User talk:Privatemusings/Archive 5

very explicit material now available that children are regularly accessing
their own naked bodies. Idiot. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * heh... well if we had tons of explicit pics featuring naked kids, I'd be even more concerned! I think we may have chatted a bit about this before, WAS - and my understanding of your opinion is that you sincerely feel that all media should be available to all, including minors, for the greater good. That's valid and understandable and all that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to respect the viewpoint that I feel others share with me, which is that images which might reasonably be describable as pornography (well, that is to say actual sexual activity between folk) probably aren't appropriate for children.
 * I think you also once gave me the advice that it's important to understand that on a wiki there are lots of different 'rights', and that it's important not to believe yours is the only one. I'm happy to discuss this further if you'd like, but the 'idiot' bit of your post kinda makes me feel you'd rather the conversation be over? take care anywhooo..... Privatemusings (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The "idiot" part was more about me being old and ill and in pain than anything else. As for the substance, the point is that nudity is normal and natural and is available everywhere. - do you put pants on your dog? WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry to hear that you're in pain - getting older we can't do much about, but I hope that you're able to find relief from any pain as much as possible - and sincere season's greetings to you and yours from a hot and sticky sydney :-) - you know, I suspect that you and I are actually a lot closer on this issue than it may appear. Personally speaking, I'm pretty supportive of kids' access to images of nudity (things like Breast and Penis) - even the 'angle of erection' pictures in the later seem useful and appropriate to me for kids of any age (though I respect the fact that some may feel erection pic.s aren't great for everyone!) - I do feel that we could do more to help parents, carers, and people like school network administrators set their own bars as they feel appropriate (ie. it's not really for this wiki to try and support specific moral / ethical perpesctives, but it is responsible to communicate the nature of some material and it would be good to allow downstream users clearer choice).
 * I do feel though that there's a further class of media / articles which is a bit more of a problem - things like 'cock and ball torture', and perhaps the discussion around hardcore photos on the talk page of 'oral sex' - I can respect the fact that you, and others, may still feel the greater good is served by both allowing free access to children to such material, and perhaps borderline encouraging regular 'wiki work' by kids in such areas, but I'm afraid I do disagree, and I don't feel that it's an unreasonable position to take. Children should not be encouraged to access such material, and if they are doing so, and in my view we can clearly see that they are, then the responsible course of action is to discuss possible measures for how to provide better guidance (maybe guidelines, policies, advice, whatever...) to improve matters.
 * All in all, I guess I do tire a little of how easy it is for many here to flick a trump card out to end the discussion, when a bit more listening, and nuanced conversation would go a long way, I reckon. This has been a rather blathery post, which (believe it or not!) has taken a few drafts to distill what little coherence there now is - perhaps you'd be interested in furthering discussion over at Child protection where there's a possibility of decent progress, if we take things slow.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, America could use a little less violence and a little less prudishness about nudity in its media. America and Europe could do with learning from each other. Europe is weird about media violence the way America is weird about nudity and America is a little too doctrinaire about free speech while Europe could stand to protect it a little more. The solution, of course, is to just send all our extremists to Australia :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * heh! - you know, in some ways Australia really is a pretty extreme place, and in some ways we suffer the tyranny of distance, so are a bit of a backwater to the rest of the world - when societies genuinely become able to share and learn from other without self-interest, it'll be a happy day... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Recording edit
Hey PM, I just wanted to request that you wait for awadewit to release her edited version of the file, instead of you uploading yours. She has done a few more edits than just cutting off the end. Thanks, --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * no worries... Awadewit replied on her talk page too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki  talk   contribs  wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages. MisterWiki  talk   contribs  01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * well thankee you! - season's greetings to you and yours too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC) that was an odd chilean experience! - I quite enjoyed it!

