User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2009 03

Geotagging of electoral districts

There is a centralized discussion of the geotagging of electoral districts at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Use_of_co-ordinates_in_parliamentary_constituencies. I'd appreciate your feedback on this. -- The Anome (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the Round Table movement in Australia

Hello OIC,

Could you tell me whether or not it's worth researching this claim, which was just removed as unreferenced? I know Deakin did a lot of damage to the Round Table movement in his day, but I'm not so sure whether Menzies spoke out against it much -- I might have gleamed that from the radical nationalist historians. Thanks in advance for any advice. Ottre 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pin point map

Would it be possible to add the pin point map rather then having the pixel map for {{Infobox protected area of Australia}}? I've created 2 National Park articles so far but it's hard to get the pixels correct. I would be creating more but got to deal with something in the morning, rather p***ed off about it ATM. Bidgee (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the code was probably copied from IAP to begin with, it should be a matter of re-copying to get the latest. I wonder do any use the old x-locator code? Orderinchaos 00:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in articles? Cocoparra National Park, Livingstone National Park and Oolambeyan National Park use the pixel map possibly others. Bidgee (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting too that I'm way busy this weekend - had gastro/throat cold 3 weeks ago and fell behind in my studies, and have a heap of due dates this coming week. I'm presently trying to comprehend Linux boot loaders and the niceties of Microsoft Project. Orderinchaos 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, There is no rush. I feel your pain ATM as I've fallen behind a my studies as well (Perth trip was postponed) which I have to get done in two weeks with even more studies handed to use. Bidgee (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshft9???

You've got to be kidding... anyone we know? Timeshift (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland LGAs project

Hey Orderinchaos,

Can I ask if there is a plan behind your current Queensland LGAs project? I had a look on your projects page but found nought. I am a bit puzzled why you are removing all the 'Council's from the names. Some edit summaries might shed light in the absence of a statement of intent or plan. You make reference to the LGA Act. I had a quick look at it (1993) and it says that LGAs shall be called 'Council of ...' or '... Council'. Am I missing something? Bleakcomb (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency I will note that I am moving through the former LGAs in regional blocs. I have already done those now part of the Barcaldine, Blackall-Tambo, North and South Burnett, Cairns, Charters Towers, Fraser Coast, Goondiwindi, Gympie, Lockyer Valley, Longreach, Rockhampton, Scenic Rim, Somerset, Southern Downs, Sunshine Coast, Tablelands, Toowoomba regions (either in March or more recently). The *articles* for Cairns, Barcaldine, Blackall-Tambo, Cairns, Charters Towers and Tablelands are done, I intend to consolidate what I have already done by completing those Region articles listed above before moving on with others. In the meantime I am also doing some small outer shires which survived the process in the north, west and southwest - I've already done the Cape York/TS ones, Etheridge and Mount Isa. The larger urban ones in the southeast and the Townsville ones I haven't touched as they're not stubs and don't need development, although in some cases I've adjusted naming conventions to reflect the actual name of the area rather than the body established to manage and represent it. Orderinchaos 13:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I made a separate reply to the above enquiry at Bleakcomb's talk page.) Orderinchaos 13:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coombabah State Primary School

