User talk:Aberglas

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 06:18, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Software patent debate
Many thanks for your excellent work in this article! A controversial debate well-summarized. --Edcolins 13:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

=

Official lines, and NPOV and Conspiracy theories
RE: your note on my page about Sydney Hilton bombing.

I think Ambi has acted appropriately in this instance.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there for conspiracy theories are avoided, and official lines of information are followed. We must do this in order to follow citing sources.

Perhaps it is appropriate to mention contraversy about the bombings, but not quite in the fashion you did so.

My computer is dying at the moment (hance belated reply) so I will consider looking more closely at the scenario at a later date.

c.f. Oklahoma City bombing. Not much about a lot of public doubt, FBI bungling or other conspiracies about these events.

Reversions on Sydney Hilton bombing
Both yourself and Ambi have violated Wikipedia's Three-revert rule on this article. I am letting you know now, if either of you violate it again, I'm going to have to block you from editing for 24 hours. &mdash;Stormie 12:31, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ambi
I understand your troubles with him, but sometimes working things out requires that you take a few steps back and really take a break. Revert warring doesn't get anywhere. I see you've been active on the talk page, and I'm sure if your update is reasonable, someone will else will incorporate a version of it. Please don't call other peoples edits "Vandalism" unless they fit the established definition, and don't misuse edit summaries by trying to "hold a conversation" with other people. Simply explaining your revert and directing to the talk page is enough. Ambi hasn't acted very well either (and considering that he's an Arbitrator he should especially act better), so don't feel like I'm picking on you alone. -- Netoholic @ 11:24, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

3 revert rule
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing listGeni 11:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * try the wikipedia disspute resolution process Resolving disputes

Hilton bombing
I've heard of the issues you detail. However, although these are positions held by a few people, they are really a minority viewpoint. Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing. However, you need to make sure that when you write that you "write for your enemy" so to speak: in other words write in a neutral fashion and don't state that something is more true than something else. Merely state facts and give the sources of these facts (which I know you've done) and make sure that you balance the article with the opposing viewpoint (no matter how 'orrible). I think that's what Ambi was objecting to.

Incidently, you should know that I know Ambi fairly well. She's one of the people I talk to quite a bit on IRC and she voted for my adminship. I'm a little biased, but will attempt to put aside my bias in this case.

With regards to locking the page. I just locked the last page. I haven't really gone through the page with a fine tooth comb, nor should I at the moment. My suggestion is to post what you propose to write on the talk page and ask what the specific objections are with it. Then ask how the others think it can be improved. If they become unreasonable, I'll step in. I doubt I'll have to do this: Ambi is an arbitrator and as such is not really unreasonable. Try to work to some sort of consensus and you should be OK. Once you've worked something out (even if it's not perfect but at least shows a start) I'll unlock the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate thing about locking pages that ONE revision must be picked. In this case I've just kept the last revision. There are issues with NPOV that need to be considered with your version... if you are happy to discuss them on the talk page and perhaps edit the following page Sydney Hilton bombing/Temp then we might be able to procede further. I'm sorry that it's come to the point where noone can edit this page and I wish to state that I think your info is necessary, only we need to rewrite it to address concerns. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aberglas, I know you're upset about this article, but could you have a look at Sydney Hilton bombing/Temp and help improve the first four sections: "Background", "The bombing", "Reaction to the bombing", "Investigation". But... it would be nice to improve these sections (that shouldn't cause too many problems... I hope) by small, individual edits. This would enable to pinpoint the contentious element in the article. --Edcolins 18:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying the layout I proposed for the article is the most appropriate or the best in this case, but I just would like to know a little bit more about the background, the bombing itself, the direct reactions afterwards, and the official investigation(s). I think many readers may want more information on the factual framework, before jumping into the further theories around the bombing. They are very important and very valuable as well, but it seems to me it is difficult to understand (and to put in proper perspective). I strongly believe what you just added should NOT be removed, but the other previous sections need more work to make the article more balanced. For instance (...)
 * the Ananda Marga Three (...) were jailed until 15 May 1985 for the bombing, before being pardoned after several inquiries.

Gosh, that's incredible. How comes? This is a big, gross judiciary mistake! If you want, just give an official, general source about the first four sections and I'll try to summarize it. --Edcolins 11:50, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Ambi will revert a properly balanced article. That's why it is important to elaborate more on the official inquiries, about the Royal Commission, the new legislation that ensued... I am not Australian, but it is a striking story. --Edcolins 22:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to say your version was not balanced. However, if Ambi insists in saying it was, maybe making it even more balanced will lead to a consensus. By the way, have you seen my question in Talk:Tim Anderson (Ananda Marga Three) (it also applies to the Sydney Hilton bombing article)? Another question: is this terrorist act the sole "domestic" terrorist act to date, as written in the article. What about the "1980s Sydney bombings" (see section 1.2 of)? Cheers. --Edcolins 15:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know - an article connected with the Hilton bombing has been nominated for VfD - Votes for deletion/Terry Griffiths (Australian policeman) - Regards --AYArktos 08:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link to Wikinfo
Done. Sydney Hilton Bombing article on Wikinfo, a fork from Wikipedia. --Edcolins 07:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Hilton bombing
Nice to see you back! Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)