User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive17

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

---

Mediation request

Ambi there seems to be two trains of thought on this area and others are buying in because it is an important area to reach consensus. I guess I can understand why you (even as an administrator) don't want to advise me on the complaint process. My research reveals that I should get your consent for mediation so I can then contact the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Do you give your consent? I will post this question here and on your user page so there is no chance that you might miss it - as you appear to have archived all of the debate on this. VirtualSteve 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation now filed at Users Ambi and Virtual Steve - Issue Redlink Reduction Please feel free to add your comments. VirtualSteve 12:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambi for your information - I have responded to the request from Essjay by the following. Also will you please respond with your formal consent to go through the mediation process?

• Hi Essjay. I did notice you churning very progressively through the large list of mediation requests. I appreciate the effort and time you and the mediation committee take on these issues. I would be happy to reformat and will do so in a couple of days if that is okay as I am away for that time and will have hardly any time to get to wiki. I will pass this message on to my co-protagonist also. On that basis can you give me a week say to finalise the new process? Thank you in advance. VirtualSteve 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I note your comment on request for mediation and appreciate your agreement that you were a a bit rude in communicating things. I understand your point on valid redlinks - I do have an issue with the time that those redlinks remain valid but that can be dealt with outside of the mediation forum. I also note that others are involved in a series of revert actions in terms of the clause that you are still trying to remove. I will be happy to end my request for mediation if you (a) leave that clause alone and let it work itself out through consensus or perhaps policy formulation, (b) and you agree to supportively discuss those redlinks I (and perhaps others) remove rather than wholesale reverts of anything I change with threats of blocking etc (especially where I created the redlink myself). From my side I will more carefully consider the changing of redlinks and where contentious put up a discussion point in the edit. Is this something you could agree to? If so I will contact the RfM group and delist. VirtualSteve 22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You sure are a firey person Ambi. I am not asking you to discuss every edit I am asking you to discuss any reduction that you don't like rather than you go through all of of my previous edits and even articles where I created the redlink in the first place - without looking at them and reverting wholesale. A bit like I have been going through some of your (otherwise fabulous) articles and picking up typo's, grammar etc and then leaving you a positive edit message. For me that is what a long term contributor who proudly states she has contributed 1000's of articles and is an administrator should be doing. Administration is partly if not largely about support - but that is up to you. As for the clause, well I defend it in the same spirit that it seems many others do - have a look at all of the other administrators that are reverting your revert. Put simply to not have a clause at all is far, far worse than any misinterpretation, or just a wholesale removal of that part of an attempt to establish consensus when one doesn't like the action of others. Anyway I want to move on - I have put the proposition to you and I'm not sure if you have answered it - for me it is like playing a sport, say netball, or being in a court of law - usually we can't be players and umpires too. I am happy to move on with the above understanding or I am happy to stand by the umpires (mediation committee) decision. Can you just tell me which process you would prefer? VirtualSteve 05:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Any chance on getting a response on the above question I put up several days ago Ambi? VirtualSteve 09:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tas Senate 1983

Thanks for reminding me. I have found the original stats and will fix the page this evening. Adam 08:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed. Adam 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures needed

I liked a lot the Cynna Neele article. You've made a great work. But isn't there any good photos to illustrate it? Maybe by contacting the team or herself she would realease some photos into public domain? CG 20:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Longest-serving Australian Greens MPs

Hey Ambi, I was wondering what you think about the 'other sitting MPs' section. There are 14 Greens in parliaments around Australia currently (4 federal, 4 Tassie, 3 NSW, 2 WA, 1 ACT), with substantial possibilities for increasing Green representation in the near future (a couple in Victoria in November, probably one in SA in March, up to 2 extra in Tassie, 1-2 extra in NSW in March 2007). Is it practical to include all sitting MPs? I thought five was a nice round number. The main reason for that is so that we can see when MPs are approaching the 'top ten', although currently Lee Rhiannon is three years away from breaking into the top 10. If we are including Paul Llewellyn and Deb Foskey, then we should probably also include Sylvia Hale and Rachel Siewert. Ben Raue (Talk) 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we move this discussion to the relevant talk page? Ben Raue (Talk) 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay!

It's 2 am, but Tim and Midom finally got teh site back up! In other news, I was considering drafting a policy about not editing while intoxicated, would you like to help? ;) --bainer (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anton Enus

Please read the Anton Enus Talk page - Mike Beckham 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My User Page

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Karmafist 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stott

Hey there. I got the idea to write an article on Stott from reading the Jennings book you mentioned. I'm just pleasantly surprised there's some other politics tragic besides me that has read the book. Cheers. --Roisterer 09:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NSW electorate stuff

I couldn't find the parliamentary handbook, but I did find a complete list of former members; I'll go through it and see how it goes. Oh yeah, the status of it is on my talk page - I should probably move it somewhere else (eg. WikiProject NSW or Aussie politics something). Cheers, Alphax ^τεχ 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the noobs

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Willconnolly recently wrote and said that he is using his real name and wishes to contribute. Accordingly, I have unblocked. I realize that his edits thus far have fallen short of stellar however he appears to be here in good faith. Both the given name and surname are common enough that it should come as no surprise that Wikipedia's very own resident climatologist has a namesake. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Recycling AfD

You previously voted keep on an AfD for LJ Drama. It was re-nominated to AfD out of spite here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LJ Drama, and I thought you might like to consider voting again. SchmuckyTheCat 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

State Greens & Aus politics

Thanks for your comments, Ambi. There is very little verifiable information available on The Greens so I am keeping their pages as up-to-date as I can. Your edit on Greens South Australia was particularly appreciated as I was dumbstruck by recent events. --Zzymurgy 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Members for Bankstown

Hello User:Ambi

I reconsidered doing the list of former MPs. It'll probably take too long to get the full list together. I think from now on, I'll just put the relevant "members for xyz" table in the relevant articles and pull in party information manually. This will probably be faster.

I thought I'd do one example first and ask if what I've done is okay with you. The example is Electoral district of Bankstown. Here I switch format from "lastname, firstname" to "firstname lastname" like the Albury article. Then I removed the days and months from the dates leaving only the years. Then I put in the party information.

-- Newhoggy | Talk 06:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also should I drop middle names and have only first and last names? -- Newhoggy | Talk 07:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice on AMA talk page

Rebecca, please see the post I made on the AMA talk page regarding my endorsement of you and voting. Alex756 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should communicate to Keith about this situation and find out what is opinion is about this situation. To date he hasn't said anything or indicated what his position is on this matter. I mentioned this also to Wally and Sam and perhaps they could facilitate more discussion about it with him. If there is anyway I can help, let me know. Alex756 15:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem User

Hi Ambi. Thanks for the vote at RfA. I have been having trouble getting through to User:Amit jain online that they should stop uploading images with no copyright information. They have been warned 6 times now and show no sign of stopping. User:Essjay has commented but doesn't appear to be around at the moment. If you feel it appropriate could you please place a block on them to see if that will get them to respond on their talk page? --Martyman-(talk) 08:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that. I will let you know if they become responsive and need to be unblocked. --Martyman-(talk) 08:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review of New York City

Hello Ambi - You've commented on the New York City article in the past, so I thought you might be interested in participating in its peer review. The article has changed substantially since its last FA nomination. With some editing for concision (making the "skyline" section a daughter article about NYC architecture instead of including it in the main article, for instance), this article should be ready for featured status renomination. Your input would be much appreciated. Wv235 16:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delayed Reaction

My apologies for not having answered your question until several months after you posted it on my talk page [1]. I'm going to refute your question to my standard - please understand that if you feel like I have thrown you a personal attack to let me know. But forgive me in advance for any possible breach in political correctness.

