User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive12

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 User talk:Ambi/Archive10 User talk:Ambi/Archive11 Last archived August 20, 2005.

VSU
I'm curious. What was wrong with this link, in the VSU article?


 * Unis need to prove VSU impact (Sydney Morning Herald)

You removed it as being 'biased'. There are many other anti-VSU articles in that page already; why not allow some balance?

203.206.18.154 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

:-)


Kim Bruning 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ambi! Welcome back. :) Func( t, c, @,) 20:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yay! You're back! See what politics will do to you? Stay out of it! Do your job for the job's sake! Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 07:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hi Ambi! Just a quick note to let you know how pleased I am to see you're back safe and sound. Just a little suggestion: just ignore those who can't find anything better to do with their time than to engage in stupid and petty battles. They're not worth spending time on. I don't often edit your articles, but I have read quite a bit of your work, and I've missed you over the last few weeks. I really hope you're back to stay for good, Ambi. I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. David Cannon 13:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yay! - brenneman (t) (c)  04:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Glebe Park, Canberra
Hi Ambi, you mentioned Glebe Park in the City Centre, Australian Capital Territory article. I thought you might be interested to know that I created a Glebe Park, Canberra page and uploaded a pic. The article needs a LOT of work. (I've had enough for one day but I thought a start with a pic was better than nothing). Adz 12:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Barendse
Why did you revert my edit? the quote is verry relevant to Joyce's denial. It establishes that he may not be of the opinion that is stated above that. Also, saying that Barendse's election is under a cloud is verry POV. The actual sittuation is described in the paragraph below it and a reader can decide if it is "under a cloud" or not themselves. Xtra 12:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have it on good advice that Barendse did get Joyce's assurance and he believes Joyce dudded him. Mind you, your acusations against me seem fairly hypocritical to me given the fact that you are just reverting everything i do just for the sake of it. Xtra 14:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to schema-root.org on the Polisario Front page?
And why didn't you leave a note why you were doing it?

John Tinker 15:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've had this discussion before about schema-root.org
Wherever wikipedia editors have bothered to look at the schema-root.org page in question, they have decided to keep the schema-root.org link. You can read for yourself discussions which have already occurred concerning this very point. Schema-root.org is currently serving about 20,000 pages a day. Where else but schema-root.org are you going to find cross-referenced newsfeeds, a newsfeed archive, and a number of reference sites relevant to very specific topics? Good form would be for you to edit based upon merit and the resulting effect on Wikipedia page quality, in my opinion. John Tinker 16:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see comments from all of one editor, whom I disagree with. To the best of my knowledge, there's a bunch of sites that offer the same services, but I have no problem with schema-root links being added by people other than the site owner. Out of curiosity, has anyone other than you ever added schema-root links to Wikipedia? Ambi 16:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never checked. It would be a simple matter to arrange for others to add links. It would seem a little silly. I think there are about 30 references to schema-root.org in Wikipedia subject pages. Your complaint is only the second one, as far as I know. Schema-root.org has about 7,000 topics total, each with current and archived newsfeeds. So 30 out of a possible 7,000 is hardly spamming, I would say. And you have not yet made any comment about the quality of my site. Or responded to my contention that such should be the determining factor.

Do you have a reference, please?
Ambi, I'm not trying to annoy you, but could you find a reference for me somewhere that would support your "bad form" comment to me. I've been reading through the Wikipedia etiquette, and can't find any references to users not putting links to their own pages, if they provide useful content, are relevant and of good quality. If indeed this is to be a Wikipedia policy, perhaps it should be spelled out somewhere (if it is not currently). Thanks, John Tinker 20:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Experimental_Deletion
Staying away from wikipolitics eh? ;-) Anyway, replied to you on the talk page. Basically, it's actually what it looks like, a project to do experiments. Things we learn can either be used to learn about mediawiki, improve vfd, or used to create new deletion systems. But that's all later. Kim Bruning 14:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you weren't on IRC. What's worrying you? Kim Bruning 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sydney suburbs
Thank you for your concern Ambi, but rest assured this is only the start. Living in the City of Blacktown for most of my life, I will strive to see these articles grow. BTW I'm glad to see that you have returned. -- Ianblair23 10:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Consideration of Others
We have been discussing the rules editing on this page without your interferrance. It is inappropriate for you to simply jump in and revert work that has been compromised on. I have asked you to participate in the discussion of Bob Jones Universities rules before you revert the page. You have not done so. My earlier reverts on the topic were to my versions. My newest reverts are reverts to a compromised version of the page. I ask you to consider the facts before blindly inserting these rules again. They do not belong here any more than they belong in another school article. They are the "most interesting thing" to you, but that is your POV, not the POV of everyone. To remain neutral, I ask that you consider working within the boundaries of the compromise already reached. Thanks for your help. - Sleepnomore 05:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

3RR rule
I see that you are giving sleepnomore a pass on a 3RR rule violation, he has one outstanding on the 3RR reporting page, that he has already been given a pass on. He may get the idea that can do this routinely.--Silverback 06:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are involved you should not block him yourself of course. Just document the violation on the 3RR page.  What article did her vilation occur on?--Silverback 07:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

An election to win
Hi, Ambi, I'm glad to see you've come back, even if only on a limited basis. The more you do here, the better, but you're right to be sure to avoid burnout. Just out of curiosity, and not that it's any of my business, but what's the "election to win" that you mentioned? (And good luck with your law studies. In the U.S., at least, it's hardest at the beginning, then eases off.)  JamesMLane 06:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Prior warning for user:Sleepnomore
user:Sleepnomore has been reported and warned recently. Uh, welcome back. ;) -Willmcw 07:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * User talk:Sleepnomore/Archive 0002
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

CSD on Atixive
Wow, talk about speedy! I considered CSD, but I'm ploughing through the deadend articles and am getting a tad impatient with the nonsense. So I decided to be conservative in case my impatience was corrupting my judgement. Next time I'll edit boldly! An admin can always say "No".

--Cje 13:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

List of suburbs of Canberra
Hi Ambi, There's a proposal on Talk:List of suburbs of Canberra to roll the group centres into the suburbs they are located within. I thought you might be interested as you have had a bit to do with that page in the past. I don't have strong feelings on whether they're listed separately or together but have put my thoughts up for what its worth. Adz 11:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Sam Vimes 16:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam Vimes' POV
I notcied your comment about User:Sam Vimes on his talk page about POV in this article. The style he uses doesn't show POV for either side, and the language is highly descriptive. "The last batters did rather well in the last test" doesn't convey the infromation that "tail-end heroics from the last test" does. Isn't Wikipedia here to inform? Could you please elaborate on why it is POV. --Commander Keane 17:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Avoidant Vandalism of Bob Jones University Page
Please stop editing the BJU page. This is considered Avoidant vandalism "Removing vfd, copyvio and other related tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion." Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

- Sleepnomore 02:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Blanking Bob Jones University due to Copyright Violations conforms to the rules of Wikipedia. Please see: Copyright_problems. Furthermore, removal of the copyright voilation tag is considered Avoidant Vandalism. Please do not engage in this activity. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

- Sleepnomore 02:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not continue this edit in violation of wikipedia policy. You are a good editor and I believe you are doing your best, but what you are doing is vandalism. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Sleepnomore 02:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best
I'm not making legal threats. I've followed wikipedia policy. I've attempted to resolve the issue with you and Willmc without success. I have no choice but to alert BJU and Wikipedia of the copyright voilation in accordance with Copyright_problems. If you would like to return the page to a state that does not contain the listing of rules until you can think of another way to rewrite them, I'll be happy to remove the copyright as well. I understand of all the people who are trying to do the right thing, you are. HOwever, continued removal of the tags is a violation of the policy. I ask that you not do it again unless you intend to remove the offending content in the process. Thank you. - Sleepnomore 02:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

1903 by-election
Thanks. Fixed. Adam 03:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sleepnomore
Ambi, I've got an email request from this user to be unblocked stating that he was merely trying to deal with copyright violations. Care to summarize your side of the story? Somehow I doubt it is as innocent as he sounds. Dragons flight 03:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ambi, you can read my response at Talk:Bob Jones University and User talk:Sleepnomore, however, after it was pointed out that you restored the rules list to the BJU article 5 times in 24 hours, I felt compelled to 3RR block you as well. I hope you can enjoy your short holiday.  Sorry.  Dragons flight 05:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Empress
Ambi, my sincere apologies about the Empress Hotel comment. I can see it was nothing to do with you. Once again, I'm sorry, I'll be more careful in future. Regards, Canley 23:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ambi
I'm really glad to see you back. What can I say, when you consider someone a friend as I consider you, it just makes feel good to know that that person has returned. Tony the Marine 06:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Page moves
Thank you Ambi for moving "Parramatta" to "Parramatta, New South Wales". Would it be possible also to move "Darlinghurst" to "Darlinghurst, New South Wales". Thanks -- Ianblair23 00:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that -- Ianblair23 03:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Ambi, I have got another one for you, this one was discovered by Nickj - "Illawong" to "Illawong, New South Wales". Regards -- Ianblair23 05:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Help please
Hi Ambi, Can you do me a favour and get really really angry about this? I'm feeling seriously threatened over it, and I'd like Wikipedia to be seen to take firm and immediate action. Hesperian | Talk 11:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt action. Check your email. Hesperian 12:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nasty recent edits to User:HipHopOppotomus, User talk:HipHopOppotomus, User:WW Rusty Gates and User talk:WW Rusty Gates. I need to step back from this - I'm just feeding the trolls. Hesperian 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

User:jguk at Talk:Biblical canon
User:jguk is agitating to convert yet another article to BC/AD dating, Biblical canon. I you could comment there it would be much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fire
Hi, I was not, despite my firebug inclinations, involved or affected by the fire, thanks for checking. I was meaning to ask you who is the least evil of the parties in the election, at least at UQ they declared their political sympathies. --nixie 04:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

ITN
Hi, would you be so kind as to have a look at Template_talk:In_the_news - there have been issues raised yet nothing done, and (in my opinion) there's really only one person in favour of keeping Brogden there.

(btw, it's disheartening to see messages like what you've posted on your main user page as politics should never come into play here, but I'm glad you're continuing) Enochlau 11:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That user that I reverted had vandalised numerous pages that day. I did not write the intro, I just reverted it. Xtra 05:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, the ABC guy? Not really my field either. Adam 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Page move
Hi Ambi. I noticed you were active today, so in the hope you're still about, I thought I'd ask for your assistance in two page moves. WP:RM takes far too long. If you can, could you please move Template:Kiportal:Australia/Did you know and Template:Portal:Australia/Did you know back to Template:Wikiportal:Australia/Did you know. I - rather stupidly, it could be said - mass-moved all the Portals templates without really thinking. It didn't occur to me until after I had finished that I couldn't templatise a namespace. Thanks in advance, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Okay, I see how I'm being a bit unclear. What happened was that I accidentally moved Template:Wikiportal:Australia/Did you know to Template:Kiportal:Australia/Did you know when I was trying to move it to Template:Portal:Australia/Did you know. Because I want the page history retained, I'd like for Template:Kiportal:Australia/Did you know to be moved back to Template:Wikiportal:Australia/Did you know. After that, both Template:Portal:Australia/Did you know and Template:Kiportal:Australia/Did you know can be deleted. Don't worry about any redirects - I'll try and fix them myself. What a mess...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Kiportal:Australia/Did you know could also be deleted. Thanks Ambi :). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Queensland
The History of Queensland article has finally become the current Australian Collaboration. As you voted for it, you might like to visit and improve the article as you see fit. Thanks --Scott Davis Talk 14:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Macquarie
I pointed Jamison Centre to the main Macquarie article rather than having a red link since there is a chunk of info on the centre in the Macquarie article. Rather than undo your reversion I'll now add a redirect. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It was discussed on the talk page that suburban centres needed a better naming standard such as Dickson Centre. Please don't revert changes that improve linking and information on WP. If someone wants to split an article to create a separate article they can but that doesn't mean a link shouldn't point somewhere meaningful in the meantime rather than a deadend. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Jamison Centre is in the Australian Capital Territory. Why would I not include that in the link to distinguish it from potential conflicts? Undoing useful changes to leave WP in a more broken state defies logic. Since you insist on interfering in efforts to improve these articles rather than contributing I'll be abandoning updates for a while - well done. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Now who's making policy? Dickson and the Dickson centre are certainly not the same thing and Manuka uses the same naming convention. Go read Talk:List of suburbs of Canberra and stop wasting my time. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So after all the discussion, a vote, a consensus, you undermine the majority decision and chop an already short article in two. The worst thing is that you think you've done the right thing by WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I see from your talk archive you have a long history of forcing your personal view on other people's edits and calling it consensus or policy. I'll be keeping an eye on you. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Governor of Western Australia
When you've got a moment, would you mind moving Governors of Western Australia to Governor of Western Australia? (You can leave the redirect mess for me to clean up if you want). Snottygobble | Talk 05:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

suburbs of Canberra
Ambi, could you please look at the Talk:List_of_suburbs_of_Canberra page when you an. I left a question there for you just above the voting section. At the moment I'm inclined to vote 'don't care' for the first proposition regarding naming conventon, and inclined to vote to agree with the second proposition, provided that the list icludes in bold those suburbs which contain group centres, to differentiate them from the others. (My main reason is that nothing links to any of these articles other than the List of suburbs of Canberra article). I want to give you the opportunity to reply before voting as I'm open to alternative points of view. Adz 09:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New Australian stubs
A recent coment by you in an edit summary for New articles (Australia): "Stubs - onslaught of crappy stubs; all need cleanup, some may need VFD" is possibly a too strongly worded comment in relation to new editors. Both users responsible for the stubs, User talk:Astrokey44 (link to talk as no user page) & User:Nachoman-au, have only recently started contributing to the wikipedia. Stubs by definition need material added to them. Compared with some of the initial offerings on wikipedia these stubs are much less in need of clean up. Note Nachoman-au has had 402 total edits and has edited 355 distinct pages. Looking at this contributions I suspect many of these are stub creations. The two WA towns are only the tip of the iceberg. Regards--AYArktos 23:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA for Cedar-Guardian
An anon user moved your vote on Cedar-Guardian's RfA from Oppose to Neutral. If you are this anon user, please log in and fix the edit. &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's Cedar-Guardian
First thank you for commenting on my respond. Second, maybe I've made a mistake changing the Goings-on page, but I want to clarify you the reasons : I've noticed that the Village Pump was getting very unpopular and a posts in it would get no attention, that's why I was thinking of a page where every user could announce and advertise whatever project or news in the community, much like an announcement board (check the interlanguage links in this page for examples in other language wikipedias). I first thought that the Announcement page could be the best, but it semmed that a lot of users wanted to reserve it for news about Wikipedia as a site. One of the reasons I tried the Goings-on page is because it description stated that it was a page for news in the Wikipedia community, but since it didn't get any news, I thought I would advertise it by changing it. What are your comments?

And about the Album namespace proposal, my main motivation is that a lot of images are temporarily removed from an article, and they get lost in the Image namespace. You're right we can move them to the Commons, but not fair use images which represents a big part. The "Album namespace" is just like an "Image category namespace". Putting these images into the old Category namespace like articles is also a solution, but I'm not really a fan of it and some people want to visit categories for articles without waiting for images upload. Please discuss this idea.

Thank you. CG 10:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also remind you that based on a suggestion from another user, the proposal is changed to Gallery namespace

List of place names
Thankyou for being the first person to actually delete names from those lists, instead of disambiguating them instead! The reasons the ACT list is missing was a combination of getting late the light I was doing the lists, and a complete failing to understand the sort order at List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory - what makes a "Main Postcode"? My primary objective on the day was to make all the postcode pages use links with the state names, and then I made plain lists as well, so I could detect misnamed and uncategorised articles. Do you know the history or preferred future for that page? I could start it again from the data at http://www1.auspost.com.au/postcodes/index.asp?sub=2 - the others I just started from what was already in the article. If you have a suggestion of an alternate or better way to sort the postcode lists, I'm open to suggestions, too. --Scott Davis Talk 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem to recreate it. Now that I've shown off, I'll do it properly - my quick attempt forgot to sort alphabetically and insert subheadings :-( --Scott Davis Talk 12:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're already having fun with the new list - enjoy it :-) These turn out to be a lot harder than it looked like it would be, so thanks for the help. I saw a discussion somewhere recently about article names or needs and categories for the districts and major centres in Canberra. I notice at least some of them showed up in the postcodes list, so have yet another variation of a redlink, probably supporting someone's argument. Woden looks interesting for those reasons and more! --Scott Davis Talk 14:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization
Since I am not a native speaker of English I wasn't aware of the capitalization of months. In future I will capitalize the months. Electionworld 19:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Demarest Hall
Hey, I have copyright permission for my entry on Demarest Hall, I live with Enon Avital, the creator of the webpage, it's fine, email him here: dewfather@gmail.com Or sabrina.vargas@gmail.com and khennessey@echo.rutgers.edu who I both work with as Culture Studies leader of Demarest Hall. I'm Brian Zimmerman by the way, I run Culture Studies at Demarest Hall. My email is brizimm@eden.rutgers.edu

Unjumbling Tennyson / Tennyson Point SNAFU
Hi Ambi,

We've got a bit of mess with two Sydney suburb articles, namely Tennyson Point, New South Wales and Tennyson Point. Turns out these are two different places in Sydney, one of which is called Tennyson, and one of which is called Tennyson Point (and is confusingly sometimes also called Tennyson). To untangle the mess (which is mostly my fault), I think we need an admin to do 3 things, namely an redirect/article swap, and deletion, and a move, like so:
 * 1) Tennyson Point, New South Wales article needs to be swapped with the Tennyson, New South Wales redirect.
 * 2) Then the Tennyson Point, New South Wales redirect needs to be deleted.
 * 3) Then the Tennyson Point article needs to be moved to Tennyson Point, New South Wales.

Do you think you might be able to help out? I'll then update both articles to reduce the confusion (including adding a "see also" line so that both articles refer to each other, in case people end up at the wrong one). To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing controversial about this. All the best, Nickj (t) 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that looks great! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

10 Random Pages test
Just thought I'd let you know I'm gonna try that out myself. :) --A Canadian by the name of R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Canberra suburbs and districts
Ambi, I didn't mean to at all suggest that suburb articles weren't valuable. (You might have noticed that I've created Dickson, Ainslie, and Aranda, contributed to others, created some stubs in Gungahlin, and fixed up several of the hastily created stubs which were written in a whirlwind just recently and left in a poor state. I intend to get back to these and fix the rest up in time and also intend to get back to Kingston shortly). I was just making the point that I think we can get more 'bang for buck' with districts and that we shouldn't neglect them. I think that there need to be articles on both suburbs and districts and will continue working on both. I just wanted to clarify that in case there was any misunderstanding. Adz 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions about Afd
Hi Ambi. I was wondering I you might be able to take a look at a reply I've made to a user regarding Afd. I figure you're much more well-versed in deletion policy/guideline than I, and would appreciate if you could let me know if I've got my facts straight. The issue regards a user who redirects articles whilst discussion is concurrent. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. My opinion is that, if an overwhelming consensus is formed in under five days, then I am not opposed to the supported action being performed. However, in this case, the article was redirected without consensus. I had suggested delete, and Friday not only thought redirect, he had redirected before anyone else had commented. That, I think, is inappropriate - it is unilateral and defeats the purpose of the process. A review of the discussion a day later shows a general consensus to redirect and thus, I am un-opposed to that happening. But to do so without discussion (ie, at least more than two people), was wrong.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your good faith attempts to resolve our differences. I regret not earlier taking the step of asking for the opinion of a neutral party whom I think we can both respect. I feel that Rossami has laid the issues out in a way that allows me to see that it's largely a matter of communication and that, in that regard, you have valid concerns that I should not neglect, and that the fault in this matter has been largely my own. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Women
Hi, I've made Women in the Australian Senate and Women in the Australian House of Representatives to help another ongoing article. I'd appreciate a hand filling in the missing bios if you're looking for a project, the senate needs many more than the house of reps.--nixie 04:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

by-elections
Hi. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but don't think it would be worth waiting until the returning officer has declared the results before stating that someone was elected, and possibly even until they are sworn in to list them as an MLA? JPD 15:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the results are fairly clear - there is probably more chance of one of the victors being invovled in a an accident before taking their seat, than someone else being elected - so it isn't a big deal, even if I am a bi uncomfortable with it. Thanks for suggesting I search when making the dab pages - I was previously only using "what links here" to find other entries. JPD 08:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Law getting on the move!
Hi. Please join the discussion at Portal talk:Law - we're getting things off the ground for featured articles, pictures, cases, and a collaboration of the week! -- BD2412 talk 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Music of Nigeria
Hi, you commented previously on a nomination for featured article status for music of Nigeria. I've renominated it with various changes, and would appreciate any comments you might have. I wouldn't normally leave a message like this on peoples' talk pages, but it currently has three supports and no opposes (well, one comment that looks quite a bit like an oppose), and I wouldn't want the nom to fail simply for lack of participation -- I'd rather have vociferous opposition than no reaction. Thanks. Tuf-Kat 06:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thredbo Landslide
Hi. You voted at the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight for 1997 Thredbo landslide which has become the current collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. --Scott Davis Talk 12:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Late to the party
I know we've never really had any interaction, but I just thought I'd say welcome back, even though you've been back for a bit now. I hope people don't get under your skin. Many people won't ever hear other people's opinions, so just let them be dicks. And congrats on 14,000 edits (a bit premature, but most villians often have sexual problems) :-) See you around. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians/Australia page as living in or being associated with Victoria. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Victoria for instructions.--Rmky87 22:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Contract
Am I too late? I'm sorry, I didn't check my user page last night, so I missed your message. If there's anything I can do, email me. I'll be out for a few hours from now, though. - Mark 02:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi
And thanks for the kind words. I plan to figure out a new (to me) way of being here as I go along. And to add more content, above all else. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your feedback re concensus: I've tried both asking and NOT seeking concensus and am criticized both ways; What gives here?
From User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA, you write:


 * I'm sorry, but I just can't resist biting any longer. Have you ever considered, even for a moment, that maybe your interpretation of policy might be wrong? Consensus is king on Wikipedia. That's how the place works. That's the basis for requests for adminship, too. If there is a consensus that people generally trust you, you'll be granted the privilege - it is not a feit accompli. I've generally been a campaigner for reasonably low adminship standards, and I've not run into you before, but after seeing your behaviour in response to that RfA, I would find it difficult to support you ever. I suspect you'll ignore me as you appear to have ignored all others, but please take a step back and have a look at yourself. Even your allies on Wikipedia have tried and failed to point out to you that you're wrong on this one. By being self-righteous and demanding privileges, you only poison the well with the rest of the community and further demonstrate you don't understand the most fundamental principle of working on Wikipedia - consensus. Ambi 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "you ever considered, even for a moment, that maybe your interpretation of policy might be wrong?" Yes, but that is unlikely, since even you admit that the RfA standards should be low; The "policy" as written is plain enough for a kid to understand, so no, whether or not the policy is a good idea, no I'm not misinterpreting it. "but after seeing your behaviour in response to that RfA," Hold on a sec. "response?" Response to what? Maybe I had a reason to respond. So, maybe first you should look at that was said or done to provoke me. I'm not saying I responded perfectly in every situation, but how would you have responded? You yourself admit you campaign for lower, more reasonable standards, so I'm sure you would have been upset at the actions there too. "I suspect you'll ignore me as you appear to have ignored all others" I ignore no one; I read every single post here and elsewhere, if I can (and usually do) -you mean I "disagree" -I do not even always disagree with others when I may be wrong. Seeing my RfA, I apologized to one fellow to whom I said something slightly rude, so no, I don't even disagree 100% of the time. "don't understand the most fundamental principle of working on Wikipedia - consensus." That's why I asked for others to help identify the current concensus both in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates and in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship, but I am damned when I do ask (see the replies I've gotten), and I'm damned when I don't seek concensus (your reply). So, which is it? Should I seek to identify and comply with concensus or not? If I am going about it in the wrong way, don't say I'm wrong unless you have a better alternative, and then "show me" if you're right. I am generally willing to hear (and enact) new ideas. OK?--GordonWatts 08:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