urgent clerk action required
Timing's everything - made me laugh when I finally saw it though. pablo hablo. 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say I'm wasted on a single figure audience - but the truth is, I'm just wasted, period ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons
Hi. FYI, you have a message at Commons. Thanks. Wknight94 talk  17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks - I think I've stuffed up the tagging on those pic.s, so will try and fix it up... Privatemusings (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please show where
In WP since when do we download unreferenced essays? - viz - Chinese_immigration_to_Sydney,_Australia - surely in plain terms that is a candidate for Afd? Please show where if you have some policy or precedent somewhere that allows for something like that - there are assertions riddled though the article that are contentious and contestable - and with no WP:RS. Not sure if you know something others dont know but... SatuSuro 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * chat continued below..... Privatemusings (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia
A tag has been placed on Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —  æk Talk 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the license notice in the edit history before placing the CSD notice. Retracted with apologies.  —  æk Talk  23:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * no worries, aek - glad you spotted it :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * re 'I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it' - I hope you're not in need of bot counselling, Erwin - you're a very special bot, and your botty work is appreciated ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC) that is to say, you're more courteous than whomever nominated the article for deletion and got a bit lost on their way over here to let me know.....

I am not a bot
What a lot of rot re courtesy - do you really expect to be able to download slabs of text unchallenged? You must be from sydney :( You still have not answered the issue of downloading essays though - it is not an article! It has heaps of POV and orientation that really - as far as an online encylopedia goes - stinks. At least you turned up at your Afd - however you might feel about the article - I think in all honesty you need to address the concerns that have been raised at the Afd - and carefully. cheers SatuSuro 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * heh... gimme a chance, Sat - I think I've been on the wiki for about half an hour! I hope we can turn down the temperature, maybe start again on a better foot, and make some progress..... p'raps first up - this is indeed an 'import' - I'm interested to hear if other articles have been imported previously (particularly from modern sources?), perhaps it's true that I didn't expect the path to be quite so bumpy, but I actually think the article is both well written and interesting (and generally speaking, a very good fit for an encyclopedia, though not without some changes being required) - p'raps this would be a better chat to have over at the talk page though? Privatemusings (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No - there are signs that you are planning more - and in that case for the moment - specially from what I said at the Afd - its you and me mate - and it is cool as you like :) - we do not download essays.  Or blocks of text with no refs - you just need to feel cool about it - and when you try again - take the time to actually include the references when you do it.

We dont do essays - the lead para is highly contentious and currently the academic debate on the subject is out to lunch - the assertions in the essay - need 3rd party away from the item you have downloaded. Basic edit on wikipedia stuff - simple as that - maybe they do things in different ways somewhere else - but the last time I checked - this is wikipedia - and I have no idea why you think you can do it the way you did? SatuSuro 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the importance of referencing. When I originally imported the essay, it had a single reference (which is not the same as being unreferenced, inadequate as it may be) - I was also under the same impression I noticed you report, that the in-line ref.s in the article on the Dic. of Syd. site were currently broken. I had already make enquiries to try and get a copy of those ref.s when someone helpfully pointed out that they were there all along - we had just missed them :-) - If you feel that this material isn't encyclopedic, or a good for for this project, then I disagree. I'm happy to talk about why. Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My issue with all of this was (1) uploading blocks of text with little or no annotation as to what was going on (2) I agree with the points made in the afd - it is an essay with POV and, not an article as it stands (3) due to my academic training I cannot help but refuse to accept as valid anyone who says the chinese were here early - sources are not enough - it is not encyclopediac to feed off the innacuracies fed by the 1421 disease (4) if you intend to uploade any further items - in all honesty you need to go first the to australian noticeboard and pr the sydney noticeboard and give a list - in other words show your hands - there may well be items that should not be uploaded, and some that should - rather than your single discretion - it would be more wikipedian and collaborative of you to do so (5) nothing personal in all of this - it is if it had been a newbie doing this - I would be even more sanctimonious about the absurdity of uploading what I consider to be partly rubbish  (6) may your new year be less invaded by t'othersiders - just take care! SatuSuro 04:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it's good to see you on the talk page of the article too, Sat :-) - thanks for raising these concerns here, and elsewhere - and I think the article pages themselves are probably a better spot to continue this - season's greetings to you too, though :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mixed blessings perhaps - the fact that you are not addressing the issues suggest that it should be 'have a lousy christmas' :) - 'but have a good new year' - there are indeed issues you cannot skip around for too long mate :( SatuSuro 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...never could skip... per the talk page, I have attempted to take out the reference to very early chinese contact - per your point 3) above, and on the talk page, but welcome further editing, or feedback on that matter - please raise any and all POV issues anywhere, and I'll do my best with them too - ps. I'm typing as fast as I can! - my expectation is that it'll take a month or two to get this article up to a really high standard, though I already feel it's a worthy addition over here.... User:Orderinchaos reckons it'll take about a week to tidy up - though I reckon it'll be all hands on deck to try and make that work... we'll see how it goes.