User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 01

Archive : January 2008

Hard act to follow
exploding what? yuou keep such marvelopus company... happy new yuerts, new yorts or new yoghurts! trust the new youiur grabs you in the right locations. cheers from the hills of the coast with too many appelations (rain being the most operative at the moment) although gold and surfers etc happen SatuSuro 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCU
Just in case you weren't already aware: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cleanemupnowboys. I have no expectation on how you may or may not respond. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - have responded. Orderinchaos 10:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

HNY
Cheers and Happy New Year - yes back with some vengeance! -- VS talk 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season
  'TIS MANGO SEASON.... Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BKWSU development plan
In response to your post on my talk page ...

The only major work about the BKWSU is Dr John Walliss's book (not just his papers) Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Religion/ Director, Hope Centre for Millennialism Studies). The only other comparable is Dr Lawrence Babb's "Three Traditions ... etc" which is useful from both a historical and philosophical context as it was written in the 70s after he, as an anthropologist and expert in the Vallyabhacharya tradition of which Kripalani was part, spent time and lived with the Brahma Kumaris. It is "pure BK", useful as it is pre- (how do I put this professionally?) all the developing of marketing fronts targeted at Western expansion. There is a large work in German only but it was written by a very senior (in fact, the first I believe) Western BK who became an academic but is, sadly, factually incorrect or incomplete.

One thing I take into consideration in my contributions is that the Wikipedia is a "world" encyclopedia and the world includes the Indian experience. The BKs in India present themselves different, without the artifice I would say, than how the Western BKs do. This is part of problem. The BKs on the Wikipedia are Western BKs and, in my opinion, both want the topic to match the way BK is marketed to the West and are uncomfortable with straightforward documentation or exposures that are commonplace in India. You saw this in Appledell's comments about "not included in introductory course". In the West there is a "soft sell" and a focus on the diffusion products (values education, management training), as some of their beliefs are extreme (the channeling of God himself, exclusivity, the 5,000 cycle and dinosaurs etc); whereas in India, the BKs are by comparison modernish, fairly rational, almost Hindu revisionists and they tend to be entirely out front and, note by the academics, evangelical about their beliefs.

I think the topic should reflect the whole and I would ask you again to consider splitting it into at least; historical development, beliefs and practises. The main article could remain fairly stub-like and the sub-sequent articles be developed in detail. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a probably the most complete to date bibliography, here; http://www.brahmakumaris.info/w/index.php?title=Bibliography.


 * If you have any doubts about my intentions or motivations, please ask me first. If we are to develop on, in trust of each other, then there has to be openness between contributors and an end to al the contrivances. My checkuser on Clean me was not an attack. I just wanted to confirm what seemed apparent given the nature of the revisions.


 * Let's look at the sequence of events here;
 * Bk Simonb requests for an early unprotection.
 * Cleanemupnowboys makes an immediate identical reversion to those they did before.
 * I place a checkuser on Cleanemupnowboys.
 * Bk Simonb drops you a note.


 * This again is repeated behavior other have had the benefit of experience. Gaming through which they seek to use you as a new well-meaning editor and admin if you are going to contribute here. In all fairness, it really has to stop. If it stops and the contention will evaporate.


 * In the BKWSU, it is a "yukti" (method) they practise called "Karan Karavanhar" (transliteration varies) which translates as, "The one that does and does through others". (References available to back up!). Good luck to you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Replying here to keep it in one place) Note I shut down a similar request against yourself a few days earlier. I am simply of the view that Wikiprocess in general has already failed to handle this and a new way is required. Orderinchaos 09:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but let's not be naive. I think standards have to be made to apply to all. My rigor, or attention to detail, is misinterpreted as an "attack" but this is not so. The BKWSU does have issues, and extreme beliefs. I can see how they feel that the honest and complete documentation of these is "exposure" but I do not see it this way. The Wikipedia should just be an accurate text book. It is not constraint in size as paper encyclopedias are. This gives us the opportunity to go into far more detail. I actually do have expertise in this subject. Its a simple matter of fact.


