User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2009 01

request for help[edit]

Orderinchaos, may I ask for your help? The AN/I discussion concerning "bias" on Andrew Vachss has been archived without a resolution.[1] I wasn't the one who filed the incident report, but I would like very much to have a decision. A conclusion along the logic you laid out in your comment would be great, as I hope to speed the removal of the bias banner that was added to the Vachss article when Plh25.0/65.110.137.227 opened the AN/I report. Could you review and resolve the situation? Thanks very much for your help, and have a wonderful New Year! Golemarch (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am seeking a resolution is that I want to remove the "bias" banner ("This article or section may represent a biased viewpoint inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutral policy...") that was placed on Andrew Vachss when the AN/I began. The banner says the dispute should be resolved before I can be remove it. Would you be able to help with that? Thanks again! Golemarch (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the site is still biased I think a bias banner should remain. Perhaps golemarch could explain why and how he thinks the matter was resolved? I saw a great deal of "wikilawyering" and no real discussion of the actual facts of the matter concerning the biases in the article. Did we ever reach an agreement? For that matter, did Golemarch and I ever actually discuss anything? Thanks.plh25.0 Plh25.0 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!

Hey there, Orderinchaos! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro^(talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New year[edit]

Trust there is no snow wherever you may be - cheers Satu Suro 10:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have developed a deep suspicion for those who use external links as refs as in [2] I was sure there was something no kosher or MOS correct about such a phenomenon - your opinion/policy short cut/cure/advice? Satu Suro 10:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demands on you from all corners - gmail as well and Im getting off for some cold water - cheers Satu Suro 12:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion[edit]

For article Revo Soekatno, I am intrigue. If you do believe the article should be deleted, let's nominate it and see the outcome. Serenity id (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orderinchaos: thanks for your comment. I've replied there.

Serenity: that doesn't sound like a good idea - better for all that energy to be used on improving the article. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Orderinchaos,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Hello, could you please delete List of Adventures in Odyssey characters for me, then move User:American Eagle/Sandbox5 into it, then undelete List of Adventures in Odyssey characters. Thank you, and have a Happy New Year! ✼ American Eagle (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the current talk page.

Archive : January 2009

Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Orderinchaos, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the electoral district article is good to go btw, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 renamed[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 is renamed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes by motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply re: Robert Hutchinson[edit]

Hello, Orderinchaos. You have new messages at Chuckiesdad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vietnamese translation[edit]

Thanks, I was surprised that it actually worked. I tried it for Viet -> English and every sentence had obvious misnomers all over the place.

Yeah, I'm very patient and do a lot of back and forthing and use words carefully to get the machine translation to work reliably... the one for Hindi is almost unusable, I had to keep the sentences really really short to prevent it from turning them inside out. Orderinchaos 03:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Burke[edit]

Good to see you've been expanding Brian Burke. The article still doesn't have an image. I note that Mr Burke will be making an appearance in Perth today (Monday 12-Jan) at Perth Magistrates' Court. Could be an opportunity for a Perthian to grab a photo of him ;) Cheers, Lester 22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edelsten Comment[edit]

Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory, and damaging.

There are a number of defamatory and damaging statements. One in particular as followings;

He subsequently spent a year in jail for hiring an underworld figure, Christopher Dale Flannery, to assault a former patient, and for perverting the course of justice.[5][6][7]

- This media statement is greatly different than actual charges seen at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

- The charge was in fact “soliciting” not “hiring” – the use of “hiring” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

- The charge does not refer “a former patient” instead referred to as “another”, – the use of “a former patient” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

- The alleged “another” as seen in the charges stood trial for the attempted extortion of Edelsten. “another” was the man who in 1984 harassed and intimidated Edelsten and his family to extort money with menaces. This other side is not covered, and by its absence presents a highly biased view. “another” was later sentenced to 3 and a 1/2 years prison for fraud of an Australian Government Agency of more than $330,000.

- Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984 – the date as set out in the charges. Flannery was only considered an underworld figure in media reports (seen above) that date from 1987 onward. There is an absence of such information between 1984 and 1987. Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984.

Recent attempts to correct/unbias the article have been wholly removed.

Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging.--Gepa (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edelsten Comment 2[edit]

I have passed on your comment to Dr Edelsten. I should have a response soon.--Gepa (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Weather[edit]

Yeah i heard that it's been really hot over there! That's a bit too hot though. :P Aaroncrick (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha...[edit]

What's going on here? Reminds me of this. --Merbabu (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Canberra Grizzly Bear[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Canberra Grizzly Bear, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Canberra Grizzly Bear is a nonsense redirect page formed as a result of the reversion of page move vandalism (CSD G3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Canberra Grizzly Bear, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Whoops - I thought I had deleted that one at the time.) Orderinchaos 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox shopping mall[edit]

Can you please fix this page so it includes a blank template that can be copied and pasted? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavill Avenue deletion[edit]

I think you made a mistake on this one. I missed the prod on my watchlist so I am commenting now. Cavill Avenue is a major tourist destination on the Gold Coast. The mall is the centre of activies during Schoolies Week and the centre of retail outlets in Surfer's Paradise. There are numerous notable buildings that have an address on the street. Cavill Avenue is probably the state's most well-known avenue. It is far from simply a suburban shopping street. Notability is not an issue. Since we don't delete articles because they lack sources, have points of view and few wikilinks could you revert your deletion so the article can be improved. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to butt in) I agree it is clearly notable but given that it was a PROD there is nothing preventing a re-creation. The deleted article had some promise but also some real issues. It may be easier to start again but if you want a copy I can paste into a sub-page for you. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not butting in at all, your opinion's always welcome :) I've posted the history in a collapse box on Shiftchange's talk page, most of the rest was puff with some rather nasty stuff thrown in. Orderinchaos 09:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

I would've asked you for a nomination but it seems you were on break at the time. Enigma^msg 17:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries of the edit[edit]

‎* (you can always tell when it's school holidays.) yeah and when the car temp checks out the ambient temp to be 51 C - trust you are keeping cool Satu Suro 12:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Quick favour[edit]

Can you please check ar:كالغورلي to make sure I haven't insulted anyone's mother or anything? :) Thanks. Orderinchaos 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job OIC! Just some minor copy editing was needed (i.e. a city in arabic (madina/medina) is feminine instead of masculine). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palace Hotel[edit]

Thanks for fixing it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sydney morning herald[edit]

hooray! - the journo's have been pretty busy on this one, I reckon... and it's great to see you out there! - hopefully it'll increase interest in the chapter in due course, and it's not really a bad article overall, I reckon :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm pretty happy with it. Some journalists have made a real attempt to understand how we tick and why we operate as we do, which I think is a very positive thing. Orderinchaos 07:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You did well with that story IMO. Bidgee (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A centralised discussion which may interest you[edit]

