User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive10

User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive1 User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive2 User talk:Ambi/Archive3 User talk:Ambi/Archive4 User talk:Ambi/Archive5 User talk:Ambi/Archive6 User talk:Ambi/Archive7 User talk:Ambi/Archive8 User talk:Ambi/Archive9 Last archived June 7, 2005.

+++++++

Gwen Araujo
Ambi, I keep revising the entry for 'Gwen Araujo' due to the fact that the person who initially posted it made it a politically correct transgendered issues diatribe, and by no means was it a fair depiction. It is a political footstomp that assigns motivation using a very psuedo-psychiatric term 'Transphobia' -a term that seems to have no real meaning, and is not a disorder that I am aware of. The bottom line is that a trial is still in process and the defendants have yet to be judged. This author is making assumptions of motivation and concluding that this is a "hate crime" without knowing what actually happened! An Encyclopedia isn't the place for manifestos, and my revisions were minor. I resent that you seem to be faulting me for attempting to revise a piece that is clearly in breach of wikipedia's rules! Thank you!

Help!
Hey Ambi,

I'm in major trouble. I'm a student in the UK, and I'm involved in the Oxford Union, a major student society. I very stupidly posted a wikipedia article about the Union's last round of committee elections (it's called Oxford Union Hilary 2005 Elections), and I've since found out that I'm not allowed to have done that, under the Union's rules. I've requested an article delete, because if it stays online, I could get thrown off committee or fined a lot of money. However, some of the other Oxford people have been going onto the delete page and requesting that we keep the article - I think so that they can get me into trouble -- is there any way I can just get this thing deleted? It's got me seriously worried, I should never have posted it. And I should never have gone into student politics. Help!

False accusation?
You falsely accused me. You no longer seem to think the issue is open as through what I assume can only be embarassment you have removed my reminder from here. Fair enough. I am prepared to accept your gracious apology, whenever. Paul Beardsell 23:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration. Paul Beardsell 01:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)



Moving pages, move links, too
FYI: There are dozens of articles that still link to Alice Springs. If you move a page, it's nice (although a pain in the patoot) to update those links, so they don't bounce through redirects. - DavidWBrooks 13:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

arbitration
I think sufficient evidence has been added for arbitration to continue. Do you think you can review your decision in the arbitration of Yuber?

Regards,

Guy Montag 06:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to rush you, but you made a promise to review your verdict when new information was to be presented. New information has, but you have failed to fulfill your pledge. Yuber is still vandalising pages, and your inadvertant stonewalling is drawing out the preliminary case longer than it needs to be. At least reply to my requests so I know that there are legitimate reasons for your inability to act.

Guy Montag 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism
Ambi, have a serious issue on Zoroastrianism. It says:


 * Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC.

I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on the arbitration page
You do realise that it was not me making changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD. All those articles started off on consistent BC/AD notation before SC visited them. He then systematically changed them to his preferred notation. I, and a number of other editors then reverted them back.

The manual of style permits both styles. Slrubenstein put forward a proposal to ban BC/AD notation. Despite the flaws in his vote and the one-sided nature of it, he failed even to garner a majority, let alone gain the consensus necessary to gain a consensus. Despite that, and in full knowledge of that and egged on by Slrubenstein, SC changed articles as though that proposal had passed. He was reverted.

It seems strange that ArbCom is deciding on what is effectively a content matter that SC is right to make his changes and right to insist on them despite the community clearly not accepting Slrubenstein's proposals. The ArbCom is then going on to find me guilty of what SC and Slrubenstein have been doing - ie changing one perfectly permissible style to another one, despite opposition, and reverting aggressively to enforce their change.

May I ask you to reconsider your votes in the light of these comments? Kind regards, jguk 12:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tags
Hi Ambi. What's with the update tags? I took a look at the article history for Geelong railway line, Victoria and I'm thinking it must be another article you refer to? I did begin this article and return later to stub it later. Was it another maybe?

You might be referring to a situation I remember of a few days back where a local rail related article mentioned a future Grovedale line extension. As I'm living in Geelong, I knew the information in the article to be long out of date, and I didn't know the current track or line situation at hand to update it. (I don't use rail transport all that often, so rather than leave the article out of date, my update tag said 'hey, this is wrong, somebody knows, please fix it if you can). If you came along to update it later, the goal was acheived, and thank you. I don't like the look of those god awful templates at all but they do work and acheive their purpose.

