User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive6

State terrorism

Hey, Ambi, could you protect the State terrorism article. I, and others, have made DETAILED points in talk, and it keeps getting reverted by people with an agenda. They have no leg to stand on, they've been repeatedly proved wrong (go to the bottom of talk and see "Big edit, reasons why", and note they think that 170 MILLION people have died due to TERRORISM (by states) in the last 100 years -- It's patent nonsense). Anyways, take a look, please. Thanks. Terrapin 14:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 21:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Canadian notice board vs. WikiProject

My intention was for the two to complement each other, eg. the WikiProject page as a simple list of topics and the notice board for any and all discussion (eg. coordinating efforts, discussing article formats, categories, etc.) I just think the notice board page could get unwieldy really fast if we try to do everything on one page. If people feel it's too duplicative, though, then I'll delete the other page. Bearcat 05:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Killed the other page, moved the content I'd added to the notice board. Bearcat 06:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

laugh...you do give good guilt trip. You wouldn't happen to be a parent, would you? Bearcat 01:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

I know you're (supposed to :-) be away at the moment, but anyway, thanks for your support in my adminship nomination. JOHN COLLISON [ L u d r a m an] 14:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian/Israeli issues

In case it'd be helpful, I have decent RL experience moderating Israel-Palestine issues, have a strong stomach for the topic, no particular bias towards either side, and would be happy to help in any way I can with such conflicts. --Improv 18:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion has two lists of categories related to terrorists up for deletion. Jayjg 20:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Schools

Since you are General Secretary of the Deletionists, and I saw some reference to your having non-deletionist tendencies with respect to schools, I was wondering if you could share your views on school inclusion overall. Thanks. Posiduck 03:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Link suggester on Lake Burley Griffin

Hi Ambi, I've run the Link Suggester tool on the Lake Burley Griffin article, in both selective and exhaustive modes (the real thing will only use selective). The exhaustive list is very very long and is probably 95% wrong or not worth linking to - I only included the exhaustive list in case it was of use, so don't hesitate to delete it straight away if it's not useful. All the best, Nickj 06:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nosing in

Why are you nosing in on talk page comments of mine that you are not a party to, such as at User talk:RickK? Please advise. 216.153.214.94 08:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Editing the requests of others

Could you and RickK please be more careful with your edits? You've managed to wipe out a change of mine to *MY* request on the Page Protection page. Thanks much :)

Mediation

AlexR is unfortunately at it again.  In violation of the mediation process, he attempted to effectively add a new version of the Joan of Arc entry in the Cross-Dressing article  - while claiming that he was allegedly preserving the entry from modification rather than vice-versa. You can see that his "reverted" version (at 19:44:16 on 30 Oct) included a new addition, added by an anonymous user today and conveniently retained by AlexR's "reversion", which included text designed to cast doubt on the historical evidence (this time using a different specious argument). Since the new version was consistent with AlexR's basic views, it would seem to have been an attempt to add new material on the sly while mediation is supposed to be underway. This was accompanied by a flood of revisions to both "Cross-Dressing" and "Joan of Arc" by two other names (JohnBaptist and Switisweti) posting one right after another in both articles. This is either a remarkable coincidence, or classic "sockpuppet" activity.

I have therefore reverted it back to the form it had at the beginning of mediation, and I would ask that you please protect the article against further tampering after reverting whatever additional vandalism these users might engage in. Frankly, I think it's also time to finally ban AlexR as a "troll", as another admin suggested, given this type of behavior. AWilliamson 22:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin references

Just saw the message about Lake Burley Griffin references! sorry 'bout that... somehow I missed ur message. Will fix it up now. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ADW General Secretary

Congratulations! You have been unanimously elected as the first General Secretary of the ADW. The votes may be seen at /Election1, and you may formally accept the position on the ADW page if you so desire. Enjoy your new position. --Slowking Man 22:31, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Ambi You Hurt My Feelings

Hi Ambi, I don't think I've had the pleasure of writing to you before. I really apreciate the fact that at least you expressed the reason for opposing me and in a way I understand. I see that your a very good administrator and I hope you become a good lawyer. The only thing that I can say about the Joaquin Phoenix saga is that it was a misunderstanding on my part but, it was solved with everybody becoming friends in the end. I guess it was a case of beginners ignorence. I hope that you can count me among your Wikipedian friends, I would like that. Take care.