I am staggered by your decision to speedy delete this page. Firstly, schools are specifically exempted from A7 deletions. Secondly, pages kept at AfD should not be speedied. If there are spam/BLP issues then these should be fixed by editing. I am prepared to undelete this page but would rather you did so. The way forward is to take the page to DRV or back to AfD if, after editing, you continue to be concerned over notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A poorly-referenced, incorrectly-named article with issues outstanding for almost two years which primarily advertises the school with no claim to notability does not belong on Wikipedia, no matter what way you look at it. Comes down to WP:IAR. If someone is willing to actually maintain it at Coombabah State School and address these issues I'd be happy to undelete it. (This article is the tip of the iceberg, the entire Gold Coast category needs a really serious going over - if I didn't have assignments and exams for the next 2 months, I'd try and do it myself, but the task is huge.) Orderinchaos 00:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you have done seems to me so contrary to multiple policies that I have simply reverted it. One,' You cannot delete a school via A7, Two, you cannot speedy delete on essentially the same grounds delete an article kept at AfD, Three, you cannot delete because an article needs improvement, four it is established practice that non-notable primary schools--which are almost all of them--are merged into articles for the school district or town or whatever suits best, five, it is basic deletion policy that deletion is the last resort,and six IAR is used "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." There were perfectly good ways to improve Wikipedia in this instance within the rules, and if it turned out to be the consensus, delete it within the rules. When you use it to go directly opposite to well established specific policies you should be very sure that what you are doing is necessary. And when an experienced good-faith editor, much more a fellow admin challenges it, you should think very carefully whether you have used it improperly. As for some other arguments, the article primarily describes the school, not advertises it. any BLP problems can be dealt with, and erroneous names can be changed. I agree a lot of the articles need fixing, but this is not done by deleting them, except for those that cannot be improved and meet the criteria for deletion. I see no need to go to deletion review about something as clear as this. Reverting an admin action is not wheel-warring, so I have reverted it. If you think you have a case, try a second AfD or AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP authorises deletion on any ground, and furthermore, noone involved in the AFD years ago had done anything to maintain the article after arguing to keep it. I do not need to negotiate with Wikilawyers to improve the encyclopaedia, and I have limited time due to assignments and exams and think my time is better spent making changes than arguing about them, especially since the end result is, in even the staunchest critic's view, a better result - if you're willing to help, come on board, but if not, then put forward a plan as to how it will be maintained on an ongoing basis. (I distinctly remember making a similar argument to you over the Home and Away AfD a month or two ago) The fact is no magic fairies are going to come along and fix it (and the only reason this did was ironically because I deleted it and someone who voted on an AfD on it almost 2 years ago was then prompted to act - maybe I should try this on more articles to see if it fixes them? note - the foregoing was humour) - the number of volunteers doing useful work on Wikipedia is visibly decreasing and a hell of a lot more is getting through than used to once upon a time - the bots can only be programmed with so much intelligence and the tasks for a human editor are mind bogglingly huge. Orderinchaos 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and re the "experienced good-faith editor, much more a fellow admin" - when he challenged it, my exact response was "If someone is willing to actually maintain it at Coombabah State School and address these issues I'd be happy to undelete it." I did not oppose undeletion if the condition was met. He seems to be doing that now, so I'm happy. If more people acted in this way (rather than simply arguing to keep things all over the place then leaving them to rot) then Wikipedia would have a much better reputation in the wider community. I am in the educational sector and, believe me, it is a REAL challenge convincing anybody that Wikipedia should be used for anything. Orderinchaos 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and other incorrect speedy reasons

I am equally concerned about some of your other recent deletion reasons, particularly the use of housekeeping"

1/"St George Shire" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping (there has never been a St George Shire) -- a good reason for deletion, but not as Housekeeping

2/"List of boarding schools in South Australia" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping (unreferenced and too narrow scope)) -- this is not a rational meaning of "=housekeeping"

3/"Former Local Government Areas of Queensland" ‎ -- ditto

4/""List of technology high schools in New South Wales" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping - not maintained, difficult to verify due to poor definition of THS)

5/a redirect from Glen Forrest Primary School to List of schools in Perth, Western Australia#Government Schools as G6, housekeeping.

and also redirects of various pages deleted as R3, implausible typo, which is just plain wrong for the following

A/redirect of Kaleen Primary School to Kaleen, Australian Capital Territory and the many other entirely suitable school redirects deleted with the same rationale on Sept 11, 2009. Apparently you consider that primary schools should not be redirected to a list, but I do not see what possible basis there is for that in policy, and in any case that cannot be called deletion of a new implausible typo

B/various people connected with Howard Park Wines to that page, on July 30, 2009. These may or may not be unsuitable redirects, but they are not typos.

I decided not to go further back in the log in detail.

