User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 02

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the current talk page.

Archive : February 2008

Rosanna virgin atlantic

Rosanna is the only virgin galactic outlet for victoria if you read the list. I thought it was quite funny that the only place you can book a virgin galactic flight in all of victoria was little suburb of rosanna. Maybe it wasn't as interesting as I thought.CRACKERLACKEN —Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Had to start a new talk page as the old one had 2000+ edits since March 2006 and caused something of a problem when I deleted a few edits from it. For anyone looking in the future for edit history for this page, it is now at User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 01. If you had an active conversation with me and wish to bring it back from that archive, feel free. Orderinchaos 14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

I appreciate the goodwishes oic. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider

[1]--Filll (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Laming

Would you mind having your 2c worth on this article's talk page? Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the other two? :) Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jurien

Jurien_Bay,_Western_Australia#Politics looks unwell. Can you have a look please. —Moondyne 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more

As I run through the pathetic articles about the localities on the eyre highway I keep coming across the expression locality x is nothing more than a roadhouse, in every case that I find that I see red - I do hope it wasnt you - otherwise I am going to put laughing gas in the next drink that I shout you in the future sometime :) Satu Suro 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus

I find it disheartening that you unblocked Eusebeus without discussion. The discussion that you cite on the List of Scrubs episodes talkpage contains a ling discussion. After reading that discussion, it was clear that there was no consensus and that a ceasefire (normally, I know WP isn't a battleground,) had occured. After about two weeks of no discussion, Eusebeus reverts with no explanation of his actions on the talk page, and an edit summary consisting of "rv"; not very helpful. On the list of scrubs episodes talk page I found this soundbite: As per above there is no consensus for these latest redirections by Eusebeus. Given the contentiousness nature of this whole topic, I really don't think Eusebeus has a leg to stand on. Woody (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We block to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, as is the case in 3RR blocks etc. It was clear to me that Eusebeus was disrupting Wikipedia, but obviously not to you. Woody (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will try not to misinterpret your comments as veiled threats.~~ I watch AN and ANI and I am aware of the significant controversy surrounding those unblocks. I am not here to debate the intricacies of the blocking policy with you. What I will say is "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." I believe that the block was valid and justified. I think it is an extremely poor argument that sullying someones block log is valid reasoning against blocking. We lose editors for a variety of reasons. I think Eusebeus has not learned anything from this experience and the polarised debate regarding FICTION will continue ad infinitum. To be honest, I think this discussion has reached its end, not least because I am retiring to my quarters. We disagree over this, that is the wonder of Wikipedia, the plethora of indiviual opinions. Woody (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The time here inhibits my sense of Good Faith, and I apologise for that. After re-reading them, it was clear that you weren't implying anything, simply my overactive, yet tired imagination. This discussion has been helpful in way, though it will be lost in the quagmire of heated opinions that is this whole debate. That is why I stick to Milhist and Footy, fairly sensible and calm areas in comparison. (I really am going now ;) Woody (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premature closing of an outstanding ANI case: Coloane community ban discussion