Tony the Marine

Thank You Ambi

Ambi, thank you for your support. I must tell you that I read some of the comments in your talk page and that I am very impressed because people look up to you with high esteem. If I become an administrator I promise not to let you and the rest of group down. I'm glad that I count on you as a Wikipedian friend. Take care.

Tony the Marine

Hottest 100s

I've done some more work on Triple J Hottest 100, 2003. I think it would be a good idea to get this one perfected before starting on the rest. It's looking pretty good already! -- Chuq 23:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Village Pump Proposal

Ambi, I would like your input on my proposal (or some variant of my proposal) on the village pump. Thank you. Posiduck 23:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From a fan

Hi :) Just wanted to let you know that your amazing work, your myriads of new articles wo. Australia and those other little known countries and your initiative don't go unnoticed! You're one of Wikipedia's treasures! Keep up the good work you do :) Dysprosia 11:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

Your particpation in the un-justified deletion (via non-discussed reverts) of a factually accurate, non-POV, historical fact from that page has contributed to causing that page to be "protected". Therefore, I am asking you to particpate in the dialog at Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts which the "protection" notice calls for. Either that, or please leave a message for Mirv and request that the page be unprotected. This message will be reposted here daily (approximately) until you acknowledge it on the Dedham, Massachusetts talk page. Thank you 216.153.214.94 03:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not a threat, and you are now obligated to converse at Dedham, Massachusetts 216.153.214.94 05:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS: You are the one making threats. Does that make you a bully? 216.153.214.94 05:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i still like you ambi, even though you are a "bully" ;) --kizzle 09:06, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, respecting your edit to Dedham, Massachusetts, were you interested in Dedham, Massachusetts or the establishment clause or were you there to revert Rex? Fred Bauder 12:43, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Your turn's coming

I believe you will eventually be an arbitrator. One of the decisions we made at the beginning of establishment of procedure was that deliberations would be in private. I opposed that, advocating public deliberations. We simply never implemented that decision and there are the proposed decisions for you and everyone else to comment on. Obviously there are starts and stops and wrong turns as the various arbitrators bring their perspectives to the table. One of my failings is to give second and third chances to someone and then when they don't come though after a long effort to reform them, throw the book at them. Other arbitrators have different approaches. I'm trying a new approach and giving a pass to those who got sucked into committing offenses themselves as they tried to deal with this very troublesome user by referring to their infractions as "petty offenses". In the past we have applied mild sanctions such as a one day ban. Fred Bauder 14:11, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

You do understand that "troublesome" users, if they have a large supply of disparate IP addresses can simply re-incarnate themselves, yes? Wouldn't it be a gas if "Rex" has long since already re-joined under a new name and already has 1,500+ edits and has taken a more subtle approach? What will everyone do if they find out three months from now, that this new (unknown to us) editor (or re-incarnation/sockpuppet whichever term you prefer) is already earning accolades from many long-timed editors with such comments as "good job on that, thanks", etc? What would the Wiki cabal do if indeed they unkowingly promote one (or more) Rex alter-ego(s) to Admin? It's more possible than your think and frankly, would be very funny. 216.153.214.94 18:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Fred's right about your future role. Thanks for the note at the Gene Poole case. I had foolishly moved too quickly yesterday, and had thought there wasn't enough evidence concerning Micronation -- there was, though the complainants had done an iffy job of presenting it -- thank goodness Fred invested the time to explain more thoroughly. I don't see complaints on the evidence page for any other article, though -- if Gene has a problem at Sealand or any other micronation article, I don't know about it. Anyway, I guess I'll go back to pondering what a good decision is -- between the two sides involved in that case, I've been "feedback"ed into a corner. :-) Best of luck on your exams, Jwrosenzweig 15:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You personally have my support in your candidacy for arbitrartor, regardless of how my own nomination for candidacy goes. Good luck! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're too fast!

Everytime I create an Australian article, before I can add it to the list you've already done it. Please slow down to make me feel more useful. ;) Shane King 05:48, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Stubs

Sorry if my stubs offend you. I cannot see that I have left anything for others to "clean up" at Kingaroy. I'll revert to my paid computer editing today. Thortful 20:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On my opinions

I'm pretty sure I'm on the arbitration committee to take action in a way that I believe is consistent with the interests of Wikipedia and its community, not to reflect "community consensus". I think time has shown that people are pretty well able to listen to or ignore my opinions and arguments no matter which stage I have. Minority opinions are generally a good thing. The Cunctator 22:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not using my position as a weapon. I'm just trying to serve Wikipedia honestly. I'm pretty sure the fact that I don't agree with the conventional wisdom in every case and that I'm willing to express my disagreement is why I was appointed to the committee. By the way, do you think that my espoused positions are wrong? Why? --The Cunctator 15:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alamein diagram