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think "your mess, you fix it" must apply somewhere. You can't simply deposit 36k of text just before Christmas on a community and expect *them* to fix it for you. I note you were on ArbCom-imposed mentorship for a while - I would suggest that you take on board the solid advice you were given at various stages then in order that you can be a help and not a hindrance to the project. This situation is embarrassing for all concerned, including the source of the essay as they wrote it for an *entirely* different purpose, for which it is entirely and absolutely suitable, and we have no choice but to beat it up because it's been dragged without sufficient consideration into a space for which it wasn't meant and for which entirely different rules apply. Orderinchaos 07:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (very quick response) this bit --> "...we have no choice but to beat it up..." is potentially dangerous nonsense, and I disagree with the way you have described events here - I'm off in a mo for chrimbo - but I'd really like to talk through some of this upon return..... Privatemusings (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Potentially dangerous nonsense"? By beat it up I was referring to rather drastic editing to get it into shape, nothing more and nothing less. Orderinchaos 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck and I'll throw a bit of our west australian heat over your way :) - we actually have in the hills of perth some people convinced that the chinese were here too - its the 1421 disease all over again - we will have to resurrect the victorian mahogany ship stories and make sure it is not a chinese junk as well - it is potentially never ending - as for time to cleanup - well thats another tasmanian project issue - there are no hands - watch my smile as I try to cleanup there with no help :) SatuSuro 04:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * oh the chinese were everywhere first - everyone knows that ;-) see you around, and thanks for coming by.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry to repeat myself - re-wording slightly earlier point

(4) if you intend to upload any further items - do you see any value in notifying at the australian or similar noticeboard - any further similar exercises? SatuSuro 07:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * :OK corral stuff - you remove your small and I'll remove mine - otherwise we are off somewhere else on this :) SatuSuro 07:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No response - you must be on something else - hey did you really need to leave that there? SatuSuro 08:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got back on the wiki, Satu - in response to your point 4) above - I certainly see value in getting input from the various noticeboards - in particular I really (really) hope that it's possible to get more 'hands on deck' in working on stuff, rather than things becoming a bit more confrontational than I'd hope - that said, I also hope we (all) can learn alot from ways of working on imported material, and I plan on focusing on this article for the next little while, so won't import any other stuff... :-)
 * re the 'small' stuff - it took me a while to track down what I think you mean, which is that you feel it was inappropriate for me to comment about the 'primary source' issue in the small text? (your edit summary indicates to me that you're maybe a bit pissed off with how that conversation is going?) - my (quick) immediate response to someone indicating something like that is to apologise for any insult that was perceived, and to say that it most certainly wasn't the intention to offend, or anything like that - some genuine questions remain in regard to what a wiki 'primary source' is (on the point of substance; my understanding is that an unpublished thesis can be a primary source, but not every unpublished thesis is a primary source - I contend that the unpublished thesis referred to isn't in fact a primary source in this context, being used to ref. a quirky (and interesting) historical fact) - having reviewed my post, I hope you may agree that to ask such a question, maybe even in the way in which I did (the small bit) can be seen as reasonable? - For that reason, I haven't removed it, but let me state very clearly here that if you think, for any reason whatsoever, that it would be a good idea for it to go, please do go right ahead and remove it :-)
 * I'm off wiki shortly for the chrimbo duration (about to post a quick note to my userpage to that effect too) so will pick up this stuff in the new year.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining - I remain unconvinced that any uploading anything without established processes on wikipedia is anything but disruptive - have a safe christmas SatuSuro 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The one about the Boy charlton pool seems relatively normal....anyway see WP:AWNB a GA drive  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  00:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and take a look at the boy charlton article - and step carefully around the whole process - meanwhile, I've asked for the chinese article to be bunged into my userspace, and intend to work it up into as good a nick as I can manage - there's no rush of course :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW happy new year - I have removed the cats from the deleted article and I still am opposed to adding such things without adequate scrutiny before they get uploaded - as I remain unconvinced of the articles viability I shall not interfere any further. When it hits mainspace I shall be intrigued to see what you can do with it. cheers and good luck SatuSuro 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for that tidy up, Satu - feel free to watch and / or dive in over at the sub-page, and thanks for the good wishes :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now if you had done that in the first place - it would have gone in without any one even noticing - SatuSuro 00:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * heh... well the wiki has a wonderful way of everything coming out in the wash in the end, no? :-) The only way is up! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you certainly got a lot of attention - and in the old days if you had done that and werent known to the community you would have earned a few labels you wouldnt like :)  SatuSuro 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also in my edit summary I do not flinch from my idea that is an extraordinarly good example of how not to add material to wikipedia - the fact that at most of the discussion here and on the talkepage you seem quite unflappably immune to any suggestion that new articles could actually be created another way - then I sure hope your confidence isnt inflicted upon mainspace too much :) SatuSuro 01:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * re: labels - I've had a few in my time, Sat - and re:whether or not importing material directly is a good thing to do or not, I think I probably disagree that it's a completely bad idea. I certainly agree though that there are heaps of other ways to create - like writing an article from scratch, or collaborating with friends, or improving a stub etc. etc. (not sure where you get the impression that I don't support these things?) - if you and I disagree on the 'importing appropriately licensed material from somewhere else' method of article creation, then it's not really the end of the wiki - hopefully we can agree that whatever creates and maintains really good articles is, at the end of the day, why we're here :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In all AGF - really adding large blocks of unedited material as happened imho should be either deleted on the spot and the ed told to go back and try again - the policies and the usual practices by editors with more than a 1,000 edits is to understand it is not the way to do things - it still escapes me why you did it - lets hope if the archive from which it came doesnt have anything similar happen - otherwise it would deserve banning as a source in some parts of wikipedia SatuSuro 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (we edit conflicted in my replying above) - My presumption is that the contributor (me) in this case takes responsibility for any material added when they (me) hits 'save page' - I remain happy to be responsible for the original import, and quite like the direction the article is now taking - I hope banning needn't come into it! (again) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To translate what Satu was saying there, he was suggesting that if you were to pull this off again, there may well be a discussion somewhere which leads to content from DoS being effectively blacklisted. If that happened, you would have pretty much sabotaged a possible useful source for less controversial topics such as what Witty lama and John V have been working on. Orderinchaos 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'there may well be' all sorts of discussions on the wiki! in fact - it's almost guaranteed! - I'd be very surprised to see any discussion of blacklisting the dictionary of sydney gaining any traction whatsoever, though - wouldn't you? Privatemusings (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the drama quotient exceeds the value, the community is more likely to decide in its own interests. That's usually how things go around here. Orderinchaos 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I beg to disagree and finish here - no further comment Strike-through text SatuSuro 01:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)  My response is now being pushed out of context - I spent considerable effort to ascertain that Privatemusings has added something to mainspace without any due process of 'checking' before doing so (and had appeared to be totally unrepentant in doing so) - and now there are ancillary conversations that may have put my final comment out of context. I do not agree that continuing the process of adding blocks of material into wikipedia mainspace without adequate preparation is of benefit - we regularly see such material deleted and editors regularly sanctioned - that to create an article by such a process (and go through Afd as a way of improving the article) is considered 'ok' by this editor leaves me reassured that most of the effort on this talk page was a complete and utter waste of time, I would prefer to speak for myself - and finish yet again. Process that is subverted puts to question a large amount of time and effort that many people put here on wikipedia to sustain some sense of procedure for the community function effectively, and for that reason alone I have no further comment - it is pointless SatuSuro 04:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hi PM, took a quick look at the issue you asked me to comment on, but I can't quite see what the problem is. If you still want me to comment, happy to do so, but could you spell out the concern? Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the response, Slim - if you're watching this, and happen to have a moment or two - any help / advice / review you might be able to offer at Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia would be much appreciated - there are some interesting questions raised on the talk page, but a general review would probably be the most helpful at this point :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review
In order for an article (especially one deleted at AfD a week ago) to be restored to mainspace, it must go through DRV. See WP:DRV. I'm surprised that you don't know this given how long you've been here. Orderinchaos 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on article talkpage :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a conduct issue. Orderinchaos's post wasn't anything close to a personal attack.  The article should have been DRV'd.  Durova  394 04:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're responding to my post over on the article talk page mebbe? If not, it's a bit of a non sequitur! We're in complete agreement about personal attacks though, it's distracting to start seeing them when they're really not there, which was sort of my (very small) point, I guess.... I (think) I've started a 'drv', so we'll see how that one goes.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbos page.