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's highest temperature[edit]

Re: this edit, which I incidentally agree with: see this story on AM about the, um, interesting weather recording equipment used in Cloncurry when that temperature was recorded. Graham87 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something I have a bit of knowledge in. Cloncurry lost it's record a few years ago after the Bureau of Meteorology looked at all the old records set pre-1900 and was found that Cloncurry's recording was incorrectly recorded which meant that it was removed off the list with Oodnadatta taking the official record. ATM I'm just trying to find some sources which have seem to have gone but I'll keep looking. Edit: didn't notice the AM transcript (Above)! Bidgee (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK - you learn something every day! I was going off what I was taught in school, and I admit the only verification I undertook was keying "Cloncurry" and "53" into Google. :/ Incidentally, I do know of parts of Australia which regularly get higher temperatures, but are obviously unmeasured - a friend of mine worked at a minesite where the temperatures regularly got above 50°C (highest this person observed was 56) - it sounded like hell to me. Orderinchaos 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template numbers[edit]

The ministries that have simply another number look dodgy imho Satu Suro 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean? (It *may* be, if I understand you right, because Rebecca and I decided to follow a convention to divide ministries by terms, meaning that, say, the Burke ministry which has two articles was legally speaking the same entity, so both record the same number (29th?). Orderinchaos 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah in the template on the screen you see Jack Bloggs 1 and then just a 2 next to it :) Satu Suro 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. I'd followed the existing practice here. Orderinchaos 08:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd what a nightmare 'here' looks like :(

It looked like somnething that causes a lot of tyops or misteps that i get when i leave my type size too small in safari :) Satu Suro 08:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw ya - if you want a good dose of paranoia just follow the conversation that graham87 and I have been having :( gosh golly yuk Satu Suro 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Electoral district of Perth[edit]

The article Electoral district of Perth you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Electoral district of Perth for things needed to be addressed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just placeholder-noting that I've sorted out all issues bar the lead. Will look at that tomorrow evening. Orderinchaos 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcfc adelaide[edit]

Would you mind having a look at his MHS image upload? You're obviously aware of this user's history, the image looks too professional to be work that he claims to have created himself. Timeshift (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

You gonna tell me he/she/it is a physician, or a medical doctor, or a phd in something? There is nothing in the text of the article that says anything about early life, profession (well in earlier life) at all Satu Suro 06:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, it was a pop culture joke :P Pauline Pantsdown was simply a IT lecturer who cut up the words of Pauline Hanson and rearranged them to make her sound like a blithering idiot, and then released them as pop singles (one was No.10 on the charts at the time of the 1998 election). One of the lines in one of the songs was: "Why can't my blood be coloured white? I should speak to some medical doctors. Coloured blood, it's just not right." Orderinchaos 07:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation - I too remember lines from some songs from the deep past that play on stuff I see here as well - but in most cases I leave it out lest others think im completely out of it :) (more than I really am) - cheers Satu Suro 09:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support[edit]

... in the recent Oversight election. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Nelson[edit]

Hello there. Heavy expansion work there on BD, hey?. nice --Merbabu (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on it. Had to be put on hold due to urgent offline priorities. Orderinchaos 12:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride[edit]

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/MZMcBride/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/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Coordinators[edit]

I'm sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, but I just noticed your comment on the Assessment working group MfD page regarding WikiProject Coordinators (sometimes also referred to as Lead Coordinators). It is becoming more and more common practice to have this position in WikiProjects (see Military History, Films, and Novels for usage). It is a position elected within the WikiProject for making someone responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the WikiProject, in addition to serving as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and concerns. They are not, however, endowed with an special executive powers nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct. I hope this explanation alleviates any concerns the use of this term might have inspired in you. hornoir (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "elected", "responsible" and "designated points-of-contact" imply some sort of delegated authority, I'd have thought. By omission, is Hornoir saying that the delegate has authority over other aspects of the project? Djanga 04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that Coordinators aren't imbued with authority, merely that they do not wield special executive powers nor authority over any articles or editors. In essence, a Coordinator is the person assigned the task of keeping the day-to-day operations of the project working. I don't know what specific points of authority you are attempting to imply, Djana. hornoir (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you've not said that the coordinators don't have authority over project issues, only that they don't have authority over articles or editors (sorry for the double negatives). I would be reticent to delegate the shared authority in the project I am involved with—I'd much prefer that the project continue with any significant issues being dealt with by a consensus after group discussion. You may think I'm being paranoid, but I see the model being proposed as unnecessary bureaucracy and the thin end of the wedge as far as limiting editor involvement in all aspects of project operation. Djanga 14:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, discussion before implementation is still a requirement in those projects. Having a coordinator merely grants a larger project someone that will take point on implementing changes that are decided upon. And it certainly doesn't limit editor involvement; in my experience, it frees up editors to do real tasks for the project rather than being bogged down with the relatively unimportant stuff. hornoir (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Excuse my interjection Djanga, OIC.] Perhaps you could state what authority they would have? And give a specific example of how they would improve the "task ... day-to-day operations". (EC) And how does it differ from current practice? cygnis insignis 14:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[And mine, Cygnis, Djanga, OIC and any others :)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Assessment_working_group - having read the whole thing rather quickly - it stinks. Just because a few projects have had fall guys like milhist - does not mean that the majority of current active projects have anything that might have a single person as respresenting anything that might be either a coodinator or representative - it smells - also I would not like to see what this mob might do to temporarily dormant projects or revivable projects - I believe that nothing good will come of it the way the discussion is going at the moment.

As for real tasks for the project - most projects have such limited understanding what good project management is - let alone even being able to maintain interest and involvement - sorry I think there is a terrible waste of time being invested in something that seems to be diverging from tasks that need attending to within WP. I do hope some bright sparks may prove me wrong. Satu Suro 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... it frees up editors to do real tasks for the project rather than being bogged down with the relatively unimportant stuff". Last time I looked, no-one was being forced to do anything. This sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Djanga 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User pages[edit]

Hi do you know if there is a way to list all the subpages of my user page? I think I might have an unnecessary sandbox page floating around, but I can't remember the name of it. TIA --Surturz (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in. Try Special:PrefixIndex/User:Surturz. Djanga 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:David kitson[edit]

I saw your comment there, and figured I should clarify a misunderstanding you seem to have about the GFDL - GFDL licensed work requires attribution just the same as any current CC license. — neuro^(talk) 23:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Weather[edit]