I'm in the process of whipping up some more right now! Though most of the other lines are quite long, so bear with me. I'm using Visio rather than Paint, which makes things a lot easier. I'm quite proud of my new City Loop diagram too! :) T.P.K. 12:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, I Need You

Hi Ambi, How's that for a heading? I want to know if you can make a speedy deletion. Go to List of Puerto Ricans, then click on "history". Check out the insulting version of User:68.219.120.241. I would like that version completely deleted from the history page. Can you do that for me? Let me know. Thank you for everything. Tony the Marine

Thank you

Thanks for answering, today I learned something new! User:Marine 69-71

AFL medals

There's quite a bit that will be added into these pages over time I imagine - I just want to get the basics up and running as quickly as possible. But I'll add the Norm Smith winners in now—do you have a source for the Rising Star awards? Any others you can suggest while we're at it? █ T █ P █ K █ 11:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic

I see what you mean by "Antisocial to the extreme. Regularly does controversial things unilaterally. Would very likely end up a rogue admin." on the WP:RFA page! Damn. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration matter of Rex071404 is closed

Excerpt:

2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.

Passed 6 to 0

3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.

Passed 6 to 0

4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.

Passed 5 to 0 with 1 abstain

5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.

Passed 5 to 1

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Final decision. --mav 05:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My username

I've taken the points that you (and others of the same opinion) made to heart, and decided that it is in my best interests to change my name.

Because my attachment to this name makes it so difficult for me to choose a new one, I decided to make it a community event. If you want, I hope that you'll participate in my Name the Admin Candidate Contest. Thanks!

ClockworkTroll 16:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

William Spence

What is going is that I will not allow Herschelkrustofky to edit Australian articles. He is a longtime member of the Lyndon LaRouche cult and his sole purpose here is to spread LaRouche's disgusting and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. I have told him that I will revert all his edits to Australian articles and I will do so. If that gets me banned from Wikipedia, so be it. It's about time Wikipedia had to choose between serious editors and cranks. Adam 02:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not interested in the content of his edits. I am interested in establishing that he is an unfit person to be editing articles on Australian history (or indeed anything else, but I am no longer involved with anything else here). In fact his original Spence article was just another attempt to promote the LaRouche / Herschelkrustofky "American system" fantasy. I would be quite happy to debate biographical issues with any legitimate editor, but not with a LaRouche liar and propagandist like Herschelkrustofky. Promoting LaRoucheism is the only reason he writes Australian articles (apart from trying to annoy me). Adam 03:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

re: my sudden interest in the Australian labor movement

Someone added a partial paragraph on the CEC page listing personages in Australian history that the CEC looks to as its philosophical forbears. I noted that many of them did not have Wikipedia articles, so I decided to at least put some stubs up. Why do you ask? BTW, I am happy to see Adam expanding them, although he also seems to be deleting some of the perfectly legitimate material I put in my stubs. He seems to desire that any indication that these figures may have been anti-British, or pro-American, be suppressed in the articles. I would not be adverse to having you mediate this matter, provided your ultimate objective is not getting me banned (out of curiosity, I did read your message on Adam's talk page.) --Herschelkrustofsky 05:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Roslyn Dundas

Good article on Roslyn. I'm a friend of hers so I thought it unwise to write anything on Roslyn for fear of being branded POV. --Roisterer 04:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tuggeranong Merge

Hi Ambi, I think that the Tuggeranong, Canberra article is a duplicate of the Tuggeranong (district) article and it was probably correct to merge them. Tuggeranong is a district and doesn't exist as a suburb. Martyman 10:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it is strange that the only Canberra district with a similarly named suburb is Belconnen. Martyman 10:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tasmanian politician lists

Hi Ambi, sorry for being so slack getting back to you.. yeah feel free to move them to whereever is appropriate. I was going to point out to you that the Legislative Council members are elected on a rotating basis so it would be a bit difficult to sort these ones into groups. Maybe "Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, elected 1990-1999", "2000-2009", etc. -- Chuq 23:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S. embargo against Cuba