I suggest you revert all of these. You can then , of course, then take them to AfD & RfD, and the community will discuss them. If they are to be deleted, and some might be, such a discussion is necessary, not your personal decision that the articles or redirects are unsuitable. If you do not do this, would you prefer to discuss the matter at ANB, or at Deletion review? I say ANB, not AN/I ,for this is not an isolated occurrence. I do not simply restore everything myself, as I did what I thought to be an isolated error, because i think this should have a community discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My log is, of course, open to scrutiny, although I respectfully disagree with most of your points above. 1 - why should we keep a redirect under a name which has never existed? In retrospect I probably should have used R3, but it would have been valid nonetheless. 2 and 4 - As nobody is maintaining schools in Australia, and I am actually adding *tonnes* of material (funny how the one article I delete is looked at but the dozens of carefully researched articles I've moved into the spaces are ignored) on the topic, housekeeping was perfectly valid. G6 was pretty much drafted to cover all those occasions when project developers need to do something by way of maintenance (clearing roadblocks or debris) but no other clear ground exists. 3 - Same goes for LGAs in Queensland - have you looked at my last 2000 edits? There was copyright issues with the page I deleted as well as factual errors and I could not see anything salvageable. 5 and below - Someone had created, for no apparent reason, redirects for every single primary school in the ACT. There is a general consensus that creating things simply to blue-link a template is a bad thing - the entire category was unmaintained, and again I've done a fair bit of work in that. B - Howard Park Wines - it was a case of a COI user trying to use Wikipedia to get increased Google hits for their own business (it's called search engine optimisation in the industry). The user, who I think has a much better appreciation of what Wikipedia is for and what it does now, has since reformed and is contributing much more constructively, so that won't be a problem again. I'm sorry to say this, but the deletion processes are utterly broken and have been for a long time and I am improving the encyclopaedia - in many cases I am the first to come along and do so for years in the areas in which I am working (some of the maintenance tasks go back to 2006, before I even signed up an account!). Just like if one was renovating an office and moving new furniture in, one would quite obviously have to get the damaged stuff out and clean up the cobwebs. I realise there's a lot of "I" and "me" in the foregoing - I hope this is not interpreted as arrogance, as I know heaps of editors who in their area are faced with the same challenges and taking on the same efforts to improve them. The personal pronouns are solely because Australian schools lists and LGAs seem to have become my particular specialty. Orderinchaos 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the point entirely. Whether or not we should keep these articles and redirects, we cannot delete them speedy under the rules you have used, neither R3 which is limited to "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers" nor G6, which is limited to "Uncontroversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, or performing uncontroversial page moves. " The deletion process is indeed somewhat broken, and it is you who are breaking it.

As for the issue of whether or not we should actually keep the redirects for schools, there I have pretty strong views: Your idea we should not is unsupported by policy. I challenge you to find such redirects and take them to RfD, and see what the community supports. Myself, I hope we very soon do add redirects to the towns (or equivalents) for every primary school on earth whose existence can be documented.

As for the Winery redirects, as I said above, you may well be right that they need deletion, and that's what we have RfD for. I may not make a issue of them at first, because the underlying reason for having them might be dubious, unlike most or all of the others. (If you are right, you might have considered G11. I hadn't thought of using G11 for redirects until I was writing this, but in some cases it might well make sense.)

FWIW, in my personal view, much of your deletion work is excellent: about half. I am no opponent of speedy deletion when justified--though not my main concern, i delete about 50 or so articles a week myself just passing by to rescue others. If you want to find ten times that number supported by policy, and I am sure that could be done, that would improve the encyclopedia & I'd be glad of it. That 25,000 thousand a year junk gone would be a good start. I hate junk as much as you, and though we may disagree on just what is junk, there is enough uncontroversial junk we'd all agree on.

I intend to proceed on this, the school redirects first, and I offered you a choice of where to discuss. As you have no preference, I think it best to start at Deletion Review, since it is less dramatic than ANB or AN/I . DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reasoned comments. I'm personally a believer in - we delete what cannot be rescued and rescue what can, although there's limits on what one person or a couple of people can actually do and I believe for that reason deletion policy should be strengthened to accommodate this - it was written at a time when there were far more active volunteers. On a typical day my watchlist (which is 4,000 strong) registers barely 10-15 changes these days whereas in past times it was almost unreadable. When I am working on a project and I leave it for, say, 18 months, the entire thing appears to be as if preserved in ice until my return to it. I do find this sad - I can see a future without Wikipedia (my guess is Wiki has about 2 years left), but with Wikipedia content on a range of sites with CC licences which will maintain some bits and abandon others. (This will result in significant segmentation of knowledge, which I do not see as a net positive.) I'd say it would be safe to assume anywhere which has active enthusiasts or wikiprojects will ultimately survive no matter what. I keep on working anyway as a large element of what I do is for interest reasons and serves to educate myself - I've learned unbelievable amounts of stuff about various parts of Australia, history, local government, politics, education, etc as a result of research I've undertaken for Wiki, and I am naturally a curious and interested person I guess.