Hi, u tried to wrap up the abovementioned on Jan 28 but no follow-up action was shown until it was prematurely archived by User:MiszaBot_II on Jan 31 before any final resolution was made. In the interest of accountability, cld u give all parties concerned a safisfactory settlement of this case? If not, this whole case like the previous 2 ANI episodes that were brought up & subsequently frizzled off, is not only a waste of precious time, but may also reflect badly on ANI (& the admins involved) in terms of judgement & fairness deemed by all the affected WikiProject groups seeking final closure on this long-drawn case. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for your reply earlier. Yes, I was refering to the closing formality that was not follow-up subsequently with a appropriate warning tag (incl. a record link & its topic ban clauses) as per Alice's proposal. The affected WikiProject groups & myself hope that a closing formality not only serves as a final sign for everyone to move on, but also help to dispel the sense of hopelessness & the hyperbole of negativity felt by the community which this disrupter has caused over the past few months. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus was a ban till June 2008. Without placing a time limit on the ban it is effectively extended, though it might not be your intention. It's like putting someone in jail and saying, "I'm not saying how long the sentence is, but if you behave we'll surely let you out one day." In any case, I'm worried that your credibility will be undermined as this is clearly not what the consensus says. Thank you for your attention. Josuechan (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, maybe it's a good idea to "avoid a situation where it can simply be 'waited out.'" Maybe it is not. In any case, that is your opinion, and if you feel strongly about it you should have raised it in the discussion. My point is that the consensus is not a ban without a time limit. Alice suggested a period of 9 months, someone else said one year, and I said 1 month. We spent some time discussing that and most people, including Alice, agreed a 4-month ban. I sincerely hope that you respect the discussion. Even if there's no consensus on the duration of the ban (from 1 month to a year), it's certainly not a ban without a time limit. Thank you for your time. Josuechan (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josuechan, just leave it. Don't talk to them or you are just wasting your invaluable time. There is no credibility and justice here. I just get used to it. The thing you can do is switch to Knol. I am a member and own many articles there. If you like to try I can invite you personally or you can take part later. The ending date of beta experiement of Knol is most likely the ending date of their works over here, believe me or not! Take care!! :) Coloane (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

Hi. I'd like your input on a situation which I think you've had some experience with. It involves Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs), who is apparently a fairly open alternate account of Lwachowski (talk · contribs). The Lucy account was recently involved in an edit war across several articles with Nealparr (talk · contribs), for which both participants were blocked. I was reviewing this since I'm somewhat familiar with Neal and know him to be a good editor generally dedicated to building consensus. I had not encountered Lucy or any of her other accounts previously.

When I realzed that Lucy is apparently an alternate account of a user who is indefinitely blocked (and has had a nunber of sock accounts blocked as well), my instinct was to indefinitely block Lucyintheskywithdada as a block-evading sockpuppet creating independent disruption by edit-warring. However, on looking deeper I see that there is at least some indication that some of her blocks are username blocks, while other accounts of hers have been allegedly independently disruptive. I'm not clear on whether her editing here is above-board or not, so I wanted to get your input since I see you've been involved, before I do anything.

I'll be honest, my instinct is that an editor with numerous accounts, all of which are blocked, and ongoing edit-warring probably ought to be treated more harshly than a contributor with an otherwise clean record who made the mistake of getting involved in an edit war with her. But again, I wanted to get your input on the legitimacy of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) before I do anything. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy

You are free to unblock if it will help you resolve any problems, but please do remind this user that she is on borrowed time, since her editing is problematic in so many ways. I will never have a problem with an unblock if another trustworthy soul is going to be watching the account in question and sincerely believes that some good may come of it. I do appreciate your commenitng and not just unblocking, that is a courtesy which seems to be in decline. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 09:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy is continuing to insult User:Nealparr [2]. Perhaps another message would help. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Whee...

Thanks for the barnstar. I see you have similar issues with the whole Geographical coordinates discussion. I don't know if some people understand that simply repeating the same thing again and again doesn't make their point of view any more persuasive. Also, unilateral imposition of one's point of view and calling that "consensus" doesn't make it so. As Wikipedia becomes larger, getting consensus will become more time consuming, but without it a project with such a decentralised power structure as Wikipedia can't work. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread

I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

federal federal, states general

Can you get OIC2 to start renaming general to state, federal has been fixed for ages. Thanks if you can. Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Regarding the AN/I you commented the defense is here.[3] FT2 decision after review is here.[4] Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for your insight. I appreciate your comments. I guess I need a coach because I keep shooting myself in the foot, according to some comments. I've read the page but I am too close to the situation to see it objectively. Do you know where I could get help? Someone who could help point out where I am wikilawyering? Anthon01 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Glen Huntly Change

No dramas. My misspelling in the last edit made me laugh and I thought it may have been construed as vandalism. Cheers Citizen D (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be left with you?