"You have a wonderful quote on your user page about the importance of freedom."

First of all, our interpretations of freedom are very different. Yes, freedom is important. Human beings deserve to be free to think, to speak, to commute publicly without the fear of being shot at or persecuted, and especially to worship any god(s) of their choosing. However, there are stipulations to what we call 'freedom.' Absolute anarchal freedom constitutes chaos, which in turn infringes on the freedoms of society as a whole.

"Yet how can this not include a woman's right to choose if she wants to go through the pain of pregnancy, a refugee's right to go somewhere where they are not at constant risk of being murdered or tortured, or a Muslim's right to practice their religion without fear of being persecuted for it?"

1. Well, I'm sorry, but if a woman doesn't wish to go through the pain of a pregnancy, then maybe she and/or her partner should have used a condom or contraception of some sort. Maybe she just should have thought about that before she had sex? Because we aaaall know the consequences of intercourse - a responsible adult is fully capable of controlling him or herself enough to not 'do it' without applying some sort of preventative measures beforehand. There is no excuse for casual abortion. I admit there are certain cases where it might be best for the mother that she terminate the pregnancy. And I might add that if she is not prepared to raise a child then she needs to stop being stupid and having common unprotected sex. It's disgusting and it spreads diseases that kill or at the very least make her partner very miserable for the rest of their lives. For example, why shouldn't people who knowingly spread AIDS be thrown in jail for life or even given the death penalty? I'm getting off-topic though.) Abortion is murder - there is no exception. When clinically defined, life begins shortly after an egg is fertilized. A few moments of pain, however severe, is insignificant next to the life of a living human. No excuses.

2. If you are referring to the waves of millions of Mexicans flooding across our southern borders, then you are sadly mistaken. They are not refugees. They smuggle contraband of all types, drain our medical and educational subsidies and social welfare, among other things. Bottom line - they are breaking international law, and should be rounded up and taken back to Mexico or worse. It's unfair to those Mexicans who patiently await their turn to legally emigrate and become an American citizen.

3. Oh, this one is funny. So you think that we should let fanatical Muslims practice their religion of death without hinderances of any sort? Absolutely not. NOT on my soil; in my FREE country. Given, if every American had the attitude you have about Islamofascism, your children would eventually come to live in a culture where they would have the right to choose. I know 'choice' is what you're all about, right? =) Well, that's a good thing, because they would give you two choices: convert to Islam or suffer death by beheading. And you can forget about abortion, and all those other things that you liberals like to pout over. Fundamental Islamic theocracy offers very little freedoms at all. Think about the uproar that we've witnessed over the publishing of some silly cartoons. You can try and talk to and use diplomacy with people like that, but don't expect to live through it.

Methinks your definition of freedom...yada yada,

Look, your philosophy of freedom is warped. I'm sure you think the same about me, so I won't try and rationalize. Tolerance can't solve all the evils of the world, and neither can violence. Human nature is intelligently entropic, so there has to be a balance maintained through the application of justice. Of course, one can still enjoy a wide variety of freedoms as long as those freedoms do not endanger the peace. Salva 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Shogun vandalising again

Shogun is vandalising again, for example [2], in which he makes a claim about Dale Begg-Smith, but provides a "citation" that is to an unrelated article. Andjam 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy Request

Hello! I have an arbitration case open, and I'd like to attract an advocate to help out. I'm thinking this is a chance for you to Show 'Em How It's Done, if you're interested?

WP:RFAr#Req._Emergency_injunction_on_posting_personal_info.

Kim Bruning 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Costello

Why have you reverted to an unsourced new version which had a misleading edit summary? Xtra 07:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

hagiographic? Me English good not. Xtra 07:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AMA results?

Hello Ambi, Any news on the definitive AMA 2006 Coordinator Election results? Wikityke 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh

Dear Ambi, the editorial process at this article has been drawn to my attention. I have also been apprised of, shall we say, some suggested reasons for your interest in this subject. This creates a slightly difficult situation for me, since my relations with you have always been cordial and I don't like to draw party matters (either interparty or intraparty) into my editing at Wikipedia. I have no grounds for complaint at present, but I just thought I'd let you know that I have added the article to my watchlist and will be keeping an eye on developments. Adam 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi Ambi, regarding the following images you uploaded:

• Image:Adelthunderbirdslogo.png
• Image:Aiscandarterslogo.png
• Image:Cbtlogo.png
• Image:Hunterjaegerslogo.png
• Image:Melbkestrelslogo.png
• Image:Melbphoenixlogo.png
• Image:Perthorioleslogo.png
• Image:Qldfirebirdslogo.png
• Image:Sydswiftslogo.png

They all have a correct license, bu they have no source information, so they could be deleted in seven days. Please provide a source. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 08:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future. Martyman - 09:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Hi. You voted in support of Alex Bakharev his previous RfA, and I just wanted to let you know that there's a second one at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2. --Khoikhoi 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

request for help with vandalised page

Ambi, please help me with an vandalised entry at Talk:Kris Hanna. Not sure what do and I need your expertise. I believe 220.238.35.12 and 203.26.206.130 might be related ;-) --Zzymurgy 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, the whole creation of the page is vandalism, it is a political advertisement that is out of context and an abuse of wikipedia, not to mention full of errors. I can't revert it as there is nothing to revert it to. --Zzymurgy 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your help. --Zzymurgy 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Queensland Elections

Just noticed you'd moved some of the Queensland state election, YYYY articles to Queensland legislative election, YYYY I was just wondering why, and have to say it isn't a useful or intuitive name change, no-one in Queensland thinks of them as Legislative elections (unicameral parliament)... Queensland parliamentary election, YYYY might make more sense. Alex Law 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik

Greetings. Ambi, I'm a fan of yours, but threatening a revert-war is really inappropriate and out-of-character for you. Why do you want dates linked so badly that you'd revert another editors changes over it? I know Bobblewik edits quickly - I edit quickly too (see my contributions log). And I know you don't think the date-linking issue has been resolved (even though it's listed as official policy), but still. . . Like I said, I think you're a great Wikipedian, and I hate to bring this up, but this is starting to reflect badly on you. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to second this. The date issue is now official policy and this kind of revert warring is simply disruptive. Ambi, what's going on? --Cyde Weys 09:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohh wow, I see you've been reverting a lot of edits. I'm not going to get into a revert war over this. I'm going to leave it alone for a day and what develops. --Cyde Weys 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your massive reverting is wrong: it feels as warring and not every date must be linked, only the most important. Pavel Vozenilek 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I dislike seeing full RC page filled with such reverts. Move it over RfC or some other place. Pavel Vozenilek 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And for crying out loud don't revert when the edits have been asked for. That's just POINT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with all above. Several editors on the pages Bobblewick edited appreciated his efforts at delinking dates. This revert war is way out of hand. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Former Yugoslavia