Re DRV - as long as it is advertised in the appropriate places (eg AWNB), I am not opposed to deletion review as a venue. I of course will oppose their return at such a venue. Orderinchaos 04:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAWD

I see something about glen forrest primary school here in krakow in poland - and all that above? - thank god I am not in regular editing at the moment - you have mail Satu Suro 07:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my wathlistski

An edit on my watchlists -Beer and breweries in Poland was right next to your talk page edit - how appropriate! The bloody hungarian firefox and this dammned keyboard will probably kill my polish category tagging for the mo - we most likely gonna get snow tommorrow-that will sort out whther my scottish cold weather gear works(or not) - cheerski! Satu Suro 13:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha ouch! It's actually been nice here today - well, apart from the behaviour of our Premier. :) Glad to hear you're enjoying the place, even if your z's are y's and vice versa. I have fond memories of my travels in that part of the world. Orderinchaos 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I got it wrong we just get freezing rain -its poland and above who get the snow :)well it does depend whether you believe the weather reports on the web ? Satu Suro 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Solved the hungarian keyboard issue-tagging while the wind howls at the door Satu Suro 17:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Christmas Island

Oops! I should have known that! I have an A level in geography! HJMitchell You rang? 17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that the issue needs further clarification in at least the cocos article but with at least a ref - they were (if not still) a demographic fact not a cia fact :( Satu Suro 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an unchallenged article on Islam in the Cocos Islands and it already is well past the substub stage - this one's only about Christmas Island. Orderinchaos 18:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the christmas needs the chop and any susbtantive information available can surely lump the two together (ie other than the fact/no fact book)Satu Suro 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. The article's at Islam in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands btw. Orderinchaos 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about to ctch train

waiting for trnsfer vehicle- f i get off qick you will understand what do you think about innate speciesist nature of article and category?

will try to check for answer in veinna butcannotpromise Satu Suro 09:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SALC

I don't quite know where it belongs now. It's not worth the 'next' election page as it has nothing to do with it now and it's too specific for Rann's page. Perhaps the South Australian Legislative Council? Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aussie question

Hi, regarding this, I was looking for the viewing figures for the Going to Australia episode of Cold Feet. It was originally broadcast in Aus on Seven on 6 June 2002. Just having the total viewing figure, rather than the city breakdowns, would be fine. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various John Duggans

Thanks for hint. I was looking at the naming conventions pages trying to work out whether it was better to use John Duggan (politician) or John Duggan (australian politician), and how to deal with the manifold bad links that I saw for the John Duggan entry when i saw that you'd already done it. Very quick. Machina.sapiens 11:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thanks for handling the editprotecteds on Template:Coord. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - thank you for being so clear on what needed to be done. Orderinchaos 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

For your kind words at the arbcom pages. I just want to clarify a technicality: my adminship was temporarily suspended, and later I indicated I am willing to resign voluntarily if the committee and/or the community request that. As such request has not been made yet, I have not yet technically resign - although the offer is still on the table if the committee and community want to take me up on it (I've been for years an admin open to recall and I consider my offer simply a part of that process - admins should have the trust of the community behind them, and if they don't have the trust, they should resign or be recalled until such a time they can reestablish this trust). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hollingworth

Hi. I've replied here: Talk:Peter_Hollingworth - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

night trin throughtransylvania

it ok beeble and iaresweet - will explain one dayit doesntranslateto keyboarverywell asforthe rumanianand bulgrianbit- will give you a hoot bssunday or so about it as for keyboards - finnish, russin, polish, czchand hungrin-gimme mykidspconeanytime cheers(thesrt is to find althe alt gr ke-the thirdlevel) Satu Suro 06:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the GG

"in fact, to be precise, his commission was revoked by the Queen personally" - that's somewhat hyperbolic, if not inaccurate. She appoints GGs and, where necessary, revokes their commissions and accepts their resignations. She's the only one who can do the latter things. I doubt she has any real power to refuse a resignation. A GG who did not want to serve would be worse than useless if forced to stay on, but I've never heard of a vice-regal resignation being refused. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prvi zdrug

"Muka mi je više od propagande svih boja!!" ..means basically "I hate any form (color) of propaganda" Besides: I agree with his changes in Za dom spremni, especially the citation needed. Goran777 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation :) (I actually do intend to learn the language one day, it's a sad fact that despite having a mix of Central European ancestors as recently as my grandfather, like most Australians I can't speak any other language but English beyond the very basics.) Orderinchaos 18:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orderinchaos Lets start with: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partizani

As wit any encyclopedia Wiki should me objective i shouldn't be a e-book of glorification. My input in that article was about known and validated war crimes don by Yugoslavia Partisans

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Za_dom_spremni Was aiding explanation to translation witch is literal and dos not show thwe meaning in English language

Original was: * literally transl. from Croatian: For home - ready!

