User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 10

Archive : October 2008

Drama on ANI
You know, I couldn't agree more about the desire to avoid wikipolitics. However I continue to go there because of things like this where noone seems to want to lift a finger that might possibly save a life. Why save a life when you could be pushing your wikipolitical cause? All this to say, I appreciate your comment. Toddst1 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mars
I laughed :-) --Matilda talk 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Ports_and_harbours_of_New_Zealand SatuSuro 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting confused and am very busy with other things in that I am trying to get off for a week (sic) - Central Highlands Tasmania vs Central Highlands (Tasmania) - from memory I was trying to separate LGA arts from regional arts at West Coast Tasmania and Central Highlands Tasmania - so could you from outside of my chaos (sic) - did i do it right at western tasmania? or does it need to be changed too - the thing about tassie despite being so small the tourist mob actually separate to very small discrete regions - will do somehting on that when i get back - little time and so much to do :( - cheers for any help at all - thanks SatuSuro 03:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary
Ooh, you worried me with this edit summary for Manjimup, until I realised you hadn't actually done what it said, and the summary was copied over from Denmark , where the removal of the tourism section was definitely a good idea ("These art markets give a good impression of the couleur locale." - that is just plain horrible). I think the main thing that worried me was that I hadn't read Manjimup's tourism section lately, and I was concerned I'd written something unencyclopedic! :) Somno (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For your interest in my case and your comments. You've replies waiting there. Have you taken time to read the evidence? If not, please consider doing so (at the very least, please read my statement and evidence which address most of the issues you've commented on in detail).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, including replies from other editors as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all,, every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your work on Bjelke Petersen
Don't be misled by editors preaching false objectivity about Joh. They are trying to whitewash history.Your studies should tell you about the way fake hsitorians selectively use quotes and apply the third person to imply that the victims and the perpetrators are equal. I'm writing to you directly because I believe you are well intentioned. I even found that you had done some tidying up on my own Wiki page. Best Wishes User:Johlover2 15:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah
My memory of the battye listy si that they have the list of pastoral leases in competition - what do you think of the idea of three lists - one the newspapers statred before 1900 (the bloody goldfields ones starting before 1900 is a prob) - regional newspapers - and short run and unusual ones of the 20th century? - i really think they have no idea of the full range :( SatuSuro 12:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it ... I think any that were primary regular ones should be there too. When I was doing the 1911 stuff, West Australian, Sunday Times, Western Mail, Daily News, Kalgoorlie Miner, Western Argus, Northam Courier, Truth and Westralian Worker seemed to be the main papers of note, and the ones in Bunbury and Geraldton were pretty good for what was going on there. Orderinchaos 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian infoboxes
Hi, not a super big deal, but I did want to bring up this edit and the other Australia pages where you reverted me. The reason I changed to infobox Settlement is because it was decided at the TFD linked in my edit summaries that the deleted template was not needed because its functionality was duplicated in that template, not that it was unneeded altogether (not that there was a whole lot of discussion, but that's TFD for you). So I don't think it was the right decision to remove the templates without replacing them. As you may be aware, there's kind of a push to standardize infoboxes, not that I have an opinion either way about that. Maybe a solution would be to add the functionality in the Australia-specific infobox to infobox Settlement or vice versa. Alternately, since I think the only thing lost in the switch to infobox Settlement is the table with the nearby counties, we could add that to the article under the infobox or something. Or better yet, maybe an imagemap. Anyway, I hope this doesn't come out sounding snotty because I'm really not meaning it to, but: I hope next I make a change or series of changes you don't like or find odd, that you'll discuss it with me before reverting because it's frustrating to be reverted without discussion, especially when you spent kind of a lot of time and effort on the edits. Thanks much, I'm sure something can be worked out that everyone's happy with. Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  01:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the reply. I replied on my talk.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  04:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in but see Kyneton, Victoria for an example of the coordinates field in use and Brisbane for use of an image and map field. Not sure if either example is useful, but FWIW there they are. Maybe [[Template talk:Infobox Australian Place is a better place to take this. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