Ambi, WikiProject Former Yugoslavia is now up and running. You are invited to come and participate! --dcabrilo 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Josiah Symon

Great job on that article. If only we had more articles like this on the early politicians. :) Ambi 10:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! I'm working through that Dictionary of Biography list of yours at the moment, and I was doing his entry and just kept finding more stuff to add in. --bainer (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not looking good. VeryVerily 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh

I have edited this article removing the unsubstantiated stuff and adding material from verifiable sources. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent advocacy by user Cameronian

Recently a user went to User:Cameronian for assistance. User:Cameronian rendered a judgement regarding the circumstances. The judgement that User:Cameronian rendered sort of came out of nowhere in the discussion, so I began investigating the manner. Initially User:Cameronian represented himself as a member of the Mediation/Arbitration committee. That assertion wasn't backed up and now I understand he is a member of the Advocay committee. Odd circumstances surround the events. The user who went to him said she found him on the mediation page. He is listed on the Advocacy page, which isn't all that strage - newbie's can get the bits confused. However, the logs show Cameronian was listed on the Advacates page only after he was contacted by the user. This is complicated by Cameronian having changed his name from MikeRoberts, but the change of name was done by a user UninvitedCompany. and it appears that user UninvitedCompany had been reprimanded for his behavior in the past. The concern I have is that the Cameronian login is being used in some illegitimate way in regards to mediation. At the least, Cameronian did not follow the protocols as a User Advocate. Could you look into this? Thanks. Kd4ttc 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I should have made clear that I have recently changed my username, my old username was still on the Advocacy comittee until recently. It is also worth pointing out that changing username is completely legitimate. Cameronian 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I should also make clear, as I have stated far too many times already, my intention was only to give informal mediation. I am happy to proceed to formal mediation if you give me the go-ahead. Cameronian 16:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(I have posted the following to Kd4ttc, just letting you know what has been said) Any member of Wikipedia is entitled to act as a mediator in any case, whether they are a member of a comittee or not. If you look carefully under informal mediation, you will see that anybody is entitled to come in and give an opinion on the matter. I was approached, as far as I was aware, to give this sort of informal mediation, not to act as an advocate. There was no need at the time for a formal mediation or advocacy, as rules and policy had been broken, therefore the changes sarastro made were valid, and the revertions were not. However, due to the events which later transipred, I found it necessary to start a more formal mediation, again, something which any user who has no involvment in the article itself has the right to do. I also considered the reverts to be bordering on vandalism, as I have a qualifications in both biology and medical ethics, and I saw sarastro's edits as useful to people who had the condition or were researching the condition. I hope a satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from this mediation, and that all users will be able to work together to produce a high quality article. This will be my final comment until you (Kd4ttc) recieve a reply from the co-ordinators of the mediation and advocacy comittees. Thank You. Cameronian 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unitypigdog

Ambi, may I ask what is the basis for your belief that User:Unitypigdog is a sockpuppet for previously banned users? Adam 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a matter on which I have no further comment until I receive further advice. Adam 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Image questions

Ambi, two questions: do you have a source for Image:Darylwilliams.jpg? Also, would you mind if I unblocked User:Ambivalenthysteria temporarily? A couple of us are working on a bot-generated list of images by blocked users at User:Catapult/Images, and your images uploaded under that name are showing up there, which is fine but the point is to look for things from problem users (i.e., not you). It will probably take a few weeks, and I'd reblock when it's done. If you're not comfortable having the account unblocked, that's no problem and I quite understand. Thanks on both counts. Chick Bowen 07:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I think I'll just leave the {{nosource}} tag on Williams and let someone else decide about it. I've unblocked your old account, and will leave myself a note to reblock it when the project is done. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 07:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking your name in vain...

...over at Wikipedia: Village pump (policy) under 4.7 (Bobblewik's "Formal request for help"). Seriously I would like to know some substantive arguments in favour of keeping square brackets around each and every occurrence of a year. Or is Bobblewik's offence something else? Stroika 14:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Using rollback

Hi, Ambi. Just thought you should review the policy on using rollback:- Wikipedia:Administrators#Reverting. Essentially it's only for simple vandalism. Regards Rich Farmbrough 20:41 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Hi, I expect you missed my previous note. The guidance in question syas "Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism, not even to reverse a mistake of your own making. Please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary." Regards, Rich Farmbrough 15:25 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, I was trying to WP:AGF. Rich Farmbrough 11:42 27 February 2006 (UTC).

OrphanBot edits

The same with Commonwealth Bank Trophy - it just delinked some images which a) had perfectly justified fair use claims, which no one is denying, and b) also contained a source. What's going on? Ambi 06:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the histories of Commonwealth Bank Trophy, Image:Perthorioleslogo.png, and Image:Qldfirebirdslogo.png makes it completely clear:

• At 00:06, 20 February 2006, User:Mushroom tagged Image:Perthorioleslogo.png as "no source"
• At 00:06, 20 February 2006, User:Mushroom tagged Image:Qldfirebirdslogo.png as "no source".
• At 20:03, 20 February 2006, User:Ambi provided source information for Image:Qldfirebirdslogo.png, but did not remove the "no source" tag.
• At 05:45, 25 February 2006, OrphanBot found Image:Perthorioleslogo.png in Category:Images with unknown source as of 20 February 2006 and removed it from Commonwealth Bank Trophy
• At 05:50, 25 February 2006, OrphanBot found Image:Qldfirebirdslogo.png in Category:Images with unknown source as of 20 February 2006 and removed it from Commonwealth Bank Trophy
• At 05:59, 25 February 2006, User:Mushroom removed the "no source" tag from Image:Qldfirebirdslogo.png
• At 06:01, 25 February 2006, User:Mushroom removed the "no source" tag from Image:Perthorioleslogo.png

--Carnildo 07:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see above: Recent advocacy by user Cameronian

Please see above regarding #Recent advocacy by user Cameronian. Kd4ttc 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Meetup in March

I see that you are listed as a participant in the WikiProject Melbourne. If you are a Melbourne resident I would appreciate your views on the suggested Meetup in March . Please give some indication of your interest, or otherwise, in the idea. Even a simple "No thanks" with your user name would be welcome and assist in assessing the level of support for a meetup. Thank you.. Cuddy Wifter 06:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Am concerned about you reverting what feels like practically every contribution I make to Wikipedia. I am working hard on them, particularly adding information on areas of interest to me. I am - unlike you - not an anonymous editor operating a pseudonym and I suspect you have an interest in the areas you edit that you do not disclose. If true, this is very unfortunate. I would welcome an explanation at your convenience. DarrenRay 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi baby darling...hotcakes? Yeah, too far...

Ambi, honey, it's me, the Good Commander hisself, Commander Cool (this time Part Deux! Twice the fun, twice the action, and twice the...the...duality...)!! Yes, indeed, Ambie, I have not forgotten you during my long sojourn into the OutWorld (known also as, the non-Wiki world). Yes, Beck dear (er...Ambi...), this fine-looking American fellow has one saying he lives by: "Never forget the old when you bring in the new." Yes, my Ambi-dextrous delight, I, in my graceful return to WikiLand return to bless this page with the awe of my presence. Though I return as the pheonix from the flame, I will always remember my old friends and enemies (and Ambies). That's what this US of A born-and-bred fella knows best. I hope you remembered me as I remembered you during my dark departure from the 'Pedia. But, now that I'm twice he adventure, twice the comedic amount, and twice the wordiness (this is longer than I intended), you can be assured that I'm twice the Commander, which can only be a good thing.