[5]. While I don't agree with the IP's recommendations, TS' reasoning is bizarre and it's leading him to give a good nibble at a newbie. Shot info (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What preytell is bizarre? Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

roxbo and duggy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.

per my talk page, can you please warn them. Duggy is a repeat offender aswell if you look at the history on my talk page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not duggy again :| I remember having to slap him one when I was at a net cafe in Cooma, of all places. Orderinchaos 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still upset about being wrong on the Election-Talk-Page as Discussion-Forum-Issue? Your bias on this matter appears again and again in these matters.

I'm sorry for recommending to another editor not to revert Timeshift's talk page... I promise never to help Timeshift again.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Let's hope you keep to that committment. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promise never to help you again and I will keep to that committment.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, OrderInChaos, by "having to slap him[me] around" do you mean the time you had my account blocked not to stop my reverting (which had stopped days earlier) but to punish me for disagreeing with you on whether breaching the rules was OK or not, or do you mean pointing out to me that the letter of user-talk-page policy should be followed not the spirit?

Either way "slapping... around" doesn't sound like appropiate behaviour, but it does sound exactly like your style.

Another point to clear up: Are you saying I'm no longer allowed to edit political articles anymore. I know I don't do it often, but to be unable to upsets me a little.

Also which three times have I "ended up fighting" with Timeshift? I only remember two... I certainly don't remember fighting with him since the last time this came up.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Slap him *one*", not "slap him around". Different terms, different meanings. 2. "My style"? I find that somewhat offensive, especially given the amount of work I put into helping to resolve disputes. 3. 23 November, 10 December, today. Orderinchaos 11:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slap you around as a figure of speech. No he did not say on your talk page that you can't edit certain articles. As for the third point, two or three, get over it and stay OFF my talk page lest you be indefinately blocked. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a figure of speech denoting teaching someone a lesson with mild violence. Figuratively it suggests something a lot more than I think he should be doing on wikipedia.

He didn't say that I couldn't edit certain articles, but he implied it heavily. He seems to like to threaten and imply things, so I was after a clarification. I don't think that either one of you is a sock puppet for the other, so I'd like that from him, not from you.

He's threatening me with blocking based on something that happened months ago, or something that didn't happen today? That's a lot to "get over"

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you about something you did 47 minutes ago, actually. Orderinchaos 11:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian since, well, 9 months before I was born, I know a fair bit of Australian slang and I wouldn't say that "slap somebody one" was "to tell someone in a direct manner that what they are doing is wrong". It's more than that. Telling someone directly is one thing, slapping them around implies mild violence... hitting them gently to prove you can bet them in a fight so you don't have to hit them hard later.

There was no edit war, to the best of my knowledge, today. I made one edit to address RObOx (or whatever). I certainly didn't re-edit it once that occured.

You seem to think that editing=an interest in the subject or the only reason you'd visit them or thier discussion pages. I like the politics pages. I visit them, I'm interested in the discussion behind the scenes... but I'm not really an expert so I can't really make many changes. That doesn't mean if a merge or deletion or other discussion occurs I don't have an opinion. This doesn't only apply to Politics pages, but to many others. Comics/TV/movies is where I have a little more knowledge and so are able to edit more often... but that's not the only place I visit.

You are seeing a pattern of behaviour based edits I make, not everything I do. So you say I "should pay less attention to someone who doesn't edit in areas that [I] edit in." But even though I don't edit, I visit, and when I visit I see things happen. How many edits need I make in a specific area before I pay attention? How are these areas defined? If I make more edits in the Australian Politic area am I allowed to pay attention to behaviour in the American Politics area (I know, I'm just following the stuff that's on the news, but it's more interesting ATM, IMHO) or am I only allowed to notice Australian stuff. Does editting Australian Politics stuff allow me to notice behaviour on other Australian articles or not? If most of my movie edits are comic-book-films related am I allowed to notice behaviour on non-comic-book-film articles?

I'm sorry, but I really need clarification on what you're saying I am and am not allowed to do.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that, too you, is an edit war?