You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Pol Pot

Good quick catch. Alas, you may be on your own on this one for a bit due to the blindness of the ArbCom. Very Verily 23:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, help yourself. Of course, the fact that it's mockery of the ArbCom may be clear, for better or for worse. Also, you might want to keep an eye on Khmer Rouge; I'll be out of reverts pretty soon. Very Verily 08:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Katrina Price

This what you had in mind? Niteowlneils 02:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool. I actually don't follow NCAA basketball much, but as a fairly rabid University of Washington Huskies college football fan, I'm fairly familiar with the NCAA structure, and as a sometimes Seattle SuperSonics fan, am familiar with basketball statistical abbreviations and whatnot. I noticed your new User page says you are sometimes known as "Beck"--that caught my attention since that is also my dad's most often used name, short for Verbeck. Anyway, good luck with the degree. Niteowlneils 17:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

For your kind note about my service as an arbitrator. :-) I feel as though I did very little, but perhaps it was a critical juncture for the AC in which any effort was important. Good luck in your own candidacy -- though of course we've had some disagreements about how arbitration does/should work, I respect you a great deal, and I have faith you'll do an excellent job. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 15:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration matter of Avala is closed

1) The above findings of fact show that Avala has often worked against consensus and majority opinion. We therefore rule that Avala must follow the majority opinion of the users involved concerning any controversial edits that Avala makes. One specific consequence is that violations of the three revert rule are not permitted. This probation period will last for one month.

2) For a period of 3 months, should a serious dispute arise between Avala and other users with respect to editing of an article Avala is required to cite substantial authority supporting the position he is taking and either enter the dispute resolution process regarding the matter or drop the matter. A serious dispute is defined as one in which any party to the dispute has reverted the other 3 times or more. After Avala makes his third revert he shall cease editing the article with respect to the disputed matter until completion of the dispute resolution process. Resolution of the dispute in his favor shall require verification that the authority cited adequately supports the information he advocates including in the article. With respect to matters of taste such as size of templates he is required to defer to majority opinion.

3) Given the fact that Avala is now editing at a low rate, we reserve the right to revisit the conduct issue of this user once/if Avala starts to edit at an increased rate again and other users complain about Avala's conduct. This probation would last one year.

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala#Final decision. --mav 21:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matter of LGagnon

No one is trying to lynch this editor. I don't think it's a good idea to remove talk-page discussion. I think the wiki way is to discuss it with the editor concerned and if they accept your view that you should not have veered off topic, then you can remove the material concerned. I don't believe LGagnon should be given special powers if his/her position is that it's okay to simply impose your view on other editors. You and I clearly disagree on some issues (you are, after all, a leading deletionist, while I'm for keeping more rather than less) but I was perfectly courteous to LGagnon, have asked him/her not to conduct a vendetta and invited him/her to remove any comments he/she felt prejudiced his/her election or were unfair. I have also said that if he/she is renominated and has shown more willingness to discuss these issues with other editors (which he/she most certainly has not, you might have noted), I would vote for him/her next time. I think describing this as trying to lynch him/her is a little unreasonable. Perhaps you would reconsider and refactor your comment? I feel I should note that one of the editors you are accusing is standing against you in an election. I do not suggest whatsoever that I believe your comment was motivated by this but you know that the whole election has seen vicious behaviour -- particularly that directed at Shane King -- and you ought not perhaps to allow the possibility of the accusation.Dr Zen 02:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't call for LGagnon's head. I think he/she will be an unsuitable admin is all, for the reasons I gave. I bring Shane into it only because there has been a whispering campaign against him on account of his endorsing one of the editors who opposed LGagnon.

I've blocked the two editors in question because they write very long, harassing messages to me, which I asked them not to, and in a few days they will have cooled down and forgotten I exist. We are asked to minimise conflict and that's one way of doing it: turn away and not continue. I think it's fair enough not to allow other editors to troll me on my talk page. They're not hoping to discuss anything with me, only to cause upset.Dr Zen 02:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsement

Greetings, Ambi. You have my endorsement for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, and you have therefore earned the Quadell seal of approval. Feel free to use this image, or not, as you like. (You won't hurt my feelings if you don't.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 04:54, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

From Herschel K

Please note my response at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Response_from_Herschel.