Feel free to check out ye olde homepage for me here, if it's not too much to ask, from one old friend to another.

By the way, my main paragraph above is written in chiasmus, or at least my own poor attempt at it. Did you notice?

Oh, and, please try not to delete this little message. The old Commander's heart couldn't take a shock like that. Senor Cool (as the Spanish call me) may just have to depart from Wikipedia for a SECOND time, and the website just wouldn't be able to withstand that.

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship (despite our past differences :-) ). I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 02:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren Ray

He has repetedly reverted University of Melbourne Student Union, Andrew Landeryou, Dean McVeigh and others to POV versions and refuses to compromise in areas, but just blanket reverts. I think he needs to be shown that you can not just repetedly revert against consensus and insert POV. I think he needs a short block to instill this into him. Xtra 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that I am always open to compromise on anything and reject the above smear. I have and will continue to discuss contentious issues on Talk, which only a few seem keen to take up. DarrenRay 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that in an attempt to reduce POV and tidy a bunch of haphazard articles, a number of related articles have been merged into University of Melbourne student services to create a chronology. The McVeigh merge is proving contentious to the litigants in the liquidation as they appear to want a separate soapbox article. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think we need to change name of the University of Melbourne student services article as this is apparently the name of an actual body at the university. I'm keeping away from these articles for a couple of days at least as I have been treated very leniently on WP:3RR and don't intend to push my luck. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio images

What do we do if we discover images that are copyright violations? It's been so long since i last edited in a serious way that i've forgotten how things work. The bellman 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Feliz Cumpleaño

Happy Birthday Rebecca

Ambi, I know that somewhere in this planet it is March 8 and I want to be the first to wish you a Happy Birthday becuase you are one of my best friends here. I wish you the best, may God bless you and your family always! Your friend, Tony the Marine 19:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiresome stuff

Ambi, in relation to our previous exchange, it has been put to me that you are Paula Rizutto. While it is of course your right here not to disclose your identity, it would help me if you either confirmed or denied this. If you are not her, your Canberra IP address should readily demonstrate this. Also, Danby polled 75% of the vote in the Melbourne Ports preselection. You might like to add that to relevant articles. Adam 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate you telephoning me about your edits, particularly the defamatory material you are putting on Wikipedia. My phone number is on my user page. Or if you prefer email. I would like to privately discuss it with you. DarrenRay 07:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would much rather not go to arbitration but I don't see any uncontroversial alternative that isn't going to waste a huge amount of other editors time as they are persistently weakening articles and selectively quoting wikipedia policy while largely ignoring it themselves. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday from a member of the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee! - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Batchelor

I am not going to get involved in editing this article, but it is undeniable that the Nunawading by-election debacle was one of the more important episodes in Batchelor's career. I don't see anything actually wrong in the paragraph you reverted, although obviously it could be more complete and better written. If you don't want people to think you are an SL operator, you shouldn't revert true material from articles about SL politicians. Adam 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if your defence is that you don't know much about Batchelor (and if you don't know that he's in the SL and that the Nunawading by-election was a major disaster both for him and for the Cain government, then you indeed don't know much), I suggest you leave the article alone. Adam 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in the context of the total article the Nunawading paragraph is disproportionate, but that's because the rest of the article is deficient. As you know I no longer edit on currently serving politicians, so someone else will have write a better article. But any article on Batchelor will have to have a major section on Nunawading. Adam 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Ambi

[3]: Is that a threat? You are in violation of WP:CIVIL. It is just as unwise concluding it is vandalism. -- Zondor 05:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the great work.Sebastian Left-Focus 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One Nation Party

An anon is inserting unsourced allegations into this article. I have reverted him/her three times so now I will leave him/her to your tender Admin mercies. (Also the article needs to be renamed. It has never been called One Nation Party. It's official name when it had AEC registration was Pauline Hanson's One Nation.) Adam 12:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

R v Davidson

Thought you might like to know I finished this! I started it ages ago, after you added Clifford Menhennitt, and it's been on my to-finish list ever since. Happy birthday for the other day, by the way! (Consider this article your present from me!) --bainer (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind who you are. I care how you edit

Your edits are remarkably sympathetic to one particular cause. I'm not the only person who thinks so. You are anonymous/pseudonymous so I have no idea where you live and who you really are etc. It's your right to be anonymous but if you continue to edit in such a strongly biased why, it will be natural for questions to be asked. I'd much rather you be honest about who you are, your contributions to Wikipedia show you're very serious about it. So am I. Perhaps we could adopt a friendlier approach in the future. I would like that but in the mean time please don't blindly revert my changes without carefully thinking them through. DarrenRay 04:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sang Nguyen

Your edits about Sang Nguyen are unfair and wrong. Please read article carefully to give fair statements and not defamation. AChan 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sang Nguyen

This whole business of Nguyen being "overlooked" for a Ministry is POV. How do you know he sought one? It's this sort of thing that gives me serious concerns about your edits on political subjects. Let's just leave out the negative language from the article unless its warranted.

He is no more overlooked than backbenchers Carlo Carli, Malcolm Turnbull or Lidia Argondizzo. Not everyone can be a Minister. And not all of them want to be. --2006BC 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There are probably many categories of backbenchers: 1) don't wannabes 2) never gonnabes 3) wannabes and nearly there 4) wannabes but too young 5) wannabes but no factional support 6) wannabe but offended the leader 7) too dumb to notice what they wannabe 8) the whip/Speaker wannabes 9) accidental MP's

Perhaps we could have a color shaded chart and allocate people as we see fit. The serious point is I think it's very difficult in an encyclopedia to make a call. OK, many people would say Sang is in category 7. I would say he's more like category 1 because he is more community leader than policy wonk. How do we know? I have no way of scientifically telling you, I just know. Lidia is probably in category 5 and maybe also 9. The issue goes to us commenting on whether people are duds, ambitious, well supported, not liked etc. And I think it's all a bit too hard that's why I think terms like overlooked are not really worth using because we just don't know or in my case I might know but cannot prove my assertions about why people are backbenchers.

Equally Ministers could be categorised separately: 1) running the state, 2) running the numbers, 3) running scared, 4) running out of time and luck and my favourite group 5) running off at the mouth.

