User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 05

Archive : May 2008

Template:Infobox Officeholder
Can you undo your edit on this please? The height thing does work and is an essential part of the template as without it, various officeholders infobox images are now messed up. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm certain, since the change to the temp on many politicians articles now the images are blown up hugely, because the height isn't restricted. The template image height worked before on the vast majority of politican articles. Perhaps the issue you saw was just relating to the article on that one politician? Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I see
I see. Thank you. Is there any chance of avoiding such problems in the future? Dahn (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job. Thank you again. Dahn (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

St Pats
has reverted the article again, and didn't provide a source or contribute to the talk page. Is there any chance you could issue them a warning or even a short block? Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Basketball110
I understand. Well, I was just giving him some advice and I know I am still in some situations myself. Me and him are good friends here at wikipedia and he understood what I meant. I wasn't trying to upset/discourage him or anything. I was just giving him some advice and my opinions.--RyRy5 (talk  ♠ Review ) 23:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and advice. I plan to take heed on them. Cheers, Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the colonial overtones of "Aborigine"!?
At the article, Australian Aborigines, you may or may not have accessed the following online reference:

[http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1986/39.html?query=Australian%20Aborigine Fesi, Eve (1986) "‘Aborigine’ and ‘Aboriginal’" Aboriginal Law Bulletin. Number 39.]

The ironical thing about the claims made in this article, is that it may be the term "Aboriginal" that has the most offensive colonial overtones .. being a term 'preferred' by Australian government officials to ensure their dealings (and non-dealings) with Australian Aborigines were proper, and compliant with Australia's consitution.

Whatever the case may be .. Eve expresses a strong preference, and gives reasons for why the noun Aborigine should be used to refer to Aborigines (the race of people indigenous to Australia), in preference to the adjective Aboriginal.

Perhaps a bit more work expanding the article is required .. to see if the preferences documented in the article stand up under the weight of further, possibly more reliable, articles.

Out of interest (I might check) .. do you know how the Australian Bureau of statitics classes/categories Australian Aborigines/ Aboriginal Australians?? Bruceanthro (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks .. I also checkes ABS. It is a little peculiar as, it seems, while they report on 'indigenous' peoples .. they actually collect information on whether ".. each person is of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin.." .. and I found a little history of this peculiar categorisation here !!


 * It seems it may be useful to start by expanding Australian Aborigines article .. by compiling and presenting a 'legal' and 'administrative' history of the term/category?! Bruceanthro (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