13 degrees in the middle of summer! haha. I've heard of it getting even worse over there. I live in Tasmania and haven't experienced a 13 degree day in summer. And the rain!! Wish some of it could fall over the midlands and the eastern half of the state. Before you say anything, yes some parts of Tasmania are in drought and even got a dust storm at home the other day. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've experienced a 13 degree day in summer! Has happened in January 2005! One day we had 30 degrees and the next was 13 degrees (with wind and rain), Infact it snowed around in the ALPS and even getting as low as Batlow (725m ASL) and Tumbarumba (592m ASL). I just wished Hamish would hurry up and weaken into a rain depression and head into Inland NSW (Unlikely to happen) as it's just a sad sight to keep seeing this. Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A far cry from the 40 + conditions you've been experiencing. Sounds a lot like Hobart. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you have come back to good old Launnie! Over the long weekend, I went to Freycinet and the Bay of fires. Currently in the process of uploading images. Taking a long time for some reason. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this in the area around Fingal and parts surrounding have been devastated by fire, that went through about a month ago. There's been lot of fires in Northern Eastern Tassie over the past few years. Luckily over the past couple of weeks some rains fallen. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AppleX[edit]

Our friend is back. Djanga 13:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch[edit]

Thanks for fixing my errors at Queensland state election, 2009. I got so caught up in finding the dates (I only found the link with all of them after I finished most of them) that I forgot double check everything was right. -Rrius (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I have taken it, (the town template issue) to the noticeboard just for a check against the general mob - scuse any aspersions/nasturtions about it 'should have been there' 'and 'not there' - it might just get a note or two Satu Suro 07:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really glad dan arndt showed up I had hoped he would if anyone has a good handle on that it is he Satu Suro 11:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Stubbs[edit]

Assuming you have the references, could you please check the timeline of Stubbs's changing party affiliations at Electoral district of Wagin? Cheers. Digestible (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Done. Orderinchaos 19:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Perth and West Perth[edit]

But the electoral districts aren't named for their geography, but after the suburbs. And suburbs are typically ordered by their first letter. See Category:Suburbs of Perth, Western Australia Digestible (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates are a little bit different to suburbs - if I had a scanner I could show you how they appear in the official returns and in David Black's book, but the results sort under P in both. (If you're in Perth, the microfilm for the 1917 election results at the Battye Library amongst others will confirm this.) Orderinchaos 14:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit Day[edit]

Happy First Edit Day, Orderinchaos/Archive 2009 01, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Versus22_talk 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whee, 3 years on the 'pedia. Thanks. :) Orderinchaos 04:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Note[edit]

That's okay. Did you contest a state by-election in the recent past? Digestible (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so. I read the submission at the time. That submission is the reason I knew what you were referring to. :-) Digestible (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alerts[edit]

Just a heads up that I have raised this. I am tired of content disputes ending up with you accusing me of debating for the point of debating, and now stooping to accusations of lack of content contributions. Timeshift (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD and Australian doctors[edit]

When it comes to CfD, I am afraid I am suffering from battle fatigue! I might win the odd scrap, but the war over the philosophy and direction of category naming has been lost a long time ago. I am convinced that the regs at CfD do not understand the somewhat hierarchical nature of categories and that the name of a category is much less important than the parents and children of that category. Best to use that hierarchical tree to remove ambiguity rather than create monstrosities as category names.

As for the specific case of Australian doctors, I have given that one a bit of thought. The new name, of course, is a disaster; a complete tautology like "cooking chefs" and "legal lawyers". It also ignores the spirit of WP:ENGVAR, "doctor" is the unambiguous name for the professionals in that field in Australia. The new name is actually more ambiguous than the original; the term "Medical Doctors", if anything other than a tautology means "holders of a Doctorate in Medicine". The category name, if read literally, excludes holders of a MBBS that the Australian vernacular term "doctor" actually includes! Finally, surely categorisation by Higher Education degree is overcategorisation by anyone's definition, so there is zero chance that Category:Australian doctors would contain holders of a doctorate (other than those trained in medicine of course)

While a return to the simple and clear Australian vernacular Category:Australian doctors would be preferred, there is zero chance of getting that up while the North American participants at CfD claim to be "confused" by Australian terminology. Perhaps a new name of Category:Australian medical practitioners would be a reasonable compromise. It removes the tautology and the added ambiguity of "medical doctors" and is a term used by Medicare when handing out provider numbers.

I agree, the "discussion" at CfD about this category saw no consensus for any course of action, including retaining the status quo and DRV seeking an overturn and relist would be entirely appropriate. However, it would be like poking a hornet's nest. I don't know if I can be bothered with the ensuing dramaz TBH. Good luck either way! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a DR and agree that there was clearly no consensus and seen/feel that the closing Admin's comments to be a dig at the Australian's. The meaning of "physicians" to me means someone who deals with those who do physical activities such as sport (IE: When they get injured, seeing what part of there body could be used better to perform with less stress to the body ect), those who do cosmetic surgery and also those to deal with Chemotherapy. I feel that "medical practitioners" would be a compromise since it would be the second most used in Australia after "doctor". Bidgee (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same way about the closing comments - there's no need for sarcasm, particularly when going against evidence that any supposed confusion between '"Fooian doctors" for some categories and "Fooian physicians"' for other categories is not fixed by changing them all to "medical doctors". Somno (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was near unanimous not to rename the Australian category, but it was done anyway with no rationale other than a mild snark against Australians. With due respect to the closer, humorous contempt is not a valid basis upon which to ignore both consensus and WP:ENGVAR and close a discussion with a nonsensical rename. As with other people, there's a limit to how much I care but if there was a DRV I'd be happy to take part. Euryalus (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_19&action=edit&section=12 is a very good example of what is wrong when one has to tackle the issue with the mob - I support both matt and bidgee that a rename to australin medical practitioners is much better Satu Suro 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread could benefit from some data:

User	Endorsed original proposal: "Australian doctors"	Endorsed revised proposal: "Australian medical doctors"
AussieLegend	No	Yes
Bidgee	No	No
Cgingold	—	Yes
Eastlaw	Yes, proposer	Yes
Gnangarra	No	"... would be reasonable cats as subcats of medical doctor" = apparently no objection?
Good Ol'factory	—	"it could work in the US and UK context, but perhaps not in some of the other countries"
Johnbod	—	Yes
Mattinbgn	No	No
Occuli	—	Yes, proposer
Peripitus	No	—
Peterkingiron	No	"would not object if that was the consensus"
SatuSuro	No	Yes
Totals (Firm yes / doubtful or no objection / firm no)	1 / 0 / 7	6 / 3 / 2

Hesperian 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given it wasn't the original proposition, though, I'm not sure that people knew for sure what they were arguing for or against - if I'd foreseen anything other than a remote possibility I would have strongly objected myself. As it was I saw all the opposes, felt the proposal was going to fail, and so did not bother to comment. In my opinion the original proposal should have been modified so that people could express a clear opinion on it. Orderinchaos 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that the data doesn't prove the right decision was made, I certainly agree with you.

But there are messages that can be taken out of this data. Most important is this: the comment above that "the discussion was near unanimous not to rename the Australian category" is not accurate. If you are going to take it to CfD, you ought not do so on the grounds that the closer ignored consensus.