Have a good weekend Ambi, I hope we can one day be pals. --2006BC 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopaedia's job to provide a commentary on who ought or ought not be in the ministry, although other people can be quoted to this effect. By the way I've never seen any suggestion that Sang Nguyen is ministerial material. Adam 09:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking/delinking

While I don't really care one way or the other about this, do you really think that this mass rollback without discussing it first with Bobblewik is the correct way to go. It appears as if you are saying he has vandalised the articles, which I am sure was not his intention. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have read through his talk page a bit more. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother UK series 7

Hi. I wondered why you reverted that changes by Bobblewik on Big Brother UK series 7? The changes (especially unlinking Friday) seemed sensible. (Just out of interest, as I noticed it in my Watchlist.) Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is vary discussion on Bobblewik's talk page... —Whouk (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't overlink - read the MoS

You just reverted MoS edits by somebody. The MoS says: Avoid overlinking dates If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links. {{subst:unsgined2|10:45, 10 March 2006|Jclerman}}

Ambi, you reverted changes I requested Bobblewik do on Guiding Light. Your personal feelings about date linking are spilling over and affecting others. See as Jclerman suggests, and stop going against WP style and guidelines. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Olexander

Ambi, you seem to have had a lot to do with this article. Why is there no reference to his being gay?? See my comment at the article's Talk page. Adam 11:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I will be in Canberra for the sitting week beginning 27 March, and it occurs to me that it might be fun to meet you and other Canberra Wikipedians. If you think so, perhaps we could do dinner on the Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday night. Adam 11:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

trivial chronological links

Dear Ambi

I may be wrong, but do I see that you're busy inserting links for simple years, decades and centuries? Is so, please note that WP's policy is not to link these items.

Aside from the policy, the practice of peppering the text with useless patches of blue is bizarre, to say the least. Tony 11:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think that's patronising, you have a problem. Tony 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal rollback on twin

Hi. Can you explain why this edit: [4] was rolled back using the vandal rollback tool? I don't get it. (To be clear, I've no objection to removing the wikilink - i hate linking years - but I don't understand why it's vandalism). Thanks, Nandesuka 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I trust that Ambi believes, as do I and quite few others, that the rollback button is just an easy way to revert changes and need not be limited to reverting vandalism, except where some additional edit summary is required. I have rolled back this change and a few other pages on my watchlist, and I see that several others have done the same.

However, Ambi, I think your automatic rollbacks are at least as "bad" as (actually, worse than) Bobblewik's delinking. Have you read each of these articles to check whether the delinking makes sense in context? Bobblewik is trying to improve these articles, however misguided you think he is - do you really think that you are improving these article by putting back useless links to years and months? I estimate that you did over 400 edits in about 20 minutes in your rollback spree this morning (that is, around maintaining a rate of around 20 edits/minute - I counted nineteen for 10:29, 10 March 2006 and thirty one for 10:28, 10 March 2006, but I could have missed a few out). This rate is far greater than the rate at which a bot flag is required. Please desist, or ask for bot permission at WP:BOT, or at the very least get some consensus for your mass reversions. - ALoan (Talk) 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy the convenience of the rollback button, too. But using it as a convenience is problematic. I was called out for it some time ago, and the person who called me out for it was right. From Wikipedia:Revert:

Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message 
that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory 
edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it.
If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the 
talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

Hope that helps, Nandesuka 14:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what status that page has, and that passage was only added last October. I do of course take into account the fact that using the rollback button can cause offence (but then reverting with a longer edit summary can cause offence too). I don't recall having any complaints yet. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?

Please stop the mass reverting. I'm finding it hard to continue assuming good faith. You're causing a serious disruption. It's getting out of hand. --Cyde Weys 16:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What was the purpose of your rollback on the Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee article? The edit you reverted certainly wasn't vandalism. Kaldari 19:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you find it ironic that many editors of articles that Bobblewick visits do appreciate his de-linking the indicriminate dates and they restore his contribution (and here, and here, and here). You need to reconsider his edits as both legitimate and educational. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I just used my handy rollback button to rollback some from your recent rollback spree that showed up on my watchlist. Fun, huh? :-)
The changes to Zion National Park included more than just date links, did you even check what you were rolling? The solar variation article included literally dozens of useless year links - some in the future. It seems that your recent editing spree comes close to wiki-stalking, please re-consider what you are doing. Vsmith 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of rollback

This your revert of John Howard [5] used the rollback function on a good-faith edit by an anon editor. Please don't do this, as rollbacks should be used only for vandalism and not for good-faith edits. JSIN 08:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a reason to keep this

Ambi, I've unblocked that user based on the fact that he/she/it has a squillion good contributions, is helping the encyclopedia and isn't in clear violation of any policy. The sock puppetry policy does not explicitly prohibit role-accounts, only says that they are not "officially sanctioned," whatever that means. OK, so I see that he/she/it PROD-tagged something you're interested in, namely Holla Back NYC. Seems to me to be rather an overreaction to issue an indefinite block because you're pissed off over that. FCYTravis 09:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Honorific vandalism

What action would you recommend I take about User:Le baron, who persists in inserting "The Right Honourable" etc into articles (eg, Gordon Samuels, when he knows it is contrary to policy (because I have told him), and does not respond to warnings on his Talk page? I am sick of petty edit wars over stupid fetishes like this. Adam 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And will you unblock me if I follow your advice and am blocked under the 3R rule? Adam 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "No." In that case his vandalism can stand and someone else can deal with it. One of the (many) things that pisses me off about Wikipedia is the lack of support for legit editors when they try to defend articles against cranks. The 3R rule is nothing more than a Crank's Charter. Adam 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Carlo Carli

I do not have a view about Carlo Carli but I know when deletions are making an article bad. Why do this to articles? Improve knowledge not lessen. Don't assume I am interested in your ALP fights I am not I like John Howard. AChan 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't swear at and bully User:AChan. And please read edits before reverting them, all I was doing in the Dreyfus article was linking to the full name of AIJAC, following up a suggestion from another editor. Assume good faith and read before reverting from now on. DarrenRay 09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Ambi, as we've established (for some time) that you are the elected leader of the organization, the AMA would be much obliged if you'd start offering proposals to remake this group — your term is but a mere four-to-eight months. Proposals for change are already up and being debated and it'd be great to hear your input on them, especially the ones regarding membership. The time for reform is now. Wally 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Electoral district of Cheltenham

Who is Clarke? Ambi 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mistake:Should be deLaine. I did a cut and paste from Electoral district of Enfield as the situation of preselection, redistribution, etc in 2002 were completely analogous.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

Why did you remove factual information from the page on Jack Sarfatti?

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony Smith <f75m17h@mindspring.com> Date: March 2, 2006 10:15:23 PM PST To: walrod@mpc.com.br Cc: czarlosromanov@yahoo.com, sarfatti@pacbell.net, woit@math.columbia.edu, f75m17h@mindspring.com Subject: Waldyr's reply

Waldyr, thanks for your reply a copy of the text of which is set out below my signature. There was a large attachment called THEREVIEW.doc that I was not able to read because it crashed the mac translator that I use for .doc windows documents, so I have not included it and I do not know what it said. From context, I guess that it was a sample of math reviews using "very hard words".

I still stand by my previous message but here are a few additional comments based on your reply:

Pertti Lounesto did in fact point out errors and ambiguities in many math works, such as for example the book Spin Geometry by Lawson and Michelsohn, but he did not use such severely personally abusive terms as "self-delusion", etc.

You are also correct that "very hard words" have been used in criticism of math papers in Math. Rev. and Zentr. fur Math., but I consider such "very hard words" to be a very bad characteristic of the math community, and one that is harmful to progress. (For example, consider the difficulty faced by de Branges in getting recognition of his proof of the Bieberback conjecture.)

However, Jack is NOT writing MATH papers. He is writing PHYSICS papers, and in PHYSICS it is the PHYSICAL IDEAS that are important, far more important than correctable math technical misstatements.

The only PHYSICS criticism that I understand in your criticism of Jack's paper is that you say "... that he deduced Einstein's equations from his theory ... is self delusion or Jack is a great joker ...".