 * I am asking the individual outright if they are one and the same. The intention is to just to see if there is a willingness to be open and honesty, not an attack. It appears to me that they are young and mainly copy much of the modus operandi being displayed on this topic page ... which is exactly necessary good form, even on the Wikipedia. I appreciate you are new to the subject too and will be interested to watch what you make of it all. Thanks --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

clarification
Orderinchaos, Re your message that it's never necessary to file a sock report -> Yes, I agree (my point exactly, as long as one account is being used). My main point is that there appears to be a two-way COI and both sides need to refrain from personal attacks and aggressive editing.

Also, with Lucy, please note the pattern that if one agrees with the pro-BK camp, all of a sudden one's a meat puppet. If one disagrees, then one's uninformed and stupid and is commanded to go join BK for 6 months.

A case in point here is that from my academic reading of the group, there is mediumistic channeling. I put that in my third edit before this current protection. Lucy says that was factually wrong on my web page, yet it's in the version that he wants and in other places he argues this is what the group does. When I ask him for clarification he (again) ignores the request and fails to discuss it.

I appreciate the work you're doing putting people on notice about attacks and bogus reports. I also hope Lucy will actually start the sandbox. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much bogus reports as the fact I think process is actually meant to keep things working normally, which assumes they are working normally to begin with and a little poke will fix the situation. Works in 99% of cases but this one has some clear and obvious differences and if we could get some good faith happening across the various parties, we'd clear so much more ground than if everyone's in the game to get each other banned/sanctioned. There's a real possibility the efforts here could fail, and it'll all end up back at ArbCom again, but I am not actually seeing the massive breakdown of circumstances that *require* that just yet. I deliberately ignore most of the allegations flying around because they don't further the core objective of getting this article back on its feet and the dispute settled - I think honestly if we could get an encyclopaedic article up that meets the key objections and contentions of both sides (I've already suggested one possible format for that), there'd be far less for people to argue about, and also if one party or the other does decide to get silly about things, it's easier to identify that and get action taken if need be. Orderinchaos 13:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- Go sandbox! Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Single Australian (places) naming convention?
Hi Orderinchaos, Because of your earlier interest I thought it proper to inform you that I have now moved this discussion and titled it Naming convention (places) - renewed discussion - towards a single convention to here and have advertised same at WP:AWNB so as to invite all editors to provide their input. It will be interesting to see what interest is shown.-- VS talk 10:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice/Help Please
Dear Order,

Can you please respond to this third and this fourth unprovoked attack? (Here is the first (scroll to end). I consider the rfcu the second, because it was an harassment tactic to divert attention from substance.)
 * The RFCU was probably a response to Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski (2nd) so was not unprovoked, although not initiated by yourself. I've found in these types of disputes a "one and all" view tends to emerge where parties tend to see all on the other side as either in collusion with each other, or holding the same view on every topic. By the looks of it, three successful and one unsuccessful attempt has been made to ban this editor from editing on the topic (all of them initiated by parties associated with the group itself), in a way that, taking a macro view, appears to be abuse of process to get rid of one side of the debate. That the editor is now trying to get their own back is not unexpected, although in the same breath totally unhelpful. Orderinchaos 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This in particular is a clear example of WP:OWN.
 * From WP:OWN: "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."
 * I've seen edits aimed at Lucy to this effect too, although not from yourself. Orderinchaos 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly see no good-faith efforts at focusing on substance; just a stubborn insistence that (a) any edit other than Lucy's is a BK PR team edit, and (b) Lucy's version is the only correct version with no room for movement. Where's the sandbox? Where's the answer to my question does he want mediumistic channeling or not? Nothing; just diversionary attacks.