I found your comment on sexually explicit material to be a nice presentation and it does show several issues...I have a problem with this image being included, it victimizes the poor woman again and exposes kids to this nonsense. Please find a way to include with your presentation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bucket - that image also raises legitimate concerns, although I feel in a slightly different way. You may be interested in reading 'Wikipedia Review' which is discussing this issue - I particularly feel this comment from User:Cla68 echoes how I feel about that particular image - in short, I'm unsettled, but not sure as to how best to handle such graphic images.
 * It's fairly clear though, in my view, that this project isn't really capable of maturely discussing and managing such matters - in general terms, it's not solely the nature of images that is cause for concern, I reckon, it's also the rather crass and superficial nature of the discussions around them - I'll now go take a look at the discussions of that particular image to further form an opinion..... best, Privatemusings (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaching experiments
I have seen your posts on Wikipedia Review and Wikiversity regarding the subject of "ethical breaching experiments." These generally are not permissible, and your involvement would be particularly unhelpful in light of prior history. Please refrain from engaging in, or inducing others to engage in, this practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for swinging by, Brad :-) - I just came from your recently posted essay - so it's nice to see you behind the orange bar! I'm glad you used the caveat 'generally' above, because I hope it may be possible to figure out at that project page a good way of organising and executing studies / tests which help the encyclopedia (did you see Milton's post over at WR? - it summed up aspects of my feelings on the matter too). In terms of my prior history - I feel unencumbered to be honest - am I wrong? I reckon you could add an awful lot to such a project, so if you have any time and interest, please do sign up (signing up for involvement is the only inducement I'm putting out there at the mo) - another aspect of running such stuff transparently at another wmf project is that you'll also be able to see clearly exactly what's planned / when projects are active etc. - here's hoping you might get involved :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the wikiversity page a bit, recording previous experiments / hoaxes etc. etc. - I'd like to copy your post above over and drop it somewhere visible, if that's ok? Let me know your thoughts.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'd personally like to see regarding "breaching experiments", especially that those that deliberately insert bad/false information into articles is: "Don't do them.", personally. They violate WP:POINT in a way that cannot easily be reconciled with further editing. SirFozzie (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good to get your input too, SirFozz - even if we may disagree; does it make anything any clearer if I point out that I view the 'WP:NEWT' project as a 'breaching experiment' - your post isn't 100% clear whether or not you view that sort of thing (ie. not necessarily inserting bad/false information) as incompatible with further editing too?
 * I'll copy your post over to wikiversity too, if that's cool, because input from two arb.s indicating very strong disapproval is certainly relevant. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PM, with your history, you don't have the political capital to conduct this sort of experiement. Viridae Talk 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * heh! Brad mentioned that too... I'm not really anywhere near the stage of conducting any sort of experiment - though if the project over at wikiversity does get anywhere, my thinking is that the nature of any activity would be transparently detailed there. I'm hoping to make this as dull (with shades of rigour) as possible, and there's certainly an awful lot more talking about stuff and planning etc. etc. before anything at all were to happen. Seeing as it's only me and one other editor at the moment, I think the timetable for action might be around the London Olympics (or perhaps just after, because they might be fun!) - I would say that I'm not sure 'political capital' really exists in quite the way people might feel it does around here. For example, I've seen Brad post rather extensively on the blp problem in various locations, and folk like Lar often take things even further - I haven't really noticed any change though. My mini-theory is that you can accumulate political capital round here, but all you can do is throw it away... you can't actually spend it - just doesn't work! good to see you round here.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Might it not be better for this project to be documented either here, since it seems the English Wikipedia is the main focus, or Meta, since that Wiki exists for discussing and coordinating activities at a cross-wiki level and this would seem to fit perfectly within the idea of meta-content. Whilst research is within the scope Wikiversity, I assume the aim of this work is to try to improve the policies of Wikipedia and the other WMF projects and that might be more appropriate conducted at either of these venues. Adambro (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought wikiversity was the best fit, mainly because it's designed for research (original or otherwise!) - and is intended to offer broad latitude to projects run to increase learning / understanding (and maybe even publish / produce a paper / document at the end of it) - I can see what you mean about meta, though I think hosting such stuff here is probably not a good fit, for a variety of reasons (not really what this project is for mainly - self referential etc. etc.) - I'm also the only participant at the moment, and (as you can see from this thread!) am taking things at a snail's / glacial pace - if you think popping some details onto meta would be a good thing, please do feel free :-) (or better yet, get involved on both meta and wikiversity! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Trulyequal