City of Wollongong
Hi, just a small point about a recent edit. I'm not 100% sure that this should be in the article. While it is certainly factual that this evidence was given at the enquiry, there is a BLP issue especially given the person in question is not a public person nor has she been charged with any crime (at present). The point made about perceived corruption is just as well made without the borderline BLP-breaching material. Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with someone's name being mentioned because news reports are based on her own testimony under oath. This is in fact stronger legally than a police confession. In fact, full transcripts of the hearing were available the same day at www.icac.nsw.gov.au as a matter of public record. If in fact the media made up the allegations without her admission then that's a different story. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I still feel that Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat non-public persons with respect over and above our obligation to uphold WP:BLP. Naming the person involved in the article in question provides no additional insight into the topic:mdash;City of Wollongong&mdash;that isn't there when her name is removed.  See this edit for a demonstration. While I am of course aware that the inquiry transcript is a public document and that her name has been splashed across the Australian press, I still feel that readers do not need to be reminded about her love life every time they read an article on the Local Government Area.  She is not a politician or a celebrity, has never held herself out to be a public personality and her alleged criminal activity is not a nature that would make one notable.  Given that, I feel naming the person in question is unnecessary and unwarranted in the context of an article on the LGA. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While the initial edit that sparked this was problematic in that it removed factual content, I agree that her name does not need to be there, it would be sufficient to say "a Council planner" or somesuch. Orderinchaos 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comments, I'm not fussed either way whether it's included...but better to be safe than sorry. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your understanding. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Corbell
No worries. That draft isn't getting completed anytime soon; I don't have that sort of time anymore. Rebecca (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Campaign Against Nuclear Energy
Have been finding these arts that no WA project tag is on and not many links and this one fits a real weird space - I dunno if you have the time (do we have what?) but I suspect most of the art could be pruned - thought you might ;like first option - i am gonna try to get to it tonight - its atrocious in my mind - theres stuff that desnt go into encyc arts in a million years in there- cheers SatuSuro 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I also think theres a copyvio against a book im not sure where my copy is - that is not even cited - this might take a day or two to sort out but knowing your penchant for politics pages - :) SatuSuro 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gawd it was staring me in the face - the wittenoom warning note - hey get better - I know i have the ref somehwere re cane - cheers SatuSuro 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Coast
I live in Cardiff, which is north of the Central Coast, but I might be able to help? --Athol Mullen (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Gold Coast suburbs
Hi Orderinchaos. I note your recent changes to List of Gold Coast suburbs. Where did you get this information? Do you have any references for these notes? --WikiCats (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gold Coast City Council
Hi. On the Gold Coast City Council page you have added "and surrounding areas" suggesting that the Gold Coast council governs an additional area that is not the Gold Coast. Could you explain what you mean? --WikiCats (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there is justification for a Gold Coast region article. I suppose it would also take in part of Tweed such as Salt development etc. --WikiCats (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Australia 2020 Summit
Unfortunately people want a criticism section with links to articles from Bolt and the like. Blogs and opinion pieces aren't WP:RS. Your comment is appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Working family
Dear Order, I have been informed that you deleted Working family under the speedy deletion criterion A7, non-notability. I do not agree. (I am the person who established the page, so you'd probably expect me to say that.) What are the grounds for the non-notability of this idea? Perhaps you have not noticed that the term pervaded the 2007 Australian federal election campaign and has steeped the tone in subsequent debate through until very recent interviews with the Treasurer and Prime Minister? I will count the uses of the term in the 2008 Budget speech. How about you reinstate the entry if the usage exceeds 4. 2 or 3 uses in the Budget might be a flash-back, or might be notable; I would contend that 4 or more is certainly notable, and beyond mere semantics. I could be wrong; and, it seems, you thought I was when you speedily deleted the entry; and, without even the courtesy of a mention on my talk page. Such is life. - Peter Ellis - Talk 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI I was the one who advised OIC of this non-noteable article. Catch phrases/buzz words are not encyclopedia material, even when used by Prime Ministers. Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The fact that a term is a buzzword used by a PM does not confer notability, but it also does not deny notability. The speedy delete criteria don't say we can delete articles on topics that we think non-notable; it says we can delete articles that don't assert the notability of their topic. From a quick squizz at the article, it quite clearly made a case for the notability of the term, and was reasonably well referenced to boot. I'd like to see it restored and tested at AfD. Hesperian 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oh, but Peter, it should have been at "working families" not "working family", because the term was almost exclusively invoked in the plural. Hesperian 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See also the heavy-duty version Hardworking families --Melburnian (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It really annoys me when I've seen policy but no longer able to find it. Working families, and other buzzwords, have a name, an ism name if I recall correctly, and wikipedia is not a place for them. The fact it is a buzzword/buzzterm AFAIK does deny noteability. Timeshift (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of the guideline WP:Avoid neologisms? --Melburnian (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the one! "This page in a nutshell: A new term doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." So just to bring the term out of a straight-deletion, it needs WP:RS articles discussing the term itself and it's noteability, not simply an article saying how much Rudd has said it, or an article with the term littered throughout, which is not a case for noteworthyness. Timeshift (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just my point, Timeshift. This particular neologism did have"reliable sources specifically about the term." I remember, for example, reading a couple of Crikey articles specifically discussing Rudd's use of the term, and its significance to the campaign. Hesperian 01:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those arguments would be valid at an AFD, but I'd like to see what the wider community has to say - I tend to agree with Hesperian that it should be reinstated and debated there --Melburnian (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have no opposition to any admin doing so, although I reserve the right to vote delete at the appropriate time. Orderinchaos 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; Melburnian having turned up that other page, I believe I would vote "merge". :-) Hesperian 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the basis that you had no opposition to any admin restoring - I have done so. I think the recent debate with the Swan putting all sorts of people into the scope of the term is hilarious and shows that it isn't a temporary phenomenon at all - it has survived the election and will be a feature of at least this budget.  There are indeed many reliable sources about the term - quoting the treasurer's attempts to define it no less - and not just in passing.  Moreover the article was referenced.  Please take the debate to AfD if you want to but speedy in my view was not appropriate for this article.--Matilda talk 01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a merger--Matilda talk 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

