User talk:Didactik

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Didactik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Satu Suro 00:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cute name. Will Beback talk 13:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nundah

It looks like I am not the one that has been doing the sloppy research, if you'd looked carefully, you'd have seen that I haven't actually edited the article since July 2008. Never get the truth get in the way of a good story, I suppose? I'm not going to dignify the rest of your accusations with a response, save to say that I'm confident that my actions have been within the policies of this website, and invite you to bring my actions up for review at a venue of your choosing if you disagree. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Always read carefully before you write, Lanky. Obviously, I was not talking about the current version of the Nundah page. In May 2007, you were happy for 1) an electoral office and 2) Woolworths supermarket to be Nundah's "main attractions"[1]. I rest my case. And while I have not accused you personally of sloppy research, do brush up on your Nundah history.

cheers Didactik (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In what wiki forum can I review your actions?

P.P.S. What accusations? Are you referring to one citing of Mr Swan on the Gordon Nuttall wiki page?

Talk:Eucalyptus

Please do not restore spam threads, and please do not accuse me of "political soapboxing" simply because I remove spam and other unconstructive vandalisms from talk pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I mis-identified the spammer and did not check the current state of the page. Keep up your good work. Didactik (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given as how my (ex) lawyer is currently serving 40 to 90 years in federal prison for "legal wicked witchery," I graciously accept your apologies.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuttall

Note for future - I have my own talk page bookmarked, but not any number of other ones, so it's much more productive if you spot an error to alert me to it directly. Issue is now fixed.

Very simple explanation for what happened - partly due to the way my mind works and partly due to an eyesight problem, I don't tend to write in a linear fashion. It's more like a set of seeds and hooks that get expanded and rotated iteratively until I'm happy with it. It usually results in smooth, well-thought-out prose which flows and has gotten me featured articles here, HD essays at uni and kudos on my report writing in various workplaces. But occasionally, the unintended result is "overhang" - i.e. where part of a previous draft or the original is left in accidentally after work is complete, and because the paragraph doesn't "jolt" on review, it doesn't get picked up. Normally I do pick this up after I've pressed "submit" - you'll often see a major edit from me followed by a series of corrections labelled "+" mostly fixing continuity issues, minor omissions or overhangs. But sometimes I miss it and this is one of those occasions - so I appreciate you highlighting it, although more good faith (I don't even drink coffee!) and posting somewhere I'd generally be expected to notice it would help. Orderinchaos 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simpler explanation of what is happening.

The chroniclers of great Labor men were happy with the following previous version of the Nuttall page.

"Despite this, he is an enormously popular politician within his own electorate, and he is not expected to be voted out at the next election." (Revision as of 05:40, 25 April 2005)

Succinct, but unverifiable and not neutral.

They then go ballistic when a truer picture of a corrupt politican is documented. Apparently, the page has become a "cesspool". Corrupt politicians tend to do that, i.e. generate a fecal smell. Note for future - there is much more Nuttall news to come.

I presume you will also find these comments "by accident". You appear to own this page. Since you are so keen on developing your writing style, I will give you a writing tip. Be authentic.

I do not accept that this is on-going cyber-bullying is in good faith.

Didactik (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the entire point. We have an entire policy called Biographies of living persons designed to protect living persons, whatever their political colour, from harm at the hands of a top 5 website. If something is widely published in reliable sources, then people could find out by another route whatever the facts may be, and then we can publish them in a responsible, non-sensationalist fashion. Anything not in reliable sources has to be omitted / removed. This included the line you highlighted at my talk page about the Deputy Premiership - no reliable source I can find (AJPH, AJPS, Factiva) suggests that such took place, and our standard is verifiability, not truth. (There are very good legal reasons why this is so.) We are also prevented from what you label "authenticity" by our original research policy. The line you quoted above from 2005 violates pretty much every policy we have, and certainly if I or any admin I'm aware of were to see it, it would get removed pretty quickly.

As for your accusations of bias, I find them amusing - my only bias, if one could call it that, is to see Australian politics articles look as professional as possible so as to create a useful resource for those who follow, and while I have my strong political views offline, I don't believe that either hagiography or vilification on here serves my, or anyone else's purposes - the former leaves readers thinking "if it's too good to be true, it probably is", while the latter tends to inspire "one can only be so wrong". Even someone the likes of David Koresh or Charles Manson deserves a neutral, detached article that informs rather than harangues readers. Oh, and I'm not a fan of Nuttall - I'm from the same state as Brian Burke and have read the full WA Inc and Fitzgerald Inquiry reports at various times, and I have very little time for those who abuse their position in such a fashion. Orderinchaos 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of cobblers.

The Charles Manson page provides a good example of where you are so wrong.

"Manson's mother was allegedly a heavy drinker."

"According to a family member, she once sold her son for a pitcher of beer to a childless waitress, from whom his uncle retrieved him some days later."

So what? Why is this anonymous woman's alcoholism noteworthy? Because this is important background for the murders that followed. Likewise, Nuttall's delusional power-madness and his nefarious activities (his "laundry list") in his own electorate puts the corrupt activities for which he was prosecuted in context.

Regarding the Australasian Jockeys and Pigeon Handlers, I find their meetings unsanitary and do not subscribe to their rag. Doesn't BLP apply for the majority of Australian journalists who work for the major newspapers? It is important to note that Anna Bligh confirmed a coup was planned and said: "I didn't see it as any serious proposition that would have received any support from my colleagues and it didn't receive any support from myself". That's straight from the Premier's mouth. Not good enough for you? Totally verifiable.

I am impressed how you accidentally keep finding my comments. Buy a lottery ticket. Didactik (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casuarinaceae

Hi, although in my personal opinion your use of 'sexist' is correct, it is a subjective view, not factual information and belongs on the talk/discussion pages of wikipedia.

17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaawol (talk • contribs)