--Herschelkrustofsky 22:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic for adminship

I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:33, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Parliament tables

Thats no problem - how was it interfering? It looked ok to me.. what screen resolution do you use? I like it up the top-right, because as you click the links to go to other articles it gives the illusion of "scrolling" from page to page, as you are at the same point of the page (the top). Hard to describe but I hope you know what I mean :) -- Chuq 12:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CSB

Well, if someone will get Xed to stop pulling this passive-aggressive crap, I'll gladly come back to an active role in the project, but I'm not going to do work just to have him revert it. What's the point? And he certainly won't listen to me, and almost no one else seems to be telling him to knock it off. I feel I've done my share of standing up to him, but no one particularly backed me up. It's very heartening to hear that others share my concerns (that is said without a trace of sarcasm), but does anyone have any ideas for how to deal with his behavior? Because, as I said, I will not try to work closely with someone who is constantly resorting to a passive-aggressive approach and who keeps bypassing consensus. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

What of importance did I revert? What consensus did I bypass? You haven't mentioned anything. - Xed 03:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, you are welcome to address Xed on this, but I'm not interested right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

The question was for you. - Xed

I still think -- as I thought at the outset -- that the key to all of this is recruitment from different demographic groups than mainly contribute now to Wikipedia, which includes working out what structures we need in Wikipedia to better support participation by people other than the thick-skinned, especially since the thick-skinned tend (only tend) to be those from relatively privileged backgrounds. (I have a lot I could say on this.) That's where I wanted to focus from the outset, but I wasn't (and am not) about to work on recruiting people into a vipers' nest.

I also think that keeping an overt list of participants -- which for some weird reason Xed to keep trying to hide,

I'm really getting sick of your accusations. The list of participants is the first bullet point on the page- Xed 03:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[1]. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:10, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was getting rid of repetition. The list of participants is still the first bullet point on the page you paranoid loony. - Xed 09:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

or so it seems to me -- can be useful. It lets active project members seek out less active ones for their specific expertise. For example, I can't imagine where our translation efforts would be without Wikipedia:Translators available or an equivalent.

I definitely think that having a singled-out collaboration (or one in each of several categories) at any given time is also good, as is maintaining a list of what has already been accomplished.

If the notice board approach will cover these bases, then great.

I'm about to cut out for at least a few hours, but I'd be happy to brainstorm this. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

What you are suggesting with multiple notice boards for the various areas sounds like a good idea. I'll probably put them all on my watchlist.

Hello

I made the table to tell her current stage name which is Ha Ri-Su and her subsequent birth name as a boy and her current true name. If you still do not understand the value of the table, please proceed to other Koreans and their table of names is there. This include their Hangul, Hanja, Revised Romanization and McCune Reischauer pronuoncation. It is better to have it. I got the idea from other articles written by others eg: Lee Sabi, BoA. If you are not happy about it, tell me why. Thanks, User:Chan Han Xiang

Furthermore, my ssecond reason o do this is that their fans can know how to use and pronounce their names correctly. You may use the List of Koreans for reference. You are welcome to create some pages as well. Thanks,User:Chan Han Xiang

Ambi, I'm beginning to feel that people aren't really concerned with article content here, that they're just out to get me. Maybe that's crazy, but what conclusion am I supposed to draw? After I did all those revisions to the article (granted, they've now been mostly destroyed by Reene's reverts, but they're still in the history), you tell me the concerns haven't be addressed? For God's sake, how? I invite you to contribute something to the talk page, to help me negotiate compromise by dealing with specific points. Everyking 04:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, Ambi. You know Reene's edits are utterly unacceptable to me, and I'll vote against it for featured if they stay. In the meantime, however, I've proposed a compromise (about my fifth one since this whole thing started, I think, but whatever) on the article talk page that I urge you to read; I need to build support for it, else this revert war could drag on forever. Everyking 04:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote? Did you not see the compromise proposal? How on earth can you say I want the article unchanged? Everyking 04:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the bottom. Everyking 04:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well, with Reene's "contributions" it is now very far away indeed. Nevertheless, I feel my compromise is a good one, and it's about as much as I'm willing to concede. If you don't want to endorse it, however, that's fine; you need not take part in conflict resolution that doesn't directly involve you anyway. Everyking 05:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And furthermore, Ambi, it seems to me that you're completely ignoring all the work I put into the article myself fixing objections. Why is it that I am treated like crap about this? You say it still had all the same problems as before. In fact, it had none of them: I created a reference section, I reworked the general critical review paragraphs, and I removed a redundant quote and several bits of minor detail (the last being against my better judgment, I might add). And yet I get no credit for that at all, while Reene, who is nothing but a troll with a personal dislike for Ashlee Simpson, gets praised for demolishing the article. I'm just at a loss, I don't know what to think about this anymore. Everyking 05:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

congrats on the legal threat :)