 * Have a good one! --Melburnian (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Orderinchaos 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gawd as mine creeps too close - never said it from me - oh well another year etc SatuSuro 12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:WP nav pages (header bar)
Editors should be able to edit this without getting permission or assistance. I created the thing, and now even I can't modify it. It shouldn't be protected. The various nav bars typically only get protected temporarily, and unprotected when the danger dies down. A couple random vandal hits isn't enough to justify permanently protecting one of these. Please unprotect this.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request
Please delete the redirect Rocket Man (song) to make way for a page move. I'd appreciate it.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Your thoughts on my project-area contributions were greatly appreciated. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Idontknow 610 TM 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday fellow Wikipedian!

 * I'll add in my best wishes and throw in a present as well. Eusebeus (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your experience
What would you say to my diatribe at the demographics project startup item at the nat noticeboard - the fact that people do not get caught by various systems (census/elctroate/etc) - any ideas on that ?SatuSuro 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!
Thanks for your support and wonderful words in my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC) ]]

STBotI
If you want to know what was tagged by the bot, it's probably best to go through Special:Contributions/STBotI. It looks like there are some things in there that might be logs, but I'm not sure they include everything. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are you
When I need you? - there have been some situations in the last few days if knew you werent secluded in some work/real life situation I would have been on the blower/telling bone like an aching whale (sic re rottnest) - so thank your lucky stars I didnt - :) SatuSuro 02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC) I can relate to that 145 % SatuSuro 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama spat
Could you please explain your justification for this restoration of repeatedly excluded material? It was a news story for three days fifteen months ago and has no lasting significance. There is no consensus for inclusion. --Pete (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting forward your views in discussion, no thanks for the resumption of edit-warring. You mentioned wikipolicy, which is always better than individual opinions, or even talk-page discussions, because we can draw upon the collective voice of the WP community. As another editor pointed out, WP:N is "is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article." That's for whether we include an article or not. Other criteria are in play for what goes into an article once we have it. --Pete (talk)