Going Home? The article needed wikifying, to link all actors in my opinion, and thats exactly the tag I placed on the page. I could have done it myself sure, but not being a big television watcher either, a 2 second edit for yourself might become a 10 minute edit for myself to verify a list of actors I'd never heard of before, and to determine whether or not they were career actors or just people sitting on a train luckly enough to be included in a film, and if they're deserving of a link at all. I see now they're all red links so I suspect a few of them might be somewhat unknowns?

Both edits in my eyes achieved the end result of the article being improved. Overall, I'm here to improve Wikipedia, and if a 2 second edit, or a 20kb article comes from my keyboard, they're all movements towards providing a useful, informative encyclopedia. -- Longhair | Talk 22:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject
I'm still planning on making the women project, but I'm currently addicted to gta, I left my file on the computer at work and the wiki being so slow is making me crazy. I'll put my planned outline in my sandbox when I go to the lab this week, I'll leave you a message when I do. --nixie 07:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: The potential layout is in my sandbox, I'm quite pleased with it so far. One area that needs work is the open tasks (linked from the project page), is it worth separating requested/expanions articles etc. --nixie 04:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipropject Political Figures - I'm still interested but I leave for a month on June 16, so I won't be able to do much until I get back. Neutralitytalk 18:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response
There has been a misunderstanding. I can assure you that I am not some sort of sockpuppet, or being POV, or pushing a political agenda. All I have been doing is trying to keep articles specific and to the point. I'm sorry that that's been misunderstood, but there's no need for arbitration. -- OldRight 20:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Political Figures
I have been kind of busy lately, and that's why I haven't contributed to this WikiProject that much. Yes, I am still interested, and I'll work on it over the summer. Thanks. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In truth, I can't say I'm interested; my contributions in general have been declining along with my commitment to computer usage. so I'll remove my name from the page. Ground 23:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo page
Hello, as a Wikipedia arbitrator, I would like your input on the Iglesia ni Cristo page, which is currently caught in a revert war from members who claim this article is biased and other Wikipedians who claim the article is in adherence to the religion and NPOV standards.--Onlytofind 09:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian politics
Hi Ambi. I don't know if you recall our conversation at the Notice Board a while back about establishing a WikiProject Australian politics, but I just thought I'd let you know I've started at it. The page outline is a copy of the WikiProject Australian law, and has yet to be completely customised - partly because I am unsure as to what the Project should cover. If you are still interested, please make any changes you think necessary. Any input would be great. I'll be making more of a concerted effort once I get into the mid-year break. Thanks, --  Cyber  junkie  14:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry! I haven't lost interest, just my memory… I read your comments, intended to respond, but was then sidetracked. I've been half-revising for exams, and half-monitoring/editing Wikipedia - although I really shouldn't be. But back to the topic at hand, your suggestions (here and at the Project page) are sensible. It does seem ridiculous to have an article counter when the number of associated articles is ever-growing. I have doubts that a COTW would be maintained (look at the Australian one!), but the article adoption programme seems reasonable. I noticed that was a scheme used at the WikiProject Melbourne. Has that been successful? Also, would priority be given to certain articles, or would the adopter just choose. A COTW would probably be more successful (in drastically expanding articles), but it would require numerous dedicated editors (like you).


 * Additionally, we need to set the scope of the project and identify areas of particular need. This is something you’re going to know a lot more about than me – I’ve somewhat neglected my initial wish to edit Australian politics articles. I’ve just created an empty Open Tasks template for the Project. I’ll transfer my (related) comments to the Project talk-page, for further discussion there. After further modification of the Project page, I’ll “launch” it (place it on WikiProjects, the Wikiportal and AWNB).