Please help. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And now this. There are absolutely no efforts at productive editing or consensus building.  I request Lucy be blocked.  Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet another; This is harassment. Lucy knows I didn't make the changes he asks about here (I just reverted to the consensus version) and again is engaging in WP:OWN (see quotation above). Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your responses but it seems like you're justifying inappropriate actions toward a user who did nothing to provoke these (myself!)! I understand your point that he's engaging in displaced aggression but I would appreciate consistent application of the policies -- especially when I'm trying very hard to civilly focus and re-focus the discussion on content (despite constant patronizing harassment and attacks). Thank you. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting to frankly ignore it, and I'm suggesting the same to them. I was responding to your note that they were "unprovoked" attacks and reminding you of the psychology of disputes and the character of this one. It's probably best to simply assert that you are not/were not the person who said/did that, ask them to take it up with the person concerned (Bksimonb) and leave it there. (On second thoughts, no - nobody should be taking anything up with anybody until this matter is resolved, that's how we got here to begin with.) Orderinchaos 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Alternate account?
The contribution history of User:Vastconspiracy makes a good case for this being an alternate account for indefintely-blocked User:Joestella whose block log is here. If so, I assume this is considered sockpuppetry as the user has created a new account without seeking the lifting of the indefinite block on the old one. At the least the block log should be transferred to the new account. I have never reported a sockpuppet before - am happy to do so but wanted to check that I have not misinterpreted the policy. Euryalus (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He's baaaaack
Enjoy. Timeshift (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Successfully prodded his pages. Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Former LGAs
Well done - judging by my watchlist you have hardly stopped for breath! I'm looking for bits and pieces to add (beyond obscure double-l's). I've got a small bit to add to Doncaster Templestowe soonish --Melburnian (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Madness ;) --Melburnian (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone is coming here wondering why the hell I'm creating broken pages with the summary "template create", AWB will fix all soon. Orderinchaos 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. I'd just like to say thank you for resolving the "Richard Daft affair" and restoring order from what seemed like interminable chaos. I should not have got involved in any discussions with that person but there are times when you feel you must make some kind of response. I will continue to contribute but not as BlackJack. I had already changed my username a month before this fiasco occurred. I'm afraid we may have lost User:AlbertMW, however. Thanks again and all the best in 2008. Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Victorian LGAs
Hi, OIC. By the size of my watchlist, I can see there has been a big renaming program for Victorian LGAs. If you don't mind, can you fill me in on the rationale please? I am interested on its application elsewhere. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was concerned it was going to be wider as I knew that some in northern Victoria (such as Moira Shire and Indigo Shire) were certainly correctly named. The former LGA articles are coming along nicely. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I was wrong about Moira Shire. I am sure your source is correct but I have never heard anyone, including staff and councillors of the shire call it "Shire of Moira".  Still, a name is a name.  Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Buloke Shire Council is most certainly not The Shire of Buloke as has been changed in so many places. Perhaps in legal form it may be Shire of Buloke (this I am not sure), but even the shire refers to itself as Buloke Shire. http://www.buloke.vic.gov.au/ MJK (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your comment on my talk page... regardless of what the various websites you provided state the name as being, the common and officially used name by the Shire itself is "Buloke Shire". I see this as something like the "Commonwealth of Australia" (assuming, based on your response, Shire of Buloke is the official legal name), where the name should be as is commonly used and known for the article "Buloke Shire", but perhaps the first line of text within the article say "Shire of Buloke" like the "Australia" article says "Commonwealth of Australia".MJK (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your reply... I cannot understand your justification for the Shire of Buloke, when the Shire itself calls itself "Buloke Shire". All intent of every reference to this article, and the article itself is about the Buloke Shire Council and the region it serves. Maybe my use of Australia was poor choice, but nothing can take away from the fact that Buloke Shire Council http://www.buloke.vic.gov.au/ is the Buloke Shire Council. I do apologise for being so stubborn on this change, but I know this region extremely well, in fact, have worked for the Shire directly, so am finding this change very hard to accept when I know for fact the Shire is "Buloke Shire Council". MJK (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that we have differing opinions on this, if we continue with the Gazetteer as the benchmark for these articles, can we agree to some how make reference to the Buloke Shire Council within this article and that way the actual gazetted and actual government entity representing this region can be adequately acknoledged?MJK (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