Reply to comment on my talk page
Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception. This is a good thing because people without POV are unlikely to contribute to those pages. NPOV is achieved from a synthesis from all these POVs. After everyone has removed material they dislike, we are left with NPOV text. I am merely removing material I find controversial. Consensus is required to INSERT material, not remove it. --Surturz (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you re partisanship - we're all in some way partisan, people who aren't usually would have no interest in editing political articles. It's something we have to carefully manage - all of us do, as a community. My criticism was solely addressing behaviour/approach, not the edits or intentions - a quick look at your edit history raised some reasonable concerns regarding that, and I felt it warranted a nod. There is a huge difference between partisanship or subscription to a particular set of ideological constructs / membership of a political party and POV pushing, one can be done cooperatively, the other almost never so. I don't quite agree re NPOV text - that seems to be a recipe for sterility and would not produce articles people would actually want to read (I am not advocating sensationalism here, just common sense and good policy-compliant writing technique). The idea is that both sides compromise to get the best article. Unfortunately on Australian politics we've had some very bad examples of how not to do all of the above in years past, and the end result has been polarised camps, all of which are at play in the current disputes, and the admins trying to sort the whole mess out. While I would be perceived as being one side of the fence politically, I make no defence of those who I might ideologically agree with who have behaved badly, and was quite ready along with a mix of centre-left and centre-right admins last year to take the whole thing to ArbCom. That may still happen if the current behaviour trend amplifies. Orderinchaos 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my previous disagreement with your viewpoint. I understand your argument, it has some credible points, but it has not convinced me. --Surturz (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be convinced. You've been thoroughly observed. Timeshift (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that, exactly? --Surturz (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs." Incorrect. "Mine are no exception." Thanks for the frank admission of your POV partisan edits. Timeshift (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that the bulk of edits on the political pages are NPOV would seem to fly in the face of the objective evidence of edit warring on all such pages. I refer you to your own voluminous dissertations on the subject on the relevant talk pages --Surturz (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon. I was the one to post telling people to stop warring after the ban was removed from Howard's article, and have barely been involved in editting. Talk page? I didn't think they were articles. And please don't accuse me of edit wars with my involvement on other articles because there aren't. Timeshift (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not accusing you of anything, merely refuting your argument. Sorry if you took it any other way. --Surturz (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: that you felt it necessary to call for an end to edit warring on Howard's article is evidence that the bulk of edits on that page are POV. --Surturz (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did, and I still feel John Howard's article is full of POV. But nothing on wikipedia excuses your own admission that you are not just partisan, but actively POV-push. Timeshift (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My position is that there are some people who hate John Howard. We see them at protest marches, chanting slogans, we see them in student newspapers. Some are smart enough to use computers, and some are smart enough to realise that simple vandalism doesn't work. So they choose more subtle ways of pushing their views. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but there's also a collection of chest-beating Howard supporters, many of whom also originate from student politics, and like the far left are so far removed from reality that they can't see past the end of their own nose. I've had interesting dealings with a number from both camps. Then you get the factional players who are actually working out of some MP's office and attempting to subtly demean opponents within the party (or just trying to beatify the boss), and all sorts of others. But most of the regulars here are good faith, (widely) disparate as their views may be. Orderinchaos 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chest-beating Howard supporters? I hope you're not counting me in that. It's extremely rare that I add anything to an article, pro or con. --Pete (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I love it. Skyrings comment re: anti-Howard people, then reacts with the above line regarding pro-Howard people. Classic. Timeshift (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the impression either Skyring or I were discussing parties present - more the sort who adopt drive-bys and IPs. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.) Orderinchaos 10:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're dealing with the old chestnut of the difference between partisanship, which can lead to innocent POV editing (it is possible to write in an NPOV style, by the way - it requires a level of academic detachment though and a rigorous willingness to accommodate both sides of the story and being able to acknowledge achievements of one's political opponents), and POV pushing which is essentially trying to censor rival opinions and score points for one's own. Most editing on political subjects on Wikipedia tends to be the former, I think it would be a gross assumption of bad faith to say otherwise. However there are some notorious POV pushers who ultimately get dealt with in the prescribed way... eventually, anyway. WP has been less effective than it could be historically in dealing with these, but is improving with time. Orderinchaos 06:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Surturz (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: John Howard
Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you,  Lester  01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The preamble clearly states that comments should not appear in the voting section. I am just trying to be consistent with WP policy. --Surturz (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, Constructive, Yes?
? Shot info (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * About as constructive as threatening wikipedia users i'd say! :-) Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Short of clearing the battlefield there's very little any admin can do in this situation. I don't think blocking 6 or 7 people is a useful nor a calming measure, and won't solve the problem as it will resume the moment they get back. There are over 1,500 admins on Wikipedia, and at least two others actively watching, neither of whom have any questions of COI and neither of whom have blocked any of the present participants over this matter. Orderinchaos 06:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Protective admin? Are you making further wrong and baseless accusations? Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, if you wish to make accusations, please back them up with some evidence rather than insulting me. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Any chance we can end this insanity? I'll reveal here - I have been chatting privately, and separately, to each of you, and I know that each of you knows the allegations you've obliquely levelled against each other in the above section are false. As you're both so convinced you're right, I'm not even going to hope for a retraction (although I'd appreciate it if each of you would consider retracting or even just striking the comments made above), but I would remind everybody in the John Howard case of the usual legal caution, especially since this case seems so intractable that ArbCom is its ultimate destination. Orderinchaos 06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, OiC, if you have a look at the original edit, you will note that I'm drawing your attention to some unCIVIL behavour on another user's talkpage. This has little to do with whatever is occuring offline. The fact that Timeshift wishes to bring it to Wikipedia is largely an issue of your creation by providing him with confidential information. However this is largly by-the-by and I am willing to continue to WP:AGF (regardless of information to the contrary) if Timeshift wishes to review WP:CIVIL and refactor his comments as I indicate above. Shot info (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about concentrating on your own edits rather than others (where he admitted to POV-pushing, and is ignoring wikipedia policies), as well as stop making implicit off-wiki threats (with no factual basis anyway). I know which is worse, the question is, do you? Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider refactoring your unCIVIL edits. Also please cease and desist in the accusation of "implicit off-wiki threats" as no such "implicit off-wiki threats" were made unless invented by either yourself or OiC.  Given that you are engaging in unCIVIL behavour it is appropriate that it is pointed out to an admin (per the start of this discussion).  OiC prehaps AN/I is a more appropriate forum?  Shot info (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment I was directed to was no better and no worse than I see every day looking around Wiki. I'm not sure that any admin would have seen any cause to act on it. As for my allegedly inventing things, I have made my view known and resent such accusations. I never accused Shot info of threatening anybody, and don't believe that he did. Anyway - I reiterate - I think this needs to end somewhere, and here is as good a place as any. Orderinchaos 07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification over who is inventing the accusation. Given that I have had no correspondence with Timeshift, other than directly on Wikipedia, it is quite clear that his accusation is a fiction of his own creation.  With regards to the directed comment, I concur to your opinion however must note that prehaps an uninvolved admin viewpoint is pertinent as similar comments made outside of the Australian Political spectrum were noted to be unCIVIL (cf, pseudoscience for example).  Thanks for your time.  Shot info (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I suggested at the other talk page yesterday, the problem is always when you raise a concern that you're not causing the same concern yourself in another location. A parallel from my own occupation: it's like when the boy runs into the teacher yelling "He hit me!" and you bring the other boy in to talk to him and he has a black eye the original complainant can't explain coherently. Translate that here, and you see the admins' problem. Orderinchaos 07:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of administrators problems which largely stem from a lack of support from ArbCom and other admins (per Vanished User and JzG's recent "trials"). Sometimes when one is an advocate of IAR, they actually need to IAR.  Shot info (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my view of the VU situation in particular is well known - WP did not handle that situation well at all. However those macro dramas have little play here - this is trivial stuff that could be resolved except nobody seems to want to. There is no critical issues at stake here like the pseudoscience wars, it's just people who can't get along fighting over anything they can find an excuse to fight over. When I'm asked to fix one's transgressors while ignoring their transgressions (considering neither are at the blockable level or close), I'm just not going to act on that and you'd have to find a very unusual admin who would be willing to ignore the complainant's own erratic and at times provocative and inflammatory behaviour when deciding what to do. Orderinchaos 07:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, will leave it for AN/I in the future. Thanks for your time - and for clarifing the information above.  Shot info (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi, just saw you're back and on-line. What's with this Solis guy? He seems to have a grudge against br/'s! I thought those references looked cramped against the line above.

