Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beneaththelandslide (talk | contribs) at 08:44, 23 August 2006 (Jackp socks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:AMA alerts Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

Bobblewik

Where is this discussion you talk about located? - Mgm| 07:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Date links

I rather think that in the process of archiving, you may have missed this comment. Thanks, David Mestel 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Zazz

Could you please explain why you want to delete Zazz in the AFD please? Feedyourfeet 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Moyes

Hi Beck,

If you have a moment, can you please have a look over Gordon Moyes. I've put up a PoV notice that was removed without discussion. (By User_talk:Jflegg, who I suspect is his staffer, Jonathan Flegg, but I assume that there's no explicit policy against this.) I'd just like to have more than the two of us before we call it NPoV.

ta,

Nick 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

Hi Rebecca

Thanks for your help with Jackp. It was getting out of hand and dragging on far too long. I've made some comments on his user talk page jackp regarding his apparent edits under his IP. Have a look if you don't mind, and please contribute if you have anything to add. It is so annoying. i've also followed some of his contributions to other pages and they are often even worse than his SYdney edits particularly when he creates new pages with info just copied from other articles. --Merbabu 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Would you care to explain your last edit? Adam 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) For your info Adam 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In what sense does the bill "explicitly legalise discrimination"? Adam 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

After a quick reading of the bill, the only significant exemptions I can see are for people providing accommodation or employment in their own homes, and for religious organisations. These are standard exemptions under state anti-discrimination laws. I think it is twisting words to say that this "legalises discrimination". The bill prohibits discrimination, while exempting certain circumstances from that prohibition. No form of discrimination which is currently illegal is made legal, which is the meaning of the word "legalise." I agree, however, that the sentence in the article is too broad. I will rephrase it. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the topic of the article. The article makes it clear that Labor does not favour amending the marriage act to allow same-sex marriage. The article should note, however, that Labor opposed the recent Commonwealth over-ruling of the ACT civil unions act. Adam 05:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarajevo FARC

Hi Rebecca: I presume that you mean "keep" in your "oppose" declaration. Can you have a look at Sandy's comment underneath it? Tony 02:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am working to save Sarajevo from being farc'd. Could you review, comment, and copyedit (please!) the following sections Sarajevo#Geography and climate, Sarajevo#Demographics, and Sarajevo#Tourism? I am doing what I can but I cannot do this alone. --Maintain 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rebecca. I was hoping you'd pop back in to WP:FAR; I was inquiring about your idea of a revert to Sarajevo, and whether that may be the best means of saving its FA. Hope to see you there, Sandy 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if reverting it would help, please do so. My edits are meant to help but if you got a plan I will back you up with whatever I can do. --Maintain 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane suburb stub

Hi. I think I may have caused a bit of a mess with the Brisbane suburb stub. I think I was a bit quick in creating it. I also already posted a request at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/July. Should I delete th erequest, and just move the template to Qld geo stub , or should we wait to see what the outcome of the request is? And if I was to move it to qld geo stub, would you be able to delete the Brisbane suburb stub template? -- Adz|talk 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is already a queensland-geo-stub, so there's no need to create a qld-geo-stub (abbreviations tend to be frowned upon anyway). Would you mind if I moved brisbane-suburb-stub to brisbane-geo-stub? This would put it in the standard format for stub categories of that type. Rebecca 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's actually what I meant. It would have helped if that is what I'd typed. If you could do that, that would be great. Should I delete (or strike) the request from the requests page? -- Adz|talk 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nick Xenophon