And what personal attacks?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You restored content which he had removed from his talk page, when you had not been involved in any way in the previous dealings. I'm not even going to humour the second question with a response - judging from the random unsolicited "lulz" I'm getting offline from those who occasionally check by here, I have better things to do than state the obvious. I'm going to add a request to this to stay off *my* talk page as well. Orderinchaos 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a bit like that, doesn't it... Timeshift (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're implying it...

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop annoying me. Orderinchaos 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to annoy you. You're telling me how I should and shouldn't behave, I'm trying be clear on this. I've been blocked once in the time I've been here and and you were the one who called for it to happen. You're telling me that you're going to call for it to happen again if I don't behave a certain way, and I want to be real clear on the specifics.

I didn't want you to be involved in this, but you are. Sorry.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I posted this before, but it got lost in an edit conflict, I think. I don't care where, how or in what manner you edit, on two conditions - that you do not harass or stalk contributors, and you do not personally attack contributors. Wikipedia has low tolerance for both kinds of behaviour. Orderinchaos 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'd don't feel I did either.

I don't see what I did as an edit war with Timeshift. You claim it is. You see it as harrasment, but you only see where I edit not where I visit.

I don't think I personally attacked you, but if you have specific claims, I'd be willing to address those.

I do feel a little harrased by you, as you made a comment on my page but nothing on RObOx's. This comes after you getting me block, not to stop reversions which had stopped but to punish for stopping your conversation and you jumping into the December stuff when others not (how do you put it) "involved" were dealing with it.

Because I'm not seeing the behaviour you're see I need your guidence on this matter.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see it as harrasment, but you only see where I edit not where I visit. What does the former have to do with the latter? Timeshift (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, Roxbo was already being handled by another admin, therefore there was no need for me to handle that side of things. As someone aware of your past behaviour towards Timeshift, I was approached by Timeshift and following that reviewed the situation. I could see that in a dispute in which you had no prior involvement, you reverted a removal of content on Timeshift's page which he and an admin had both removed. Furthermore, you suddenly found this dispute 2 hours and 44 minutes after it had commenced. On 14 December (I said 10th before, I've since checked), 2 hours and 36 minutes after a dispute he had with another user was pretty much resolved, you dropped a random insult on his page. He reverted it, and you reverted it with a plainly trollish edit summary, adding more content each time: ([6] You must have accidently deleted these comments. I'm happy to return them for you, [7] I wish I was here to make you happy, but I'm not.). You subsequently edit warred on his talk page for 45 minutes, making 9 edits in that time. The user he'd been having a dispute with previously reverted your comments, and your response was to post them on your talk page in a section entitled "STUFF DELETED FROM TIMESHIFT'S TALK PAGE". This goes beyond any sane or rational response to a past dispute over a single issue with a user. If you keep acting in this strange manner towards him, you will be stopped from doing so by the Wikipedia community. That is not a threat, as it's not something I can do. I'm just saying based on 2 years here and watching how others who do this sort of thing get handled. Orderinchaos 12:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your precise timing means. 2:44min after something happened. 2:36 after something finished. I really don't get it.

And now you bring up stuff from last time, including stuff you pointed out but another administrator said was fine. This you were told at the time, but in this little incident you've bought it up at least twice? Why? It is really to protect timeshift, or is it because it shows the mistakes you made at the time? You certainly got very defensive about it then anc have trouble letting it go now.

Yes, you are "someone aware of your past behaviour towards Timeshift" because you were involved as well. After the edit war I started was resolved you reverted again 18 hours after the war was over. You were wrong. The final result said so. I was wrong starting an edit war, but you and Timeshift blantantly breached policy repeatly, too. You know you were wrong and the guilt has lead you to jump on me any time you had an excuse, and Timeshift offered you another chance.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy. Walking past a person's house a couple of times each day can be seen as harrasment. Walking from your house to and from the bus stop each day past the same house isn't.

Waiting around for you to do something to jump on it could be seen as harrasment. Stumbling upon you doing something that seems to need to be noted isn't. Especially when I was telling someone not to do the very thing I got in trouble for last time.