 * Sorry again! --[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]] Cyberjunkie   TALK  05:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Ambi, this is a bit late, but I want to thank you for your support vote on my RFA. Thanks to everyone who has supported me, I am now an admin, and I have used my powers to further Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation
You have commented on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Could you share your opinion on Votes for deletion/Alessandra? &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 00:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Franklin Dam=

Ambi, quite concerned that the Franklin article lacks an important nomenclature issue. The HEC bless their little socks never specifically referred to the Franklin dam as such. So the article has me in a quandary. They called it the Lower Gordon Power Development Scheme and never really called it the Franklin. As I am new to wiki I am not sure how to work on an edit that gets some of this straight. Hope I get this right. Vcxlor

Thanks for your response. There are a few other small items (I was at Bob Browns Liffey house when we changed the name from South West Tas Action Committee... and went on to start the WA Branch of the Wilderness Society, but that's another story. The best part of all this was I lived in Queenstown before the "anti - greenie hatred" started Vcxlor

Time is my problem. I do have heaps of my own photos of west coast tassie that I was hoping to make a book out of about 10 years ago - slides, b@w, but therein lies the rub, I have a lot less time and money now. But you ask - I will look for something in the next month or so! Vcxlor

Senators
I don't really follow what you are looking for, but there is a full list of Senators since 1901 here, including their "Hons" and "Rt Hons". Adam 10:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hey
hey dude, you go to ANU? Which bec are you 203.129.40.22

I think I know...

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 14:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skyring RfAr
Could you get a sockcheck on User:Wingbearer who left a lengthy and very Skyring like rant on the evidence page. Thanks. --nixie 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by JoJo
Do you want to report him, or should I? I'm at work right now, so vaguely busy, but if you don't have the time, I can put him up. Leave me one on my User_Talk. jglc | t | c 16:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Merging articles unilaterally"
Please don't do that again. If you don't think they're notable, put it up for VFD - and good luck getting it through. Ambi 06:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Who are you? What is this? --Wetman 06:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just spent quite a while putting Chancellor of the Australian National University together, and you unilaterally decided to merge it with Australian National University (which already has too many lists, some of which already need to be split off). If you don't think the article is notable to stand on its own - put it up for VFD. I somehow doubt that it's likely to get consensus there. Please don't do that again. Ambi 06:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a list of chancellors of the Australian National University with a brief header paragraph that did not even link to Australian National University. I looked at the University article. There was no hint at Australian National University that the office of chancellor existed, much less that there was a list. I did what any adult Wikipedian would have done. Deleting it was never a question. But the article as a little list all by itself was a meaningless orphan that the reader of Wikipedia could never find. I don't suppose you understand any of this, but that's no matter to me. --Wetman 06:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Next time, read article, then act.

The office of Chancellor was mentioned in the infobox, just as it is in every other university article in the country. It was also linked from there, as well as in Category:Australian National University, which was where people were likely to find it - and which is exactly what is done with similar articles overseas. I did forget to wikilink Australian National University, but that's no reason to unilaterally delete the whole article. Spare me the condescension. If you unilaterally merge articles without discussing them anywhere, let alone putting them through VFD, you're bound to annoy people. It's bad Wikiquette, against policy, and just plain rude. Ambi 06:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Since nothing was deleted, no text was edited, and since my edit was made in perfectly good faith and with over 12000 edits under my belt, I am curiously unmoved. Move along please. --Wetman 06:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pakistan
Would you like to join the animated discussion on the Pakistan's talk page? The current issue is whether "Pakistan is famous for its support of Taliban and 9/11 terrorist" is a suitable sentence to start the article's first paragraph. Your contribution would be much appreciated, as the current discussion seems to be more of a dialog between Ragib and SamTr014 Talk:Pakistan. Thanks !--PrinceA 07:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tiraspol
You rv my edit without an explanation. This article clearly needs wikifying. Please explain. freestylefrappe 04:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not liking the way a tag looks does not justify removing the tag. Im readding the tag. freestylefrappe 17:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why these deletions?
The Burke and Wills expedition article seems to good information about both Burke and Wills. Why did you delete the redirects? &mdash; Sebastian (talk)
 * 20:42, 2005 Jun 19 Ambi deleted "Robert Burke" (content was: '#redirect Burke and Wills expedition')
 * 20:41, 2005 Jun 19 Ambi deleted "William Wills" (content was: '#redirect Burke and Wills expedition')
 * 20:40, 2005 Jun 19 Ambi deleted "William John Wills" (content was: '#REDIRECT Burke and Wills expedition')
 * 20:40, 2005 Jun 19 Ambi deleted "Robert O'Hara Burke" (content was: '#redirect Burke and Wills expedition')