I added the part:

Meaning in English from Croatian: For home(land)! Reply: Spremni! (We are) ready!

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Croatia

I changed the language from Serbo-Croatian to Croato-Serbian The official language of SR Croatia was Croato-Serbian as it is shown in dictionaries that I submitted in the post!

Croato-Serbian Language

And what happened you bann my account all the changes I explained in talk sections and DIRECTOR just deleted them!Prvi zdrug uskrsnuce (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

The user has continued his edit warring [1] [2] [3]. No surprises there... Goran should note that he was not the one that added {{citation needed}}, but User:LAz17 (Serbian wikipedian) [4]. All his edits, besides being totally POV, are in blatant violation of WP:LEAD. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this part most :) "patriotic Croatian nationalist salute" --Goran777 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I guess that is one way of putting it ... Orderinchaos 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's damaging the Operation Storm article... Following the "pilgrim's route", it would seem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Orderinchaos 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Now I'm busy with another one... You've met a "Croatian nationalist", now you can get acquainted with a typical "Yugoslav fanatic". User:Barlo7 has been constantly removing valid predecessor states from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article infobox. Calling me a "fascist" [5] and claiming that to even mention Nazi Germany in there is somehow "insulting to the dead" [6]... I tried to explain everything to him [7], as usual to no avail... It never ends. xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For each change I submitted explanation and even proof in pictures (the croato-serbian language) But nooo you just band my account. If you want to be objective keep wiki objective pleas read the input before you ban people. I know that DIRECTOR is here longer than me but that doesn’t mean that he is objective. The guy loves Yugoslavia and that is ok with me, but that shouldn’t be reason to turn Wikipedia into his own private myth-book. As example he didn’t like when I did put the information about Partisian War crimes on "believe it or not" Partisan page!? Prvi zdrug uskrsnuce (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, his name means "Prvi zdrug: the ressurection" xD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo attacks in Australia

You might want to take a look at all the other "x attacks in Australia" articles in the template too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi!

Come on MSN when you get the chance - I want to gossip about some state political dramas :D Rebecca (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email :) Orderinchaos 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Australian place

I'm just curious as to what this edit was about. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forgot I'd done that one. It's for non-state, non-national maps - I was thinking of making an implementation for suburbs of cities. As I haven't even tested it yet (all I've tested is that it doesn't break anything else) I hadn't documented it. Orderinchaos 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney suburbs project

G'Day Orderinchaos, I noticed you made some changes to the Putney article today and didn't like my reverts. I have been working on the Sydney suburbs articles for the past four years and we have been trying to keep all the articles standardised.

First of all, the road distances I have used have been from the reference material, "The Book of Sydney Suburbs". The book is a bit old now, so I concede its quite possible that with new roads built, there are shorter routes to some suburbs now. I checked with the Street Directory and it could be between 12 and 15 kms depending on what route you took. Fair enough. 12km it is then.

As for the intro to the article we have been endeavouring to create some sort of template for all article on Sydney suburbs. We're trying to keep a standard so that you have all the same information presented the same way in every article so its easy to do comparisons. It generally follows this standard:

XXXXXXX is a suburb in Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, Australia. XXXXXXX is located xx kilometres south of the Sydney central business district, in the local government area of the City of Rockdale and is part of the St George. (the last part being the Sydney region) This is followed by extra location information such as important landmarks. XXXXXX is located on the northern bank of the Parramatta River.

We have been trying to use thsi standard on every article across Sydney. It's not perefect or completely adopted across the board yet, I admit, because we did have another standard originally. We were originally using the 'region' as part of the first sentence (eg southern sydney, eastern suburbs, north shore) so some articles follow the old standard, such as Banksia below which is part of Southern Sydney (souther) and also the St George area.

