You need to follow the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. -- bainer ( talk) 00:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The repair of the redirect damage at digital rights management was both prompt and effective. As an administrator who has not mastered the machiery behind the curtains, I thank you for your efforts. I'd also like to congratulate you on your user page; reminds me of cats at play somehow. Will your degree lead to a call to the bar? Best wishes with it. ww 03:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey there Thebainer. I created the article about the swimmer and noticed that you had put a redlink at John Davies to an Australian judge. Could you be referring to the same person? John Davies the swimmer won gold at the 1952 Helsinki Olympics for Australia, but became naturalized American and then was appointed to the US District Court and presided over the trial of police officers who bashed Rodney King. Or is John Davies the AUS judge another different Australian based judge? Regards. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

PS. Oh, I put the swimmer up for DYK because his "double-identity" I feel is interesting. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it's a different person, I added that link when creating List of Judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and disambiguating the names in that. This Davies was a Federal Court judge from 1978 to 1998. Interesting article on the swimmer though! -- bainer ( talk) 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Sue v Hill, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

very good article, thanks! + + Lar: t/ c 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Knew I should have used the word "official" instead of "legal"... thanks though. Fr e dd ie ^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 15:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. Primarily interested in commercial causes, and constitutional law, but open to all areas!

My question is - have you thought about adding a section in the cases infoboxes to transcripts of argument, especially now that HCA transcripts are generally available within a day or two of special leave applications? Sambo 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I hadn't thought of it before, mainly because most of the cases we have articles on are pre-1994 (so transcripts aren't available at all) or they've already been decided (in which case the report is usually sufficient to write an encyclopaedia level article). It's definitely a good idea though, I've created a new template to allow citations to the High Court transcripts service, {{ Citation HCATrans}}, and I've added a new parameter to the {{ Infobox Court Case}} which provides a space where links to transcripts can be placed. Great suggestion, by the way (you're certainly having a busy first day here!)

By the way, I saw your discussion with Panchitaville and I get the reference in your name now. I haven't heard that album yet, all I've heard is For the Widows in Paradise, For the Fatherless in Ypsilanti from the Michigan album. Excellent songwriter though! -- bainer ( talk) 13:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Love your work on the HCATrans template. Although I agree that the published reasons are enough for the encyclopaedia article, I would have thought we should aim for complete coverage. Even if that involves simply inserting a link to the transcript, it's an easy reference point for passers-by. The transcripts are really pretty meaningless without a really good understanding of the issues being argued, but not completely without relevance. Even if transcripts aren't available pre-1994, that doesn't mean we shouldn't start linking where we can.

Busy first day - yes, the joys of procrastinating! By the way, I must correct you - I'm a final year law student, and not a lawyer but a judge's associate in QSC. You must have picked up my user page while I was editing the userbox.

Go, now - buy Sufjan! Genius! (I should here admit obsession with this album. My name is Sambo and I am a Sufjanaholic.) Sambo 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, that explains the interest in the QSC, at least! As to the template, I don't think any of us had even thought of systematically linking transcripts; really our only article on a case that is actually in progress is the WorkChoices case, and I guess it never came up anywhere else. And as for Sufjan, I think there are worse addictions out there. -- bainer ( talk) 13:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have changed your two links from Michael Slater (soldier) to Michael Slater (army) because as a commissioned officer, Brig. Slater is not normally considered to be a soldier. and there were two other links as well (I made them). I'd use Michael Slater (brigadier) but he might get promoted to Michael Slater (general). If you can think of a better term, there are currently 4 links to change, and should possibly be one from Michael Slater too, especially if an article is written. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 05:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I had it as "soldier" because the usual way to disambiguate people is by occupation (and nationality if necessary). But that is a good argument for not using it, which I had totally overlooked. Perhaps Michael Slater (officer)? I'm fine with "army" otherwise. -- bainer ( talk) 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I think "officer" is a very vague term, "army" gives a better idea of why he's notable (until such time he becomes governor of some state or enters politics or business). I'd have considered Michael Slater (Australia), but that clashed with the other one anyway. Thanks. It's probably more important to write the article than the discussion of its name, anyway :-/ -- Scott Davis ^Talk 23:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply