User talk:Beneaththelandslide/Archive4

'''This is inactive discussion. Please do not edit it.'''

Re: Barnstar
I forgot (how rude of me) to thank you for the barnstar. Thanks! I'm honoured to recieve it from an editor such as you.--cj | talk 08:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood comments
Beneaththelandslide has done very good work on articles connected with Australia. Unfortunately, he is currently engaged in an edit war on the pages Conservatism and American Conservatism where he has indulged in repeated name calling, refusal to compromise, and blanking. You can read the exhanges on the talk pages of those articles if you are interested. I would appreciate some input from others. In addition to my comment here, I am requesting mediation. Rick Norwood 12:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Beneaththelandslide's contributions are exemplary. In my short time here, I would rate his conduct as meritable, well above the standard.  Scribner 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had listed it on the request for mediation page. Thank you for pointing out that it didn't take. I'll try again. Rick Norwood 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you have made excellent contributions to Wikipedia, and I am not sure what it is about conservatism that has led you to make rude remarks instead of discussing issues logically. I always try to keep my comments brief and to the point, but these are issues I have read about, observed, and thought about for many years.  The current "debate" between liberals and conservatives is at least ninety percent utter nonsense, a brouhaha stirred up by politicians to get American voters off our fat asses and to the polls on election day.  The real story of both liberalism and conservatism has been going on for thousands of years, and has very little to do with the current us/them red state/blue state debate.  There is not that much difference between welfare and television on the one hand and bread and circuses on the other.  "The more things change..." Rick Norwood 13:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why, but we are saying exactly the same thing, and yet you are not hearing what I am saying. You wrote, "Again, you demonstrate how narrow your outlook is in regards to political / philosophical thought. Move beyond American conservatism / liberalism - the terms used today in the USA bastardise these philosophies and wholly redefine and distort their meanings."  Which is exactly what I said above, "The current "debate" between liberals and conservatives is at least ninety percent utter nonsense."  Now, we are both reasonable people, and we seem to agree.  Why are we having so much trouble communicating? Rick Norwood 15:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "You have stated an agenda and are flying your flag. The criticism section is nothing but a pathetic in-article fork wholly disregarding the philosophy. Until this is gone, the article will not be appropriate and neutral."


 * Now, I am honest trying to understand what is going on here, but Wikipedia does have rules, one of which is not to insult other people.


 * You are too intelligent to believe that all liberals are liars. Yes, I am a liberal.  So what.  That doesn't mean I have an "agenda", it just means that I have a set of beliefs.  I doubt that my beliefs are that different from yours.  I have never had trouble before working with intelligent conservatives.  But you seem to have formed an opinion of me and of my beliefs based on a stereotype of what an American liberal is like.  Almost all of your comments have addressed that stereotype, rather than the substantive statements in the article.


 * I am asking you to set aside personality, and focus on specific issues and statements in the article itself. Those I think we can discuss rationally.  Rick Norwood 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quit the patronising rubbish. Cut the crap. Stop dictating to me. I'm not interested in stereotypes, I don't believe in stereotypes - you do. By saying you're a "liberal" - zing - you've done it, you've shown how naive you are. Adopt a worldview and get out of this bubble. I don't give a damn what someone's opinion / beliefs are in real life when working here. Policy, and myself, asks that they do not bring those views onto wikipedia.

- :::::Want to know what the answer is, the real answer to this petty little war? Kill all the "criticism" sections on all political articles. Wikipedia has one view; the neutral view. Criticism sections add two, essentially creating an in-article fork. We don't dictate positives and negatives, we outlay the facts and the facts speak for themselves. When you put in your critism section, you're not letting the reader make up their own mind, their own judgement - you're dictating it to them. michael talk 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC) + :::::Want to know what the answer is, the real answer to this petty little war? Kill all the "criticism" sections on all political articles. Wikipedia has one view; the neutral view. Criticism sections add two, essentially creating an in-article fork. We don't dictate positives and negatives, we outlay the facts and the facts speak for themselves. When you put in your criticism section, you're not letting the reader make up their own mind, their own judgement - you're dictating it to them. michael talk 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to talk to you rationally, but consider the following sentence of yours. "I don't believe in stereotypes - you do. By saying you're a "liberal" - zing - you've done it, you've shown how naive you are." Can't you see that is a stereotype, the stereotype of the "naive liberal".

And then you go on to say "I don't give a damn what someone's opinion / beliefs are in real life when working here." And yet you go on and on about how I'm a liberal. I have only mentioned my liberal beliefs in answer to questions on talk pages, never in articles.

You suggest that the criticism section is my criticism section. Actually, a number of people worked on that section long before you got here. I would have left it as it was if people hadn't started deleting it.

"Wikipedia has one view; the neutral view." No. Wikipedia represents all points of view. The idea that there is one right view, and all other views are wrong, is not the Wikipedia way. I don't expect you to take my word for this, so ask somebody who has been here for a while, someone whose views you respect and who is not involved in this controversy. Rick Norwood 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock
It should work now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Playmander
I've had this on my to-do list for ages. It is a good start and once I get an opportunity to peruse some sources I can add some further information. Cheers. --Roisterer 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

O-bahn busway
Alternatively this PDF from ECOS states that all public transport vehicles are now running at least 5% biodiesel. http://downloads.publish.csiro.au/ecos/ecos_download.cfm?article_id=EC124p5.pdf&issue_id=124&issue_year=2005 --LTB Enterprises 13:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Michael; your witing skills are sorely needed on WP. Feel free to drop into the FAC room occasionally, to support the steadily lowering benchmark for prose standards. I'll try to look throught the rest of the article some time. Tony 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work on the O-Bahn article! --Avochelm 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! :)
Hey and thanks for welcoming me :)

Yeah, it's odd - I've noticed almost every page has its own formatting. I created the template for Adelaide suburbs (based almost totally on the one we've been using over at WikiProject Perth) primarily because many of them had either none at all, broken ones, or hand-coded ones. Have been doing mostly the suburbs around the Golden Grove and outer north eastern area and getting them as close to each other as possible, and hoping that my work will spawn ideas or research or photographic urges in others who can complete them :)

Orderinchaos78 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

thx
Thanks for your barnstar, Michael. Tony 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Complexities
I think I could spend a year lost in the bowels of wikipedia. Aside from the fun of exploring endless articles/links it's been interesting discovering the do's and dont's of wikipedia. Thanks for your interest. Ozdaren 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New Australian Collaboration is Census in Australia
Hi. You voted for Census in Australia as Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Thankyou. Scott Davis Talk 14:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

unblocked
I've unblocked your username. It doesn't look like that Ip was blocked though.  I hope I've helped. --Scott Davis Talk 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess who I share an ISP with? "Autoblocked by User:Cyberjunkie because your IP address has been recently used by "User:Jackp". The reason given for Jackp's block is: "disruption". IP User:202.6.138.33. Mind taking a look? michael talk 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * try now - I think I've released the autoblock. --Scott Davis Talk 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took two attempts. Now it's time to go to bed - I have to go to work again tomorrow. --Scott Davis Talk 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How ironic that you share Jack's ISP! Anyways, I've removed the unblock tag from this page because the ISP cited isn't blocked. If you're still blocked, let me know the details.--cj | talk 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is driving me crazy, it really is! Block imposed by User:CanadianCaesar. IP affected is User:202.6.138.34. Thanks for taking a look cj. michael talk 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't. User:202.6.138.34 wasn't blocked, so I couldn't unblock it. Your IP must have changed.--cj | talk 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Autoblocked due to User:CanadianCaesar blocking User:Goedy, which in turn blocks User:202.6.138.34 (my IP). I am sick of this. michael talk 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally found it. Should be unblocked.--cj | talk 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Confused
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia. I recently put info about the Burnside CFS and saw that you removed this information. I dont see why. If it was on their website then it should be able to go on the net. It also took a while for me to write. The majority of the information I wrote. As i am a member of the station. The images, from the Burnside CFS website dont have any copywrite on them. None that i know. Could you please explain why you removed them. --Mitmatt | talk 16:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I am redoing the page. I will take some pictures on Thursday. As you would know it is training night. I wrote a lot of it last night and i realise that it is quite inelegiable. Not normaly how i write. I am fixing it up now. I shall add some of my own pictures from jobs and burnoffs. no (C) --Mitmatt | talk 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Max Stuart
I am very disappointed that significant edits have been made to the Max Stuart article without discussion on the talk page first, or at the very least concurrently. It does not seem appropriate for an article that has been nominated as a good article and is now undergoing peer review to fail to discuss significant changes. In particular removing the section on Indigenous politics seems to add no value and remove information. I do not believe such removal is justified. I am also disappointed at an unfree image being used as the primary image, I think it would be better to use no image, as per the discussion already on the talk page, particularly in relation to an indigenous Australian.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have failed to appreciate that life after release is a significant other life. It is significant in terms of time.  It is significant in terms of contibution to society.  It is a totally different chapter to the rape and murder in Ceduna.  It needs to be treated accordingly.  I have concerns about the image, not just its license, though that is a part of it, but also the cultural aspects and what it conveys - I believe it is prejudicial - instinct and prejudice on my part may be, but ...  There are much later images of Stuart as an elder, I think it would be better to use one of those if we go down the fair use track.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edits had spelling mistakes. I have spent some time copyediting the article, ensuring there were no spelling or grammar errors.  It is disappointing to say the least to find somebody introducing a number of careless errors as well as non-neutral language, for example, "young and committed lawyer".
 * - The citation of (what is at present) footnotes 7, 9, 10 and 12 is not in accordance with cite book which has parameters for page numbers. Moreover footnotes 7 and 10 are the same and could be combined with the tag, or alternatively all of the footnotes referring to Crocker's book, given the Stuart case is apparently covered in only a few pages overall could be combined.
 * - There are unsourced assertions added in, for example, "Playford had recieved (sic) word from Canberra that Stuart's sentence would had adverse affects on the relationships Australia was developing with third world nations." - I assume this also comes from Crocker's book. Given the careful referencing that has been introduced into the article because of the controversial material, it would be a good idea for what is a rather bold assertion to be sourced.
 * - The order of the article and the subheadings had been discussed as part of the good article review process. The new order is in my view less logical, for example, to include the News sedition case as part of "Commentary" does not makes sense - it was part of the history of the Stuart case. Furthermore the new order gives even more weight to the case than before.  As above, Stuart is not defined only by the murder, he has spent more of his life being a respected member of the community than he did in prison or committing crimes.
 * - With regard to "should he be portrayed in the image as an imprisoned murderer and child rapist, or a community elder and councillor?" That question is why I think no image is better than one which illustrates somebody at the expense of other roles.  --A Y Arktos\talk 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Four editors, beside myself found this a good article:, , and .  On doing so they reviewed the article structure and the prose and obviously did not share your views that it included "Unrequired headings, poor structure and organisation, one or two sentence paragraphs and dry prose".  I also disagree with your comment that "articles require detail - but not non-neutral language" - non-neutral language breaches WP:NPOV.  I believe your edits introduced a lack of balance rather than the other way around.  At the very least please copyedit your contributions.  Please also discuss your changes on the article's talk page.--A Y Arktos\talk 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I also voicing my concern that an editor with your experience has taken such bold action on an article that had been reviewed as GA and is currently under going PR. I initially rejected the GA after considerable effort User:AYArktos brought the article up to GA standard. My comments on your actual edits are on the article talk page. Gnangarra 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have left the article in a poor state. There is at the very least more copyediting to be done - eg spelling errors still outstanding + neither buildings of a city nor its citizens give hints or directions to State premiers and that assertion needs to be sourced - probably past Crocker - who was Crocker quoting?.
 * As per comments above and on the article's talk page, I am not the only editor who does not feel you have improved the article. Would you please review Be bold in updating pages? -  'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, ..., without carefully looking at your edit.  The guideline suggests how to proceed.  I am frustrated that you were bold without discussion and have not followed up despite concerns being voiced.  Do we need a Third opinion?  I have asked Longhair to have a look but I believe he is busy in other life.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See article talk page for explanation of revert--A Y Arktos\talk 02:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I found your comments seriously offensive, I have hidden no facts, I have referenced assertions, I have couched things in neutral terms, I have carefully researched to present a balanced view. Try this diff to see what had changed.  I have strenously upheld that he should indeed be categorised as a convicted murderer - see the talk page.  I have attempted to reasonably discuss your changes with you and invited you to do the same.  You failed to do so but rather spoke in offensive terms about the work of others.  I do not own articles, but on the other hand I am as free to edit as others, especially when I am reverting edits with poor spelling and which fail to have a neutral point of view - there was plenty on the case in the previous iteration.  You have self-declared as believing the man is defined by his crime.  I see all people as whole and defined by their doings over their whole life.  If somebody looks up Max Stuart, they are entitled to find on the wikipedia clearly signposted references to his role as Chairman of the Central Lands Council and other roles in indigenous politics.  Those roles were not signposted by the sub-heading "Release".--A Y Arktos\talk 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Having had it pointed out to you, please use cite book properly. It has parameters for page numbers.  Moreover, you can combine footnotes using the tag --A Y Arktos\talk 02:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As per my comments on the talk page, I can't quote from sources I haven't got access to - I haven't got Crocker's book. I think if you review, you will find I have used a large number of sources and have used those sources reasonably extensively.--A Y Arktos\talk 02:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please proof read all your edits, consider carefully how others will view them, don't plagiarise Crocker (I will check - where did "found at midnight bloodied and mangled with her face smashed in" come from? - your words? citation does not justify use of another's words without quotes.) - otherwise go right ahead, keeping balance at all times. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page first and allow time for response.  Don't create a fork.--A Y Arktos\talk 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You yourself have asked for editor-review - take it from me that your proof reading skills are below par; "a lot better than some" is neither true nor good enough in my short experience of your editing on this article.  You failed to fix even after pointed out to you.  You also needed to be reminded of wikiquette and guidelines associated with being bold.  Given your breaches of these guidelines, quite frankly it is not clear to me that you are aware of any others, eg plagiarism. "Mangled body" is emotive language, so is "hints from Canberra" - can't come from somebody who wasn't there and wasn't involved.  That you are an experienced editor is unfortunately not apparent to me in my recent dealings with you.  I look forward to your further work on the article causing me to revise my opinion.--A Y Arktos\talk 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be assured, I have no problems with the article being improved :-) A Y Arktos\talk 03:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that O-Bahn is an FA...
...what's the next cab off the rank? :) Rebecca 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you thought about going for admin? I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Rebecca 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jackp's edits
You seem to be a frequent reverter of Jackp's vandalism, so I ask you to comment here: (bottommost section). Skinnyweed 13:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked
Hi, I unblocked you last night as I saw your plea on my watchlist. Real life intervened though and I had to quit wikipedia before I could let you know. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 23:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It should work now I hope.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacks Sub-headings
Actually, for once i am questioning whether some of Jack's edits aren't bad at all. What's wrong with the sub-headings in the Art & Entertainment section? Are they really against the consensus? I don't want to ask in the Sydney discussion page as with jack, if you give him an inch, he takes a mile. --Merbabu 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm - are you suggesting that by comparing it to Canberra which has featured article status and coincidentally no sub-headings, we can therefore deduce Sydney shouldn't have sub-headings? Where does it state sub-headings are not preferred? I look at jack's addition to the Art & Entertainment section and (it pains me to say it) but i think it is fine - makes it easier to find something. --Merbabu 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Some advice?
Hi Michael you seem to be one of the most active around SA Elections so hopefully you can help or guide me in the direction of someone who can. Please view http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Matthew&action=history - I don't want to start an editting war, and I would prefer someone put the removed line back in and lock the page - as there is nothing bias about it. The media and wikipedia don't censor factional support, but instead provide it in NPOV fashion, which I believe has been done but Waymat is not happy from the looks of it. Advice please? Timeshift 08:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response on my page. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Matthew&action=history I changed it to moderate, after all who can really be upset with that single word. It seems another person has. Is there some sort of wiki board that can make a decision which is then final? Timeshift 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's far too early to consider taking it to a RFC. While I do agree with your position, and will attempt to find a reference (given time), it would be best to simply communicate with Waymat in the hope of finding agreement. michael talk 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Waymat isn't changing it anymore. It's an anon. I left a comment in the discussion page of Wayne Matthew a while ago to which is unresponded to. Having a look though google, this seems the best link - http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/bright.htm - but if I put it there, it will just get taken away by anon or waymat or whoever. Timeshift 05:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * References can't be argued against and the Pole Bludger is a reputable source. Good work. michael talk 05:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Is there anything to stop them from continuing to revert, if they choose to continue? Timeshift 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If he refuses to communicate and edits with disregard to policy he will, in time, be blocked. michael talk 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

re:South Australia
"countless other groups have migrated here too with different languages" The German migrants where there first (not long after the colony was establised by the British empire), and once made up as much as "ten perecent" of the population. Myrtone
 * But those "coutless other groups" migrated more recently, these more recent waves of migration were/are not predominantly of any ethnicity, where as the earliest was nearly all German, I have told JackLumber about this discussion. "neither is German spoken by a large number of speakers." Not anymore, due to assimilation, but it was once, before the first world war. Myrtone
 * "has never been spoken by a large amount of speakers" So? It seems that you don't regard ten perecnt as a "large" portion, right. Myrtone

"German was last seen in 1991 at 1.1%." I was not talking about when it was last seen (let alone that recently). I was not denying that the percentage is really low now, but it was higher earlier on and got lower as a result of assimilation. Myrtone
 * "It was never spoken by more than 10% of the population. It is now spoken by less than 0.9% of the population. It does not deserve primacy." I compared the census data and it appears that of all the "coutless other lanaguages" the were/are spoeken, each was/is spoken by *less* than 10% of the population, therefore (taking relative portions into account) whether it desearves primacy or not is debatable, at least as far as I'm concerned. And what does 'primacy' mean? Myrtone

And PS, a comment form JackLumber: Since German is not official in South Australia, you can't emphasize the German name like that (note that in New Mexico, for example, English and Spanish are both official). But you can add a note about the German heritage in South Australia (with possibly the German translation of the name) *later on* in the article. JackLumber. 12:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This fortnight's ACOTF
I know you're pretty busy with the Don Dunstan rewrite, but is there any chance you might be able to stop by this fortnight's ACOTF, the History of Australia series? It's in such a poor state, and important enough that I'd really like to have some of the better writers around on board for this one. Rebecca 10:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

adminship
Hi Michael I noticed on Rebeccas' page that you're concerned about the admin role. Let me say that being an admin would distract you from the language side of your work on WP. There are plenty of admins; I don't want to see your contributions diluted by pressure to performe hum-drum tasks. RfA is also a very flawed process—akin to a mediaeval trial at its most severe. I wouldn't have anything to do with it. Tony 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Adel panorama.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adel panorama.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kevin_b_er 09:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, their page has wide claims of non-commercial use only, and policy in 2005 deems non-commerical as being subject to speedy delete. Please weigh in on how you got permission before you go on vacation.  Thanks. Kevin_b_er 09:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Online Newspaper Archive
Whoa, that is a very neat idea. Pity the last time I used a library card was a good 10 years ago, I think I need to reregister with my local library and check that site out - cheers for the heads up :-) Timeshift 08:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Architecture in Sydney?
What makes you think you can remove content from Wikipedia without giving a reason on the talk page? If you took time, and actually read the article on architecture in Sydney, you'll know that it isn't idiotic, and it has already been accepted on the page. Beneaththelandslide, if you continue to remove content from Wikipedia I'll have to block you from editing. Jackp 07:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sydney?
"Unencylopedia trash"

It is not trash and it belongs on the page! Please read the Sydney talk page. It gives a detailed insight on architecture in Sydney and it meets the required standard. Jackp 07:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry
i just reverted that page from vandals... sorry... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AxyJo (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

UNblock
I'm not admin best I can do is add this template I found. Gnangarra
 * If possible, could you leave a message on a page of any admins you know? Thanks! michael talk 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Found an admin under recent changes User:TexasAndroid have asked for assistance. Gnangarra 11:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * has there been any response or are you still blocked? Gnangarra 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. michael talk 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still trying to get help, contacted another admin who just blocked a vandal Gnangarra 12:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Progress an admin (User:Lectonar) is currently trying to resolve Gnangarra 13:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it; it was an autoblock. You should be able to edit now (if not:edit this talk-page). Cheers. Lectonar 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still blocked. Thanks for assisting. michael talk 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's beyond me...I lifted the autoblock ..I'll be on it, but I have to use my computer at home (to see if there's another autoblock), and that will take some more hours...anyway, now I've left a comment here. Sorry about the inconvenience, but now the only way would be to unblock Jackp, and I'm not doing that. Lectonar 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for trying. And I'm quite happy to stay blocked temporarily if it keeps a troll away. michael talk 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit...but as an admin, I shouldn't try, I should succeed ;-))...there seems to be a problem with adamnet anyway, if I take a look at the blocks. Lectonar 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lectonar, I'll leave it to you guys to resolve. If I can be of further assistance just call Gnangarra 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A thanks to you Gnangarra - looking through your contribs you obviously put in quite a bit of effort - cheers! michael talk 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like you guys...we should have more contributors like that. Lectonar 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no!! What a pain. Hope we can see you back soon - and that you can see a funny side too. --Merbabu 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not respond in time. I only briefly made one vandal block this morning, and then was away from my computer.  By the time I saw the message and checked in here, Lectonar was already helping you.  There wasn't much point in my jumping into the middle of things at that point if you already had one admin helping.  Glad you were able to get things cleared up, though. - TexasAndroid 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as an afterthought (and to rid myself of every trace of possible wrongdoing ;-))): there seems to be a time delay of at least some minutes between the unblocking (or blocking) action, and the actual implementation...when one uses different servers (as it is obviously the case here). Thanks again everybody, for your patience. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 08:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am currently blocked due to an autoblock. Can an admin please unblock IP's 202.6.138.33, 202.6.138.34 and 202.6.138.35? My internet service provider uses a transparent proxy that the Wikipedia software cannot identify. Thank you!

"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Movie-lover93". The reason given for Movie-lover93's block is: "sock of indefinitely banned user Jackp"." My IP is 219.90.223.242, it appears (as shown on the 'user is blocked' page as 202.6.138.35, however. michael talk 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked the three adamnet addresses, hope it works. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Hi again Michael. I managed to unblock the 2nd one. The others seem not to be blocked. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Playford IV
Re: your revert note "degrades an otherwise good introduction", when do you plan on redoing the article? Why does a person with his playmander history deserve a "good introduction"? An introduction isn't meant to be "good" for the person, it's supposed to represent the person. Timeshift 08:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot more than electoral malappointment characterises Playford and his rule; it would be inappropriate to haphazardly add things to an established well-written article. I'm currently throwing up whether to do Playford or MATS next; patience is required but I welcome your input when I do get around to it. michael talk 09:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

changes made to bialik college page
g'day,

on the bialik college page you have just reverted to a page full of incorrect information. Can you please revert to my last page before my school takes legal action.

thanks kindly.

sorry, it did sound like i threatend you but it wasnt directed to you. I am just saying they my school is angry that the information is of incorrect nature and keeps being reverted to this incorrect info.

I am having a hard time getting this page resolved with wikipedia as the "Bots" seem to automatically revert all the time.

sorry once again.

how do i get rid of slabs of info without being reverted by a bot?? its killing me!!


 * Are the two of you getting sorted out without a block needed? --Scott Davis Talk 13:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did apologise my wording was incorrect and was never directed at Beneaththelandslide even though it appeared that way. Im sorry once again.

Adelaide Talk Page
All the edits I've made on pages based around Adelaide have been re-edited again by you, which is fair enough because I didn't have a reference. Yesterday however I removed this post from the Adelaide Talk section under "Adelaide - City Of Corpses".....

"What a strange analogy, but then Adelaide is a very strange place. Of course the Snowtown murders are an embodiment of Adelaide's unique style. ( what a ludicris offensive statement ) As an interstater, the first thing I noticed was how much poverty and mental illness there was in this city. Dear old Adelaide is a place of extremes. It exhibits a seedy underbelly of extreme feralness while claiming a mantle of high culture on the other. The murders here have recurring themes that centre around pedaphiles, homosexuals and transvestites. Lord knows why the government tries to attract migrants. The truth is that unless your kids have a university degree they are likely to end up working in a factory or within the service industry. Even with a degree you may not find a decent job and will have to leave.—The preceding"

And now its back there again? Did you put it back? Because the reason I took it away was I didn't like the fact that this interstate persons shine such a negative light on Adelaide (which is untrue) and above all associates SA/Adelaide with transvestites & pedaphiles! I'm don't care that homosexuals were mentioned thats fine but the the fact that they mention our state having a "recurring" theme around pedaphiles is very offensive. Now if you edited it back to the "way it was" then I don't know why you'd do that? But I you didn't put it back and someone else did then thats fine and sorry to get into a bit of a biff.

Sydney
Are you sure this edit to Sydney was vandalism? It looks like a reasonable see also link to me. Kevin 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Beneaththelandslide!
Im a year 11 at gihs. i've been in a few of ryans classes. Your a good editor on wikipedia, specially with Australian related and adelaide. Please post on my talk page some time cocopopz2005

O-NBahn
Sorry, but what have I done to upset you? The '2006's aren't linked as such - they're like that so that users see their preferred date format. I'd be intersted in what you don't like about my copy-editing - others don't agree with you - and sweeping generalisations don't help. Feel free to change (or discuss) bits you don't like, but reversion throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and that doesn't help improve an article that's clearly had a lot of time and energy devoted to it. Birdhurst 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re dates, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 says:

Dates containing a month and a day If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:

Month and day February 17 → 17 February 17 February → 17 February Day, month, and year February 17, 1958 → 17 February 1958

That's precisely what I did - what's the problem?

Re altering the meaning of the text - where did I do that?

Re copy-editing - many other people have also devoted a lot of time and energy to the article - that's what Wikipedia's about, isn't it?

Re "A quarter of a century later, the Labor government" - later than what?

Re "the L-shaped track" - it isn't, each track consists of two L-shaped "rails".

I could go on, but I'd appreciateive your constructive comments. Birdhurst 06:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "those are instructions on how dates are organised (February 17 rather than 17 February) rather than explicit linking instructions" - precisely: I've never mentioned linking, and this is Wikipedia policy about displaying dates (including years), which I'm choosing to follow (as a good Wikipedian should); "'L-shaped track' is correct; there are no rails, (such a term has not been used to describe the track in any of my sources) there are two peices of L-shaped track" - that's why I put "rails" in inverted commas. The piece uses "track" to mean three separate things: the busway (equivalent to the line, in railway parlance); the structure consisting of the two L-shaped pieces (the track, in railway parlance); and (as here) just one of the L-shaped pieces (the rail, in railway parlance). I was trying to avoid confusion between the three.

I'd still like to know what meaning I altered - and what had happened a quarter-century earlier. Birdhurst 06:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael - I notice you've reverted date linking in the article at least twice today. As commented above, Help:Preferences and WP:DATE suggest that complete dates should be wikilinked to make it easier for readers to read dates in the reader's natural format. --Scott Davis Talk 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes there are guidelines we don't like so much. I think I've been through (an earlier version) and linked the dates once, too. I happen to like that one. Anyway - congratulations on getting it to the front page. Well done. --Scott Davis Talk 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Meetup on 24th August 2006
Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 09:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane's Thread
Do you really think I haven't tried? have uploaded pictures that friends took and they were deleted immediately even though I placed the right copyright tag on it, I have tried many times and so have people i know who are wishing to improve Brisbane's page. I seriously believe that you should compare the page to other Australian cites. It is absolutely woeful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulvisionq1 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

four tides
Ok, thanks and what do you mean by Four tides? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulvisionq1 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 August 2006 {UTC. }


 * Sorry for commenting on another user's talkpage. Four tildes (note the l). A tilde is the symbol you sometimes see on letters, such as n in Spanish. It looks like this: ~. When you put four of them at the end of a comment, they get converted into your username, the date and time, so that you can easily sign messages. &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

David Tonkin
Hey there. In the wake of your excellent Don Dunstan article, I am working on the David Tonkin article. I don't plan to take it to Featured Article status; just looking to increase the article from stub to something more becoming of a former Premier. If you have come across anything of great interest on Tonkin while researching Dunstan, I'd be pleased to hear about it. Cheers. --Roisterer 05:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Interestingly, all the references I have for Tonkin praise him for his O-Bahn role.  --Roisterer 05:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't mentioned his continued role in opthalmology while serving as a politician because I wasn't aware. I'll add it now.  Thanks for the information.  --Roisterer 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

History Portal
Please do not remove my note, thanks. I have listed my reasons and discussion on Cyberjunkie's talk page. Aranherunar 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and your most polished note. I did not find myself being rude in user Cyberjunkie's talk page - have a look at it yourself. I have not said one word related to Cyberjunkie or his contributions on the first two comments, while he promptly dismissed my suggestion as 'nonsense' in his third. I remained faithful and gave a long, detailed explanation of what I was thinking - wrong as it may be - and has not received a reply yet. Is there a different definition of being rude in Wikipedia? I'm quite new anyway.
 * I have noticed that you have said my silly comment does not help solving the problem - i.e. you understand there is a "problem". I assume you mean people changing the spelling of the word "civilisation/civilization", and I do not quite understand how my note is so unacceptable. If it will cause any systematic problems on Wikipedia, or hinder the article's readability, then yes, I'll definitely remove it when I know. But it seems that the note can only be read by editors -again, I may be wrong- and that more than half of the edits to the articles were changing the spelling of the word "civilisation/civilization". I, forgive my insolence, think that the comment is clear enough to prevent more users from making the mistake again. Even if it does not help that much, is there a need to remove it? There is a note on the top of the article "RuneScape" telling real contributors to write their edit summaries because the article receives quite a lot of vandalism. It ignores the fact that when vandals see that they'll most likely write a fake edit summary - Yet it is not removed.
 * Otherwise, if you have a better solution for this "problem", please gently use it.
 * As for the policy, perhaps I have been interpreting it wrongly, but as I have said, this isn't the case, because "Civilisations" and "Civilizations" are from the same dialect of English, British English (See wiktionary). In fact, Civilisations is simply a less used variant of Civilizations - i.e it is in no way a different dialect. Both the US and the UK uses the word "Civilizations" overwhelmingly more than "Civilisations". Many, many people think that "Civilizations" is the only correct spelling (as seen from their edit history: "Correct spelling", etc.) The word "Civilisations" is seldom used and it would appear to be a wrong spelling to many, many people. "I" is a variant of the word "Aye" ("Yes"), yet when do you ever see people saying "I sir"?
 * As I have said, the correction is not really related to the policy, but I would also like to point out that Cyberjunkie, who added the word "Civilisations", is in fact not the "first major contributor", because he added less than ten words. The word "Civilisations", as you can see from the portal's history, has been changed far more than ten times into "Civilizations" - a far greater contribution than Cyberjunkie, don't you think?
 * I hope I do not sound rude to you. Aranherunar 02:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

O-Bahn
You've put in the work researching the O-Bahn article and others, despite my initial skepticism they're genuine feature-worthy articles. I hope no stress was incurred in the writing of them! Diceman 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Dunstan lodge 1973.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dunstan lodge 1973.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Royals
Yo Bro, I see that you have made some major modifycations to the Australain Royals Article, this is fine - I appreciate your work, and if you think that moving, reforming and wholesale deletion will improve the article then I support that, though if you are going to make severe modifycations please tell me via my talk page. thanks, Dfrg.msc 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

зарубка имеет большого кита, jimob кит, который! Бритье к китам!


 * No original content? Well, I'll argue that later. So I can't spell the name of the country I live in - that makes me even more 'Australian' and few of us actually can. Look, I'm doing the best I can with a keyboard with re-arranged keys and no S or Q, (I copy and paste them by the way) lower case michael. Your spelling and grammar mistakes are intended, unlike mine. Pehaps information that is relivant can be moved, changed or improved apon. Thanks  lower case mik, Dfrg.msc [[Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg|10px|User talk:Dfrg.msc]] 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)




 * Ah, Mik! It is me that should be apologizing to you, you said what you said out of genuine consern for me, which at the time I did not recoginize. You are right though, spelling and grammar is something on which I must work on; though there are definatley worse offendres (User:Culverin) I'm looking at you. I am serious about the keyboard with re-arranged keys and no S or Q. See the picture.

And I have finaly found someone else that calls people by the more informal "mate" other than me! Woo hoo! Oh, and congradulations on your Barnstar - may it blind the eyes of vandals. Sensere thanks/apologies/mate, Dfrg.msc 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cranbourne
No prob about Cranbourne. It might very well be yet another sock of. -- JamesTeterenko 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

60%
Wasn't the changed sentence just fact? I mean, a gerrymander is a technical thing, and no one disputed that there was malapportionment. The POV might arise from arguments for and against moving to one vote one value, not the extent to which there was a non-metropolitan bias. Tony 08:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob.—sounds like NSW, where many votes on the right are locked up in huge majorities on Sydney's North Shore. Tony 09:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackp socks
Hi Michael. I saw your note on Rebecca's talk page regarding collateral damage affecting yourself. Have you tried contacting your ISP regarding this issue in the hope they may be able to identify this user? He may very well be breaching your ISP's terms of service or acceptable use policy and could possibly be asked to move on. -- Longhair 09:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ISP's keep logs, even on their proxy servers. I realise it's a long shot asking them to identify this user, however it's been done before. Matching timestamps to activity is easily done if you can enlist the help of a willing member of the ISP's staff. Sadly, the bigger the ISP, the less likely you are to find a resolution to the problem. I've watchlisted your talk page so I can assist in future events of blocks affecting you. It's a pain, we know, but we're better off keeping the blocks active. -- Longhair 09:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I'm usually the person who blocks the Jackp socks, I'll try to remember to use the "block anonymous users only" option to minimise the collateral damage.