I have discussed that part of Jack's model extensively by e-mail, and it seems to me that his path to Einstein's equations is just as physically realistic as the well-known MacDowell-Mansouri path to Einstein's equations. Therefore, in my opinion, your PHYSICS criticism of Jack's paper is invalid.

Of course, Jack's PHYSICS ideas go beyond the MacDowell-Mansouri mechanism in interesting ways that may even allow exploitation of the Dark Energy that constitutes almost 3/4 of the stuff of our universe. Your statement that Dark Energy / Dark Matter "... is simply an hypothesis, and I [Waldyr] am sure it is a very bad one ..." is only an expression of your personal opinion, and therefore is NOT a refutation of Jack's ideas.

It would be a great loss to human culture if math nit-picking "very hard words" impeded the development of physics technologies to control Dark Energy.

Finally, you say "... the 'dozen' ... are important men that ... will not loose the opportunity to ... eventually cause some damage to some of my [Waldyr's] students. This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played since ever. I [Waldyr] am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one. ...".

NO !!! I have practiced law (criminal and civil) for decades here in the USA, and I can say that lawsuits are NOT "games ...[as]... ugly" as the game that you and "the 'dozen' ... important men" are playing against Jack.

In a lawsuit, you have a known adversary and you can ask direct questions and the court can compel the adversary to answer the questions. Here, Jack does not know who are "the 'dozen' ... important men" who are acting against him, and you can (and do) refuse to answer the simple, direct questions: Who are they and what have they said ?

So, please do NOT insult the lawyers of the USA by saying that they are on the same low level as you and the others who are attacking Jack.

If this disgusting episode has one silver lining, it is that it makes clear that lawyers are not the lowest scum of the earth, because it is now clear to me that the math/physics community occupies that exceptional place in human society.

Tony

=========================================================

Status: U From: "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@mpc.com.br> To: "'Tony Smith'" <f75m17h@mindspring.com> Subject: RES: dozen Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:16:24 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mpc.com.br X-ELNK-AV: 0 X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Dear Tony,

The "DOZEN", in fact with their jokes[1] only alerted me that something needed to be done.

I do not consider that my paper is a personal attack against Jack, indeed I consider it as an advertisement of a real friend, and indeed if you read my paper carefully you will find that I wrote: '... In any case, we would like that he be aware that in writing it we found also inspiration in Aristotle [who in his Nicomachean Ethics, book 1,

Chapter 6 said in a similar situation where he could not agree with

the presentations of some of his friends on a given subject that: `...piety requires us to honor truth above our friends'], and also in our (late) friend Pertti Lounesto that enlightened us for many years with his posters on errors and counterexamples to 'theorems´ found in the literature on Clifford algebras.'

Moreover it is quite common for mathematicians to write reviews for Math. Rev. and the Zentr. für Math. denouncing the very bad mathematics of many published papers, and using very hard words. I am sending attached a small sample (read at least the ones written by Dieudonné).

Also, I said to Jack in a previous e-mail: 'Your Mathematics is almost completely wrong, but if your physical ideas are correct, what I doubt, they will be vindicate some of these days, and if this happens I while I am still living I will write a note to my arXiv paper gr-qc/0602111 stating that fact.'

Now, the only physical prediction of Jack's paper is: detectors will not detec dark matter.

Well, a simple explanation for this would be experiment is: dark matter does not exist. And indeed, dark matter and dark energy are 'products' of the supposedly validity of GR for the dynamics of the Universe as a whole. But this is simply an hypothesis, and I am sure it is a very bad one. Indeed, there some more autentic explanations for the phenomena suposedly expalined by the existence of dark matter, as, e..g., the Mond theory (http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue18/Physics_18.htm)

Finally I would like to comment on your stamtent: '2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed, they you will be a hero for protecting the children of the world from "self-delusion" physics.'

I think that with the modern internet the only one that can damage Jack's reputation is himself. This will certainly happen (if it did not already happened) if he continues to write statements like the one that he deduced Einstein's equations from his theory. Or this is self delusion or Jack is a great joker.

Best regards,

Waldyr

[1] As you probably know I wrote in the last few years several very critical articles, explicitly saying that their authors did not know what they are talking about, that they used nonsense mathematics, etc. So, the 'dozen' could not leave in blank the opportunity to say: you forgot your Mathematics, etc. Why did I consider this dangerous? Simply because they are important men that in reality did not like me very much ( I have been hard with some of them also ) and I am sure that they will not loose the opportunity to mislead my contact with Jack and eventually cause some damage to some of my students. This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played since ever. I am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one. ...

---

Mensagem original-----

De: Tony Smith [6]
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 1 de março de 2006 19:50
Para: walrod@mpc.com.br
Cc: f75m17h@mindspring.com; sarfatti@pacbell.net; woit@math.columbia.edu
Assunto: dozen

Waldyr, you say "... I [Waldyr] never said that I was being threatened. ...", and "... I [Waldyr] received dozen of mails >from all around the world asking things like ... If I did not post my notes I would produce real damage to some of my students that are asking for financial support to continue their studies.".

The second quote is obviously a statement of fact that you (and your students) WERE IN FACT BEING THREATENED.

Whether you ever SAID that you were being threatened (that is, the first quote) is irrelevant.

---

You also said "... of course, I am not going to say to you who wrote to me and what exactly those persons said ...".

Do as you feel is best for your interests, but consider:

1 - The "dozen" who in fact threatened you and your students are using you to attack Jack Sarfatti.

2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed, they you will be a hero for protecting the children of the world from "self-delusion" physics.

3 - However, IF THE ATTACK FAILS AND JACK IS VINDICATED BY HISTORY, then YOU will be seen as one who killed Jack with hemlock and History will condemn you as certainly as those who killed Socrates (to protect the children from his ideas) are now condemned, and IF YOU DO NOT NAME THE "DOZEN", THEY WILL GET OFF SCOT FREE, HAVING HIDDEN BEHIND YOUR NAME, AND ALL OF THE "DOZEN" WILL JOIN IN THE CONDEMNATION OF YOU.

You, Waldyr, should act according to your conscience, but I just want to be sure that you take the above factors into account.

If you decide to send me copies of the messages that you received from the "dozen", I would be happy, but the decision is yours.

Tony

PS - For what it is worth, I am familiar with Jack's physics ideas, and with his limitations in math technicalities, and if I were a betting person I would bet that HISTORY WILL VINDICATE THE SUBSTANCE OF JACK'S PHYSICS IDEAS.

Ambi's Reply

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Ambi 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case my apology. From the history of the Jack Sarfatti page it appeared that you removed some factual material that gave the proper context for Waldyr Rodrigues's remarks cited there. For example Rodrigues wrote: "As you probably know I wrote in the last few years several very critical articles, explicitly saying that their authors did not know what they are talking about, that they used nonsense mathematics, etc. So, the 'dozen' could not leave in blank the opportunity to say: you forgot your Mathematics, etc. Why did I consider this dangerous? Simply because they are important men that in reality did not like me very much ( I have been hard with some of them also ) and I am sure that they will not loose the opportunity to mislead my contact with Jack and eventually cause some damage to some of my students. This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played since ever. I am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one."

ID Theft?