multiples issues
ahhh wot a thrill it was - it will get copied sometime next week and i'll wreak terror on all with that if i get a chance :) - catch you on chat/phone soon SatuSuro 10:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'twas in battye today with the 1994 battye list of newspapers produced in wa file in hand :)
 * meetups are notoriously diff to organise id rather be missing in action and the 29th go ahead and work out - I'll do something from the wedding in launceston and say hello by mobile if i get the 3 hour diff the right way around :)
 * in battye today with a 1931 map of pastoral leases - am planning something about that but will leave it to phone or gchat to explain
 * i reckon we should offer somno help with a hist places project watcha reckon?
 * Damn, must have missed you. I was in Battye today for most of the afternoon getting gazette index stuff. I would help but my priorities are overbooked atm. Orderinchaos 10:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I left at 2 or so:( maybe just a bit before - I have grown a sizable beard since i last saw you too :) SatuSuro 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was around the time I arrived! I got into the city at 1:40pm, bought my new Streetsmart, got my hair cut and then spent the rest of the arvo at the Battye in the gazettes/Hansards section... Orderinchaos 11:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List help
Hey OiC, thanks for your message. I'll do my best to look at it tomorrow or Monday - it's late here and I'm enjoying a (rare) night with a glass of wine and a movie. Hope you can wait! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Western Australian Legislative Assembly elections
I've left a few comments on the talkpage - hope they're of some rudimentary use! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Australian federal elections
Thanks. I've slowed down a bit, because I've been pondering how to express the results with the lack of actual 2PP numbers before 1990, and the worse precision of 2PP estimates before 1983. It still seems to make sense to express things in a two-party context, but having the big table there with a minimal amount of numbers seems a bit overkill.

I'd also like to switch the Australian full results into electiontable format at some point, though the non-support for 2PP results under the primary totals is problematic. Kelvinc (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Eugepae
Could you copy this deleted article into my userspace? I'm sure it's nonsense, as Articles for deletion/Eugepae says; but I'd like to appreciate the joke before it goes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes
You may wish to comment on this discussion at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
If you're coming here about the deletion, I am happy for it to be reviewed at WP:DRV. Orderinchaos 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of order deletion of Ashley Todd
Can you explain your actions on deleting this page prematurely? It was on AfD being discussed with keeps being in the majority. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An excellent deletion decision, I congratulate you Orderinchaos. No doubt others will attempt to vilify you for this. RMHED (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now you have deleted it on the grounds that it is a G10 attack page. The problem is that even in the AfD this was not the point of contention. It was about NOTNEWS, BLP1E and and other issues of notability. Not that it was disparaging. I'd like to hear your justification, otherwise this will have to follow the route of action-revert-discuss as the consensus so far was to KEEP. Respectfully, -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't advise wheel warring, you know where DRV is, take it there and try your luck. RMHED (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

i am giving permission for any admin to reverse the deletion and state they have my permission. i acted as a perfunctory than as invested person in these decision so I'm not going to oppose any reversal although of course I think its valid. there is an afd concluded on it, should probably return to that location. Orderinchaos 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Orderinchaos. I'm going to unlock the AfD page again and undelete the article and let the normal AfD procedure go through. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I concur that it's usually better to let these things play out through the five day AfD process, especially for events. The process allows for perspective to creep in on both sides of the debate. Besides, it's very likely now another editor will see your speedy message, look at his sources, and decide he can make an article that isn't purely an attack, and we'd be back at square one. -- Kendrick7talk 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bearing in mind the G10 criteria and if the page is an article about a living person it should not be restored or recreated by any editor until it meets biographical article standards. The page as it existed prior to deletion was indeed a violation of BLP, being not so much a biography as an article containing almost nothing but negative content. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hate the article, but it is sourced and neutral, so there's no real reason for a speedy.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse the reversal, and I think we should applaud rather than criticise orderinchaos for willing to reconsider his call and back up. There would be a lot less drama if people considered doing that more.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Though I may take issue with particular points of policy, I'm heartened that we can all agree that civil discourse and respectful treatment of each other is paramount. Maybe the stringent RfA standards serve a good purpose! :) -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes indeedy, we can have our civil discourse whilst this article purporting to be encyclopedic stays in place. What fine reasonable people we are, see how we debate whether or not to keep this encyclopedic biography about a young woman in the media spotlight. Never mind that the encylopedic biography contains nothing but a negative news media story, we just follow in the news media's footsteps. Isn't that what all encyclopedias do? RMHED (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NONEWS, so I don't think we should have this as an article. Indeed, I say kill it with a stick. However, given it is news, and given anyone googling her name will find the news stories, then providing her article is kept neutral and doing no more than repeating what's in the news stories (sourced and attributed), then it can't do much harm for now. It can do more harm if we keep the bio on an encyclopedia when the news stories are forgotten. In short, we should delete this, but there's no great harm if it takes a while. Further, while policy remains as it does, there is little point of speedy deleting or blanking suck things, as the deletion or blanking WILL be overturned, so you cause drama but don't get the article removed. Maybe policy should be different (indeed on BLP it should be VERYVERY different), but alas it isn't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Scott per WP:TIND. -- Kendrick7talk 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that essay certainly trumps BLP policy. RMHED (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article violates WP:BLP; there are no negative adverbs, etc. Samer (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless comments relate to my action or responses to that last night, they should really go to the AfD. There's not much point writing it here as the closing admin won't see it. Orderinchaos 04:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)