If I wanted to convince people that the wrong decision was made here, I would build my argument on the fact that the inconsistency in our category titles reflected real world inconsistency, as it should. The point that usage varies from place to place was raised numerous times in the discussion. The real mistake of the closer was in proceeding with this as a group nomination. The group nom should have been rejected, and the individual categories discussed separately.

Hesperian 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. BTW, I was meaning the tangled nature of the discussion meant that people were not entirely sure what they were meant to be supporting or opposing - I personally believe the close should have been "no consensus - default status quo" (rather than a unanimous "no") as that was my reading of the proceeding. Orderinchaos 00:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you might want to choose a different tactic if you are going to DRV.

Occuli: "how about changing doctor to 'medical doctor'"

Satusuro: "Occuli's suggestions is a good one"

Gnangarra: "IN Australian terms General Practitioner, Physician, Surgeon, for the medical profession would be reasonable cats as subcats of medical doctor"

Eastlaw: "Occuli's suggestion of using "medical doctor" in place of "physician" or "doctor" is actually a pretty good solution"

Johnbod: "Rename all using "medical doctors" per Occuli"

Cgingold: "I think I would support renaming most of these categories per Occuli's suggestion"

Aussielegend: "I support Occuli's proposal that instead, the categories are renamed to "medical doctors"."

Peterkingiron: "I would not object to "medical doctor""

I guess you could DRV on the basis that people weren't sure what they were supporting, but based upon the discussion itself, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that was the case. --Kbdank71 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't data just great? :-) Hesperian 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, six (count 'em - 6) people support a rename of a category to a name that was not originally listed in the rename proposal and was only proposed in the middle of the discussion and this is deemed "consensus"; thus giving us a piss poor category name that is actually more ambiguous than the original. Top this off with another example of the continual low level hostility that exudes from CfD in the closing summary. Another great example of the CfD process in action. As I said, it's pointless engaging with the CfD process, it's broken and it aint getting fixed anytime soon. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Eaton[edit]

Hi. Somehow we missed this lady's appointment to the WA LC to replace Vince Catania. I've updated all the places I can think of (Members of the Western Australian Legislative Council, 2005–2009, Candidates of the Western Australian state election, 2005, Electoral region of Mining and Pastoral). I just thought I'd let you know, seeing as you're much more knowledgeable on WA politics than I am, in case I missed any. Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nup, you got em all :) Weird when that sort of thing happens, hey? (Digestible and I had a similar situation involving the 1901-04 parliament a couple of weeks ago.) With the new replacements it's pretty much a matter of watching the relevant EC's page as it never makes the news - that's how I found out who Giffard's replacement was. Orderinchaos 04:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australian politicians[edit]

Ooops, I now realise what that category actually means. Sorry if I created any extra work for you but I had thought it meant politicians in Western Australia. I'll be more careful in future. --Hughesdarren (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re SW/Peel templates[edit]

When working on the template, I did note that there was the presence of major suburbs of Mandurah, Western Australia.

So what do we need to do with Mandurah and the Shires of Murray, Waroona and/or Boddington. Should we put Boddington in with Great Southern and Mandurah, Murray and Waroona in the South West, or we set up a Lower West template and take all the localities in the meteorological region (Peel and Gingin) outside the Perth Metropolitan area --Andyman14 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of localities in Victoria (Australia)[edit]

Have finally made good my threat of redoing this list (and renaming it)-fairly complete, a few places yet unlocated and may be some neighbourhoods placed in the wrong locality (on the other side of road or creek etc) so could use some help on this (All the spelling is OK though)- Many of the linked articles where all the info. is supposed to be will need some work but I will be doing this shortly. Could it be 2 or 3 page list?? If so, I dont know how to achieve this (Epistemos (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Re: 1983-1989 by-elections[edit]

Yes, sure. Send them to me. Although if I haven't done them by months end I probably won't get around to them for some time after that. Also, do you have necessary information to complete List of Queensland state by-elections? There doesn't appear to be anything on the Qld parliament website. Digestible (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And nope - when my current workload ends I will be able to check 1890-1964 from Hughes & Graham, but I don't have either side of that confirmed. Orderinchaos 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've just had a brief look so far. A couple of questions. (There might be more to come.)

1. Did they not bother with a distribution preferences in Archerfield?

2. Are the bracketed parties in Redlands registered parties that appeared on the ballot?

--Digestible (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both. Orderinchaos 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to find out in the next week what the 1983 comparatives were for these four electorates, and the names of the minor candidates. Orderinchaos 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Bruce Whiteside and why is he linked from the South Coast summary? Digestible (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I did a silly thing.... I (very stupidly and incorrectly) named a page Prince Regent River Nature Reserve which should be Prince Regent Nature Reserve, then instead of moving the page I (even more stupidly) just cut and pasted it over to the new page name. Now an administrator has to fix up my mistakes, could you do the page move for me please? Sorry, I'll go and have sleep for a bit. --Hughesdarren (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no history merge needed, and, since Darren is the only editor of the pages, no copyright issue. It seems to me that it suffices simply to redirect the former title to the latter, which I have done. But if Darren wants it handled some other way, by all means do so. Hesperian 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ad or valid art[edit]

We get so many like these in the WP Indonesia project I usually want to prod on sight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Network would appreciate your eagle eye and sword of discriminatory experience :( Satu Suro 10:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WA candidate lists[edit]

No, they didn't - I'm fairly convinced, actually, that the template itself was fundamentally flawed. As far as I know, it is impossible to have coloured links in Wikipedia, which negates all the templated colour stuff the other template uses. However, I see no problem with the ones currently being used (I changed the 2008 list) for these. Have fun - especially with (joy of joys) the Legislative Council! (This is the reason that Queensland, which so obligingly got rid of the upper house all those years ago, is much, much easier to make candidate lists for.) Frickeg (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Aren't those red links daunting? (I had that issue when I was making the federal candidate lists - the Senate was a mass of red links. It felt so good to turn them all to blue.) A few little points I'd say, just with regards to consistency across the board:

Should the members have "MLA" after them? This just helps distinguish them from any MLCs retiring too.
Federally I've linked the parties every time they appear in the "Held by" column and the Other Candidates column. This means that you don't need to scroll back to find the first link.
I'd be linking "Ind" to Independent (politician) - not everyone will know what an "Ind" is.
Federally I've tried to use three to four letter abbreviations in the Other column as much as possible. The Communists are the CPA; the Australia Party is the AP (these are actually used by Psephos, so they're not OR).
Something a bit weird happening with the LC. Make sure that you format for each column, even if they'll be blank, because otherwise you get lines running out and all sorts of other chaos.