Banksia is a suburb in southern Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, Australia. Banksia is located 12 kilometres south of the Sydney central business district, in the local government area of the City of Rockdale and is part of the St George area.

My concern with your intro to Putney is that it doesn't follow the conventions we have been trying to use across the board. If we start using different ones for different articles then we will lose the standard we are trying to achieve. A lot of these standards have been selected because they improve the hit rate for Google and other search engines. It might seem weird to repeat the suburb name in the second sentence for instance but it guarantees more hits with Google when you do that.

I hope you can see what we are trying to achieve with these standards and why I am trying to keep Putney the same as other articles about Sydney suburbs. If you have some suggestions for improving the articles that's great but keep in mind that it would have to be adopted across hundreds of Sydney articles to make it standard. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We have been trying to use this standard on every article across Sydney" - can you point to where this standard been discussed and agreed to? Melburnian (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a while ago and it's not like I have nothing better to do but sit here and record every topic of conversation I've been involved in on wikipedia. J Bar (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: firstly, Sydney is not isolated in Australia, and we have five major cities and several minor or medium ones with suburb articles. One of those is Central Coast-Lake Macquarie-Newcastle. It'd be a bit strange to have one standard starting at Cowan and another at Mooney Mooney, which I believe is the case at present. Secondly, an inferior standard is worse than no standard at all - the reason I revised the text is that it was awkwardly worded and the ones we've been using for Perth suburbs (and a range of others) appeared to work in this case. Additionally, I do not see "Google hit rates" in WP:WIAFA - I do see "engaging, even brilliant, prose" however. If one group of contributors are aiming for something without reference to the best-practice standard, then it's going to get tangled in a heap. As for the distance, I picked a reasonably central point in the suburb, 66 Phillip Road, and a reasonably central point in Sydney on George Street adjacent to the GPO. The path followed Victoria Road and the Western Distributor into central Sydney, and measured 12.4 km. Due to the low level of precision (suburbs are ±1km) that was rounded. It could be rounded to 13, but 16 was clearly an error - even West Ryde station is only 15.1. Orderinchaos 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the overreliance on unofficial region descriptors in the lead is probably not something that should be encouraged, either, as they cannot be precisely defined in a consistent manner. There's been a number of discussions as to the encyclopaedicity of them in years past and the consensus leaned weakly away from their use. Orderinchaos 09:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth getting into yet another edit war, with another editor who prefers things their way. It's almost impossible to get people to agree to a standard and get others to follow it. Enough is enough. I give up. J Bar (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

terminology

the current banners are enough to make me want to retire on the spot. you - if you are on much might want to have a second thought about the legal status of the nullarbor location viz my rollback - where and how this edit is made i dont give a rats if i am in turn reverted - but calling a roadhouse a town without a cite to me is suspect Satu Suro 07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get pulled up for using rollback. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am lucky I can't see them while logged in - I am guessing I set something during the last campaign to hide them. Re Nullarbor - "township" is a term simply relating to gazettal and division into lots, as opposed to a "town" (the term is often misused though). I'm not even sure where one would check whether it has that status, it'd be buried in a SA Govt Gazette somewhere but I don't have access to them. Orderinchaos 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict - gday - i just think its wrong to call something a town if there is no citation used - it could easily simply be private property on a pastoral lease and not actually a loclity even - legally speaking Satu Suro 07:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "tiny township" is the wording used in the SMH reference that you added previously, so the editor shouldn't be reprimanded. That being said, the only thing gazetted for this location is the homestead there.[8] Melburnian (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for turning that up :) Orderinchaos 08:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the editor per se - thanks melbourninan - even though it is a classic case where journalistic touristic crap should not be accepted first hand - it is a roadhouse on private property - i remain unmoved by the civility - the air in new delhi does not help an attitude of compromise - it stinks Satu Suro 08:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that raise the ire further is finding BLP untouched except by vandalism over 2 years - the article about the guy who put me off travelling in south east asia before i even started was the folklore that emanated from this guy - Charles Sobhraj - a clear pinch from the neville book it is a horrible article about a horrible subject - just as well i am travelling otherwise i think id like to pull the thing apart Satu Suro 09:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name block