Perspective is very important in these things.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up that you know exactly what you're doing. Orderinchaos 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I stumbled upon this, I wasn't looking for it. I sense you're trying to make something sinister of that. Proof of something, so when you need to use something against me later you can say "Ah-a, on the 5 Feb he admitted he was..." something. I'm just not seeing what.

I'm sure I'll piss off Timeshift at some later point and I'll find out exactly what you're rubbing your hands together about now.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbling upon you doing something that seems to need to be noted isn't. Wrong again. Maybe one day you'll understand Wikipedia policies... Timeshift (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But could you explain how I'm wrong?

And can't I say "It should be clear I don't care" like you do when you violate Wikipedia policies?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has his own talk page, no need to involve yourself in mine and continue a pattern of placing back comments ive already removed prior. This is the bottom line. Learn that my talk page is my talk page, i'll do what I want with it, and I don't want any harrassment which extends to contributions, either comments, reverts, unreverts, whatsoever on my talk page. Do what you want to articles. And thanks for clearing up that you understand policies but choose not to abide by them. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does have his own page, and I posted to both. Happy to have been of help.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you reverted my edit to add back the contribution I had removed from another user, and with a questionable edit summary. You know perfectly well you didn't "post to both". Timeshift (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't have made sense if I didn't. I was just providing context.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hadn't been involved in the dispute prior to, and you reverted what I had already removed, and with a questionable edit summary, and this was only the end of a prior history of harrassment. No amount of sugar coating will excuse you from your behaviour. Timeshift (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift, your behaviour disgraces you. I can't believe you have the gall to complain here after your irresponsible deliberate and peristent editing on the death of Wayne Carey page. Your comments on the discussion page smack of smugness and conceit. Amazing!ROxBo (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it ROxBo, Timeshift is a repeat offender who regularly ignores Wikipedia rules and uses his pet Admins to help him get away with it.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to have Duggy not continue to violate NPA and other harrassment policies toward me. Thankyou and good day. Timeshift (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someday people are going to learn that overreacting and breaking Wiki policies in response to a situation like that makes it 100x harder for anyone to do anything about it (or even figure out what's going on). I get back from a day out researching sources for articles, and I see a blockable level of harassment on a talk page from someone with form. That's what I end up dealing with. The Wayne Carey stuff was blatant stupidity and should never have been entered without a reliable source (esp considering WP:BLP), and had I seen that first I would have dropped a warning for it. Now I can't because my time appears unfortunately to be tied up in dealing with personal insults and attacks directed at me from someone who was never even involved in the dispute and appears to be getting his satisfaction from being a troll, and to warn him now would be impossible as I've been pushed into a position of defending him. See the problem? Orderinchaos 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a troll.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words. Orderinchaos 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A troll gets off on such behaviour and does it pretty much constantly. I don't recall doing that.

Your and Timeshifts behaviour towards me today, coupled with your previous behaviour has left me frustrated and, hense, this has clearly got out of control, but I see not continuing pattern of trollish behaviour.

I know what you mean. There is behaviour here that could be seen as trollish, from both myself and Timeshift. It is telling that I'm the one you call out. But, once again, you're not bias, right?

But once again, you're taking behaviour out of context and labelling it on little to no evidence, and seeing it through your own special filter. Just as I am with that sentence and other things I've written today.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not communicating any further with you on this topic. Noting that WP:AGF states "editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary", and that I have seen sufficient to the contrary in this discussion, any contributions from this point will be reverted. Orderinchaos 13:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Brahma Kumaris article

Hi there. If you get the chance, would you be able to take a look at the current discussion about the use of "tabloid" in reference to the Daily Mail in the article and also to the links policy. It's an ongoing disagreement with two other editors and I would really like some independent input to resolve it. I am aware I may be making too much of it, but I'm pretty sure I have a valid argument. I don't want my position to lead to another edit war, however. I'm happy to abide by whatever conclusions you reach. Appledell (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at it before - my opinion was that both versions are acceptable and neutral enough (the first line of Daily Mail says "tabloid" quite clearly, so it's not strictly necessary to say it in the BK one, but to say so isn't a problem especially as we're only talking about one word). Orderinchaos 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NationalsWA logo.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:NationalsWA logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kevin Rudd