It's great to see someone else having a crack at these - good luck! Frickeg (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see about the LC. And, once you get the hang of these, you'll be glad to know that they become quite easy and even a lot of fun! (They're the thing I do to relax when I'm getting frustrated writing biographies. Sad, I know.) Frickeg (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Population[edit]

We have some massive suburbs here in Launnie ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willetton, Dianella and Thornlie leave em for dead though :) Orderinchaos 11:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here we average about 200 people! lol Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot Duncraig too. Orderinchaos 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same size of some of our cities! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! :) That's what I was thinking, but before I went and changed everything I just wanted to ask. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My recent edits[edit]

Man, what is your problem today? Nobody would block over such a trivial content dispute, especially when I'm one of very few people involved with these articles who actually cites policy.

Do you seriously dispute that historians are now claiming the ADF had inside knowledge of the situation in East Timor? Do you seriously claim that it is original research to say Howard calibrated his military posture to project Australian forces to Timor Leste? It's more or less a direct quote, and follows years worth of literature put out to counter the Dibbs doctrine. Ottre 11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you know the half of it, to be honest. Radical shifts towards interventionist foreign policy are all about calibration, and our readers almost certainly do care about the specifics. I'm more than willing to compromise on the other, contextual, points you mentioned briefly, provided you can get over the fact that none of the wording in that section reflects that used in contemporary sources. That's why I labeled my changes a "copyedit" -- just beginning to form a clear and concise outline of the history by splitting paragraphs, linking points, etc. Ottre 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottre, have you read the lead to the calibration article you link to? Could you please explain the connection with the Howard Govt-East Timor section?

I think your changes were far from "clear" and "concise". How they were not clear has been in part explained by OiC. That you actually added more esoteric, tangential and frankly (as per normal) confusing info that significantly increased the sections size didn't strike me as being concise. But, I'm happy to be corrected.

As for "most fiercely contested ballot" (or similar), compared to what? Any Indonesian election between 1958 and 1997 can be disregarded - not "contests" in any sense of the word, so I am guessing your suggesting the 1955 or 1998 Indonesian general elections. But, a vote on independence is not quite comparable to parliamentary elections, right? And, how do you gauge "fierceness"? --Merbabu (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it[edit]

) Satu Suro 04:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point[edit]

But what an F nuisance - It brings back memories of all the surveyed townsd in western tas that hardly existed for even 10 years :( - will tryo to catch up over the trans line tmeplate i was thinking of off wiki Satu Suro 07:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clutz[edit]

Sorry. I hit the rollback button on u by mistake at Howard Government. --Merbabu (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Has Harbour Views (film)[edit]

Sorry -- my mistake. Next time, I'll look at the delete log, to understand it got deleted, then restored since it was already about an entirely different film. Still learning. --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not[edit]

Be amused by my messy message at the Tasmanian project noticeboard - the numbner of red link pollies who are still active in rattling their pension tins [3] in the faces of the electorate is not short Satu Suro 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I donated to GetUp for that one, they were just over half way to the target needed to publish at the time. Glad to see they made it. (Not usually big on GetUp causes - they take on basically every trendy left issue going - but since an accidental drive on a family holiday through an area near Northcliffe when I was about 15, I have rather strong views on timber companies.) Orderinchaos 06:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port cities[edit]

I notice you are deleting various categories with no discussion, no CfD, no notification to the creator, etc. This includes replacing one category name with another which in some cases is no improvement and is less helpful for navigation. 'Housekeeping' is no justification for this. Please discuss. Hmains (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less helpful for navigation? "Port settlements" isn't even a word in the English language - this was discussed months ago with great vigour. All I did was bring a few underpopulated categories back under the right category tree - most categories were already in the right place to start with, but some had been moved with a similar lack of consultation some months ago. It is a case of WP:IAR, especially when CfD is as chronically and absolutely broken as it has been for quite a while now. Orderinchaos 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements are not particularly helpful. "Port settlements" is no less legitimate than many other combinations of English words. And as you know, it is perfectly allowed for any editor to create new categories or re-organize existing ones on their own--what is not allowed is to delete categories. This is regardless of the condition of CfD which I have my own opinion of. Going beyond that, my/others use of 'settlements' is in line with the the Category:Settlements and all its many established sub-categories. 'Settlements' being the collective term for cities, towns, villages, etc etc. Now if these port categories will generally only involve cities and towns and will not get into other lower settlements, then it might be ok (not absolutely ok) to name them 'Port cities and towns...'. It is not suitable, however, to name the higher categories, however, just 'Port cities...' since such naming is not inclusive of the subcats that such categories contain: cities and towns. Thus, if you want to argue (and place in CfD) renaming all the port categories at every level to 'Port cities and towns ...', I would support that for the sake of consistency. Hmains (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, CfD is useless for these things. The guys over there have their own thing going and it's like a train out of control - you should see what they've done to doctors and universities, it's a right mess. That was pretty much how we got to the current point - they should never have been renamed "settlements" in the first place. It basically happened during someone's mad campaign to make the word "city" illegal on Wikipedia - it didn't work, but we ended up with parallel structures all over the place depending on which bits had survived the madness and which bits had not. With some of the ones I fixed last night there was an underpopulated category under "port settlements" and an adequate category under "port cities" or "port cities and towns" for the exact same country. Note that port cities is not a top level category, cities/towns etc are and they already come under settlements. The fact a city has a port has absolutely nothing to do with settlement. With regard to your argument - are you saying that it is anyone's right to completely mess up Wikipedia but nobody is allowed to fix it? That sounds like a touch of WP:BURO and ignores the fact we have WP:IAR, which has the status of policy (i.e. sits over and above any guideline, established practice, etc which itself is not a policy). Orderinchaos 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14, the section on 'Coastal and port cities and towns'. Am I correct in saying that you have reversed out the decision made in this CfD in regards to the naming of the port categories, which was to use 'settlements' in all these category names instead of 'cities' or 'cities and towns'? And that that the statements you make above are your way of justifying this activity against consensus? Hmains (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was absolutely not "consensus". The change was inflicted from above before anyone actually got to know of it, it was not notified anywhere. Trust me, there was a right war after it that was not documented there that went on for several days, at which point I think it was fairly certain that there was no consensus whatsoever for such a sweeping change (it actually emerged that more people opposed it than supported it). Basically that misapplied CfD and the discussions which followed basically sealed my view of CfD as a failed and corrupt process which is used by a small group of people to further an agenda of "standardisation" with a distinct US bias. I'll beat you to it - WP:DRV cannot be used to overturn such a result (it can only be used to say the closer erred in reading consensus, not that the consensus was wrapped up by five people and that only one supported the action actually taken in the end), and taking out another CfD would simply lead to the same flawed outcome, as the guy who resolves these things hates Australians and makes it abundantly clear in childish comments on completely unrelated CfDs, so it's not worth bothering. Orderinchaos 23:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is in several parts in several venues but the main one was at Kbdank71's talk page. See: 1, 2. Orderinchaos 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here, where it was specifically acknowledged by the DRV closer that there was no consensus. I had forgotten about this one when I wrote the above comments. Was one of my very few attempts at organised resistance against the aforementioned madness, and met with moderate success. Orderinchaos 23:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only concur with everything said by OIC above. CfD is a sham and broken beyond repair and working through the CfD process leads to worse outcomes by any measure. I support OICs actions to sort out the mess created by CfD (Note that categories relating to universities are being systematically made useless at the moment and will require fixing once CfD get their mitts off them). Actions on Wikipedia should not be judged by whether they "follow process" or "meet consensus" but by whether they improve the encyclopedia. His edits are not disruptive, have improved the encyclopedia and fixed the mess created by a blind following of a process run by a small clique in pursuit of their own agenda. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what this resentment discussion has to do with the work I am doing on categories. I fail to see how re-naming 'port cities and towns...' to 'port settlements...' has something to do with someone or another not liking Australians. I fail to see that this has anything to do with my work to get the direct subcats of the Category:Port cities of the Mediterranean Sea to all be named in the pattern of 'Mediterranean port cities and towns in foo-country'. Rather this resentment discussion seems to have some purpose I cannot guess and am not at all interested in. Hmains (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"this resentment discussion"? I honestly don't see what the problem is, even from your point of view - the "port settlements" thing has absolutely nothing to do with what you're doing, which I support. Your proposal turns something which is generic and less useful into something specific and more useful, so it improves the encyclopaedia. I do find it amusing though, that you tried to attack me for not following consensus, then when I demonstrated with actual links to actual discussions that the consensus was not upheld, you have now changed tack. This is not a rule-based society - and thank god it's not, I'd hate to think what the place would be like if some of these individuals actually did run the place, considering the lack of research and forethought that goes into some of the proposals that are bundled through. Orderinchaos 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Thanks guys :) Much appreciated. Orderinchaos 03:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