a) I never said Xenophon abused Foley. Re-read what I typed. I said "involved in an". Both were involved, it takes two to tango. b) How is it not even worthy of a mention? Timeshift 08:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did say that they were "involved". Involvement can be anything. That's why a source was there so people can read. Timeshift 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you are deliberately being misleading. Rebecca 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, i'm being deliberately vague. There's a difference. I decided to give it in the most NPOV way possible, which I achieved by saying both were "involved in" and then linking to the article. Timeshift 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Hi. for the past few months, I've been trying very hard to work out a carefully sourced, NPOV version of the Barbara Bauer article that would satisfy everyone's concerns as well as humanly possible. The other players included someone with a grudge against one of the people cited, who also wanted to leave out mention of someone else who contributed to the chain of events; the original author of the article, who wanted properly sourced information on why this agent was notable and controversial; several other people familiar with the topic, who wanted much the same thing as the original author; a couple of admins who were concerned about sourcing and bios of living persons; Bauer herself, who appears to have repeatedly edited the article to talk at length about early successes or libel others, or both; and a notable editor with a major publisher whom Bauer libeled and tried to get fired. Yes, you might say it's been a long, contentious wrangle!

Anyway, several of us did an extensive survey of online sources, and even researched whether any of Bauer's anonymous (IP edit) claims could be substantiated. They could not, but the rest of the controversy section still needed work. I put together a proposed edit that I ran by Will Beback prior to posting it, sometime in the past week. He said it was okay. I posted it. Avraham did an edit to clean that up a bit, make the references consistent and remove one he considered superfluous. I hoped that was the end of it, but then someone put in the claim that the clients' vanity/self publishing predated their signing with Bauer, because of one instance we found where that is definitely the case. Further research is inconclusive, however, so only one Bauer client's two books can be reliably said to be pre-Bauer. If this had been verifiably true of other books, it would have been a point in Bauer's favor, since steering people into paying for publication is not what an agent is supposed to do, according to Writer Beware and others. I did one more edit to try to clear this up, and to distinguish Bauer's early successes (we can't prove it, but she seems to have placed a few books with real publishers in the 1980s and 1990s) from her apparent lack of recent sales to paying markets. Avi removed the some-predate-Bauer reference completely, but left the rest alone. Shinto fixed a misspelled word, and again I hoped, despite the spectacular row on on Talk page, that the article itself had stabilized again.

Then you removed all the stuff that I had run by Will, that Avi had edited, that I had done my best to make as fair and well-sourced as possible. Please consider looking over the history of the article, and particularly the references cited, and restore at last some version of what's been removed. Despite the personal animosities that have developed, the fact is that the article was well sourced and pretty darn NPOV, given the situation. Please don't let personalities get in the way of a good and careful edit. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 07:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As another editor of this article, I too am somewhat disturbed by the wholesale deletion of items from it, which we had been working for some time to reach consensus on... particularly with an eye to meeting verifiability requirements. Can I ask what the nature of the complaint that prompted this removal was? JulesH 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is OTRS? I tried to look it up, and failed to find anything that made sense in context. Is it something that can be looked at and/or responded to? If it is a complaint from the subject of the article, that makes sense in context of one of the very paragraphs that is currently in contention. On that subject, is the Ansible citation Jules asked about a reliable source? What about a moderated forum where the moderator reports on a complaint personally received? Does evidence that the subject of the article made edits that contained false and defamatory claims have any bearing on her complaint, if indeed she made one? I think we need a better idea of what's happening and what parameters and constraints exists to proceed from this point. Thanks again. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

from Jackp

"Many people over the space of many weeks have explained to you why edits like this are utterly unacceptable, yet you seem to persist in making these regardless. Furthermore, your threats to block good users when they were in the right and you were in the wrong are even more unacceptable. If you cannot learn how to edit an encyclopedia competently and adequately work with others, then you will be blocked indefinitely. Another incident of this type will be the last straw."

Please tell me what was so wrong with that sentence...do you even know yourself? Jackp 07:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

michael 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i think you may have blocked michael can you please assist in remove the block on this User thank you Gnangarra 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look here; there seems to have been collateral damage by your block; I tried to lift the autoblock, but didn't succed (and I don't even know why not). Lectonar 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind; it's ok now. Cheers. Lectonar 08:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help

Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.

