User talk:Sb617/Archive 5

This is my talk page, archives of past discussions are on the archive box on the right. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Gwen Araujo
I hope you don't get too offended by the following comment: Have you actually read the article? In the lead it clearly states that two people were convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

There are BLP issues, due to the fact that not all the people involved were convicted of manslaughter.

Besides murdered is a loaded term, while on a personal level I might agree that she was murdered, I do realise that the term promotes a point of view.

Died/Killed are purely factual terms, they are NPOV and the article loses nothing from their use.

The circumstances of her death and the trial are fully documented later in the article, so readers are more than capable of coming to their own conclusions.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry one more point - the term died had been used since 2006, the term murdered was introduced without any form of consensus - for a term to survive for 2 years consensus is very obvious - there must be new consensus if you wish to use the term murdered Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support and encouragement and great work on Wikipedia. I'm taking a lengthy break from Wiki (and am retiring under this username) but I may be back in the future. Good luck. JRG (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Sunbus VST.jpg
Image:Sunbus VST.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Sunbus Mercedes-Benz O500LE with Bustech VST body.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tasos90 Sockpuppet
Yep - him again. Unfortunately just a temporary IP address so there's little that can be done except semi-protection; which is not yet called for here. Keep up the good work - Peripitus (Talk) 11:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After a short hiatus, he's back as SFO1990 - Brisbane-centric edits, 90 suffix on username and his so-called Californian connection. I'll notify Peripitus as well. Mvjs  Talking  05:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

See that one now - obvious and blocked. I think I'll add a few more brisbane items to the watchlist now - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up - blocked again and left a message for the way out for them - just another user who doesn't wikipedia - Peripitus (Talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Similarity
Does the latest vote in this deletion discussion seem similar to another? SEO75  [  talk  ] 11:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious imo. He's using a IP to get around the votes, going by his history. I'm tagging it as a SPA in the Mfd. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 11:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, Here's a new idea to merge Template:TL Bus Station, Template:Citytrain Station and Template:Brisbaneferries into Template:TL Infrastructure. Something to work on if you would like to help out. ;-) matt-(my page-leave me a message) 14:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DL/NWA
Please note that I wasn't the one who made the change. I made similar edits regarding this, can you please revert them. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

University of the Sunshine Coast - COI
to remove the conflict of interest tag from the USC page, what changes do you see as needing to be made to the page? I acknowledge that WikiUSC is a university-administered account, but do not see that as necessarily a detrimental thing - we have provided the base information, and encourage others to develop it further. the WikiUSC account exists to monitor the truth and accuracy of submissions, not to administer bias. for anyone to start any Wiki page indicates some conflict of interest - they are interested enough to dedicate the time to create the entry. if someone was truly neutral, would they care either way what content Wikipedia included? regardless, any feedback on improving the USC entry to remove the COI flag would be appreciated. WikiUSC (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 60.50.177.157
Lately he has been reverting my edits to many airports regarding Kuala Lumpur. If you see my message on my talk page, he told me to remove the "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" designation cause it seems useless and also he said the WP:AIRPORTS discussion made no decision to disam KUL. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please see this comment taking from my talk page:
 * "Pls be reminded!


 * 1st of all thank you to your message I would like to remind you that airlines who operate with Turboprop are only to serve at Subang Airport. 2nd, No matter which airline whom wish to fly to Kuala Lumpur, there will be only 1 airport for them which is (KUL) Kuala Lumpur International Airport. 3rd, According http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_9#Disam_or_Not_to_Disam there is no decision whether Disam or Not to Disam for Kuala Lumpur International Airport! 4th, Something you have to know, there won't appear  in any airport in the world when u check-in, please be reminded that Malaysia Government been announced that all Turbojet planes must landed at KUL (Kuala Lumpur International Airport). Lastly, please delete all  in wikipedia because you are doing smth extra where it is useless.


 * Thank you." He undid my edits again at Tianjin Binhai International Airport and Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport. Cashier freak (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
Sorry who is JRG? Lonelygirl16 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC) And I'm not changing without consensus. The neighbouring station box has different Countrylink regions. It's consistent with the website too: see www.countrylink.info/ 07:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) I don't understand. why do you think I am another user? why won't Endarrt talk to me? Lonelygirl16 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC) can you please reply to me? I want to make sure I am doing the right thing. thanks Lonelygirl16 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he/she/it knows very well who JRG is.Endarrt (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand. I don't know who JRG is, and I don't understand why Im being harassed because I edit rail articles. My username is a play on words on Lonelygirl15. You still haven't answered my question about the countrylink thing. It says on the website - we should be consistent with that. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nadi International Airport
It's in the WP:AIRPORTS archives (feel free to look it up), but to my knowledge a general consensus is that former destinations is not encyclopedic, would fail WP:LISTS anyway, unless if its entirely complete and fully referenced. In it's current form, it would fail both. I dont see why this article should be an exception to all other airport articles which do not have former destinations (as it would be incomplete, hard to maintain (for bigger airports) and would likely be poorly sourced anyway). --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi - let's get this sorted out without constantly reverting each other's edits.


 * I have gone through WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, which contains details about what goes into airport articles.
 * (a) At no point does it state that discontinued flights should be excluded from inclusion in airport articles. Indeed the style guidelines indicate how proposed new flights, or announced terminations, should be written.  This implies that that there is flexibility built in to includes flights that are not necessarily contemporaneous.
 * (b) There is no evidence in the associated talk page to suggest the issue of including or not including discontinued flights was ever debated, so I am not sure what is the basis of your argument that a consensus has already been established.
 * (c) Please note very clearly that the guidelines state:

Article structure - The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.
 * This would contradict with your idea that we should only list discontinued flights for all articles, or no articles, or that generally our formatting guidelines are set in stone and immutable to any sound ideas for change.
 * (d) Fiji was historically important in TransPacific aviation prior to the development of extended range aircraft. Benchmarked with other material of lesser importance that goes into these articles, I can easily argue on notability grounds that this should be included.


 * Happy to discuss further. Saturday night and the party beckons...   Kransky (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have not responded, and I have found no evidence of any discussion concerning including discontinued flights in airport articles, I will assume you have changed your mind on the matter. Kransky (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a generally accepted consensus per discussion not only at the related Wikiproject, but probably overall that "former destinations" are not really unencylcopedic unless fully referenced and marked. I'm not the only one that tends to agree with this. So, as per discussion at the related pages, I will keep removing it and will be scouting through other articles (when I got the time) that still has this.  your comment


 * It is a generally accepted consensus per discussion - I have not found the results of such a discussion endorsed on the project page.
 * "former destinations" are not really unencylcopedic unless fully referenced and marked - this statement is confusing.  Are you saying that former destinations are only okay if they are missing references?  If you in fact mean "former destinations" are not really encyclopedic unless fully referenced and marked, I ask you to explain why the threshold referencing requirements for former destinations is higher than for current destinations.
 * I will keep removing it and will be scouting through other articles It may be more productive to follow standard Wikipedia dispute resolution practices.  Contributors in other articles may take exception to your interpretation of what the consensus is (if one actually exists).  Kransky (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

124.191.177.53 and briscrime
Hi Arnzy - good pickup...not sure how I missed this on (probably trimmed my watchlist in the past) - blocked now - Peripitus (Talk) 10:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lonelygirl sock tag
I agree that this person may be a sock, as I have seen many variations of the name in some old edit histories, but I don't see a connection to JRG... Either way, if you are going to tag someone for sockpuppetry, you need to both tag the puppeteer, and file a file a requst for a sockpuppet investigation. D rew  S  mith  What I've done  04:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)