copied from User_talk:SebastianHelm to keep the conversation together. I forgot to mention that I am keeping this page on my watchlist for a while. Burke and Wills are probably most well known for that fateful expedition, but they're also entirely notable in and of themselves, and deserving of seperate articles. The redirects discourage people from writing those articles, so I deleted the redirects, as part of cleaning up a list of Australian biography articles we don't have, in the hope that someone will indeed write them. Ambi 06:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and the explanation. I'm no expert, but this doesn't sound like an effective way to achieve this goal to me. Why is deleting better than just writing a brief note that they're also noticable in XYZ and adding a bio-stub tag? &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Alexander Thomson disambig
Thanks for spotting this. I must remember to bring more steam to Wikipedia and not retire with jobs half done. Good work! :) -- Longhair | Talk 09:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouchies
Dear oh dear. I really don't want to get involved with these loonies again, but such subliterate rubbish can't be allowed to stand. I will have a go. Adam 09:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hallo from Uwe
hallo Beck! thank you for visiting my pages - on my articles I have small images, like on Antarctic krill - there are no rules on how a user page should look - nobody is forced to go there - on our machines (also in Germany and Danmark and Norway, where I come from) the page loads in far under a second. But I will make a smaller page without images and a link on the top after your suggestion - keep up with your fine work for our international education project (may I ask you to better the language of the articles on eel and/or eel reproduction - best greetings to downunder ;-) Uwe Kils 12:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * done - next time please go here - what are you studying? I was a teacher at the universities once - you have an impressive contribution list! Uwe Kils [[Image:Uwekilsmini.jpg]] 12:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

removed it
Better safe than sorry. Pcb21| Pete 19:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Senate
Thanks for spotting that error. Archer resigned in 1994. Adam 04:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The good Commander
Ambi, darling, baby, sugarcakes...

Maybe we got off on the wrong foot.

You see, Commander Cool isn't a hater. He's a cool guy (just look at his name).

All this benevolent personality wanted was his own little nook on the Internet, where he and a privileged few would be able to sit and have a good time at the expense of no one.

Well, maybe Kirstie Alley...but I can rescind that, if you wish.

In this crazy, mixed-up world we live in, wouldn't it be nice if, every now and then, people had a little area to go to for rest and relaxation from their troubles and woes? (I am reminded of the TV show "Cheers." But I don't know if they got that in Aussie land, so maybe you aren't as reminded as I am). That's all the Commander Cool personal article ever offered.

Anyway, this is probably the last you'll hear from me (never shall it be said that the good Commander pesters those who would rather not be pestered!). Oh, and it ripped the good Commander's heart just the littlest bit to find his previous comment erased from your archive...perhaps this poor, meager attempt at communication will find a more lasting place in your infinite mercy.

Sincerely,

His Majesty of Masculinity,

Commander Cool 09:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's something you might want to look at...
In regard to Kainthescion, Enviroknot, etc. something doesn't seem to add up when it comes to the sockpuppet allegation. Check out the talkpage for that request for arbitration or better yet take a look at my talkpage. I've got some information that appears to create some doubt in regard to the anon. IPs all being sockpuppets of the same person. --Chanting Fox 20:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dinsdale 5th Avenue
Care to elaborate on your statement 'garbage' before you speedily deleted? It seems like the article was factually correct and formatted correctly. Perhaps you would consider removing the link from Dinsdale and the redirect page Dinsdale5thavenue too? Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 10:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Importance
Thanks again for your input at Wikipedia:Importance. I've tried to address some of the issues you raised; any suggestions are appreciated. ··gracefool |&#9786; 10:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Senators
I'll do John Button if you do some of the current Senators who are still lacking articles. I've done six or so of them tonight. All their bios are here. Adam 11:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Electorate naming conventions
Thanks for the heads up; I hope to participate in this discussion. Hesperian 13:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BioCOTW Project
You voted for  Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, this weeks' Biography Collaboration of the weeks. Please come and help them become a featured-standard article.(Sorry its a little early but I'm not sure if I will be on tommorow) --Falphin 01:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frederick Henry Piesse
Ambi, would you do me a quick favour? Some time ago I moved Frederick Henry Piesse to Fredrick Henry Piesse, based on Piesse's entry in Black and Bolton (2001). To my embarrassment, I have just discovered Black and Bolton and I were in the wrong; Frederick is in fact the correct spelling. If you would use your amazing sysop powers to delete the redirect at Frederick Henry Piesse so that the article may be moved back there, I will be eternally grateful. Hesperian 02:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very sorry to have confused you. After I left you the above message, I discovered that it is now possible to move an article to a new title that already has an article, provided it is a redirect to the old article and has no history.  So I was able to perform the move myself.  When I returned here to withdraw the above request, Wikipedia locked for editing for a day or so.  By the time I could edit again, I had forgotten you.  Hesperian 28 June 2005 23:06 (UTC)

Sorry
Ambi, I want to apologize for my behavior during Eequor's RfA. You stated that oppose voters were being subjected to a hostile interrogation, and as I reread over the page, I understand your feelings in this matter. I was upset and frustrated by the way the RfA was going, and by accusations that were made regarding my intentions. I have the highest respect for you, both as an editor and as an administrator, and I regret the confrontational manner in which I responded to your concerns. I'm sorry. func (talk) 29 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Secretlondon
I am sorry to see your rebuke of my statement to Secretlondon. I understand that you have positive sentiments for her, and maybe she is a great person to you, and IRL. What I know is that she chose to ignore my citations, insult my knowledge based on my nationality, as well as make a personal attack (accusing me of having been "trolling" 12 months ago), all in a very short period of time. This from a person who made me very angry 12 months ago due to her egocentric emotionalism against Jimbo, and by my perception against americans in general, during her exit. Frankly, I feel she is a bigot, and that her bigotry manifested in such a manner as to harm the project.

This doesn't mean i can't behave civilly towards her, but it does mean my threshold of tolerance for rudeness on her part is extremely low. I hope this doesn't somehow cement whatever bad feelings you might have towards me. In the past I thought rather highly of you, seeing you as both possessed of a keen sense of humor (the name "ambivalent hysteria" amused me to no end) and a focus on neutrality (your defense of Featured article removal candidates/Political correctness struck me as a good example of this). In summary, you can have as positive feelings as you might like towards a given wikipedian, and as negative of feelings towards myself as might possibly develop, but I would ask you to preserve the level of neutrality and rigour which I came to respect you for. Thank you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 30 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)

ARD and Jwalker
You may wish to consider weighing in at Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker, I recall that you used to help me curb some related vandalism in the past :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   2 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

BioCOTW Project
You voted for  Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, this weeks' Biography Collaboration of the weeks. Please come and help them become a featured-standard article.--Falphin 4 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Help!
We seem to have a new template that is really screwing with the sites formatting. See Template:TOCright. I have listed it on WP:TFD. To see how it is causing problems, see Daniel Pipes. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Protection requested for Transnistria
Dear Ambi, I chose to address you among other sysops with this request because, on one hand, you might be aware of goings on in the Transnistria article (you edited it and the talk page at some stages) and, on the other hand, you have no reason to be partial to either side of the dispute that goes on there.

I request the article protected not because I disagree with it and not because I think it is POV. And not even because several editors refuse to compromise and keep reverting changes or alter the article frivolously only to avoid the 3RR rule. I still think that the article being allowed to develop on the long run is the best thing to let it evolve to an acceptable quality.

The only reason why I would like to resort to such an extreme measure as to have it protected is the persistent removal of POV tag by several users in spite of the fact that the reasons for the tag were elaborately stated at the talk page with the proposed corrections specifically stated not once. Corrections, when placed into the article, are reverted on sight or frivolously edited out as I stated earlier.

I warned the tag removers at the article talk page (see Talk:Transnistria). The warning was ignored. On that same page you may easily look for the latest development of the dispute about neutrality where specific reasons are stated carefully and still ignored. The only response I got was a frivolous call from a user to "bring sources". That's a joke. Sources are there. If you have time, please also look at the earlier issues (still not addressed) at Talk:Transnistria/archive 1. You may not have patience to read all of it, just looking at TOC at the archive and checking several chapters briefly would be sufficient.

To summarize briefly, I view that frivolous editing and bad faith arguing at the talk page may be the reason for RfC but not the protection. Protection is requested because the users remove the POV tag clearly in a bad faith and there is nothing else that could be done about it. Protection would allow emotions to cool off and changes discussed at talk, while the POV tag would warn the unfamiliar users to treat the article with caution. Thank you for your consideration. -Irpen July 4, 2005 19:21 (UTC)

Wiki Weirdness
Hi - Is there something going on with the cache in wikipedia at the moment? The edits made on Macquarie Harbour Penal Station seem to be all over the place - It says I put stuff I didn't, then your revert change from a sentence gone, to only a paragraph. Any idea what this is? It happened the other day to me when I reverted an article, but the revert came up as my edits, which looked very embarrassing to me. Jgritz

News from Grunnet Island
Greetings from freezing west coast australia, disambiguated. Rather than people for consensus, i have set up a bibliography in a new heading, West Coast Tasmania - Convict Heritage. I do hope you might see why I still feel the mhps has a minority when it comes to publisheing historyvcxlor 6 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

I Have also acknowledged on the MHPS aka sarah island acceded to the fact that the MHPS is the entry, and sarah should be either excluded or stay a redirect. and anyways clarkk has been through most of my west coast entries like a tornado anyways... vcxlor 6 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Ok, the problem is now your having redirected from the wct-ch which clarkk had revised - I am unable to recover the removed entry to ressurect part of it against/into the mhps entry. could you possibly let me know how to do such as i did not have a backup of the entry that i created. i would appreciate an answer on this one. needless to say i disagree with your redirect, as having been west coaster tassie person in past - there is something different about the place - otherwise there wouldnt have been all those books in the first place. vcxlor 6 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Ok, the problem is such: Tassie in 1900 or so had lonnie (Launceston), Hobart and west coasters - all equal political and economic power. Tassie in 2005 has lonnie and the southerners, west coast is a mere ghost of itself.

The problem is that despite their reduced numbers West coasters still have an attitude. as late as the mid 70's the canberra pollies and the hobart pollies were still courting the votes.

to accurately balance all this out is a headache indeed! vcxlor 6 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

The convict issue in the state is sorted easily out by chronology - and the main hist of tassie line - west coast first, then east coast, pretty simple. both with legacies. sorry about digressions, used to live on west coast and some decades later with hindsight and a lot of academic things - etc...vcxlor 6 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Electoral division lists
While it's nice to see some of these being created, what's with the change of name? Ambi 7 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)


 * (I presume you mean the Victorian provinces) Yes, sorry, I created that in line with the lower house ones without reading the rest of the discussion carefully enough. I'll change it to the simpler form if you like, it's not that important really, especially since the provinces won't be around for much longer. Western Province will need some disambiguation though, any suggestions? --bainer (talk) 7 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)


 * No, I meant moving the pages from, say, Electoral districts of South Australia to South Australian House of Assembly electoral districts - I'm inclined to think the latter is a bit of a mouthful. I'm not quite sure what you meant there, though - simpler form? I guess it might be simplest to just tack (Victoria) onto the end with Western Province; that's what's been done with a couple of the other electorate names that clash (i.e. Ivanhoe). Ambi 7 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. That's also a matter of consistency - for example, Divisions of the Australian House of Representatives is not at Electoral Divisions of Australia. Not so much of a problem in South Australia, but it would be problematic in Tasmania, for example. --bainer (talk) 7 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)

Railway Companies

 * Very curious what you would do with this category- as

the main entry for wiki assumes railway companies (american bias perhaps?) while for huge chunks of times in many nations there have been government authorities not companies. Any clues on howyou would re-arrange the entry? vcxlor 7 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

OK I'll try again. watching what happens to some of my entries re west coast tas, and noting you seem to be one of the regulars on changes etc. I thought you might have an idea. The main wiki entry for legal entities controlling railways around the world are identified as 'companies' - whereas in many countries it is in actual fact the legal entities are government departments. I still seem to be getting the hang of some wiki things, and even if it is not your area of interest I was wondering how you would resolve what seems to be a bias in such an entry. Or is it better to leave you be, shut up, and be bold and go for it anyways?vcxlor

Image:Pennywong.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pennywong.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as no source or no license. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add GFDL if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding NoRightsReserved. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add &#123;&#123;fairuse&#125;&#125; but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. RedWolf July 7, 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Women
I've put the WikiProject on hold for a while, with the biography one up and running it seems that it'd be useful to take advantage of that for a while by nominating and supporting women. I'm having fun with important non-political (in the wiki sense) things at the moment and I get the feeling a gender specific wikiproject will cop some unfair criticism, plus I'd like to hear if some more people are interested. I'm also supposed to be finishing writing a paper and doing my PhD stuff so nursing a baby Wikiproject a the moment would be too much. I'll let you know when I go get around to taking it live.--nixie 8 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