The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.

Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.

Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.

Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .

When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.

Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John Clary Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.

That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.

My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.

I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.

Here are some links that might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wade_Watts

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie

http://en.wikipedia.org/Operation_Colorblind

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Threeafterthree

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?

The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alabamaboy

Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238

then

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238

Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edits. Potters house 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

2 questions

1st : Why didn't you answer my question about the Revert War you did in May with me? 2nd : Why do you keep reverting edits at the List of bisexual people? I don't say I approve, nor condamn your reverts, I just want to know why. --Deenoe 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For the 1st : I'm talking about an addition I wanted to make to William Shakespeare's entry on the list.

For the 2nd, I'm just talking about you constantly reverting edits... I just want to know the reason. --Deenoe 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unity Party

In an election results box what colour code should I use for the Unity Party?

Thanks --Garrie 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don Dunstan

If you so wish, please offer any comments / advice on the peer review page. Any copyediting / fixes would also be welcome. Thanks, michael 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's RfA

Hi Rebecca, I see you left an oppose opinion at Nearly Headleess Nick's RfA. It would be very helpful to me if you could provide some diffs that show the behavior you are referring to. As someone who is currently supporting his RfA I would like to know what you are alluding to so I can reconsider my opinion if necessary. Thanks, Gwernol 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarajevo

Hi—The prose of whatever version is being assessed is substandard. Please see my most recent comment at FAR. Are you still keen to keep? Tony 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New South Wales 2004 electoral districts redistribution

according to the SEO , Hills District doesn't exist any more as an electoral district. but I can't workout if they just renamed it to something else?

Any hints/ideas? the maps are a bit low-res...--Garrie 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney

Hi Rebecca. Could you please respond to this? As an aspiring graduate (I'm a postgrad) I would hope that you have an appreciation of the need for sources. Thanks. John Dalton 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) It's been resolved (found a source) John Dalton 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luke Martin

Trying to delete a vanity page of a candidate with no other notability. But someone disagreed so I guess we have to discuss it. Nick 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca (and RHayworth)

I am respnding to your deletion of my bio on Wiki and comment by RHayworth.

A couple of things, though. Firstly, are you in fact Jon Jenkins? If so, would it be possible for you to verify this, perhaps by contacting myself or another administrator via your parliamentary email address? This just allows us to ensure that this account is not an impostor purporting to be the real person.

I do not use my parliamentary email because the gov systems are too restrictive and I run my own SMTP mail services. I use my own email jon@trac.org.au which you can verify at www.trac.org.au which has direct links to my parliament web page.

Further seeing as there are no email addresses listed on this or your own page it is a little difficult to contact you by email. If you give me an email address I will arrange for the office to send you a confirming email from my parliament address

Secondly, I noticed that you created an article at Dr Jon Jenkins that consisted of your inaugural speech to parliament. The article was nominated for deletion on the basis that it contained no encyclopedic content. As Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it needs original biographical articles on its subjects.

As far as I can see the other bios for other NSW pollies are almost identical to the content that was deleted! Although mine was somewhat longer and in conversatioonal tone it relayed my life history, employment and political stance

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Rebecca 11:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the article was a verbatim copy from http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20031119037 . It did not acknowledge its source, as required by the copyright terms for the site and in any case those terms are, I believe incompatible with the GFDL. -- RHaworth 12:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

First you need to know that the links are generated dynmaically and change constantly so giving a link is a pointless task. Believe me keeping my website up to dates with speeches is a monster.

Secondly as the speech was written and delivered by me the copyright is not the parliament's to give! I own the copyright on this speech and by delivering it have give the NSW Parliament an enduring righ to reproduce it. This is not true of reports etc which are owned by the Parliament.