THX
Thanks for your edits to the Gary Forrester article. Much appreciated. Say, are you in Australia? Sounds like it. I have a step-brother & step-sister living in Melbourne, and my dad is an artist in NSW. Cheers,--Georgette.mccallum (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Um
What are you like in northern new south wales geography - the articles on the tweed the richmond and i think clarence have no mention of flooding history at all yet my kids (2 of them) are possibly about to get stuck up there because of the issue - and the number of locations on the current mad form of the pacific highway have numerous floodways marked and identified (... hmmm....) also the sugar industry of the northern news south wales is zilch but my documents on that are on the slow boat to perth :( -- anyways at least its not raining in sydney  :|  SatuSuro 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses
Hello again. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to effectively block usage via IP addresses, but the banned user Richard Daft is still active on the site. Having originally posted via User talk:88.111.83.82 he is now active via User:88.111.101.5. Furthermore, he has blanked the Richard Daft talk page on which your violations notice was displayed.

His recent additions to cricket articles are harmless enough except that he is still "promoting" his association without any neutral sources to verify his comment, which seems to violate WP:RS for example. Do you think we should revert his comments? --BlackJack | talk page 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Barham
Its easy to do. When making Riverina, an early version had Robinvale listed! Like all of these places along the Murray, including Albury-Wodonga, Corowa-Wahgunyah, Yarrawonga-Mulwala and Cobram-Barooga, Barham-Koondrook is the one community divided by arbitrary colonial boundaries. Bolte wanted to annex the Riverina, it might have made things a lot easier if he got his way. :-) -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Les Tryell
Hey is there something wrong with you?...what is it that you have to keep bringing up that because i know the mayor or because i have Thuringowa in my name that everything i do is wrong, i sick to death of it iand i just wish you would wake up and understand that i have nothing to do with the council. I know the mayor from my old job, when i went to his house with a bobcat and moved soil around his backyard, after i stayed back for a BBQ and we became friends, we are not best buddys we just know each other and every now and then we catch up....GOT IT.... and the reasion my name has Thuringowa in it, is just because i live in Thuringowa and though this name will do, but i have come to see that some single minded people on here see that another way. Now while im going at it So what if Thuringowa as a city will be no more after March, you comment on the Les Tyrell page is unreal, Les is running for the Mayor of the new Townsville so why delete the page.....he has been in office for about 19 years, and why is it that Les's page is up for deletion when Tony Moony's Page isn't and he is the Mayor of Townsville and might not be After march, as far as i can see this is looking like a pick on Thuringowa again or maybe a pick on me becasue i have put some work into the page's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuringowacityrep (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've repeatedly stated that you have regular communications with the mayor, and that the mayor has provided information for use on the Thuringowa page. I have not said you are COI re Thuringowa, I have said you are COI re Les Tyrell, which based on the above is a fair assessment. The comment re March relates to the fact that another editor used the reality of the municipality as part of their "keep" vote, so I was countering that. As for "picking on", I voted at an AfD that had commenced which I saw on the WP:DSA page, I wasn't the one who nominated it for deletion (in fact, I didn't even know there *was* such an article until a couple of hours ago) and it should be noted that I have voted consistently against mayors and councillors with articles, including a Greens councillor in a Melbourne inner city council recently. Orderinchaos 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Media in the City of Thuringowa
See my comment on the talk page. Was interested in what you think in mind of consistency with other articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BKWSU topic
So where have we got to?

I have made the sandboxes, proposed and explained changes ... it strikes me that having achieve their objectives the BKs have no intent of developing the articles.

I would like to go back to when I entered into a detailed discussion of changes. I emphasize that this was NOT a sockpuppet account. I forgot my password and noted that in the following name change. I put up for judgement, the editing done by that user. 

At what point, or with how much evidence does it take, to identify that what is going on here is not a genuine issue of "consensus" or discussion, or topic development? What is so critically wrong with the other developed version. Most of the difference are merely good copy writing or formatting. I have to argue that there is nothing significantly different or damaging to the article but that for the BKs it is just a matter or removing the external links and downplaying the mediumship. To revert in totalis is just the easier thing to do ... and a good dissuader of further investment.