WA Legislative Council regions
Had any more thoughts about what to do with the WA Legislative Council regions?...
 * I don't want to muck up on regions, provinces, districts, etc, so I'm deferring handling the issue until I can get myself a copy of "House on the Hill: A History of the Parliament of Western Australia". I'll keep you posted.
 * Of course, my hesitation needn't hold you back. Feel free to "be bold". Hesperian 05:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I meant to ask - is there any reason you put the Legislative Council on top of the Assembly in your WA succession box?
 * The Council is the "upper house" and the Assembly the "lower house". Diagrammatic representations of the structure of the parliament always have the council on top for this reason, so I thought it logical to have the Council on top in the succession box.  I also dropped a comment on the Talk page for the Federal parliament succession box, suggesting that the Senate should be on top for the same reason, but received no response. Hesperian 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for withdrawing the objection. Like I said, I was too close to this one. What happened was that I wrote 90 Kb Augustan literature, then bishonen did a quick split of the prose section. I then went over Augustan prose for quite a while to make sure it didn't duplicate. Then I did the splits of Augustan poetry (with a new thesis and new material), and then I did Augustan drama, with three new paragraphs and a new section. The point is, it was about 4 weeks of pretty solid involvement, with a lot of proofreading (not enough, of course, because I left mistakes that others have found). I also wrote from the very start with getting references for things that I knew. In the past, I've written and then found the references that said what I knew to be commonplace in scholarship. This time, I went the proper way. Anyway, that's why I was more raw nerved than usual. Usually, a FAC of mine can win or lose. Geogre 16:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Holbrook, New South Wales
Further to your message on my talk page, I removed this statement from the Holbrook article: - A railway branch line connected it to the main railway line at The Rock. My reason was that the statement was a propos of nothing - ie no context. There are many ex branch lines all over Australia and such a statement may belong in an article about now defunct branch lines or in a section within the Holbrook article on lines of communication. There are many many more important things to say about Holbrook than former railway branch lines which have left little evidence on the current make-up of the town. I note also that the sentence was hard to translate - it could be expressed more clearly as Holbrook was formerly connected to the main Sydney - Melbourne railway line by a branch line from the Rock. That such a line existed is evidenced by this Railway archaeology page. I am not sure when the service was suspended (not recently) but that fact should definitely be included too and perhaps whether the branch line carried passengers or freight - if freight, what kind? - has the produce of the town changed thus leading to the closure of the line .... The present article doesn't even mention the wool industry which seems to be very important to the town's economy and is represented by a museum in the main street.--AYArktos 21:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Transnistria
I see you have some interest in the subject "Transnistria". Regarding your assertion that Transnistria is a "de facto indepedendent republic", I would like to know your sources. --Vasile 11:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a personal opinion in this matter and I respect that. Please take a minute or two and read this paragraph:

392. All of the above proves that the “MRT”, set up in 1991-1992 with the support of the Russian Federation, vested with organs of power and its own administration, remains under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of the Russian Federation, and in any event that it survives by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support given to it by the Russian Federation.

http://sutyajnik.ru/rus/echr/judgments/ilascu_eng.html

--Vasile 13:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Narambi/Narrambi
Hi Ambi. I have no problem with you reverting my change to List of closed Melbourne railway stations if I got it wrong - especially since I changed the link but not the text label (oops). However, I'm confused that there's an article Narambi railway station, Melbourne for a closed railway station. Did they have two with similar names, or should that article be renamed? The talk page also has comments on the spelling. I also notice that the same table has it as being near Narambi Road. --ScottDavis 06:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

AFL templates
Hi - here's the link you requested to the AFL player infobox I designed, currently being used on pages I've edited such as Michael Voss, Craig McRae, Jason Akermanis, Roger Merrett and Kevin Murray.

The Manchester United F.C. page is impressive. I wrote what I think is one of the best AFL club histories in Wikipedia in Brisbane Bears, it's less impressive than the MU page but then again it only covers a 10 year period. Many AFL club entries are very poor however.

It wouldn't take much to develop a similar club infobox that could be used for AFL clubs, or indeed any kind of sporting club. With regard to the template at the bottom, a similar template is already being used on all of the AFL club pages as far as I know. I'm pretty sure the NRL entries are also catered for in this regard.