User:Trulyequal is entirely unrelated to this situation and, as far as I'm aware, any currently sitting arbitrator. Stop making accusations with no evidence. Your soapboxing in this matter is becoming highly disruptive. The Committee is discussing the situation with TE1 and may or may not make an announcement soon. Some patience would be wonderfully appreciated. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * um.... well it's not really accurate to describing me as 'soapboxing', is it? - and the assertion of 'highly disruptive' usually requires evidence too, no? (or at least they're required to make some sense in some way!) All this is a bit ironic, because I explained to you what led me to think the way I do (ie. I talked you through the 'evidence') I didn't! but I have now - my apologies - I'm a very patient chap, so don't worry about breaking a sweat or anything, but I find the tone of your post above, and to a degree your general behaviour in this matter to be that of a gigantic boob. Please work on de-boobing yourself if possible :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will go further then that. PM, cut it out or you will be blocked. The whole thing is going to come out and not only are you straining the patience of one and all with your bouncing around and playing guessing games on who/what/where TE1 is.. you haven't gotten anything right yet, and I doubt you will if you continue. SirFozzie (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ah fozz... I'll be blocked for the 'disruption' mentioned above? Or I'll be blocked for getting everything wrong (wouldn't be the first time!) - mentioning 'bouncing' in the same thread I'm mentioning 'gigantic boobs' though is clearly problematic, so let's try to avoid that ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to come out and say that I don't understand the delay in revealing the connection between the accounts. The account on its face seems to be a perfectly applicable WP:SOCK, but the connection between its owner should be disclosed. The owner should probably have recused from the case - but that's another matter. –xenotalk 01:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (to PM)Yes, let's. (dryly). As for your main question, yes, all of the above. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (to Xeno): I'm not the owner of the TE1 account, but it will be part of a full reckoning of this case, and I don't understand how reverting vandalism (let's not dignify it with breaching experiment, it was deliberately inserting false/wrong information=Vandalism) inserted by a banned user is grounds for recusal. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the individual, in having to monitor the articles - spend their precious volunteer time looking for evidence of a breaching experiment/vandalism/whatever you want to call it - is going to consciously or subconsciously come to resent the individual who pushed the snowball down the hill. Definitele grounds for recusal in my humble opinion. But then again, I always tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to recusal matters. YMMV. –xenotalk 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"... but it will be part of a full reckoning of this case ..." SirFozzie: Which case are you referring to, for clarity? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * f looking for and confirming the sock edits would leave TE1 unable to judge it fairly, then we all were, as there was discussion on the arblist to try to confirm the socks and the pattern in several of the user names, for example. And MZMCBride: Considering you have tried to get the Arb who ran the TE1 account to forcibly recuse, I think it would be obvious to you. SirFozzie (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So the question becomes: was it wise for arbitrators to become involved at all, given that they would likely be hearing a case on the matter? Who watches the watchmen? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * SirFozzie: Discussion of the sock accounts is far different from creating your own and editing with it in secret. Right? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done
Okay, this was actually humorous. Nicely done. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * heh... well thankee you. Don't want to annoy the old bear (brad) but hope he gets a smile too. It's doubleplusgood too, because I actually mean it ;-) Privatemusings (talk)

:D

 * ha ! –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I ruined it for me by adding text to my section. :( Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New Year's Test at the SCG
Hi PM, did you end up going? Unfortunately the security in Adelaide was stepped up this year and I wasn't allowed within 50m of the nets, so no photos of hte Pakistani players. Although there were no security measures for the women, so I snapped away  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * replied in chat on IRC - missed the test unfortuantely :-( Privatemusings (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the dust to settle, and see if anything changes.... thanks for the note though... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sydney
Hi! I notice this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sydney&action=history

I understand you want people to head to an active project, but the blanking is disruptive. It's better to tag the project as inactive so people know it is.