Thanks for a good laugh. As if there is not enough stupid spammers with legal threats on NANAE, now we see WP trolls suing sincere moderators for their right to disrupt the collaboration here! This is probably a WP first — I haven't heard of other cases yet... Keep up the good work! BACbKA 09:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modernism

Hi, I've been away for a few days, hence the silence. Thanks for your very kind words on WP:FA. Filiocht 08:39, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Changing Options for Votes

I know we continue to clash heads on this, but could you please avoid changing options for votes in the Australian City disambiguation process. Instead could you create a new option for people to vote for. I am going to create two new options, one which allows capital cities to remain [[City]] and another which allows all cities larger than our smallest capital Darwin to remain [[City]].--ZayZayEM 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>

I actually just started out with the two simplest options. Disambiguate all, or don't disambiguate unless necessary. I thought nobody really appreciated a complicated system (given that "larger than Darwin" was more popular than "just capitals"). By repeatedly switching it around, it is just going to get confusing, so I am going to leave it. But next time someone sets up a vote you could show consideration before modifying options that have already been set up.--ZayZayEM 05:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dispute about RfC protocol.

Greetings. User:HistoryBuffEr and I are having a disagreement about the protocol of an RfC page here, and I wonder if you could lend your expertise.

HistoryBuffEr started an RfC against me, and I responded in the Response section. Several other users endorsed the Response. HistoryBuffer commented on the various users' endorsements in the same section. It seemed to me that the Response section wasn't the place for the complainant to make further accusations or other statements, so I moved these comments to talk. Was this an appropriate thing for me to do? HistoryBuffEr objected, and moved the comments back. So where should these comments go? Any help you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

cc: User talk:Ta bu shi da yu, User talk:Theresa knott, and User talk:Neutrality.

Yarralumla comments?

Hi Ambi. I have been working on Yarralumla to try to address Jeronimo and your objections, and would like to discuss the options.

a) I thought the lead section did a reasonable job of sumerising the main points of the article. Can you see any more information from the article you think should be included?
b)I don't like the idea of combining the Notable places section into parragraph form. I have had a quick go at it, visable at User:Martyman/Sandbox. Most of the "main articles" linked in the current version I actually spun off of the Yarralumla article when I thought that they where starting to get too long. Also your suggestion and Jeronimo's for the section seem to be suggesting oppisite things. What do you think?
c) I still have to put some work into making the amenities section read better. It was born out of several smaller section that where more closely related to the Summer Hill sections to begin with, but they lacked enough content so I combined them into it's current form. I would rather avoid having to break it up again if possible.
d) The references are now in the accepted wikipedia standard (not something I could say for summer hill).
e) I added some local political issues in the politics section. I don't think adding too much info here is wise as the electorate involved covers half of Canberra and should be dealt with seperately.

Ok, I will have a go at sumerising more of the article into the lead section. I just had a closer look at the Summer Hill lead section, and it is not in fact a lead section at all... It is not a summary of the article, it is just a suburb trivia section, none of which is mentioned later in the article.

From what I can see the difference between Yarralumla and the places you have linked too (ie. Sarajevo and Marshall, Texas) is that Yarralumla is quite a small suburb in a city. No I wouldn't expect the Yarralumla landmarks to warrant this much (if any) text in the Canberra article, but if this is the only place in Wikipedia they are going to be mentioned than they should be given decent treatment. Landmarks that I have spun off onto seperate pages I have culled down to around around 2 sentences. Yarralumla is notable amoungst Canberra suburbs in that it has any landmarks of note at all. Most Canberra suburbs have no history and no notable buildings or places.

The way you describe splitting up the amenities section sounds almost exactly like the way I had the article before I re-arranged it. See [2]. I re-arranged it after User:Petaholmes's comment here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canberra. I prefer the way it is now, rather than re-creating small sections like education and adding the bus route info back into transport I can't see a Charateristics section being very useful.