I've been collecting some CL pubs. I've got a book called "Media Tarts" where she's a subject: do you think that can go in the same box with the others? It may also be a reference. Retarius | Talk 07:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: WA
Sorry if you feel that way but I don't have time to investigate each contributor, if I did I would be here all day. Now looking at the facts and what previously is written in the article as well as the east coast papers being listed as such, I believe I am in the right in this case. For the record I am no newbie either. - Mike Beckham (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish - I have reverted -and requested further discussion at the talk page and or project page - the reasoning does not convert conservative populism to right wing - the current staff if they watch this would be laughing their heads off at that - maybe a another inside cover story again (sigh)  SatuSuro 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent foresight
Particularly impressed with your watchlisting of Enigma's RFA 4 weeks before anyone else. Now that's order ed and typically you live up as always to your name. Best wishes to you my friend.-- VS talk 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming
Agreed, I think as an encyclopaedia, we should use last names always (there are exceptions of course). But Australians have a real tendency to use first names even in formal contexts! Your page says you're on a wikibreak...I presume exams? good luck Michellecrisp (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MK
No worries, about time I actually beat someone to something! =). I even got an amusing spray of abuse on my talk page from the person who added it all... really made my night!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

question
Dear Orderinchaos, Is it appropriate to add this type of information (even if true) to an article? (I'm asking you because I notice you edited this article previously.) I think it smacks of PR but am not sure if it counts as vandalism? Renee (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply!Renee (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)