Also the Sydney area is more than capable of having a project (or a task force) - it's a matter of telling people that it exists and that it needs someone to reactivate it. Also someone needs to re-establish the Sydney portal and use that to advertise the project's presence. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit much to describe my edit as disruptive (to whom? in what way?) - though my care factor on this one is pretty blah.... I noticed your request for a sydney pic though - unfortuantely I'm not down in Mascot very often, but should I find myself that way, I'll try and get you your shot :-) hope you're good... best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do get the chance to get a shot, I thank you in advance :)
 * Usually WikiProjects are not simply "merged" like that, and someone trying to access the WikiProject Sydney would find frustration if he or she is being redirected to a mother project
 * Smaller WikiProjects, especially on narrower subjects, do get turned into task forces (this happened to Los Angeles and San Francisco - I do think they are capable of being WikiProjects again -- But there are some things I started as task forces like Detroit and San Antonio which I think, for now, should remain task forces)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

note to self
Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 6,888 seconds may not appear in this list. Due to brain lag, changes newer than 6,888 seconds may not appear in this editor. Privatemusings (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 35 to beer o'clock.....

Chinese immigration to Australia
I can't see any evidence that this article has been through a WP:GAN process. Please don't rerate articles GA improperly.--Grahame (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is really stupid, tagging like that brings disrepute to yourself, the australian project and shows a real lack of understanding anything about process - the article will go down as your nemesis if you are not careful - imho :( - SatuSuro 02:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * doh! I can honestly say that I thought I'd given it an 'A' class - but perhaps what's creeping in is my general lack of respect for the tags and their utility - anywhoo... my apologies for bungling. Hopefully my nemesis is routed once more! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you are losing the knack for process - it is autumn - maybe you're shedding leaves :|      ) SatuSuro 12:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal work on Commons
I'm not sure where you've been, however the discussion on the proposal talk page has exploded into mass incivility. It has been myself against over a dozen vocal angry editors. I'm considering asking to have the page locked until the right to work on proposals without harassment has been established. Some help on this would be greatly appreciated. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * G'day Still - it's been a holiday weekend down here (and the final hurrah for summer - there's a chill in the air now) - so I found myself busy with friends, drinks, family and other fun stuff :-) With some trepidation, I'm 'back' (although my contributions are unfortunately often sporadic) - and I'll head over to commons in a mo..... hope you're good :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia in the Classroom
Hi PM, yes, I saw your message. I'll be adding more details on the chapter wiki this weekend (today hopefully), then I'll be happy to discuss it with you over IRC or something. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
 * I'm gonna try and chase up this stuff soon :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikivoices status
Is Wikivoices currently inactive, or has it moved somewhere else? If the former, was it because of some big kerfuffle, or did it just run out of steam? Andjam (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * mainly it ran out of steam, I think - I know there's still an active skype 'group chat' (works like IRC) but I think it's really just a social spot now. Durova was quite a leader for a while, and for various reasons the project became less focused on producing the 'shows' and more on teaching / learning / talking to each other. There was a nominal name change to 'WikiVoices' and an idea that the project would move over to meta to make sure it included wiki types of all wmf stripes, but I don't think it really bedded in.
 * I'm up for picking it up again - probably at the old name ;-) when I get the chance - one of the first topics might be how clearly wikipedia is contracting in terms of an active user base, and how limited the life cycle of wiki participation is for the vast majority of editors - there's some interesting data and reflections to be had :-) (do you fancy getting involved? - many hands make light work, 'n all that!) - btw. there's a meetup in Sydney next thursday (26th) - coming? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't make the meetup due to a calendar clash. If you're interested in discussions about other wikis, you may want to talk about TV Tropes. As I'm fairly inactive on Wikipedia, the best way to contact me about upcoming podcasts is to send a private message. Andjam (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

WP Australia
WP Australia is not inactive. Please be constructive in your edits.--Grahame (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * oh for some reason I think we're in danger of rubbing each other up the wrong way, so I'll leave it. The wikiproject I'm referring to is WikiProject_Sydney - the talk page in question clearly states that it's 'supported' by that project. You've made no reply that I can tell asserting the usefulness of those boxes, nor any comment concerning the post of mine you (inadvertently?) removed. I find your actions to lack grace, but then you prolly feel something similar. Please be constructive in your edits ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)