I haven't been able to find any data on Yarralumla voting booths. Martyman 02:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh and also I have not included less notable places like the three churches in Yarralumla in the notable places section which would have been included if I was following Summer Hill's lead. Martyman 02:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gabon

Thanks! This is my first outing working with one of the African Historial Dictionaries series; it's been really handy for the next level of depth. Plus the references are awesome - 1,450 for Gabon! Stan 16:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saltwater Creek Ruins

I'd like to write up an entry about it, precisely because there seems to be so little information about it on the Web. It rarely even appears in tourist brochures - I only head about it through word of mouth when we visited Tasmania in 2000. It's on the Tasman Peninsula, it's a convict mining settlement. Apparently the convicts who were too troublesome for Port Authur were sent here. If you ever head down there, make sure you check it out - it's totally undeveloped, you get there via a poorly marked dirt track, but it's well worth the visit. Cnwb 22:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you find any good info, I'd be keen to help wikify it. The photos are just sitting there waiting to be used :) Cnwb 22:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summer Hill politics section

Hi Ambi, You had some concerns about the politics section in Summer Hill, New South Wales previously. You mentioned that you might be able to copyedit it at a later stage after your exams ... if they've over a) Yay! b) Do you think it still needs to be copyedited? All the best, -- Nickj 01:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Candy Broad

Ambi, I just would like to see a bit more on her personal life. Some family information would be necessary for the article, but more is not required (for me) to make it featured. Jeronimo 08:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To do lists

Luverly. Looks Like I dont have to worry aboutcreating my own.

Two things

I don't think extra sub pages^ should exist in the complet todo list (the idea is it is Complete). Brownlow medallists and their ilk belong in genuine lists. And unmade articles added to redlinks+People category.

A section for Australian substubs (like Portia DeRossi) near Requests for Expansion.

Extra categories - Annual Events, Explorers, Crime (might add more as the come to mind)

^except "Pages needing images" that could be a subpage, that wya people can just add that section to their watchlist.

Other than that I'd support it replacing the current one. I like the tendency to focus on redlinks. --ZayZayEM 08:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking Pages needing Images, Pages needing review, Requests for expansion could be subpages inserted using the {{page/subpage}} technique I was dabbling with, as these are slightly different from the general todo, and particular people might specifically want to watch for changes to these lists.

I guess mammoth list that should not really be lists will have to be subpages for now.

--ZayZayEM 09:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the top section (above People) of my rough (User:ZayZayEM/Sandbox) Just a small section of "other places for people to look at". And then the redlinks.

They would be wikied as the using that {{template}} feature. But if you feel that would make them to long, the could be simple wikilinks to pages like the ones above them.--ZayZayEM 02:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I haven't touched anything on the House or senate table-thingies.--ZayZayEM 02:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

members of parliament

why have you removed the link table from all the house of reps members pages. the other way made far more sense as it also linked the senate. Xtra 12:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

from my view it looked perfect. can't it be put down the bottom? Xtra 13:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Ambi, I've changed the AusFedMP template to be centered, and have placed it as a footer in Members of the Australian Senate, 2002-2005 and Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2001-2004 - I can add it to others if it looks ok to you. Should I pass the hat around AWNB to get you a better video card/monitor? :) -- Chuq 23:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i was just assuming that as senate is fixed 3 years for half. to just do for every 3 years. unless that is incorrect. Xtra 02:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

because the senate is exactly 3 years and the house is 3 years or less, they get out of sync and at some stage will become so warped as to force a double dissolusion. that is why, since the last double dissolusion in 198-? the years started the same, but are now changing. e.g. this years election was for this years house but for next years senate. understand? or am i all over the place? Xtra 02:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a double dissolusion by definition means that all senators are up for election.

if there was a double dissolusion in 1983, the senate sitting in 1984 would be from the 1983 election.

double dissolutions dont have to wait the 3 years that you have to for a regular half senate election.

they can be called whenever the senate is blocking legislation and the government believes it is still popular.

for a list of election dates visit here [3]

house of reps = house of reps only

half senate = half senate only

simultanious dissolution = both houses dissolved and up for election (double dissolusion)

nothing = house of reps election + half senate election

i believe that a in double dissolusion, since both house are dissolved (normaly the senate is prorogued - check that in a dictionary) the senate no langer exists and rather than waiting till the next july to sit again they start straight after the election.

any further queries - just ask. Xtra 07:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr is unblocked?!?

