User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive15

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 User talk:Ambi/Archive12 User talk:Ambi/Archive13 User talk:Ambi/Archive14 Last archived December 18, 2005. --

Reverted?
-Why, may I ask, did you revert my edits?

Or is the Australia page simply off-limits for fear of it actually containing relevant     information?

-So a sentence on the background of the current climate driving the Australian economy (and has been for the past few years) is not worthy of publication?

Nice thinking - suppose you opposed VSU aswell, eh?

-So domestically occuring factors which fuel the economy are the only thing worth knowing about?

You should really delete any entry referring to trade then.

-Since when is general consensus an opinion - or did I miss a recent edit in the wiktionary?

West Coast Tasmania Railways
Heheh, good to see you keeping tabs of things. As for the above, all I can say is yeehah! ride em cowboy! Perths weather has gone miserable hot suddenly, trust canberra isnt too hot yet. have a good christmas vcxlor 15:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah well Lou Rae is doing his PhD at Utas, Phil Whitham's got his book, the tickets book from yonks ago has it all summed up very well, when I was much younger I read all cc singleton's arts in the arhs mag, I lived in queenie running the west coast miner and working for mt lyell many moons ago, went there with wife and kids almost 3 years ago and brought every book in sight,so it's a start, but...we'll see! vcxlor 16:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC) oh the photos for uploading - it looks like february (hmph i'm only 7 months behind)

Woden Valley?
Hi, I notice you have moved Woden Valley (district) to Woden Valley. I was just wondering your reasoning behind this, as it probably also applies to Weston Creek, North Canberra, South Canberra and Tuggeranong. All of which are used only as names of distrcts (as far as I am aware). I have also never been able to figure out why Citys, Town and Suburbs are Name, State while districts somehow avoid this naming scheme. --Martyman- (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't all the district articles also be at district name, state? Unfortunatley this isn't possible for several of Canberra's districts as they have a corresponding suburbs already at that location. Up until the move of Woden all of the districts of Canberra where at name (district) . If we are going to break this consistancy then we should at least have some kind of guideline behind it. I would support moving all non-conflicting districts to their proper (non-disambiguated) name. In cases like belconnen, Belconnen would redirect to [Belconnen, Australian Capital Territory]] (the suburb) which would have "Belconnen redirects here if you are after the Canberra district of Belconnen see Belconnen (district)". Alternatively the redirects could go to the districts with the disambiguation located there. What do you think? --Martyman- (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Felix Navidad


''' O.K. Ambi, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 04:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)'''

Wikiproject Novels
Ambi, saw your note on KF's talk page, wanted to point you to a new page KF and I started to get the Novels Wikiproject rolling again: What I am reading at the moment. We figured talking about what we're reading might be the best way to get article improvement projects rolling. Thanks! | Klaw ¡digame! 05:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Parliament Categories
Hi, I've been meaning to tackle the issue we discussed some time ago about Parliament Categories. I think I'm ready to tackle it but thought I should check with you first. What I propose t odo is to move all teh lists to Category:Members of the Parliament of South Australia etc, This would mean moving all the lists under Category:Australian Parliaments to Category:Lists of Members of the Parliament of Australia. It would then free that category up a bit, and allow Category:Australian Parliaments to hang neatly off the various legislature and parliaments categories. Do you mind if I go ahead and do it? I won't be doing it today as I'm about to log off, but sometime over the break. -- Adz 08:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

request
Are you talking about me here? If that's the case please change your comment because it looks like a PA to me (I think my comments there are much clearer than that labeling). Thanks. +MATIA &#9742; 18:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

District Attorney
Hi, I see you reverted my redirect from District Attorney to Prosecutor. I reinstated it. Please note that I redirected multiple redundant phrases for Prosecutor to that article, including County Attorney and Commonwealth Attorney. They are all prosecutors, and are listed as such on that page. It's not helpful for each iteration to have its own page, if anyone is looking for any of those titles, they're looking for info on prosecutors. Thanks! Tufflaw 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * District Attorney and prosecutor are synonymous terms, they mean the same thing. It's confusing and redundant to have two different pages for them.  If there's additional info at the District Attorney page that is not duplicated at the Prosecutor page, I'll make sure it's included, but there shouldn't be two separate pages.  Tufflaw 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, however, District Attorney is not the only variant of prosecutor. In the U.S., every state has prosecutors, however in some states they are called District Attornies, in some states they are called Commonwealth's Attorneys, in some states they are called State's Attorneys, in some states they are called State Prosecutors.  Do we need a separate article for each one?  They all do exactly the same thing, they are all prosecutors.  The functions of a District Attorney in New York are exactly the same as a Commonwealth Attorney in Massachusetts, they're just called different things.  They are both Prosecutors.  Tufflaw 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ianbrown's RfA
Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received. Ian &equiv; talk 07:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan's RfA
You wrote that the only oppose votes to that RfA were "from two nationalists and the new Boothy". Can you please explain who do you think is "nationalist" and who is "new Boothy"? Thanks, Ghirlandajo 08:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Airport
I changed the redirect into a disambiguation page. In your User:Ambi/Drafts/Sylvia Hale you had a direct link to Sydney Airport. It still reads the same but I have changed the hidden link to Kingsford Smith International Airport. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is a notable alumnus?
Alas, with a history stretching back a mere 15 years, you could say that the standards for notable alumni at NHSPA were pretty lax. In any case, we agreed in a previous discussion to set the bar at 'has received coverage in a major news outlet', as the ones there have. Except Matthew Taylor, who is a TV personality, albeit on cable. Please contribute to the NHSPA discussion if you have a different idea about what constitutes notability in this context. Joestella 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "This whole conversation seems to be for the sole purpose of you trying to argue why you should be included in this article for some not overly noteworthy deeds. I'm sorry, but you simply don't meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia."

In the interests of fairness, I guess I should point out the page Tharunka, where my not overly noteworthy deeds have simply not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I guess this can be resolved by a vote for deletion..? Joestella 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, I'm new here. But I don't understand your tone at all - it comes across as really rude. Is that the intention? Joestella 12:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have simply asked that an objective standard be formulated. I am beginning to suspect that you will not commit to one for fear that I will meet it. As I have made clear on the NHSPA talk page, the standard of "what would survive a VfD" is not appropriate in the case of 'notable alumni'. As I have made clear, I am not seeking an article on the subject of me, nor have I moved to create one. As you are aware, I am already mentioned in Wikipedia and I have "moved on" to the extent that I create and edit other articles. I would ask that you stop attacking me and my motives and, if this is an area that genuinely interests you, contribute to the discussion on the subject of criteria. Joestella 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]
hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Thank you for reverting the edits that Naif made. I wasn't quite sure whether to revert it because it was making some unwarranted suggestions and opinions. --lux 22:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RfA
Thanks for your hip support of my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 23:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

hi
Merry Christmas :) Miss ya... Dysprosia 06:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ambi(valenthysteria),

We really are missing your input at the OEP though I suspect you have put your energies into Wiki. Its great really. Would really appreciate you wandering through occasionally 'cause I suspect its going to go belly up. I was thinking the OEP could be really useful as a regional source of information rather than trying to cover what Wiki and the new one is going to do. Maybe I will come along and add some other Australian stuff (or maybe steal yours for OEP!!! NEVER!)

Nice to chat to you and wish you all the very best for 2006!

David from Downunder!

Protection of Homosexuality
Hi Ambi,

I'm protecting about a half-dozen first to see how semi-protection affects the most vandalized articles. According to my numbers:

For the Homosexuality article:
 * Total edits: 4283
 * User edits:  2505
 * Anon edits:  1778
 * Reverts:     570
 * by Admin:  349
 * by User:   195

Since well over 10% of all edits are reverts, seems like a pretty heavy target. Fuzheado | Talk 11:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Chetwynd, British Columbia
At the FAC for this article you stated that you would like to see more maps of the town. Since then I have gotten two decent maps. The first is just an outline of the District boundaries which I placed in the article. The second is a cadastral map from their one of their 1984 by-laws (scanned and altered to remove land use designations (which were just blurry dots after scanning). Before I add it in, I would like to have your opinion on it because I am not convinced this map is of high quality. It can be found at Image:Chetwynd BC cadasteral.PNG. --maclean25 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Ambi, please take this seriously. You do not have the right to revert half-an-hour of work which includes the web link/documentation you demanded because it includes data which challenges your strongly-held beliefs. You do not own Wikipedia. You do not own all GLBT topics. You are not any more capable or intelligent than I am, and your status as an admin does not make you somehow a better editor than I am. I will seek to have your adminship cancelled if you continue to fail to work to agreement and pursue (you would say, "stalk") my efforts on the encyclopedia. I have had no problem with some of your adjustments to my editing thus far, but here on this article you are being very arrogant. Also, refrain from use of profanity; refrain from turning encyclopedia editing into a personal matter (I'm talking about your comment on an unrelated entry, "over my dead body" which encourages a fighting-type mentality).-Naif 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as as aside, do you have any idea how hard it is do dead-min someone Naif? That's simply not a credible threat.  brenneman (t) (c)  10:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Template
They can't be that shoddy if all navigational boxes of the German Wikipedia are formatted that way. The background is automatically white in article space. Still if its bothersome, I'm fine with them being reformatted - so long as all are. I'll do so now.--cj | talk 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Strudel Noodles
Erk. I think I'm going insane. Good thing it didn't affect the final vote. Sigh. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

your block of AustinKnight
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:AustinKnight --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  19:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Date of Suburb Establishment
I think I have been using the gazzetal date, which I guess is not really the same thing. The trouble is, if you use anything else, how do you define establishment? As many areas of Canberra have a history predating the modern suburbs. The gazettal date is when the suburb officially exists from, I think in early canberra this was often some time after the suburbs had been settled, and these days it can be several years before construction starts.

What dates does Adz list here: User:Adz/CanberraSuburbsInfo? --Martyman- (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:List of vice-chancellors of the University of Sydney
I guess you were right; there are quite a few zealous mergists out there! enochlau (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Years in Australia
I notice you created Category:Years in Australia, which contains articles whose titles begin with a year. If you have time, could you please go through and make sure the articles are sorted in their respective year (or year-in) parent categories using sortkeys as outlined at Categorization? (Don't forget to start the sortkey with a capital letter.) If you've done this already, thanks and sorry for bugging you about this. I plan to go through a ton of such pages early next year; it would be nice if some of the work were already done... - dcljr (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Shopping malls
Hello Ambi. Merry Christmas. I noticed you've split the list of shopping malls by country into subarticles, and have created some new categories. I'm interested to know what you were using of the term "China" to refer to.. China (the geographical region), the People's Republic of China (the sovereign state/regime/polity/government controlling the majority of the region), or mainland China (the PRC minus the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau). Thank you. &mdash; Instantnood 09:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 *  Perhaps you may already know all those disputes around using of these terms, and I sincerely don't want the trouble to be worsened. It would be great if you can state your intent clearly, so that the community can have some basis to consider if we'll have to retitle the lists, and to restructure the categories. Thanks. (P.S. I archive my user talk page every three months, in other words the next will be very soon. :-) ) &mdash; Instantnood 11:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Administrative abuse
Your de facto deletion of Meta-templates considered helpful is a clear abuse of your administrative powers. WP:POINT states that you should not advocate things you don't want to happen. That is not at all the case here. I want meta-templates to be used and for the developers to fix the problem, and that is precisely what I have advocated. You decided to get rid of the page for no reason other than that you did not like the content. If you have a problem with it, you should list it on WP:MFD and let the community decide what to do with it. This is a serious issue that needs to be discussed and debated, not handed down from Mount Olympus. Firebug 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I want meta-templates to be used and for the developers to fix the problem, and that is precisely what I have advocated.  - you may advocate that when the developers say it is OK to use them; until such a time, you are not to confuse the issue by cooking up these half-baked policy initiatives and falsely claiming they are guidelines. Raul654 02:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to get these lazy fucking developers off their asses. Do you see any other way to do it? Furthermore, this has gone beyond incompetence and into the realm of malice, with some developers ACTIVELY OPPOSING the functionality extension that was GIVEN TO THEM by Azatoth. Someone needs to bring these prima donnas to heel under the community consensus. Firebug 02:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please try to stay calm, and more importantly, civil when making posts to other users' talk pages. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Canberra Districts
Hi, I have been moving the Canberra districts all back to their non-disambiguated names. I have done them all except Tuggeranong which needs an admin to first delete the redirect page. I would appreciate it if you could move it over for me. Thanks. --Martyman- (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I normally pester nixie for all my miscelaneous deletions, etc. I would like to be able to do these things myself but am reluctant to get involved in a potentially messy vote (have seen a few turn nasty). I had a fairly extended wikibreak a couple of months back, and I think it might be better to wait a bit longer before going to RfA. --Martyman- (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. --Martyman- (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The ongoing and wide-ranging discussion regarding stub redirects
Greetings:

I notice that you have recently expressed an interest in the discussion regarding stub redirects and where they might be properly addressed. I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion, and hope that you might wander by to provide your insight.

All the best. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 15:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Irshad Manji
--Amenra 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)If she is not a critic of Islam, then why is she on this list List of critics of Islam?
 * 2) You must have made a mistake, a momentary lapse of reason ,right? Cause I am assuming that you have some acquaintancy with her work. I have spent years following her work and it really strikes me as odd that you would not classify her as a critic of Islam, err , the title of the book might be a little teeny clue, "The trouble with Islam".


 * On her TVOntario program Big Ideas, she remarked more than once that even though she is a Muslim, she is a very vocal critic of Islam – especially the way it is currently practiced in most of the world. I think Manji herself would insist on being included in this category. Owen&times; &#9742;  03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ambi, please take some time to refresh yourself of her work, there is plenty of material on her website to read. There are lots of video interviews of her on the internet. --Amenra 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This was your third revert in the last 6 hours. Owen&times; &#9742;  03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to educate you about policy. As admins, were are held to a higher standard, and your edits to Irshad Manji today were unbefitting your position. Amenra's changes were good-faith edits which you reverted (twice!) using your "rollback" button. And despite my attempt to discuss this with you, you went ahead and reverted my edit as well (this time without the rollback button, thank you). Is this your way of dealing with content disputes? I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, or with anyone else. If you feel you've won this battle by keeping Manji out of a category, more power to you.


 * P.S. I archived my Talk page, per your request. Owen&times; &#9742;  04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there much point taking the category off while it's on CFD? I would say that retaining all the silly categorisations while the vote is ongoing will make it clearer how silly the category itself is. Palmiro | Talk 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Barry
My bad, thought the teacher was granted his own page according to stuff I'd read, obviously not. Sorry bout that :) Rogerthat 09:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea legal system
Would you kindly clarify your request for the first half of the following paragraph to be explained (it is "thoroughly confusing," you say).


 * The Constitution is "autochthonous" (a constitutional term of art also used in Malaysia and meaning, literally, "aboriginal," indicating that legal continuity with the former metropolitan power was severed and the Constitution enacted by the parliament of the newly independent state rather than by an imperial parliament as in the case of the Constitutions of Canada and Australia). It is "entrenched," meaning that its provisions overbear any ordinary statutory enactments which the courts find to be inconsistent with it, in accordance with the constitutional authority of Marbury v. Madison. It declares the "underlying law" -- that is, the separate common law of Papua New Guinea -- to consist of the Constitution, "customary law" derived from the "custom" of the various peoples of Papua New Guinea, and the common law of England as it stood at the date of Papua New Guinea's independence on 16 September 1975.

The Constitutions of Australia and Canada are enactments of the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. The Constitution of PNG was enacted by the PNG House of Assembly acting as a constitutional convention without involvement by the metropolitan power in Canberra. In practical terms there is little significance but both Malaysia and Papua New Guinea make a great deal of this aspect of their acquisition of sovereignty.

An entrenched constitution overbears any conflicting ordinary statute. Thus the constitutions of the USA, Canada and Australia are the subject of a great deal of judicial deliberation with respect to the question of whether a particular act of parliament (or a regional legislature) is consistent with them. There is no magic in this principle; until the US Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v Madison that the effect of statutory conflict with a constitutional provision was to render the conflicting provision of of the statute null, and thus Marbury v Madison is part of the constitutional jurisprudence of those common law jurisdictions which have entrenched constitutions. I note that you are a law student; I too attended law school in Australia and this was lesson 1 of the constitutional law course. I hope this is clearer now; I can't really see how it could be more accurately stated in the article itself though.Masalai 12:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I filed an appeal for my AC case just now. In so doing I cited you, as you can note. I hope that's okay; I certainly don't want to drag you or anyone else "down with me" (and have tried to avoid doing so). But I by no means implied that you endorse all my actions here or anything like that, so I hope I'm not out of line. VeryVerily 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tighina
Unfortunately the old content says nothing other than about Tighina town, so I had no other choice, since I am not an expert in the area. I even had nothing to take an example from, just look at template:JudeteMoldova or Counties of Moldova. Since you insist, I will create a substub, altough it is none of my biz. mikka (t) 06:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal Ambi! -- Bonaparte  talk  08:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing
Hi Ambi, when you reverted with, you also undid some other edits. Andjam 09:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good onya
Thanks for encouraging Bduke, he and I were at NTu at the same time, but I have a very bad memory of a PhD that went wrong, so I am glad that he's doing something! vcxlor 09:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence
I thought I'd point out that "Because User:Kelly Martin says so" is the actual evidence. See the block log:. Also note that on a couple of your "revert to last good faith edits" you wiped the user's photo etc. I was actually accurately reporting why they were blocked, in accordance with what the blocking admins said... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Transnistria
Would you be so kind telling me what's your problem with my text? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=32979649&oldid=32975903 I don't like reverting without any explanation. You should not do that in the future any more. -- Bonaparte  talk  12:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca you just did once again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33047942&oldid=33022926 Hey Ambi would you be so kind to tell me why do you keep removing?

I will start an RfC against you if you don't want to explain me. -- Bonaparte  talk  06:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tassie forest policy & electoral outcomes
Why did you revert my edits on this topic? The content was referenced, and the information is of interest given the popular notions about Tassie forest policy costing Labor 2 Tassie seats. Peter Campbell 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Further to your response on my user talk page, I don't take you for a fool. Regarding the loss of Bass and Braddon, here is a poll that predicted this prior to Latham's forest policy announcement, so I don't think your claim that all polls showed Labor winning Bass & Braddon prior to their forest policy launch is accurate. Peter Campbell 10:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out this reference too, from a Government Research Brief (Research Brief no. 13 2004–2005 Commonwealth Election 2004) -


 * "Prime Minister Howard visited this electorate (Bass) four times during 2004, and from July 2003 it received $12.2 million in Regional Partnership grants, the largest total for any Australian electorate. Given the final margin, it is likely that Bass was lost before 7 October. But when, on that day, the Prime Minister told over 3000 timber workers in a packed Albert Hall that their jobs would not be sacrificed, he probably made Labor’s loss certain." I will have another go at adding a section on this, paying attention to NPOV and both sides of the argument Peter Campbell 11:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits to user pages
Hello, I am not sure why you restored the sock puppet tags to these users as it has been established that there are different people and have been un-blocked. Thanks Arniep 13:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, there seems to be a misunderstanding, I do not agree with Zordrac, it was User:Dan100 who unblocked these users as he agreed that other evidence (despite the ip evidence) showed that these people were not the same people. Arniep 13:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dan made a correct decision as I know that they are all different people. Regards Arniep 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have been in email contact with three of these people. Basically they are all friends who attended UCL. In late October a User:Antidote started to try and force the deletion of Jewish lists by voting up to six times on one afd, see Requests_for_comment/Antidote, Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments, Requests_for_comment/Antidote/Voting. The multiple voting was first spotted by User:RachelBrown on Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. In mid November the user again nominated that list as well as other lists, with many users suspecting that many votes were being cast by one user. I and RachelBrown did ask other users to vote on these vfds (I have seen many users asking others to vote on vfds, including admins). The vfding of the lists brought them to the attention of some users, mainly Lulu of the Lotus eaters who became involved at Talk:List_of_Jewish_jurists where he repeatedly criticised the use of the Jewish Year Book as a source which was later confirmed to be a perfectly respectable source by User:Jayjg. Rachel became pretty upset as to what she felt was an attack, her friend Poetlister then offered to help to try and solve the dispute. Lulu then began following some of the edits of Rachel, adding cleanup or unverified tags, and more Jewish lists were again nominated with clear sock puppet voting of the one user above which contributed to the stress Rachel had began suffering which caused her to almost have a breakdown. Her cousin LondonEye, Poetlister and another friend Newport offered to work on articles Rachel had drafted and add them to Wikipedia. I am absolutely certain these users are not deserving of a ban and really this has all come about due to confusion and unfortunate circumstances. I would be really grateful if you could help sort this mess out. Thanks Arniep 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Esplanade Hotel
Hello, I noticed you moved The Esplanade Hotel to Esplanade Hotel. Since the hotel appears to have 'The' in its official name, I thought it would not be against the manual of style to include it in the article title? --mordemur 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cynna Neele
Ambi, fantastic work :-) You should submit this to peer review! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Transnistria
Dear Ambi, here is the source. Every word is back up. So, please undo the reverting.

Istanbul summit
Apart from the question of the status of Transnitria the other key issue is the removal of the Russian forces from Transnistria. The agreement to withdraw all Russian forces was initially signed in 1994, and while there are less than 2,500 troops remaining, there is an immense stockpile of ammunition and equipment. While Russia has destroyed several tons of ammunition and has fundamentally changed since 1995. These forces are a tangible sign of Moldova's conditional sovereignity. Moldova's dependency on Russian energy as well as the Russian market has limited the country's ability to press for a conclusive agreement to resolve the status of these forces. A significant development came at the OSCE Istanbul summit in November 1999 when Russia agreed to a declaration to remove all forces from Moldova by the end of 2002, without any conditions and without any linkage to resolving Transnitria's status. With the coming to power of Putin in January 2000, however, the Russian Foreign Ministry backtracked from this commitment and made public the military withdrawal would have to coincide with a political agreement on the status of Transnitria by 2002. The Moldovan Foreign Ministry was quick to point out that the Istanbul declaration made no mention of synchronization. Moreover, the Moldovan Foreign Ministry noted that the Istanbul declaration was a binding commintment within the OSCE framework.

Reference

James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse, Ethinicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union, Regions in conflict. Routledge Ed. ISBN: 0714652261, page 114-115 -- Bonaparte  talk  11:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Enhance your calm
I have not "continually" requested citation. One of us must be drunk, or at least prone to interpreting comments as persecutory... I was simply saying that I think the article looks like OR bcz it doesn't have a single reference. I don't think requesting at least a shred of citation is completely out of line, but I do think that what I'm perceiving as an accusation that I'm being unreasonable, at least in this instance, is. Tom e rtalk 14:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberals_for_Forests requested move
Hi Ambi,

There's been a requested move to move Liberals_for_Forests to Liberals_for_forests, and I've seen you've done a bit of editing on those articles. Perhaps when you have some time you could comment at Talk:Liberals_for_Forests?

Thanks!

WhiteNight T 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Grant Tambling
I see you have had a lot to do with this page. Tambling could not have been defeated by Snowdon in 1983 as Warren only got in 1987. I'm not sure how to check this. I have searched but found nothing. Do you have any sources? Bduke 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sohane
Ambi I am using the web-screenshot copyright tag as allowable by Wikipedia as you can see here. Would you be so kind as to reinsert the picture? thanks --CltFn 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Tas Bull
I understand we are now required to stop wikifying dates, although I don't recall being consulted about this change of policy. Adam 07:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

rephrase
Hello Beck!

would you be so kind to rephrase yourself this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=33229276 I trust you'll make NPOV paragraphs :) thank you in advanced! -- Bonaparte  talk  10:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User with multiple copyright violations
Hi Ambi I notice you have posted to User:Dchi3f's page before. I am currenmtly in the proccess of going through and tagging their images and checking their edits, but they appear to have contributed pretty much nothing but copyright violations. I have reverted Admiralty House (Sydney) but an admin should probably delete the offending edits. I will let you know if I come across any others that an admin should look at. --Martyman- (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect Supreme Court of New South Wales may have recieved a good dose of copyrighted material a little way back, could you please have a look at it for me. --Martyman- (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And I would be surprised if their contributions to Governors of New South Wales wheren't copyright violations too. --Martyman- (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that is it as far as textual additions. I will go back through and mark the images as speedy delete after seven days as per the instrucions. --Martyman- (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

UK users
Hi, I am not sure whether you noticed my last comment above at User_talk:Ambi. I would appreciate your thoughts on that. Thanks Arniep 01:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi, please I am absolutely begging you to reread what I wrote above and to look at the rfc on Antidote which is how this all started, it is just incredible that that user himself has not been banned (at least his sock puppets). I know for certain these people are different, they are close friends who all attended the same university in London who had entirely different interests for months until the problem with the Jewish lists in November. The user who was nominating the Jewish lists voted up to 6 times in one afd, which led me and Rachel to ask her friends and others (I also asked Lulu of the Lotus eaters and Vulturell from memory) to vote on these afds. I don't think that this is against the rules as they didn't just sign up to vote, I see plenty of people asking each other to vote all the time. Arniep 02:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year
(Feliz Año Nuevo)



'''I wish you all the happiness in the world and remember, if an injustice is ever committed against you or one of your articles, I will always be by your side. Your friend Tony the Marine'''

EddieSegoura gives a hello
Just noticed You posted in My future RFA page, and I think You're right about Me going overboard about being fascinated with sysop promotions. I was starting to become unsure as to whether on not You're even supposed to express Your wish to become one. I'll tell You what: I'll try My best to shift My attention to other things for now. Before I attempt a nomination, I plan to ask whether or not I'm ready. I did put a to-do list on My own user page, and I do have other things to do in 2006. I just don't want people to think I want to be promoted "for the sake of it".  Happy New Year -- Eddie 23:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC ban
Is there a reason bash is allowed but my posting of five lines is not? I have certainly never been asked for permission to post my lines on bash. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 06:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Janine Shepherd
Hi. Do you happen to know if Janine Shepherd had competed in international competition (eg World Cups) before her accident, and how she went at it? Andjam 07:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Parody Pages
I notice there are different users adding and deleting parody websites to different articles. Why are they OK on some articles and not others. Confused. Even more so after Longhair's intervention on the Paula Rizzuto article, as you seem to be in frequent correspondence with him could you please resolve the matter and get back to me. StephenBengHo 12:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And also I notice you deleted Paula Rizzuto for a list of members of the Socialist Left faction. You didn't explain why and I was wondering why too. StephenBengHo 12:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So parody pages with personal abuse are out, is that how it works. I'm just trying to sort out the decision, you say it's a consensus but it pretty much seems like your decision so I'd like you to explain your reasons for deciding and so if I can agree. StephenBengHo 12:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find it says members of the faction, how does she not qualify? And as for the stalking, I'm not sure how you're any less guilty of that but I'll reserve judgement on such a serious accusation. StephenBengHo 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Geelong
How was your recent trip down this way? Did you manage to snap any decent images? I made a minor attempt at a cleanup of the Geelong article today. Still some mileage to go though. Thanks for your vandal-bashing efforts also. Most appreciated. -- Longhair 12:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Images? There's so much to photograph, it depends on what's photographic during this wet time of year? I've been meaning to get out myself, then it rained, and rained, and rained... -- Longhair 13:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Lidia Argondizzo
Have been digging up and around the Lidia article. Do you have any ideas how I can find sources to substantiate its claims. If the references are offline, how do we make sure they are listed to so that they can be verified too. StephenBengHo 13:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That particular article cites a reference ending in the domain name of vic.gov.au, a far cry and a more credible reference than your own examples. Weakening credibility on other articles won't win you any points around here. I'll take this tripe away from your talk page now Ambi, but this needed to be addessed. -- Longhair 13:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact unfortunatley the reference which is great for some of the article's claims, does not cover some of it. Can Ambi please list her sources which verify the statements in the article. I am sorry Ambi called me stupid, which does seem particularly harsh in the circumstances. I assumed the biography she was referring to was quite different from what was coming up on Google. StephenBengHo 13:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, if StephenBengHo put that "paradoic" website together, he is, in fact, a moron. So therefore Ambi has nothing to apologise about for calling him stupid. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Make that a blocked moron. He's enjoying 24 hours off. -- Longhair 13:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sohane Benziane
Are you challenging this copyright tag at this page ? Note that this is not an independant image, but a web screenshot of a web page. --CltFn 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * its web-screenshot - Screenshots of web pages, the image is not just an image , its a section of a web page. its a screenshot  and that screen shot is of a web page  and it its use in the article provides an example of the media interest in topics such as Sohane's.  Do you not see that ? It is legal , if you cannot see that then lets get another admin to take a look at it. --CltFn 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

District Attorney (redux)
Hello, regarding our disagreement with respect to the District Attorney page, I posted a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law asking for general thoughts, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Tufflaw 05:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Help!
Beck, I am so glad to see you. Happy new year!

I'd like to ask your opinion on something if I may. Would you take a look at this talk page? This individual has been harboring a nasty grudge against me for quite some time. He appeared out of nowhere to vandalize my user page and I blocked him. Guy refused to back down so I shut him down for good. Problem is, the guys' been a good editor but he seems to have the social skills of Saddam Hussein. Still, I hate blocking an otherwise good user. So...did I do the right thing? XOXO, Lucky 6.9 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Photos (again)
This is extremely tiresome. I have jumped through every hoop that these idiots have created, my photos have better copyright documentation than 99% of the images at Wikipedia, and still they are on my case. Now there is apparently a bot that deletes photos which have legit copyright documentation, because this is not enclosed in a template. So now I have to create a template (please advise me how this is done), and retag all my photos, some for the 4th time. Adam 08:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ambi and Adam, for 50 years old and greater Government photos, you can use PD-Australia (Category E covers expired Crown copyright I think). Alternatively, PD-Australia-CC or PD-AustraliaGov. Or are you looking for a new template something like AustraliaNLA? The latter does need a justification for a claim of fair-use though. Could one of you expand it accordingly? -- Ian &equiv; talk 14:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, how about AustralianParliamentaryHandbook? -- Ian &equiv; talk 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we need both? If not, we should delete the other ASAP before it gets used. -- Ian &equiv; talk 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured article, eh...?
Thanks for the support. I appreciate it more than I can say. Regarding a featured article, it's interesting you'd mention that! I put Disneyland Railroad up for peer review after busting my hump on expanding the text. Only concern was a lack of recent photos. I uploaded a few that I took back in October to the Commons. I was going to add more, but I've mislaid the camera! A few have been added by other users and I'll add the ones from Commons and try again. Sneak a peek when you have a moment. :) - Lucky 6.9 17:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not much to add about the individual stations since all were there pretty much from the get-go. The biggest changes over the years have been the conversion of Frontierland Station to New Orleans Square Station in 1967 and Fantasyland Station to Toontown Depot in about 1993. New Orleans Square got a slight realignment when The Haunted Mansion came in 1969 and the siding in front of Main Street Station has been disconnected since about 1958. Fun facts for a 5/8-scale railroad that runs in a trapezoidal circle around a theme park. :) Seriously, the trains aren't too fast, but they sure are fun.  The stretch along the Rivers of America is truly and genuinely one of Southern California's must-see sights.  I'll see what I can dig up.  BTW, your article looks flat wonderful at first glance!  I'll gladly weigh in on it.  Looks like a "support" vote to me. - Lucky 6.9 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User prerogatives
Dear Rebecca,

Why did you revert my edits to this article without explanation? I explained why I wrote what I wrote in my edit summary and on the talk page. You just put "Revert per 172" in the edit summary and offered no explanation on the article's (or my) talk page.

I don't go round reverting other people's edits with no explanation. Please pay me the same courtesy.

Maybe there's some special reason unknown to me why you are trying to get rid of this policy proposal. Please let me know what is going on here. DrKinsey 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi DrKinsey, there is a straw poll going on. Please express your concerns there. For now, though, considering the opposition already expressed, the chances of establishing consensus for "the bill of rights" seem quite slim. I suggest that you try to change things as you see fit by speaking out in the straw poll rather than just reverting the redirect of the "bill of rights" page to the less controversial name "user prerogatives." BTW, happy New Year, Ambi. 172 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