Thanks for your kind note about Cynna Kydd, anyway. In the past fortnight, I've had no less than six articles I found useful nominated for deletion, with three of them (including my most recent FA and my current project) prodded at various times. I've also had to waste so much time dealing with the utterly imbecilic that I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth it. Rebecca 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image licenses
Thankyou for your input re Peter Debnam image... are you able to tell me which is the most appropriate license to use? I would have thought the fifth one down the list regarding usage for non-commercial and/or education purposes, but the tag it gives after the upload looks far different to Don Dunstan and I can't figure out which one you used. Timeshift 14:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: response on my page - I'm unsure why I don't understand what I'm supposed to do here. I asked you what license to pick from the dropdown list instead of picking the 5th one down, to which you said on my talk page to use, which I added in to Summary along with fair use rationale:

Peter Debnam official photo. The State Parliament website licenses the photo for non-commercial use.

The image here is claimed to be fair use as it is:


 * 1) The official portrait of the current NSW opposition leader;
 * 2) There are no copyleft alternatives of such a photo;
 * 3) The image used is of a ceremonial and not a commerical value;
 * 4) The article is improved by the prominence of this photo;
 * 5) Which is hosted and displayed on the not-for-profit Wikipedia Encylopedia for educational purposes.

But the same problem occurs, it tells me it is ready for speedy deletion. My rationale is also appearing down further, not in the layout it is in on the Don Dunstan page. Sorry i'm so slow in failing to understand this :P Timeshift 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: 2nd response on my page - ... I can't believe how silly this sounds, but I didn't even think of looking for/clicking on edit this page. I thought I had to re-upload the image and put it in the summary - thanks for the very simple tip, sorry I didnt realise it earlier! Timeshift 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vic election/family first
I'm not advocating for either the removal or inclusion of what you removed, however I will point out that the person whomever added it was simply quoting the article. You may already know this but the way you typed your revert reason, it seemed like you thought it was somewhat of a smear. Timeshift 07:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Smear
Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant was, the wikipedian was just making a direct quote from the article, he personally didn't come up with those words. The way you typed your revert edit reason (the way I interpreted it anyway), you made it sound like you thought the wikipedian added it himself from his own thoughts. Timeshift 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a direct quote from an article. The media attacks all parties. People don't not post quotes just because it attacks a party - it's all a part of democracy. Timeshift 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Family First, churches, Labor, unions, Liberal, big business. They all get ridiculed from time to time. So what else is new? Timeshift 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If anything, doesn't the quote 'Eastman stated that the party had no hidden agendas, despite being labelled an arm of the Christian Right movement. "There's no formal structural approach to churches in any way,"' do good anyway? The paragraph starts off with saying that FF announced Eastman as lead candidate and spokesperson, and goes on to show Eastman clearing the "misconception" that FF has no hidden agendas... BTW, I don't suppose you have happened to come across ? Timeshift 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess we just see things differently on this issue. Not that I care all that much (as I didn't add it), it was more the principle of reverting a what I viewed as a harmless quote. Timeshift 14:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's not my fault that Family First have policies that discriminate against people like me. They are free to form policies as they wish, this is democracy, but in the same light I have the right to think it's a pity that people with such socially conservative views as they do have two voting positions in the LC. Again, this is democracy. I do however not let my personal dislike of FF and some of their policies get in the way of my contributions - I do not post anything opinionated on FF. My belief that the quote should have been left there was based on the fact it was a quote and didn't degrade the party IMHO, not based on any prejudice I have against them (after all, as I said, if anything I think the quote is of benefit) - but you disagree with that. Timeshift 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA
Thanks, Michael, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about "Criticism"
I ran accross this posting you made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13_Conservatism.

"Criticism sections should be removed on sight, along with "trivia" sections and other token nonsense. They are in-article forks that compromise the very integrity of this encylopedia (we aren't supposed to criticise or lay judgement; we leave fact - the reader interprets)."

I'm interested in this comment because you seem to be whole sale against "criticism" sections of any kind in any/all encyclopedia entries. Is this true? I'm wondering exactly why you think so because I can't quite understand your reasoning. How are widely held criticisms within certain contexts (like lets say American conservative Christian criticisms of stem cell research), or historically important criticisms (like lets say Marx's criticisms of capitalism), not matters of "fact"? Do they not exist as criticisms? Are they not important? I fully understand not wanting criticisms that are novel or original to one or two editors to be part of an encyclopedia entry, because that would violate POV and would be unethical. But historically important and/or simply socially prevalent and influential criticisms, which clearly exist as social and/or historical facts? I'd love to hear your justification for removing criticism sections "on sight". Please elaborate.PelleSmith 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian Smith
Michael. Your recent contribution seems to indicate some approval of the political career of Ian Smith. I have commented on that contribution on the relevant Discussion page, and I will be interested to see your response in due course. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

MATS
How's the draft coming along? Rebecca 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 SA election as a FA
I would appreciate your alterations and suggestions with South Australian legislative election, 2006 and Talk:South Australian legislative election, 2006 in trying to get the article to FA status. Your valued opinions and experience are always appreciated. Timeshift 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)