Your blocking of Corruption makes sense. Otherwise, there could be names like Lawyersarecrooked, Carsalesmencheat, ThePrimeMinisterTakesCashPayments Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Especially if one was going to edit an area related to (respectively) the law, car sales or politics (or as this editor did, medicine), it pretty much says "This user will not be able to edit with a neutral point of view on this topic and any edits opposing this view will not be taken in good faith." While some would argue that there is a level of honesty in people stating their prejudices before they start, I am not a fan of the theory that cramming a bunch of one-eyed POV holders in a room together and expecting them to find consensus is likely to work - in fact, I've seen it desperately fail elsewhere, usually on political, religious or nationalist topics, or in areas such as science vs pseudoscience. Orderinchaos 01:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stating one's prejudices is a noble discloser, but is better to be done in the user page. I think a better reason for name rules is that we are better off with non-inflammatory names. That's why the user name, OrderinchaosEatsChildren, should not be allowed. I wouldn't have a problem with a user named PoliticallyConservativeUser50 or LiberalUser51, even if they edited political articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in large part. Liberal or Conservative wouldn't be a problem, so long as they were not claiming to represent a particular political party (i.e. a role account). Orderinchaos 19:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CDP

Hopefully this stupid stunt bites the tools in the bum... so many candidates will dilute any individual vote. I hope they come 14-22. Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo

Hi, the article was much larger than when it was originally nominated and when it was deleted. G4 says "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" which is not the case - it was twice as large as the one deleted. James4750 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. Orderinchaos 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people vote to delete the earlier version of the article. Then people endorse their vote on an old version. I would like to request you renominate the improved version for deletion, if that gets voted for deletion then fair enough, but give the improved version a chance. It includes references to the Supreme Court case I only found after it was deleted. James4750 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame Monster

What was the meaning of this edit? You can clearly see that a number of unsourced additions had been which had to be removed alongwith the unreliable links like ladygaga.shop as well and returning information to WP:LEAD. So would you care to explain it? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually *I* removed the shop rubbish (at least we're in agreement it should not be there). *You* reinstated it.

You also delinked Teddy Riley, a well known producer, and changed "April" to "april", amongst other questionable changes. The lead you wrote is over twice as long as the original one, and includes wishy-washy phrases such as "Songs on this EP deals with a seamier side of fame", which leads me to conclude that your use of WP:LEAD to justify your additions is more than likely a defensive measure than one with any real merit. Orderinchaos 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Im asking you where you are seeing such additions as you say. Everything you say was restored back also. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what you're asking. It's as plain as day from that diff what changes were made - the effect of my reversion was to relink Teddy Riley, to recapitalise the month of April per WP:MOS, to remove a heap of random stuff from the lead, and to remove a dodgy prospective release from the list. I'm not wedded to the version that is there (more sourcing would be great) but I think wholesale reversions such as that which you attempted earlier today are not helpful - things should be hammered out at the talk page and implemented via consensus if there are disputes on content. Orderinchaos 16:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I don't need to re-iterate that a lead will be a summary of the whole article as per wp:lead. And you are inserting countless unsourced content, unsourced release dates and unsourced singles. Please I request you to stop and let me and Grk1011 sort it out. I'll revert your change and let Grk1011 and me sort it out. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, that would put you at risk of 3RR. Just letting you know. Also, can't see *anywhere* in that diff where singles were added by my reversion. The only change that could be debatable is the date of 18 November, but that should be sorted out on the talk page. Orderinchaos 16:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)There was no reason for that warning, when we are clearly discussing it in YOUR talk page. A huge block of unsourced statement, "Telephone" as the single and removal of summary from lead was introduced in the article. Please I request you again, don't do anything as me and Grk1011 are discussing things. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead you have written, which I've just been looking at, is not in prosaic English and parts of it are repetitive. Additionally, the prices are unencyclopaedic and will need to be removed. Orderinchaos 16:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope no one minds, but for convenience I've linked the topic title to the article for quick reference. I also am interested in how this turns out as I'm also heavily involved in the current editing process and talk page discussion; Orderinchaos, if I'm out of hand with any of my edits, please let me know. CycloneGU (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for keeping me in the loop. Orderinchaos 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Apologies

Hi, yeah, on The Fame Monster article, I kinda actually reverted changes that I did not intend on reverting without realising, that were made by other people. This was a result of edit conflicts. So, we're kinda both to blame. No worries. :P --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Kangaroo attacks in Australia