np. It must have been the controversial school category work that you were doing that ticked him off lol. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suburb categories[edit]

Interesting to note the name of Category:Neighbourhoods in Australia. Would this not be better off named Category:Suburbs in Australia per AuE rather than using the Americanised " term "Neighbourhoods" (or should I just be grateful that Neighbourhood is spelled with a 'U") -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - was thinking the same. New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe have already done it, it seems, so we would be in good company. Orderinchaos 07:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quick work! Thanks. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star[edit]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your work on Adelaide localities YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew so many of them never existed until you intervened in 2006, until I added photos to them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha[edit]

Here's a good one for you: Indon. I was arguing against it being said that this is in common usage in Australia - but now I've got to whether it is notable as a heading in newspapers. ha ha. One for the "Aust" notice board? --Merbabu (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And may the long lost user of the same name RIP whatever he/she is doing Satu Suro 12:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayman Mitchell article - vandelism[edit]

Hi, how have you been. I was wondering if you had time to look at an article for me that is being disrupted by an anon user. He/she continues to revert the article after I have left 3 messages on the anon's talk page, the anon did the same today. I also opened up the subject on the article talk page but the anon user doesn't seem to be interested in anything I say. What should I do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.187.169.53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayman_Mitchell

Thanks in advance for your help. Darrenss (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. A classic case of WP:3RR if ever there was one, so I blocked it. Be careful in future - you had reverted three times (a fourth would have been over), and the argument of exception in the event of vandalism may be interpreted differently by different admins, so best to keep on the safe side. Orderinchaos 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again. I don't have much time on wikipedia these days so I only pop in to see what's happening in the articles I have edited. Just a question, I didn't press "undo" but removed the link by editing the page, would that still count as 3 reverts? Darrenss (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

miscommunication[edit]

Okay, we are missing each other here. Let me explain what I mean: it's a geographical area, and should have coordinates of some sort listed. Since there are not any coordinates on there now, the {{coord missing}} template should remain in place.

Does that make sense? I'm sorry that I couldn't make myself clear in the editsummary, I figured I'd drop the stick and chat with you about it here! Cheers, tedder (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Haven't seen you around in a while. Nice to see your name pop up on my watchlist again. :) لenna vecia 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know your wiki-time is limited, but would you be interested in being an OTRS volunteer? لenna vecia 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Sydney[edit]

Geez.. not that's not too good! what happened, do you get stuff stolen or something along those lines? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far out you had a tough time of it! Melbourne not much better at the moment. What's Perth like? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what happen to you in Sydney but it doesn't sound good. Darwin is a nice city and all but be careful at night (Suburbs are worst)! I had no issues (Even walked home [about 5km] at 3 and 5 am in the morning [Yes I use to party when I was there] not sober but had no issues) but the satellite city of Palmerston has a bad crime rate. Wagga CBD is a no go on a Saturday night. Bidgee (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that explains you interest in Darwin related topics. Not enough nightlife in the Launceston CBD to worry about safety although the there are more and more scruff ups in the mall of late. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Savings[edit]

Was only a thought that I didn't state but it's a shame we couldn't use Timezones [e.g AEDT] or states so that if a state or timezone changes were made we could easily fix with one click rather having to use a bot or do it one article at a time. Anyway I should head of at I'll hope to have some photos of The National Party pollies (Fed and State) but it's nice and early in the morning (7am). Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yer tell me about it. Got three photos yesterday but didn't really come out how I wanted (Noisy and have got 4 dead pixels on my DSLR [one is very bad :( ]!) File:Katrina Hodgkinson.jpg, File:Fiona Nash.jpg and File:Andrew Stoner.jpg (All of them look ok as a 200px thumbnail). Tomorrow I'm worried about lighting (Being morning and no doubt foggy will mean I'll have to be reliant on the indoor lights and flash). Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

micronations[edit]

my recollection of content placement and movement does not appear to coincide with history. my apologies for editing based on assumptions and not actual status/facts. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Hello... thanks for your input, and I do appreciate your concerns. However, I do have to take issue with certain aspects of what you wrote, given that I believe they do not accurately represent the event in question. I, too, am uninvolved in the articles in question, other than noticing and reverting an IP identified by another admin (Hiberniantears) as a likely sock of a previously blocked editor. The move to protect the page against a disruptive IP's actions was following an identical move by Hiberniantears, so I do not know why I was singled out in this case. Anyway, to reiterate, I do think that your reverts were in error (sorry to say) and that the situation should have been investigated in greater detail before you simply reverted two other admins. Just my two cents, though. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. If it is who I think it is, he is not blocked at present, nor has his account been used since 20 December, so it's not a sockpuppetry issue. I see blocks like prison sentences - once served, the user is entitled to a presumption of good faith, and his block concluded on 20 March this year.