However in the interests of compromise I will replace the "long" version with an "encyclopedic" version. I hope that this will not be deleted or censored further

Eric Bana

I was wondering what I could do to change your objection for the Eric Bana article FAC. Looking at other Featured Articles on performers such as Diane Keaton, Uma Thurman and Katie Holmes, they all have seperate sections on the performer's "early life" and "personal life". Also, how would you suggest expanding the section on Bana's comedy career? I have added only bits on this career (from his early days doing standup to his own show) which can be sourced. Very little reliable information has been published in magazines or on the internet which can be used to cite in the article. Looking forward to see what I can do. Thanks for your input. -- Underneath-it-All 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Felix Eldridge

What made my deletion out of process? There is nothing in the article which alleges notability. Being active in student politics is not a notability criterion, and therfore speedy deletion applies. I would appreicate when you undo another admin's actions, to please let the other admin know about it. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted again and started an AfD. Being the head of the National Union of Students is a non-trivial claim of notability so I feel that he needs a debate before being deleted. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am at an utter loss. Listing something for AfD is rude? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shopping Mall articles

Hi, you recently voted to keeep the article Macarthur Square. Could you please suggest something that could be added to the article to make it notable compared to all the other articles for shopping malls on Misplaced Pages? I ask this because I cannot see what makes one shopping centre notable compared to the one in the next suburb. Not every house has an article, why should every shopping centre? Thanks, I hope to implement some of your suggestions. I am happy to conduct a reasonable amount of web-based investigation to implement some of your thoughts. --Garrie 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to admire you when you were Ambi

Have you changed personalities along with names? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

Please delete Atlas Games (sports event), a hoax article which has sat undetected for a year. Adam 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

14 Year Old Girls

I have added info to the article that help establishes notability, and I was hoping you may re-visit the AfD. Please respond at the AfD rather than this talk page, since I am leaving this message for several editors. Thank you! PT 18:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rose Jackson

User:Zoe has deleted the page Rose Jackson without following proper deletion procedure. Would you be able to rectify this? -- CHANLORD / 14:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

Jack seems to be operated from the Adamnet IPs again. See the history at Sydney and London, and also Talk:London#Removed sections from "see_also". I'm not sure what we can do about this. JPD (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

hi

Thanks for your supportive words at FAC talk. The poisonous atmosphere has become very tedious, and I wish it would stop. I'm torn between not even looking at it and feeling I should defend myself (which probably prolongs it). Frankly, I don't care if the "personal" thing is added to the lead sentence for the links under the FA criteria. What is objectionable is the pettiness and the patent agenda to knobble the FA review process. I've tried being nice to SV, but it doesn't seem to work. And she seems to have this (male) idea that you never admit your weaknesses. Hmmmph. Tony 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

The same troll is at work at Division of Melbourne Ports. I've already been blocked once this week for edit-warring so I will have to leave this one to you. Adam 09:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a proposed policy

Misplaced Pages:Removing_warnings. I've marked it as rejected, and with a little luck Feedyourfeet won't try to apply it further. Please do watch the page!

I am being polite towards feedyourfeet because I am assuming good faith and because I am blaming the process, not the person. This does not nescesarily mean I agree with his behaviour, and in fact I have already asked him to modify it.

Kim Bruning 08:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're still watching, it looks like both the page and the associated templates have consensus, at least from CVU-types, if I'm not mistaken. That's sure going to cause some fireworks at some point <rolls eyes>. <scratches head> Kim Bruning 23:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My Recall

Hello. Your response here will be appreciated. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing a VfD

Could you take a look at this Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs and see if it can be closed. PMA 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 proposal

Hi, Rebecca, Jayjg has confirmed through checkuser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33. Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on condition that all suspected socks can be assumed to be his, and that he will not revert or make supporting arguments where they are, and that if he votes with them, his votes can be struck through. I think the idea is that if they are his puppets (which he doesn't want to admit, and I see no reason to force a confession), he will ensure that they don't show up to revert for him, and if some future editors turn up who are not his puppets, he's prepared to leave the pages where they are making the kind of reverts and arguments that he would make. I've made a proposal here. If you really have nothing to do with your time, you can read Part One and Part two immediately above! Also, this section of Danny's talk page contains links to all or nearly all the places where this has been discussed. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. MONGO has indicated that he will consider unblocking early, and I'd be happy with that, but I think we need to work out the conditions that Giovanni agrees to first. If the sockpuppeting stops, I'd also be happy to remove the tag from Giovanni's user page, to help him to start afresh with a clean slate. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jfpearce