So you are not the "Ambi" here 04:13, 15 March 2006 Ambi m (Reverted edits by 71.139.120.94 (talk) to last version by Ambi) The hotlink there is to you. —This unsigned comment is by 71.139.120.94 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-15 15:15:39.

Rugs Galore

I was hoping someone else would notice. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I got this far before backing off because I thought things were settling down. One of them seems to be continuing to be disruptive while the other is starting to make some good contributions over the last week. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it afd. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are deleting a whole article and swear on my User talk page. Your fed up? I am very annoyed by this. I have other things to do, I want to write articles and see you deleting other ones for no reason. Not fair. This goes on too long now. AChan 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have offended Alex all on your own, I suggest you apologise for swearing for a start. He is not impressed. Nor am I. DarrenRay 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have little reason to support deletion of material. You say it is misleading and then give your opinion. Your opinion is your opinion. I am very fair minded but you are behaving like a bully and I say no. AChan 03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Help Please

I invited one of your advocates, Metta Bubble, to mediate a dispute on Upper Canada College. I keep asking, with various quotes, and a detailed rationale, if there are any exceptions to the Verifiability policy. The reason I ask is because the editors on this article keep refusing to apply Verifiability to a clear majority of the statements.

I was shocked when Metta Bubble, whose previous commentary to me was pleasant, out of the blue calls me a dick with no prior warning. Please help or point me in the right direction. As a noob, this behavior is really shocking to me. Perhaps they would be happier being editors at Wikinfo where the content policies are far more lax.

When I expressed outrage at Metta Bubble's complete failure to mediate, and encourage a civil discussion, his response is to make a flip statement ("Shame really.") and then give me a formal warning. Huh?????!!!

Please find below my passionate but well reasoned and well sourced argument below. All I keep getting from the editors is that I am a troll, a dick and should be banned....

First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
• This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
• If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:

• You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

68.50.242.120 06:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I also added this, which provides more context:

You know:

• I was the one who caught the weasel words used by Gbambino in the Ethnicity section and got them excised thanks to Ground Zero
• I was the one who identified the Motek Sherman incident which was ultimately used and verified in the Ethnicity section
• I was the one who pointed out that Cookie Monster was not the school mascot and succeeded in convincing Gbambino to take it out
• I was the one who came up with the idea of even having a separate section on Ethnicity
• I was the one who forced this Gbambino to source EACH and EVERY statement in the Ethnicity section... now it has real substantive heft
• I was the one who forced Ground Zero and others to take a careful look at the syntax of the Ethnicity section to ensure a Neutral Point of View

Before I came along, this is what UCC had to say about Ethnicity:

(under the "Today" section}

Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student appeared in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840. Today, students from about 18 countries attend UCC, and comprise a substantial quantity of students in each of the offered years.

--> OMG, the bias in this previous version is sickening to me personally. It totally lacks any sourcing. The data is cherry picked to present one fringe radical view on ethnicity at UCC. Ugh.

This is what the new Ethnicity section says now: Ethnicity

UCC began admitting ethnic minority students early in its history. The first black student enrolled in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840; some graduates from the Ojibway peoples of Upper Canada going on to study at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. [10]

Diplomat James George, a student between 1926 and 1936, said upon reflection about his time with other UCC graduates in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs: "If UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASP patriots, why did it produce so many internationalists?" [11]

UCC has maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [12] Some students recall experiencing anti-Semitism; Graham Fraser, the Globe and Mail Washington Bureau Chief, who attended UCC between 1960 and 1964, recalled: "Anti-Semitism was generally an unspoken undercurrent at UCC, but a couple of times I witnessed overt anti-Semitism.... Before 1960, Toronto was a pretty narrow, close-minded, little Victorian town and Upper Canada College reflected that reality." [13]

Foermer Prep School Headmaster Richard Howard said in his book Upper Canada College, 1929-1979: Colborne's Legacy, published in 1979: "The growth of the enrolment has increased the number of boys from a wide variety of backgrounds and decreased the ratio of those from old Toronto families. The address list now reflects Toronto's ethnic variety and resembles a small United Nations." [14]

Motek Sherman, the editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1990, wrote an editorial stating that while UCC was no longer "a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal.... In my years at UCC I have faced anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy." [15]

In 2002, student Adam Sheikh created the Diversity Council to celebrate the cultural diversity of the school's student population. This council, a body of students independent from the school administration, organizes celebrations of Chinese, Jewish, Christian and Ukranian cultures. [16]

Today, students from about 18 countries attend UCC. The international students typically come from among the wealthiest families in the countries of their origin.

--> Wow, what a change! It's balanced. It's neutral. It's verified. Sweet!

In addition, as a noob, I have learned about and USED to argue my point in a researched and logical fashion:NPOV, Notability (even correcting GBambino about the notability standards for music), personal attacks, assume good faith, verifiability, Wikinfo and no original research.

You guys should be thanking me for making this article so much better than it was before. Not harrassing me, calling me a dick, making flip remarks, giving me formal warnings, insulting me as a troll and trying to ban me. What's wrong with you people? Honestly, seriously, no joke. 66.208.54.226 12:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This anon is one of six suspected sockpuppets being investigated for disruptiveness, including WormwoodJagger (talk · contribs), Blunders of the third kind (talk · contribs) and IP's 66.208.54.226 (talk · contribs), 68.50.242.120 (talk · contribs), 70.52.222.76 (talk · contribs), 38.112.100.158 (talk · contribs). Apologies for the spill over. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

68 and 66 are the same person (me), just logging in work and home. 38 eventually registered and became blunders (not me). 70 eventually registered and became wormwood (again, not me). go ahead and fully "investigate" the sock puppet issue. it's a red herring to distract from my legitimate complaint about metta's behavior as an "advocate" who likes to call his client a dick.

Ambi, please help and weigh in on metta's inappropriate behavior and out of the blue attack on my character and constant refusal to address (never mind advocate) my legitimate concerns. and if you think my articulated position as noted above is not elegant enough, look at what blunders wrote which i think very robustly advocates my position in a civil and constructive manner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College/Archive_2#Is_anybody_actually_looking_at_the_article.3F

starting at "Let's Step Back and Clearly Identify the Issues". 66.208.54.226 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that a supposed "user advocate" would label me a "sock puppet" when an administrator (Ground Zero) who was involved in a lengthy dispute on the UCC talk page expressly stated that he or she didn't believe me to be a sock puppet or troll. What User 66 says above about my registration is completely true and I would encourage Metta Bubble to pursue any investigation he or she deems appropriate. I do not feel that it is at all fitting that Metta Bubble continue to hold him or herself out as a "user advocate" and I intend to take whatever steps are necessary to remedy this situation. For the record, Metta Bubble, posting the kind of comments that you did above is liable to get you labelled a *dick*.Blunders of the third kind 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rugs Galore AfD

You entered only the text "Delete. Ambi 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)" for Rugs Galore. As an AfD is a discussion and not a vote, could you clarify this position? The company is well known in Victoria and has been the subject of media reporting. -- Synapse 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Names of politicians

The Wikipedia policy on names makes sense, but I don't have sources on the information required to enter the most commonly used names. When I see a name that's different, and it doesn't have an existing page or sources, I can't be sure if it is correct. I still think it is proper to temporarily use the officially recorded name until someone writes an article about the politician or until someone can provide sources indicating the most commonly used name.