2. The edits were not disruptive - I could see the logic in them. It appears Hiberniantears, although an admin, has had an involvement in these topics for a long time and so should really abstain from using admin powers in them, as I do in Australian politics topics in which I am heavily involved. My opinion in Australian politics topics, to use that parallel, is no greater because I am an admin, I am as fallible and as open to question as any other editor, and taking any action with regard to my perceived political or debating opponents would be a definite conflict of interest. For so long as Wikipedia allows anyone to edit without registering an account, an IP editor should not be regarded as less simply because they choose to edit (pseudo-)anonymously. There are of course limits to these but they are marked by behaviour not status.

3. Re furthering the role in the debate - I apologise for my remark with regard to that. I think I was looking more at the effect in general than the intent on your part, the effect being that there were two sides to a debate, one side contained admins, and the other was effectively silenced by the action taken even though they were acting acceptably (although not ideally). It's not the way to end a debate, really. Orderinchaos 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Looking at the matter as an outsider, I felt that the merge seemd appropriate, and that the IP's actions were disruptive. This is demonstrated by the fact that the IP is repeatedly restoring an external link that does not seem appropriate per WP:EL, within hours of when you unprotected the page. The edit summary said "per discussion", yet no discussion endorsed such a move, mirroring similar arguments by this IP at Micronations. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The target was a featured list, and the page being merged in was of well below featured quality - in fact it had tags on it for quite some time. I agree that there appears to have been no discussion (either for or against). Orderinchaos 08:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just offering my two cents here after seeing the article on my watchlist. I agree that I could be considered an involved admin here, but only in the sense that I have made my opinions known on Micronations, and have made a great deal of edits aimed at streamlining the page. The IP, on the other hand, is obviously User:Gene Poole, who actually owns and runs Empire of Atlantium, and he has dedicated quite a significant amount of time to maintaining that article, as well as these lists. In as much as I'm involved, he's clearly skirting conflict of interest issues. That said, I'll step back and let the dust settle. I'm not really concerned if the articles are merged or not, but I did perform the actual merger some time back, and made comments on the talk page articles that I intended to do it, and there was no opposition at the time. When the IP started making the changes this week, I just viewed it as Gene Poole trying to expand what I consider self promotion, and it was this which I consider disruptive, and hence protected the articles rather than spend my time chasing the IP around. If no one else considers that problematic, I'm not really going to get too fired up about. I used the mop only because the merge didn't strike up any controversy in an article that does have a fair number of editors watching it, so it isn't as if I made a sneaky move that went unnoticed until now. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my note above. Talk:List_of_micronations#Plan_to_merge_List_of_leaders_of_micronations is the thread I opened in early April to discuss the move on List of micronations. It received negative feedback from two IP's that are Gene Poole, and that is an example of him acting as a sockpuppet. Likewise, I also left a note, on the same day at Talk:List_of_leaders_of_micronations, which only received negative feedback this week from Gene's IP. I'm fine with having my merge reverted, but I did just want to make clear that I was acting in good faith, and the merge stood for months, so it didn't appear to me to be controversial at this point. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you missed my comments above, but I would appreciate an acknowledgment. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, just a little more insight into what I was thinking, here. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that it is an issue from a policy point of view (especially with random additions of a possibly self-promotional nature), and indeed my view on the leaders list is somewhat noncommittal as it isn't and has never been in a great state. My main reason for intervening was to protect the integrity of a featured list and what I saw as a rather unusual situation which had at least had the effect of, if not the intent of, silencing dissent from a contributor not subject to any sanction or impediment. As I said it is a "corner" of Wikipedia, it's not high-visibility, it's viewed more for curiosity than scientific information - I personally find it something of a curiosity, especially after having visited Hutt River Principality in 2007. As for the other allegations being made, COI merely emphasises that care must be taken, it isn't a blanket ban on those with one - and certainly if they have a reasonable point to make, it wouldn't matter much whether they or someone else made it. If they act unreasonably then that would be another matter and we've dealt with a few of those (the Achidiac case comes to mind.) Orderinchaos 18:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh>[edit]

You might wish to take a look at this. The editor in question does not appear to be familiar with WP:EL and is arguing for deletion of an important external link on the basis of WP:SOURCES. Perhaps you could explain the difference between a source and an external link to them. I've tried to post messages on their talk page, but they simply blank them without bothering to respond. They have also chosen not to respond to the talk comments here which offer a detailed justification for the appropriatness of the link - which they are now attempting to supplant with a link to vastly inferior, largely inaccurate and years out-of-date DMOZ page. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is a misunderstanding I think sometimes between WP:RS and WP:EL - what may not be a reliable source or what may be a self-published work or whatever may be acceptable as an external link. I think this is one of those sorts of cases. I would be more hesitant without the text that follows it, which I think adequately informs readers that while a resource, it is probably not neutral in the same sense that Wikipedia aims to be. But this falls in the same category of celebrity articles linking to their home pages I think, or even an article like Math rock where external links link to resources developed by other people which would, if used as sources, probably fall foul of WP:SPS. Orderinchaos 06:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, one could see it as a single-purpose editor (based on contributions, and whom another admin has suggested is an IP sock) who is unhappy with the removal of something he or she wants in, and is trying to get their way. Methods include multiple reverts, misleading statements, and discounting solutions (such as DMOZ) that have long been accepted as practical alternatives for EL-related issues. Orderinchaos, if you want to take over this issue, fine. I'd appreciate it though if you could review this IP's contributions, and (more importantly) monitor the articles as I strongly suspect this is not the end of the problem. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said - it can't by definition be a sock - admin suggestion or otherwise. The identity of the person is fairly obvious to all involved, he is not banned or blocked or even sanctioned under his main account (he was but it lapsed almost three months ago), he is not editing on his main account concurrently so there is no accusation of gaming the system. It simply seems he chooses to edit anonymously, which is the right of any editor (I know several senior Wikipedia admins who do so, although I choose to put every last one of my edits under my own nick or my semi-auto account.) The sock policy is designed to prevent gaming and things like multi-account edit-warring. Neither of these things are even alleged to have occurred in this case. Orderinchaos 08:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another careful look at EL, and I cannot find any ground under the list of 18 items to avoid on which the link being debated here can be excluded on policy, rather than merely as an editing decision. (I'm not remotely suggesting such editing decisions should never be made - I'm not shy of rewriting an entire article if I think it sucks, and I have done so even in the last 24 hours.) In which case, we have two opposed views as to whether it should remain, and an unfortunate low-level edit war over it. It seems to me that the whole debate is a bit fruitless on both sides - we have a topic which is visited more for curiosity than scientifically valid information, and entrenched sides, bad faith accusations, possible abuse of admin tools (not by Ckatz, for the record, as I believe Ckatz has acted in good faith) and other problems coming out of it. I am wondering if some sort of mediation is necessary between the parties. Orderinchaos 08:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I find the IP's criticism of DMOZ ("DMOZ is very limited resource that links to a handful of websites.") questionable, especially given that the DMOZ page offers 137 links categorized by region and other subject areas. Given that anyone is free to request that links are added to DMOZ (negating the "out of date" claim), it would appear that the primary reason for the IP's claim is simply that DMOZ doesn't list his preferred site. The DMOZ link does far more to assist providing a broader perspective that a solitary link to one site, and the IP is far better off submitting it to DMOZ than persisting in disruptive behaviour here. Just my two cents. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe in this instance his behaviour is disruptive, I think your suggestion in the last instance is a fair one. If it is open submission and there are some problems with what has or has not been submitted, that should be rectified, assuming that it can be done so easily/appropriately. Orderinchaos 08:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ is basically a link farm. It is a *very* poor choice of external link if one is seeking to provide a current, accurate, extensive, unique, independent third party source which expands upon the content of List of micronations. Unlike DMOZ, listofmicronations.com is not simply a set of random links to the website URLs of a few dozen micronations. It is a detailed list which brings together and presents in tabulated form, detailed information about several hundreds of micronations - including the full names, locations, addresses and phone/email contact details of the primary contacts of most of the major ones, that are not available from any other single source. It is a unique, unparrallelled, up-to-date resource which is of specific relevance to the subject of the article. It is also fully compliant with any objective reading of WP:EL. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it meets EL (and is certainly not excluded by it). I think there's sometimes confusion between the much tighter terms of RS and EL. Orderinchaos 03:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel last[edit]