Your input is appreciated regarding where to place policy. I would also appreciate you keeping an eye, call this not AGF but I reckon Shot Info is already having ideas of derailing it, just like the previous poll. Timeshift (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Kumaris

Hi Orderinchaos. One more request - could you have a look at the workding on the external links site and also the sites that are linked from it? Would appreciate your comments on them on the discussion page when you have a moment. From my side, I think having "official BKWSU links" and "critical links" is clearer and more informative. Also, I have concerns about a couple of the sites that are being linked to in the critical section. I'd be much more comfortable abiding by your thoughts than those of Lucy. Appledell (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock (Amelia9mm)

Thank you for dealing with that so nicely. I've added the following advice. If you could keep an eye on things for a bit longer and offer any more advice needed, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock discussion

[without naming names] The user's comment ... Unblocking unilaterally as the blocking admin seems to be offline. is surprising enough, given the page history, but making it the 2nd last edit caps it. I have found it a very interesting discussion, glad you contributed. Regards, cygnis insignis 15:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up (Sporadicals, SPAs, Sleeper Socks)

Would you be interested in commenting on this? By the way, I liked your analogy of the police clearing up a houseparty and arresting everyone in sight. I still disagree though, and based on this I won't be changing my mind anytime soon! Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility etc

Hi. regarding you note to me on etc, while I appreciate the advice, let me point out that the user in question, and others (including his sock puppets) use my talk page for harrassment and edit intimidation flagrently. For example, in this example, the user in question attempts to bully me into stopping my disagreements with his edits, citing his own confirmed sock puppet as an example of the consensus against me. When I filed my checkuser which confirmed the sock puppeteering, the puppeteer lobbied friend to harrass and ridicule me with truly unwanted posting on my talk page, for instance, here. All my comments are milder and always generally tongue in cheek responses to the crap I put up with in the course of having to battle a long-time, intransigent edit warrior and his puppets and allies. I thank you for the concern, but, unlike this annoying, inconsiderate user who mocked Wikipedia guidelines, including using sock puppets to bully other editors, I went through proper channels to make my case every step of the way on the approprate noticeboards, supported by adequate documentation. Cheers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

patrician brothers

i apologise if it sees that i am beng rude or engaging in an edit war. i have tried to discuss this with the other editors and they have refused to even be reasonable or to hear me out. the content of the page that i have edited is not in beach of any law or rule on wikipedia. on the suggested guidelines for school pages on wiki, it states that these are merely suggestions. i have not violated any laws. all i have asked for in this is the respct of being listened to. that has not been herd. as an administrator and highly respected editor on wiki, i ask for the right to be heard if possibe

Zebra91 (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

zebra

May i begin by sincerely thanking you for the respect and civility that you have demonstrated during this process. This, unfortunatly, is not something that i have experienced during my time on wikipedia from other editors.

I would like to make it clear however, that i do feel that i have been mistreated. I do not want my actions to be explained as me being a newbie as i have been called. The word discussion has been preached to me many times in the recent past. I dont feel that i have been given the adequet opportunity to participate in such discussions. If you were to trace the cnversations between my self and loopla and twenty years, you will find that i have never been asked to justify my additions, rather i have been told what to do. And this wasvcontinued by discospinster. All those who have preached discussion on talk pages have metaphorically forced me into a corner on this. I have been cited numerous pages to follow with none showing any evidence that the list breaks a rule. Even the one you mentioned to me earlier does not overtly or officaly state what you your self have claimed.

Unfortuantly, discussion does not exist on this site. Freedom of speech doesnt. Democracy doesnt. This site is plauged by the same inequlity that exists everywhere else. The so called experienced editors run the joint while anyone else with an alternate opinion or though is blocked, threatened, or chastidised. Is this fair.