You may also be interested in another page I created, Fitzroy FC honour roll. Most AFL clubs are over 100 years old and pages like this are a good way (I think) of prioritising the individuals worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Personally I reckon anyone to have played an AFL/VFL game is worthy of inclusion but as that is currently not feasible I'd suggest giving priority to coaches, captains, best-and-fairest winners, leading goalkickers, members of premiership sides and Brownlow medallists.

Resigning from arbcomm
I'm sorry to see you resigning (sorry I'm a bit slow and only just noticed). I appreciated your comments on my recent arbitration, obviously. More, I think its a shame that the process is such hard work for those doing it. Err, and my regrets for my part in making work for you. William M. Connolley 18:37:08, 2005-07-13 (UTC).

Cantus' request for arbitration
Hi Ambi, in Cantus' request for arbitration, would you consider applying an extension of Cantus' second case, which states ''Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week)'', the extension being one revert per 24hr period to any page in any namespace? I feel that the current proposed decision will once again not make it clear to him that refusing to discuss and reverting without edit summaries is not acceptable. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Alex White
user:Camillafop, who also may go by other names, just created Alex White about a student at Melbourne University. I've nominated it for VfD, and you may have more insight into his notability, or the quality of the information. There seems to be a political atmosphere in the circles that White travels that tends towards inflammatory speech and inflated personal accusations. An atmosphere may be seeping into Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't know quite what to make of these folks, but something smells fishy. Cheers, -Willmcw 12:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:211.28.51.58
it looks like this user also updated population statistics for several cities Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, then I noticed you reverted the user's update to one of the Australian election pages, which makes me think you know they are wrong. I don't have an easy way to verify those updated population figures. do they look OK to you? it could be some sneaky vandalism, as well, changing the numbers very subtly. clarkk 14:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally responding...
Hey Ambi, thanks for your kind words on my Talk page. But no I'm not resuming work here at present, not after the way I was treated by the supposed pillars of this community - although I admit to being nearly sucked in when I see so much that needs fixing and doing! But the (disgraceful) ruling of the ArbComm is like a "sword of Damocles", a constant threat of pretexts for blocking. I don't need the stress anymore than I needed the abuse. Good luck on your own pursuits. Very Verily 15:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have definitely considered appealing, but it would be a lot of work to make my whole case, and may come to nothing. I agree some of the new members are more reasonable types (and some less, e.g., Neutrality), although now I see that you've resigned (!) as did Grunt ;(.  That is really too bad....  But I'll consider it again since as someone who's worked with the new AC you think it might be worth it.  Also, FYI, Gzornenplatz hasn't gone anywhere; he's called NoPuzzleStranger now. (On an unrelated note, something seems to be going funny for me with section editing, I hope it's not scrambling your talk page....) Very Verily  15:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Gay cruising grounds in Britain
I was surprised by the vehemence of your vote on that page... you don't owe anyone an explanation, least of all me, but I am curious about your reasons if you would care to share them. --Skud 09:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cruising
Hi - you were expressing interest in an article on what you termed "straight cruising". I'm pleased to be able to tell you that there is something which might be up your street - see Dogging. It doesn't have a list of areas, but there are links on the page which take you to sites which might help. Hope this is useful --SP-KP 18:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

a quick q
does my arbcom injunction apply to removing simple vandalism from poli articles. thanks J. Parker Stone 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sjakkalle's dictatorial move
Hi Ambi: Can you please research and re-open the ridiculous move by User:Sjakkalle. I have sent him this message: Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Danny has called for the VfD to be re-opened. See Talk:Religious persecution by Jews, please voice your opinion. Thanks, and be well. IZAK 12:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Hi Ambi. I know you strongly disagreed with my closure of that VFD debate, but I am a VFD closer who sticks fairly close to a "two-thirds" guideline and who declares a "no consensus" result when the debate's delete votes fall short of a two-thirds majority, after discounting sockpuppets of course and I discounted three of the keep votes. I suggest asking a couple of other experienced VFD closers (SimonP and Rossami) for advice, can you please respond to that suggestion? Finally, I assure you that I was not trying to abuse my position as administrator to keep an article because I wanted it kept. The subject is one which I have very limited knowledge about, and I don't know what I would have voted had I participated in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)