I thought this might be an article subject of interest to you. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that article. Glad you could sort it out. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian infanticide[edit]

hi Orderinchaos, Of course "racism" was not my motive to start that article. I've read a lot about Australian infanticide in the tribes in the 20 century. The sources are neutral. actually, the sources do not condemn infanticide. They only describe it. As I told you in talk page, they are old because Australians don't do it anymore. Any substantial reason to not restore those sources? I would recommend your reading of the article infanticide. You will see that *all* cultures practiced it. (By the way, yesterday I watched the film Australia with Nicole Kidman :) Thantalteresco (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you still think that I am that banned sock, I must insist to do an IP check. (Perhaps it will be surprising to you to know that I have Indian blood...). Thantalteresco (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said at the page, I don't. I am starting to think you might be a single-purpose account here to establish a particular view on a particular subject, but your tone and background vary significantly from the other editor. (As for me, I'm a mix of Irish, Scot, Czech, Austrian with a dash of Slovenian and Jew.) Orderinchaos 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, when i start to edit only the articles of my real vocation, films, you'll see that I am not a SPA at all. So I doubt we will have much chance of further encounters (unles you also start to edit the movies articles). Thantalteresco (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Orderinchaos 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian place names[edit]

Thanks. I've responded to your comment at my own talk page. Earthlyreason (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I am here, I will add a comment here as well. I think it is strange that Australians (and Americans and Canadians) can't manage unless all town names are disambiguated and yet NZ and the UK seem to cope just fine! Mandatory disambiguation of Australian urban centres (but nothing else) seems to be one of these strange traditions that has developed that we now go along with because "it's always been done that way". I am afraid I have never seen the logic in forcing the Deniliquin article to sit at Deniliquin, New South Wales other than to make life easier for editors and I am not even convinced that it does that! But, it is a battle, long fought and lost ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Wagga Wagga, I know there is a Wagga Wagga Station in NW Western Australia but I doubt that it would have an article here nor would it use Wagga Wagga. Bidgee (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand actually has mostly disambiguated - that wasnt the case even a year back. Orderinchaos 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meelon, Western Australia[edit]

Hi OIC. My general practice where there is not a UC/L figure available is to use the SS figure and note in the prose that the figure relates to the "[town] and the surrounding area". It seems to me to be a little perverse not to accept the ABS definition of the Meelon "area", although I have to admit that I have absolutely no knowledge of the local geography. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrave Heights Christian School[edit]

I believe it fails WP:ORG. I've seen things like this redirected into suburb articles but personally I don't think all schools should be redirected. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't come from a land down under...[edit]

What do you make of Godwin Grech? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for speedy deleting this and protecting the page. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, if I had had the courage of my convictions I would have (and I should have) done the same, rather than just leave a drive-by delete comment. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. I guess I'm less concerned with the wikipolitics of it all than I used to be and my decision to delete was entirely defensible (it's not one I would usually take, but this seemed a textbook case). All there is on this guy is rumour really. Orderinchaos 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wainwright[edit]

It's important that we recognise party divisions only as recognised by the electoral commissions. Almost all candidates who run as "unaffiliated" are representatives of some unregistered party; this doesn't mean that we say that they are representatives of that party. That Wainwright is a member of the Socialist Alliance is stated under the candidate list; the election box should record the official result, which lists him as unaffiliated. I note that Lorrimar, in the same by-election, used DLP material, but since this party has not contested any elections in WA for a while, it would be ridiculous to list her as DLP. Frickeg (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important? I think someone that does unexpectedly well with a "blank" doesn't make implicit sense to readers, and that we should mark it but maybe have a footnote indicating that the affiliation did not appear on a ballot paper. I think Wainwright is a little different in that he talked to the media as Socialist Alliance, campaigned under that banner and had volunteers at some booths clearly identifying him as the Socialist Alliance candidate. (I had the same experience when I ran at Vic Park with their candidate and team). Orderinchaos 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel it sets a rather undesirable precedent - after all, the Socialist Alliance cannot have officially endorsed him since they aren't registered. I note, for example, that John Moffat stood for Electoral district of Cronulla in 2007, and campaigned as a member of the Australia First Party, which hasn't been registered for years. Listing him, for example, as Australia First would imply that the party still officially exists, when in reality it is little more than a rump. I have no problem with noting Wainwright's membership of the Socialist Alliance or Lorrimar's of the DLP, but to list them officially as candidates thereof is inappropriate in the election box. I don't particularly mind if Wainwright's box has "Independent", if this could confuse people, but I do object to having him Socialist - it's technically incorrect in the context. (The footnotes idea is a good one, but it's unlikely to work; footnotes massively stuff up election result boxes.) Frickeg (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frickeg here, by the way. Wainwright was technically an independent, as was Lorrimar. We should note their affiliations in the text, and leave the table for their official status. Rebecca (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Alex Ryan?[edit]

Hi OIC. Is Alex Ryan really that notable to be included in the article on Perth? I hate to say it but I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the fix. Sorry to bother you! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me too :) Orderinchaos 15:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban of NYScholar[edit]

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ban succeeded, thanks to you, Steve, Shell and others. Now, we need to review the articles on which she was most active and see which ones need remediation. Want to help? I'm working on Harold Pinter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cc-by-sa 3.0 notification[edit]

Hello, Orderinchaos. Thanks for your helpful comment on my user page about the cc-by-sa - I'll contact Raymond Allen with that when I get a chance! Regards, PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]