Rebecca, look's like Jackp's back, but under the Jfpearce sock. His Sydney edits are just the same - ie, the stuff he once said "i understand now" when he was temporarily blocked earlier. Presumably we can do something about this - ie, block again - if not, one wonders what the point of blocking is. It was so tiresome before, hope it can be cracked down on soon. if you look at his contributions, you will see he is starting more pointless and repetive lists and articles. hope you can help, thanks --Merbabu 10:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, From my talk page: "What the hell does Sydney’s status as a global city have to do with the cities economy, its like everything good about Sydney has to be hidden/removed in this article. Why is it under economy, its just ludicrous! Jfpearce 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)"

Danby vs Southwick

Why do you think that it is silly to remove and replace statements that David Southwick deliberately ran just to decrease Michael Danby's Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports? There is no evidence to prove that Southwick did such a thing.

Only people members or supporters of the ALP, Greens and other non-Liberal parties would make such allegations without any evidence whatsoever. All articles must to some degree to be apolitcal. Danby article is pro-ALP.

I beleive that the replacement sentences have an apolitcal bias and does address that it was the first time that two Jews have run against each other in Melbourne Ports and federal politics. It's not silly - it is sensible and the moral thing to do. I'm a tend to vote Labor and admire Michael Danby as one of the greatest politicians in Australia. But there has to be an element of correct bias.

Hope you understand what I mean.

CatonB 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status

Heya, I came across your profile and saw the bit that part of your contributions involve working on articles up to featured article status. Is the 2006 state election important enough to be considered for featured article status, and if so, what improvements do you reckon it might need to be up to scratch, quality wise? Thanks for your time, much appreciated. Timeshift 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidates of the Queensland legislative election, 2006

Check out Candidates of the Quuensland legislative election, 2006 (made a spelling mistake - don't know how to change it)

It's a WIP

Pls assist - you're good at this stuff

Cheers

CatonB 08:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Siva's RfA-- process screwed

Not that I disagree, but could you elaborate? :) Dlohcierekim 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yolu wrote and two other users responded:

Oppose. The state of this RfA says bucketloads about why the RfA process is screwed. Rebecca 00:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please clarify? I am not trying to defend the nominee, just to understand what exactly you object to. - CrazyRussian

Agreed, please expand on what you mean. That type of vehement vote with no reasoning given is something I would typically not expect from an editor of your good standing. You've done that a couple times now, and it's not helpful. RfA is a consensus gathering exercise and one can't expect their position to be given as much weight if reasoning isn't given. Just tell us civilly and constructively what you're getting at please. - Taxman

This RfA will be close and it would be very helpful to hear you expand on your opinion. Thanks David D. (Talk) 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Date links

In response to your comment, it's nothing really, but I'm using the tool someone has created (I can't remember who, unfortunately) which creates a "Dates" button up next to "Move" and "Watch" which in one click removes the overlinking of years and the like. So it's not taking me away from other things, and I just think this is overkill to link to, for example, 1983 when talking about when a pollie first won office. I suppose it's just a matter of preference, but I'll stick with your reverts. Thanks for the explanatory note, Harro5 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Harro5 was correct in removing links from isolated years, as stated in the dates section of the MOS:

Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?