A the time, the page was under the effects of a then indefinitely banned IPSOS and acknowledge socks, who has since been banned again. I therefore argue that the climate that brought on this situation was artificial.

Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk)05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never saw you pretend to be anyone other than who you were, and as I said it's not a violation of WP:SOCK as long as you stick to using one account, so no problems on that score. Last time I looked some discussion seemed to be moving, you've acted fairly as far as article content is concerned, and I am happy that you've avoided making accusations over past days as that's decreased tensions somewhat. Essentially all we need is a situation where the three editors on one side and you on the other can edit the article without edit warring. If that is so, I'll speak to another couple of admins and see if we can get the article unprotected (I have the power to do it but I'd like to get neutral second opinions first). I'll also see what is available in the event that we unprotect and people act in concert (most of Wikipedia's policies look at the actions of one editor only). I'd guess by the end of the weekend it should be moving. Orderinchaos 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I correct to say that it looks like the arbcom enquiry has been shelved as "stale" with no further action? What does this mean, please? Are we still waiting?--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that Bksimonb attempted to get part of the decision enforced but after some weeks it became clear to ArbCom clerks that none was needed at this stage, which I basically agree with. Essentially ArbCom try to avoid content disputes. I am still making enquiries, people are coming back from holiday leave etc so it's difficult to find the people I need to review this. Orderinchaos 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would hope that we keep the meatpuppet issue alive. My feeling is that the previous period of conflict was artificial due to IPSOS's involvement and his socks. He banned again at least in name. It would also seem to be unfair to have to work against an organization's own PR guy and other followers. There appears to be no willingness to cooperate with the alternatives.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day WP:SOCK and related policies exist to make it easier to prosecute certain types of disruption. If such forms of disruption are present (and especially with ArbCom watching), it's unnecessary to use them, as they can act on the disruption itself. Another ArbCom may well have made a different determination in the original case but all we have now is the one they did make. I agree that it's difficult, although not impossible - a thorough knowledge of WP:5 is useful - and the current ArbCom may yet have to look at it again. In this instance they simply decided there was nothing for them to do here - that won't always be the case. Coming from a politics project where I've sometimes had to fight PR operatives for a party, I know where you're coming at - from now it's just a matter of ensuring your own behaviour stays above reproach so that if a neutral party reviews, they can say, "It's all the other side". Orderinchaos 07:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to be honest, as it seems the arbcom escapade has "failed" from the BKs' point of view they appear to have withdrawn entirely from any discussion or constructive efforts on the sandboxes, my first move will be to work back to the revised version.


 * It has been copyedited/more references added/been formatted etc. It fair for anyone to question specific elements that strongly contradict any of the literature but I am firm in my faith that the warring and pattern of blank reversions was more about just breaking other's spirit to collaborate and brewing up an atmosphere that could be used for much incrimination.


 * I agree that what we need is a clear start without all the gaming and backbiting. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you still involved with this page or have you moved on? Can we have the topic unprotected? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind boggingly too large categories
Yup Hesp has a point about the biggie - but i still reckon its a damned good project management tool that maybe only a few eds ever understand or appreciate where it works so well - SatuSuro 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gawd - trawling around some of the mess in the place - ironstone - un disambiguated with an early name of mount morgan and not a drop of text in the art - this place hgt changed much :( SatuSuro 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..
replied. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tasmanian walking tracks and mountains
If you ever run out of things to do :( - (how could I possible ask that you ask?) there is a minefield of tourist brochures and anecdote that need to be turned into articles - heheheh - anyways keep up the good work! SatuSuro 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Demographics of Indonesia - the large chart - i cannot work out why the achenese thing is over off the side - any clues? SatuSuro 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that from the deep south (batemans bay and bermagui today) SatuSuro 03:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