Your G4 deletion of this was correct, but I've undeleted it and protected it as a redirect, since a merge was performed and the history needs to be preserved. The history can be moved elsewhere, of course, as long as it's somewhere. Just wanted to make sure my intentions here were clear. Cheers, Chick Bowen 23:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Orderinchaos. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Orderinchaos 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Orderinchaos)

Hello, Orderinchaos. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Orderinchaos, where you may want to participate. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Cirt (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

Your citing on multiple pages now, of my interest in the subject of Scientology, is a bit of a red herring. Please, take a moment to read through a few of the articles that I have successfully gotten to WP:FA status on the subject, and perhaps you will see that my intention at the Nick Xenophon article was not an attempt to denigrate the Senator, but rather to make sure unsourced info does not get re-added to a WP:BLP article. I think you have got the wrong idea about me, from whoever it was that emailed you. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for coming to an incorrect conclusion on this. It's what happens when one looks at specific links without being able (mainly for reasons of size/scale) to judge context appropriately. Orderinchaos 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite understandable. Those FAs are indeed a bit large. :P Cirt (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I'm very glad we could come to a positive resolution at the RFC that came out of conflict at the article Nick Xenophon. Here's hoping we can both work amicably together to help to improve the content at the article about the Senator. :) Cirt (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Any opinion on this? Timeshift (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a question with the editor who placed the tag in order that we can get more clarity on 1. what the situation is and 2. how we can fix it / fix the fair use rationale / whatever is required. (I haven't done image work for some time, there's probably been changes.) The editor who placed it is one I've had good faith interactions with in the past. Orderinchaos 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orderinchaos. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question re image

Not questioning your tagging of File:Australian House of Representatives Ballot Paper.jpg as such, but trying to figure out from looking at it why F7 (invalid fair-use claim) applies? I note there's two fair use claims for specific articles on there, and I can't imagine how any free use alternative would be possible given all voting papers would theoretically be copyrighted to the state or federal electoral commissions. Orderinchaos 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is tagged as a poster, failing the first instance of WP:CSD#F7 ("Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately.") Stifle (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit odd (it's clearly not a poster) - I'll look into it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Orderinchaos 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have another look and see if my attempt at a valid rationale is correct? Orderinchaos 02:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No immediate issues with the tag, although I am still unsure that the image meets WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. I'll come back to it at some stage. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#1 is pretty easy - it's a criminal offence to create a fake one. NFCC#8 might be a point, not sure. Orderinchaos 13:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can create a sample ballot paper, outside of Australia if necessary, to illustrate what it looks like. The exact candidates or details on the paper aren't material for the article on preferential voting. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Yeah, well, this is your point of view, and not particularly well argued either, but despite your poor wording, I see your point. I sort-of agree with parts of it. Clearly, this is a topic of some importance to you. I don't agree with most of what you've said, but there are elements that I agree with. Given that I'm not as passionate about the issue as you are, and that I agree with a number of the issues that you are passionate about, I'll be consistent with those issues. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of village articles

I find your reasons for deletion invalid. Most of the text on wikipedia is not sourced, are you saying we delete it all? Look at any article on a city and the list of suburbs within it etc and they are rarely referenced. We have articles on lists of cities, rarely referenced. But do you deelte them? People create stubs like Dilawalpur enmasse everyday. At least mine had a link to a google map to verify it. You didn't even ask to expand them first. If you read the guidelines on notability of settlements if they are inhabited and verifiable they generally meet guidelines. You are wrong to abuse your tools. I think you create chaos in order. I have articles like Felsőtelekes to start and if you delete my new articles again I will report you. I will try to provide a reliable source and some data. Starzynka (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for your reply. I just see double standards. and wonder why others are allowed and the others not. Why are those Indian villages permitted and not the Indonesian ones.....Why isn't info in articles like Toosa deleted by you if unsourced? I will try to add a proper source, like Hungarian villages I think can be expanded later. I think in many areas on here though we are very poor so I try to start what I can when I'm not working. I only want a more resourceful encyclopedia in long term but I don't have time to waste having stubs deleted so I will consider your words.Starzynka (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that some country projects are less concerned about unsourced and non notable locations - its a case of some projects that cannot be managed well - rather than double standards - the general consensus is that WP:NOT still stands - simple entering of locations names with no Notability or no RS - simply is a pointless clogging up of wikipedia with unnecessarily unusable stubs that will never go anywhere Satu Suro 09:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]