More photos
I'm sure you mean well, but please do a little more research before advising people on these things - the images in this case were plainly not public domain (as could've been seen if you'd read any of the copyright information on any of the images, or Adam's own user page), and thus advising people to tag them as public domain is a very bad idea. Ambi 08:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that's so plain. He went ahead and marked Image:Williammckell.jpg as  so why is it so obvious that PD isn't suitable with the others?  They both had identical copyright verbiage in their descriptions...  Not that I care so much.  That little brush with Wikipedia snobbery is more than my stomach can handle so I'll be leaving such image-copyright-related matters up to the apparent experts.  --wknight94 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying to fix the damage I've done
I don't know if this means anything to you, but you're right. My involvement in this fiasco has been destructive. And I regret that now. I don't know what you expect me to do, but I'm trying to make penance, so if you'll take a look at my newest addition to the RfC I'd appreciate any thoughts you have about it.. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do-over is underway. I would appreciate if you signed off on the lead section with me—I don't want *everyone* to sign off on it, but given our partnership in this effort I'd appreciate if you did. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria
What are the actual copyvio paragraphs still left? Node ue states there are just two, so we could reword those couldn't we? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ban against SPUI
Did you at any point ban SPUI from any Wikimedia IRC channels? Inquiring minds want to know. Kaldari 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no Wikimedia IRC channels. Ambi 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what exactly are these? Kaldari 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nyet. The IRC channels are explicitly not official. Never have been, never will be. Indeed, there are really only two policies on the IRC channels - don't be a dick and don't publicly log the channel. SPUI violated the latter, and SPUI was kicked. Simple as that. He later violated the former, and was kicked for that. Ambi 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to tapdance around the question, as no one has accused you of doing anything wrong. Kelly blocked a user for saying that you banned SPUI from an IRC channel, so people want to know if the statement was true or not. I assume from your tortured legal posturing that the statement was essentially true. I certainly don't blame you for banning him. I do however take issue with Kelly blocking a user for stating that you did, as it smacks of intimidation (and an abuse of adminstrative powers). Kaldari 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please stop vandalizing pages, follow the 3RR, and use a talk page. You have been warned. If you continue I will report you to an admin. Ebnocuj 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, please answer my questions on my talk page. How are these images pornographic?! They are in the commons. They are clothed! Ebnocuj 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Ebnocuj for abusive sockpuppetry and rolled back his/her recent contributions. -- Curps 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Heads up KM RFC
I removed your comment because If felt it was innapropriate. Feel free to try again, or take it to the approiate user talk. I assume it was a breif spat of irritability that broke your better judgement, but if it wasn't I guess you're free to try again. Best,--Tznkai 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I make no effort to agree or disagree, but there are better places for it, and I think in a about ten minutes, you'll agree with me. Also, tends to invite backlash, see Selena. Removing both.--Tznkai 08:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I make no judgement on sam's conduct, because, quite frankly, I havn't been paying attention except for that comment, which I refactored. Yours I removed, for your sake, as well as that of the Wiki as a whole. I understand that this bothers people, but I don't want and esclating series of edits like this to happen. I'll be on IRC in a fe moments if you want to chew me out.--Tznkai 08:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lynching
I think you would do well to assume good faith on my part. Yes, I think Kelly Martin has provided a clear example of someone who should not have access to power. Yes, I feel substantive criticisms of her should be aired. But I do not want to harm anyone, in any way. If my comments have been hurtful to you or her, I apologise, but things like this need said, not covered up, as tznkai seems to be doing. Sam Spade 08:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since people who intellectually offend me (the nicest wording I could think of ;) have seen fit to interfere w our discussion, I am bringing it here. Sorry in advance if you don't like that, feel free to do what you want (its your talk page). Sam Spade 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Subversion of RfC
What happened to this page is totally unacceptable. The real RfC is @ Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original. This page on the other hand is the sort of sick joke that passes for "process" on the wikipedia. Sam Spade 07:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, grow up, Sam. For once, I'd like to see you try putting your differences with people aside and actively try to resolve a dispute, rather than just taking the opportunity to piss on anyone you take a dislike to. Ambi 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "WP:CIVIL to the max!" Oh wait, you're an admin. You don't need to. -_- Go ahead being vulgar and offensive to people all you like. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My differences w what people? This welch guy? I don't even know him, and he's the one who replaced the RfC w this farce. Sam Spade 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly its this comment that pisses me off the most, and its completely unrelated to the RfC. Sam Spade 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the vitrol, what is the resolution to this? Kelly has no sign that she is willing to learn from her mistakes, nor have you ambi, nor has anyone to my knowledge. Therefore their really can't be any resolution, just a record of errors. Sam Spade 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you have strong opinions here, but criticism has been aired - repeatedly. At last count, there was more than fifty pages of criticism and counter-criticism, and I really feel that there's nothing more to be gained from continuing that except further bad blood, leading inevitably to repercussions for both sides. If the issue continues to be approached from the stance of "apologise for your sins or we will smite you", it'll just lead to further hostility, but if we can actually sit down and try to work out an amicable solution, as Philwelch and I tried to do last night, then something useful (or at least some peace) might just come out of this. There has been enough bomb-throwing; now is the time for actually trying to resolve this mess in a manner that is amicable to as many people as possible. Ambi 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree that you and Philwelch alone can work out a solution and impose it on others without their agreement, any more than he can delete my discussion regarding it and claim to be part of an honest dialogue. I do however think that you discussing things politely w someone who disagrees w you is a positive step. My impression of your position is that you feel this incident is not a big deal, and should blow over. My position is that it should be made widely known, so that Kelly will be resoundingly removed from office in the upcoming elections. As different as these 2 positions are, there is room for compromise. If Kelly makes it clear that she regrets her actions and will strive not to repeat them, I would also support the RfC being ended. Sam Spade 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: RfC
Thanks for your response - I think taking it here was a good idea. Above all, I hope you understand that Philwelch and I weren't trying to dictate a solution onto everyone else yesterday. Rather, I think it's fairly clear that nothing much could come out of the old RfC, except more anger and bitterness from both sides, and it was a good-faith effort to try and redirect that energy into a form where something good might come out of it.

I think you summarised my position fairly accurately. I don't think there was any inherent harm done in deleting those userboxes. I think it was reasonable to be bold in the first place - just as it was reasonable that, when people disagreed, the boxes were re-created. With this in mind, I'm struggling to see any lasting damage done here, though I could have missed something.

While I understand that you're not fond of Kelly and want her voted off the arbitration committee, I don't think this is the way to go about it. For starters, I think the backlash against Kelly is doing far more harm to the community than her actions ever did, and I think the longer it goes on, the more bad feeling that is created, and the greater the likelihood of there being acrimony and retaliation down the track against not only Kelly, but a myriad of others involved, including you. You've made your point, and I think now would be a good time to start working towards some resolution that's amicable to all parties involved, rather than furthering this in the name of personal revenge. Ambi 09:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear: I don't care about userboxes (at all), and I have no desire for revenge on Kelly Martin (for what I don't know, she hasn't done anything to me that I am aware of). I also have nothing against her as a human being (non-wikipedian).


 * What I do have are concerns, comments, and possibly a great deal of evidence (if I can be arsed to spend an hour or 2 hunting up links) regarding her suitability for positions of power on the wikipedia. The concerns which relate directly to the RfC are: out of process deletions, an unwaranted block, and numerous violations of civility / conduct unbecoming her position. I frankly feel she has handled herself very badly indeed, and that a great deal of fuss regarding that is in order.


 * I am, however, nothing if not rigourous, and will personaly favor the closing of her RfC if she makes suitable comments of contrition. Outside of that, I see no imminent danger to the wikipedia, or indeed anyone (myself included) from people complaining about her conduct. On the contrary, I see the groundswell against her as the most hopeful sign I have seen on the wiki in ages, immediately correlated in my mind with the size of the donation meter. People care about what is going on here, and are putting their $0.02 (or $20, and the case may be), in. All hail populism! Death to wiki-elitism! Sam Spade 09:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)