The widespread practice is not to have a plethora of links as in this example, so these need to be reverted again. Thanks. Tyrenius 03:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that years are usually linked in the first place because of a misunderstanding that that is the correct thing to do, when it isn't, so it is not in the same category as removing other links, which have been inserted purposefully in the first place. In the example I cited above, I can't see any pressing need for those years to be linked, and it appears to have been done in a mechanical fashion, so the removal was helpful. Have I missed anything here? Tyrenius 04:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to examine this without argumentum ad hominem. I'm certainly not "trying to misrepresent" anything, nor have I stated that people are authorised to go round killing every date link in sight. Let's be clear, I am not talking about date links, with day and month, or day and month plus year, which should all be linked. I am talking about isolated years, which many people link automatically thinking this is the correct thing to do, when, as you have pointed out, it is only correct to do so if it is merited for a special reason.

When I looked at this diff in Paul Lennon it seemed to me that the links were mechanical and not judged on merit. Therefore to revert them was counter-productive and, in this instance at least, Harro5 had achieved the right result, even if possibly through the wrong method, which is a different issue entirely and not one I know anything about. Put it this way, if I had chanced upon that page, I would have deleted the year links.

I suggest that a good way forward would be to find a way to work constructively with Harro5, as his year de-linking would in many instances be doing a good service. If he were, for example, to check each time, and reinstate any year links which did have merit, this would be fulfilling the guidelines. For all we know he may be doing this anyway, so we should AGF, unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.

Who is the script's author? Tyrenius 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats Ambi

I see that Cynna Kydd hit the main page :-) Great work! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kudos! Nice article there. michael 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User Boxes

Why do you have no User Boxes ? Culnacreann 21:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be making false accusations

I don't appreciate being falsely accused of vandalism. Cyanna Neele is a quite legitimate name of this person, and a quite legitimate possibility for the article name. In fact, it was already indexed in categories under that name, even though it wasn't what you saw if you looked at those categories, before I changed it.

But then when I found out there wasn't even a redirect from that name, so that if someone entered that name into the "Go" box it wouldn't work, or if someone linked to that name in an article it would be a redlink, it called for immediate attention.

At least after your reversion, things didn't go back to the totally unacceptable status which existed previously. Now that formerly missing redirect does exist. Gene Nygaard 03:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies--I mistyped the name, and the redirect from the maiden name already existed; Rebecca just overlooked the need to change the indexing in the categories when she previously moved the page. Gene Nygaard 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MatthewFenton

Hi,

I've been looking over the circumstances regarding the block of User:MatthewFenton (at the request of said user over IRC), and it seems to me that while his edits were certainly very poor judgment, they don't seem to be ample reason for a block. Although the edits made were slightly disruptive (resulting only in a deleted PROD and an AFD that was immediately closed), they didn't seem like deliberate attempts to disrupt Misplaced Pages and I see no reason to believe this user has an intention to make disruptive attempts in the future. The user has provided an apology for his actions on the talk page and has a long history of productive edits, and I believe the proper course of action should have been simply to leave a (sternly worded) warning advising him that his actions were misguided.

Blocks are not meant to be punitive, and since I don't believe this user is likely to cause any deliberate disruptions and has shown acknowledgement of the fact that his actions were inappropriate, I'd like to unblock him, with your consent. I'd feel more comfortable with the block if there was a documented long history of abuses, but his action just seems like one huge (but ultimately easily fixable) oversight that happened to attract a lot of attention.

Thanks, Yelyos 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd second this. — Matt Crypto 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: the user in question was unblocked by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Yelyos 03:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackp socks

The existence of continued Jackp socks and their immediate blocking is going to have adverse impacts upon my editing. My ISP uses a Transparent proxy that the Misplaced Pages servers cannot identify. Therefore, when a Jackp sock is blocked I'm (along with a number of other Wikipedians) usually knocked out (there's three proxy server IP's, so a one in three chance). I know you've blocked a number of Jackp socks, and I was wondering if there would be anywhere to post this information, or if my problem could be rectified.

I do hope you're still in high spirits after the rude attacks on your Cynna Kydd article. michael 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)