You are obviously one held in high regard on this site, and i must admit you have been the most civil of them all, however my plea is that you enact the rules you preach yourself. I admit that my methods in the past have not been the best. But i will reiterate that it is the small who get quashed in this world, and in a forum where freedom of thought and speech shoudl be celebrated, you are failing to foster this. The addition of the list does not breach any rules. I have revised the page you linked me to and did not find any line that overtly attacks what i propose. The truth is, nothing does. It is purely fighting for the sake of fighting. And when they learnt they could not intimidate me with citeing innapropriate codes to the situation, they began to raise stupidity such as self promotion, and ownership. The mere fact that i once acted as captain of the college has absolutly no bearing on this situation. My inclusion on the list from over a decade ago does not place me in any position above anyone. And as for ownership, not only am i not claiming ownership, it seems that these editors themselves are claiming ownership. As if i am stepping on their teritory. And, should you truly claim that this is a cite of consensus, then you should be repremanding editors such as loopla, who did not disccus his/her modifications , then it is realy he/she who embarked upon this alleged war. He/she was the one who failed to not initiate discussion (as he/she should have considering he/she was challenging), but also for failing to uphold the ethos of this cite, further discusion to determine a resolution.

Do not mistake the word Conesus for dictatrship ruleing, because unfortuanlty, that is what is hapening. I have little respect for those who did not discuss with me, but told me what i should be doing.

I hope that you truly consider what i have said. Zebra91 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swan View

My apologies, I was looking at the council maps for the City of Swan and Shire of Mundaring and that's how I came to that conclusion but then again I don't live in that area. Thanks for overseeing. NewAust (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more swans

Can you have a look at the rationale I added to Image:WA-1995.gif? Ta, cygnis insignis 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good thing too ;-) I added it in case some-body/bot notes the multiple uses. I've made a few flippant remarks in info templates in 'another place'. cygnis insignis 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request for a PROD Hall Primary School

G'day, I mostly write Australian history articles and I was looking at Hall Primary School and discovered you deleted it after a PROD. May I ask for it to be undeleted please. I believe it meets the notability criteria for WP as there were many press articles about its closure. It was the oldest school in the ACT at the time of its closure. If the article itself doesn't have decent references then I am quite happy to add them to bring the article up to standard. I may have actually edited the article in the past but can't remember... an old brain. Please let me know what you think. Gillyweed (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand that you were simply doing an administrative action. I was wondering if you could undelete it for me please. I'll then either merge it into the Hall article or properly reference it. Thanks! Gillyweed (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama USA refs

Re: this discussion... the articles were from Factiva as you guessed. The titles of them are: "Saints quell Angel cheers" and "ROUNDUP Theismann signs deal with 'Skins ". If you can confirm the sources I'll revert the notes on Miss Alabama USA. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both safe. For transparency, I'll include what I found here.

Contention 1

Text in article: Stancil was arrested in 1977 for possessing cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute
Source given: United Press International (7 October 1978). "Saints quell Angel cheers". The Globe and Mail. p. 53. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Source says: "Miss Stancil was hired although she faces charges of possessing cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute it."

Contention 2

Text in article: She was fired as head of the New Orleans Saints cheerleading squad in 1978 for failing to disclose this information.
Source given - "ROUNDUP Theismann signs deal with 'Skins". The Globe and Mail. 15 April 1982. p. S2. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Source says: "Eva Jo Stancil, fired from her job as head of the now-defunct New Orleans Saints cheerleading squad in 1978... The Saints, who dismissed Stancil after only two weeks in charge of the cheerleaders, accused her of failing to fully inform them of a marijuana arrest in 1977. Stancil was selected Miss Alabama for the 1978 Miss USA pageant."

Orderinchaos 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leila McKinnon

What were the BLP issues for the semiprotect? --AW (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another beatup?