 * Sorry about the delay in responding Orderinchaos - have been away for a couple of days to warm and sunny Melbourne. I agree with your general points on my talk page and tried to reflect it in my post to TCR also. I certainly agree with your comment that almost all good articles regarding locations have an interested editor or two who come from the place or region and that certainly isn't COI.  I also noted the good work that you (especially your thoughtful empathic decision only to block the sock), Mattinbgn and others did - and noted an initial comment above on my talk page with regards your investigation also.  TCR is a little too close to his editing and his civility leaves a lot to be desired.  Of course it would be good if he could just see that there are many other opinions and that process in relation to verifiable articles will win out in the end - but that appears to be difficult for him at the moment.-- VS  talk 09:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Electoral district of Perth
Great work. &mdash;Moondyne 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note for anyone reviewing recent edits just in case - disambig East Province to Central Province (Western Australia) is not an error. It was renamed in 1948.) Orderinchaos 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: Howard family copra interests
A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards,  Lester  21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney
Even as even a few of our more hardline BLPers were amongst those who !voted "keep" in the instant discussion, I feared that someone would, noting, all too simplistically, that consensus developed at an insular XfD cannot override policy, etc., close this as delete; thanks, then, for acting sensibly here. Cheers, Joe 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Well closed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Australian party colours templates
I understand why most of these were done (had to change the UAP one as it was too similar to the Liberals), but I'm wondering what was wrong with the old independent colour. I personally prefer it, and find the new one a bit pale. Could you let me know your reasoning? Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Meetup
Hi there, If you hadn't already seen, there's a meetup in planning for Melbourne soon. Please have a look and, if you can come, indicate your preference for a date at: Meetup/Melbourne 9. Pass this message on to others you think might be interested.

Best, Witty Lama 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool.  21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry
I'm sorry if you feel misquoted. It was to show varying opinion. Even the people for a ban have different nuances of opinion. The quotes weren't meant to be list of "against ban" people. Archtransit (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry again. The intention was not bad. Archtransit (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle
I note that you changed the pop_rank for Newcastle from 2nd to 7th. Given that the article is about the UCL and the pop_rank of 7th is for the SD, which is twice as large, isn't that wrong? Thinking about it, there probably shouldn't be a pop_rank for the UCL at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Chairmen of Committees of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly
''Hi, just checking to see whether this category is actually needed. There seems to be a bewildering array of committees :) Orderinchaos 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)''
 * Thanks for checking it with me. As I understand it, there are four key parliamentary offices in Western Australia: Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Chairman of Committees in the Legislative Assembly, President of the Legislative Council, and Chairman of Committees in the Legislative Council. These four are all highly prestigious and influential parliamentary offices. They are not at all like Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Something Really Boring and Irrelevant, which I suspect are often handed out as a consolation prize for members not granted an executive portfolio. Hence why I created those four parliamentary officer categories, and no other. I think it should be kept, but if you really want it gone, I'll accept the verdict of any forum you want to take it to. Hesperian 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, why don't you ask Rebecca. Hesperian 12:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, makes more sense. So it's the role of Chairman of Committees, not chairmen of individual committees which seem to be handed out like lollies. :) Thanks for clarifying. Orderinchaos 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean... but of course such a category would be located at Category:Chairmen of committees of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. ;-) Hesperian 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
I don't know how to give branstar, but you deserve that, especially for the work you have done in Brahma Kumari in divine indication section, with people like you, wikipedia is sure to remain what it is, and will not become what it is not. :) There is a difference between patience and infinite patience. and you have demonstrated that, which is very very rare. thanks for being here... --Cult free world (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Help your Protege
Mentor I plead help me decode the messages on fair use on my talk page. I can't make head or tail of it. I know I'm in the right, just a procedure thing I think. Strange how I added the two images about a year ago or something, must be a new bot on the beat.-- 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your username so I can have a look? There has been a lot of bots going through tagging fair use images - many of the current ones for example don't have a link to the article in the title (eg something like "Statement of fair use for the article John Forrest") - it's generally not very comprehensible. Orderinchaos 13:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought I was logged in (now I have exposed my IP) but my actual user name is AresAndEnyo--AresAndEnyo (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I now see how you do it.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)