-- Newhoggy | Talk 08:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

AMA

I am relatively new to Wikipedia (only a few months) but have recently found myself involved in a debate in which I have no vested interest purely in the interests of the upholding of policy (see [7], [8], and [Deletion_review#Innatheism]), and this is why I thought I might be well-suited to advocacy. I am only a secondary school student, but I have a strong interest in Law. I wondered, therefore, if I might be able to "shadow" an advocate for a while (where this is compatible with client confidentiality, of course) to see whether I would be suitable for advocacy. --David.Mestel 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) btw, I wrote the Roman Litigation article --David.Mestel 21:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert in Gay rights in Australia

Hi Ambi,

In your revert [9] of Gay rights in Australia, you reverted all of the changes made in the previous edit, not just about blood donation in Tasmania. I've fixed it so that only the blood donation stuff gets changed (I changed it to "several states" as I don't know if the procedure is the same throughout Australia). Thanks, Andjam 03:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't just reverted blood banking stuff, but also other stuff, with you reinserting that the Greens have "progressivve [sic]" policies and the like. Andjam 03:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

ACOTF

You voted for Rum Rebellion. It has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration. Please help to improve the article. Thanks. Scott Davis ^Talk 12:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote for the Signpost

Mind giving me a flashy sounding quote or two for tomorrow's issue? Just basically whether you had been thinking about this for a while, when ArbCom contacted you about this, etc. Thanks. Ral315 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding checkuser...I'm just looking for your thoughts on the position in general, and anything else you want to say about it. Ral315 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(To Ral315) (cc to Essjay, Ambi) Oops, I'd already mentioned the CheckUsers in News and Notes. Feel free to remove it and write a longer piece, or incorporate anything you have into it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Congrats, Ambi! You're one of the most trustworthy people out there! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser Assistance

Hello, I feel I need some assistance. A user placed my userid in for a CheckUser here Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#PoolGuy_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_GoldToeMarionette_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. I am not a very advanced user of Wikipedia, however after reading the green box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser there appears to be no reason for User:Jayjg to complete the investigation.

I am not sure if I have any Wikipedia Rights, however I feel as if they have been violated. I could understand if I had been acting to violate Wikipedia Policy, however I have not been, contrary to whatever the user who filed for the CheckUser wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would review this and comment back to me. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand being new. I was just hoping for a reasoned opinion. I appreciate the comment back. Good luck with the new status. GoldToeMarionette 04:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers ambi :-) Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

If it is you who is keeping the update on the commonwealth games on the front page of Wikipedia, I would like to express my annoyance that it is only covering Australia's successes in the games. I understand that Australia is winning most of the medals, but please remember that there are other countries participating in these games. I never saw New Zealand's name on the page when they won gold in the rugby sevens, yet the 20km walk winners do? Please stop being so biased 203.211.69.161 08:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Other countries? There are other countries at the Commonwealth Games? I've been following the coverage very closely and I've seen no evidence of other countries. Who let them in? Adam 07:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Weren't they supposed to be locked up at Woomera to ensure that Australia would win all the golds? Whoops, that was the plan for Smiggin Holes 2010. Andjam 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

More on gay rights in Australia

Please try to be more civil. The implications in What is your problem with this issue? [10] is unhelpful. Thanks, Andjam 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Xenophon

Thanks. I'm trying to find more information (and specific sources), but there's nothing in the way of literature (well, for now at least) and I can't get onto Factiva! Good luck with the effort regardless. I'd be happy to help if I can.--cj | talk 07:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think my uni's subscription only allows one person access to it at a time, and I'm unfortunately not that person at the moment.--cj | talk 07:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Image

Hey Ambi, I assume your an administrator, so could you please delete this image that I uploaded by accdient Here. I forgot to colour part of the boundary and have since added a new corrected image. Kyle sb 12:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A. O. Neville

I don't know who you are or why you think you can simply edit away the additions I recently made to the page about A. O. Neville. I am studying the man in a University course at the University of Melbourne and would not have made additions that I did not think had verifiable sources. I find it very aggravating and somewhat paternalistic that you think you should be the person to delete my additions simply because you think the conclusions are not supported by evidence. I am quoting Neville's own speeches, easily found in archival research, and he indeed did write Australia's Colored Minority, and yes, it DOES call for the gradual mixing of the races so that aboriginals will disappear. I suggest you do a bit more of your own research before making rash decisions about topics you clearly do not know much about.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Ambi, could I ask that you don't revert the edits Quadell has made? I believe he has agreed not to do any more for a day or so, and people are trying to hash out some sort of compromise on the MoS talk page. It would be good if there could be a laying down of arms so that feelings aren't running so high. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ambi. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Grace Portolesi

Would you be able to provide references for this particular article please? michael ^talk 09:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles are obliged to contain references regardless, but I am most concerned as to whether a number of statements are completely true to Grace's views or simply slanted to agree more with the author's perspective. Another editor has already (and appropriately) added the unreferenced tag again. michael ^talk 11:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rude condescending replies aside, you are obligated to provide references (as explained in wikipedia policy here and here) otherwise 'any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor'. Explicity, I am referring to the explanation of Grace's views in the last paragraph - but the entire article requires references regardless. michael ^talk 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I look forward to seeing the references tomorrow. michael ^talk 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While it is good that you did so, you only addressed one paragraph. I hope the rest will be completed. michael ^talk 11:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing, I'm just living in hope that the rest will be added in time so a less reasonable editor doesn't just go straight out and do what is allowed under policy. michael ^talk 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot speed

I will slow it down for the time being - but you must have a huge watchlist, I have over 1000 and only three SB edits on it. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 11:23 25 March 2006 (UTC).

You may wish to vote for this bug. Rich Farmbrough 21:17 25 March 2006 (UTC).

Grace Portolesi

I am mildly sorry you are offended, but I do not see why. I did not say she wrote it herself. And it still looks like a puffy piece to me. It contains next to nothing about her views, if any, and remains utterly unsourced. The fact that you find her notable is not, I would think, reason why everyone else would. How about we compromise and add something about the Labor Party's increasing domination by middle class former student politicians with no experience outside politics? Not a law student at Flinders by any chance? Lao Wai 11:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

your obsession with trivial, nuisance chronological links

I'd love to know why. Have you nothing better to do? Tony 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony, be aware of the great dangers of assuming Bad Faith on the part of Cabal members. :-)

Seriously, I would strongly advise you to tone down your language. We're merely an encyclopædia - nothing is life-and-death, nothing needs to be decided immediately, and nothing requres or even is suitable for such antagonistic comments and edit summaries.

James F. (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Quadell. I think an apology there would be nice. Maybe essential rather than nice. Vsmith 15:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, you are not convincing anyone with this revert war. You need to be part of the solution not part of the problem. David D. (Talk) 22:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, to respond to your comment on my talk page, no one does criticise me for wanting to remove trivial year links that have nothing to do with the auto-formatting function. I don't delink en masse, in any case, as you appeared to assume.

All I wanted to know was: why are you so fervent about these links? You haven't once explained why; I was hoping for a list of reasons. It's a mystery to me that a writer as good as you (going by your FAC a while ago, which was excellent) would take the stance that you have. Tony 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)