From my page, you posted this (and I replied) The point is that the consensus is already apparent to everyone else - which is why no one is bothering to respond to your polls. To become an administrator, there must be a consensus among the respondents that this should be the case. Someone else who had lost an adminship vote not long ago gave you some good advice above - take your loss on the chin, take heed of people's concerns, stop demanding adminship as a right, and maybe reapply in two or three months. Ambi 09:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "stop demanding adminship as a right" With all due respect, Ambi, while I might have been demanding or asking or whatever, I have long ago given up that request: Here's an old post that should clarify: User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA. On the other hand, I'm trying to come to concensus on general policy, not my RfA.--GordonWatts 09:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

From my page, you posted this (and I replied)
 * Come to a consensus on what general policy? There is a consensus on Wikipedia that a person becomes an administrator if there is a consensus among the voters to do so. In the very next section on that talk page, you insist that you should have been granted admin status, that the 90% of people who voted oppose were wrong to do so, and insist that it is for you to decide whether you are a trusted member of the community or not, when there is clearly a consensus that at this present time, you are not. Please, Gordon. If you want administrator status, listen to the people who opposed you, and stop digging. Ambi 09:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Come to a consensus on what general policy?" Did you not see the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship section??


 * (Quoting current policy on the project page here) "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits." I would add to that, so it reads:


 * Proposed Policy: "There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation, one thousand edits, and most of their edits spread out, not primarily concentrated in one article or category."


 * They said one thing in policy (no mention of "concentrated edits" vs "diversity"), and did another (used that as a standard). Yes, I know peoples' votes count, but by what standard? We don't know, cuz they say one thing & do another. Asking for clarification is no big sin, lol.--GordonWatts 10:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you a member of Esperanza even?
I've seen you commenting on Esperanza a lot but I see you're not on the member list. I was gonna invite you to vote at Esperanza/Reform... you still can if you join. I hope after this voting is over we can start the real work :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Indian renaming controversy
I moved it back to article space, it's not a page about Wikipedia at all, it's a stub about the name changes of Indian cities and other names of places and things. -- Curps 09:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Minimal governance of Esperanza compromise
I have drafted a compromise and I'd like to run it by you and Redwolf, before I post it on the reform page, that allows for a leader to give direction, but with little opportunity to acrue power. The Administrator General, Admin Gen, will be the only goverment functionary, elected to a four month non-consecutive term; self-nominations for the position are not permitted. Redwolf would be acknwoledged as the current Admin Gen and he will set the date for an election to be held within the month. Only Esperanzian members as of the date before an election begins may vote in that election. The issue of government expanison will be taken up when/if Esperanza passes 150 members. I have amende my postion in the hope that Esperanza can do some good even if it is not what I intended. I hope you can moderate your postion as well.-JCarriker 18:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Requesting some Sydney suburb swaps
Hi Ambi,

Can I please get the three swaps below made for Sydney suburbs?


 * swap Bankstown Airport, New South Wales and Bankstown Airport
 * Also please swap Circular Quay, New South Wales with Circular Quay
 * Please swap Eveleigh, New South Wales with Eveleigh.

(Just trying to ensure that all Sydney suburbs have their article names ending in ", New South Wales"). Thank you! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 09:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I understand about Bankstown Airport :-) All the best, Nickj (t) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

low-value links
Hi Rebecca

Please don't link simple years, decades and centuries unless there's a good reason to do so. They are of no use to the reader, and make the text slightly harder to read. See Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context.

Tony

PS I meant 'meaningless', of course, in the last edit summary. 'Wikify' means to use Wiki mark-up, including internal links. I don't think it necessarily implies that articles should be peppered with blue (and for most users, underlined) links to sites of no particular relevance. Picking a previously linked year at random, 1916 starts by telling me about blood transfusions. It contains nothing about Patrick White.

I want to:
 * keep the reader focused on Patrick White;
 * limit Wikipedia's valuable linking function to useful links, thus increasing the likelihood that readers will follow those up; and
 * make the text slightly easier to read and more attractive on the page.

The practice of linking all chronological items appears to arisen from the need to link dates to enable the auto-formatting function (which is justifiable because it performs a use). Mass linking of all years, decades and centuries is now a problem, in my view. See the article on Kammerlader, Australia and, I think, the United States for already highly linked text that does not blue out all the years.

Somehow, we have to get some photos. The one that the elusive Simon has chosen looks good, but yes, you're right about the copyright thing. I think the ABC's Patrick White site might have to be approached eventually for permission to use their stuff. What do you think?

Tony 01:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)