Still talking about honeymoons... Timeshift (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to someone today, I think if you read the two papers today, you'd actually manage to know less about what's going on than you did before reading them. Orderinchaos 14:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Queensland/To-do

I noticed you created the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Queensland/To-do last October but it is not being used. However on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Queensland page there is a "Things you can do" section with tasks listed. I was wanting to add the WP Qld tasks to my Editing tools page but there is no point until the to-do list problem is resolved. Is something wrong with the setup or are articles being listed incorrectly or what? Please advise, thanks. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nousernamesleft

Hi, Orderinchaos, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, ~~tough~~ feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

I've decided against recall. Cheers, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please deal with GG

Sigh... he just doesn't get it. Timeshift (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeelp! Timeshift (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible... Timeshift (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindisfarne Interchange

Thankyou for your reply regarding my coordinates request. Unfortunately i have not had much luck, and the preview page keeps saying those coordinates are either in the middle of Tasmania or in the Pacific Ocean. Was wondering if you could make the changes so i can see where i went wrong. The exact co-ordinates (Source: google earth) are 42.51'42.70"S 147.21'17.02E
I think its the last set of numbers in each set causing the problem but I am unsure as to how to remedy the problem. Kind regards Wiki ian 14:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying 42°51′42.70″S 147°21′17.02″E / 42.8618611°S 147.3547278°E... Seems to work. Orderinchaos 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Wiki ian 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's not the most user friendly template (although is far better than those that preceded it). Orderinchaos 15:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Q[reply]

Narre Warren

Please explain how its untrue on 2 counts that Narre Warren was brought to the attention of Australians due to a certain party on 14 Jan 2008, news of which was broadcast globally? (Just because WP doesn't deem this worthy of an article doesn't make the media reports untrue). Eyedubya (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited's RFA

.:

Thank you!

:.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA.

To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind."

Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalism?

According to the sunday times, kids holding a plastic knife constitutes a knife attack - I thought it would be relevant :) symode09's 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NT

Thanks. :) Since I may only be up here for a week or two (Maybe moving to NSW or Vic for the short term) I'm getting as many photo as possible. As I don't have a car I've been riding. I've lost count on how many k's I've done but going to get some more photos tomorrow and may head out to Palmerston. -- Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about User:Coloane's topic ban

I saw your message left on Coloane's talk page regarding topic ban on review of Featured Articles and Good Articles. I have a few questions that would require your clarification. Since there were 4 proposals flying around in Admin's noticeboard at that time, which one is the implemented proposal? How long does the topic ban last? (6 months? A year? Permanently?) Finally, does this topic ban extend to the context of featured topic, featured picture, featured sound, featured portals, and featured list? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Coloane's Topic ban issue

Dear User:Orderinchaos, User:Coloane, User:Merbabu, and User:Caniago:

I know this notice is going to be long and involves a bit of philosophical thinking, so TRY reading it at least twice before replying. I would like to point out a few things:

Coloane's topic ban is very straight and simple. No nomination/review in GA and FA (as confirmed by community). It is suggested by Orderinchaos that this ban is extended to FT, FL, FP, FPORT, and FS (this requires community confirmation). However, Indonesian Chinese article is not in any of the aforementioned processes at the moment and I see Merbabu and Caniago are trying to discredit Coloane using the topic ban reason. This is nothing but straw man argument.
Calling someone as sockpuppet/meatpuppet without concrete evidence is against AGF. BUT dealing with "uncivil" editors does not immediately grant you rights to be uncivil and not AGF.
I am completely uninvolved regarding the topic ban issue or the Indonesian Chinese article. It's unfair for me to be dragged in, when I have to go through hundreds of diffs in the article as well evidences presented by different parties.

My recommendation to all parties is to move this discussion from my talk page to Talk:Chinese Indonesian, which is the talk page of the article you guys are disputing on. Try drop your conflicts that you had with other people and work as a team. Think about it. Had the person who reverted is not the person you had conflict with, would you want to stir up so much trouble just to win an argument? If things doesn't work out at the end, then we have no choice but to send it to WP:AN.

This notice has been copied exactly to all 4 people addressed in the first line. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI and further comment if necessary?

--VS ^talk 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roxon

Do you think this debate is going anywhere, or are we condemned to this discussion for all eternity? Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Des Dans

Yo.

Do you have any parliamentary data on Des Dans, appointed the Minister for the Americas Cup in 1985? —Moondyne click! 00:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]