Is this true? If so, why?! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, please see Talk:Quadell. The edit in response to User:Ferkelparade was a revert plus an update. It's a strategy HistoryBuffEr uses to hide his reverts. This is not the first time he is done this. I have provided the necessary links on Quadell's talk page. A revert plus an update is still a revert. --Viriditas 08:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is correct. I have reblocked him, for another 13 hours. Please don't unblock him until you leave a message on my talk page and we can work this out! He must be taught that reverting the way he is reverting is not acceptable. And we must enforce the 3RR rule.- Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, as I've already noted on Viriditas's page, it was a very sneaky edit and I also missed it until I had a closer look. No need to apologise! I'm glad to see you were on the ball and are willing to take a stand against possible admin abuses. Truly, you will make a fantastic arbcom comittee member! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for being involved in this, Ambi. This sort of thing is very easy to miss, and I've also gotten confused trying to keep track of who made what reverts in what time period. No problem. Thanks again! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

The 10 Random Pages Test

I'm glad you're working on cleaning up those articles, but I don't think it's a fair test to ask that most of the pages on Random page are great, or even good pages. I think wikipedia will always have a lot of pages that are just starting out, even if they will get more and more esoteric (and/or VfD fodder) as time goes on. I think the Random page feature will always come up with a lot of such pages. A corallary to that is that all of wikipedia should not be distributed in any form that has space or quality restrictions. Thoughts? JesseW 00:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Senate lists

Normally Senators take their seats on the 1 July following the election. Thus the Senators elected in October 2004 will take their seats on 1 July 2005. But Section 13 of the Constitution (as amended in 1907) provides that after a double dissolution they will take their seats immediately after the election, and will be deemed to have sat since the preceeding 1 July. Thus the Senators elected at the March 1983 double dissolution were deemed to have taken their seats on 1 July 1982, and their terms therefore expired on 30 June 1985, which was why there had to be an early election in December 1984. The list is therefore correct with the note I have added. Adam 07:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Guanaco

Hello,

Thanks for your message regarding my vote and comment.

In my dealings with Guanaco, I have sometimes witnessed him use his administrator powers without understanding his reasons. At first I thought this was simply bizarre behaviour, but then I decided to ask him why he'd taken actions that left me puzzled (a few times via his talk page). In all cases, I was satisfied with his response.

I recognise that Guanaco has a tendency to be terse and can seem intransigent, but the in the controversies I've seen that involve him, he has been able to justify his actions or admit his mistakes. While Guanaco's style may make one question his suitability as an administrator, the substance of his edits, which is the vital criterion, convinces me that he deserves to retain administrator privileges.

Acegikmo1 20:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Murray River

You voted for Murray River, this week's Australian Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Thanks.

Sakia Gunn

Thanks for the props! I was a little disappointed too, when I found the crappy stub. Darkcore 15:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for article expansion assistance

Ambi, would you be able to assist me with the expansion of a fairly important article? The article is Select Committee on Reserves (Reserve 43131) Bill 2003 and I've got lots of sources of information. I really think we can give a fair and NPOV article on this contentious WA issue. Would you be able to help me out on this one? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Australian city disambiguation resolution

You may wish to summarise the resolution on Australian city disambiguation on the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) so its somewhere official. --ZayZayEM 12:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky

Ambi, if you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision? Herschelkrustofsky has initiated a query of the Arbitration Committee for clarification of their ruling about LaRouche activisim in Wikipedia. I agree that clarification is needed, because I feel the wording of the ruling was unclear and has left loopholes that the three or four LaRouche activists are exploiting (three of four user names, I should say: I'm not convinced they are separate editors). I have therefore written up a fairly long response to Herschelkrustofsky's query and have requested clarification from the Committee on specific points. The reason I'm writing to you is that I know you've expressed some concerns about the LaRouche supporters' edits, and so I wondered whether you'd be prepared to comment on the page. I've also let Adam know about this, though he may feel he doesn't want to open up the issue again. If you don't want to comment, don't worry about it, but I thought I'd let you know anyway. I feel this may be an opportunity to resolve some of the problems these people have been causing. Many thanks, Slim 03:17, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Salve, Ambi!
Back in September I was a candidate for adminship, but I withdrew. Since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. As you supported me then, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 19:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Michaelorgan.jpg

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Michaelorgan.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 21:48, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Just thought you might want to know about an admin noticeboard I've created. I'm only telling admin friends because I got blocked for "spamming" already by User:Silsor, so this might be unfair only to tell a few select people but I don't want to risk getting another block. See Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

australian electoral history

i was just browsing over the articles on new zealand's electoral history and they are far more advanced in their progress than we are. i suggest looking at their articles as they look good and are quite comprehensive. see the bottom of New Zealand Parliament. Xtra 06:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block request

Aloha. User:Alberuni should be blocked for his latest four reverts on List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004. Also, please notice the deceptive edit summaries. Reverts plus updates are a violation of the 3RR --Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

06:47, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (typos) - Revert plus update [4]
04:48, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (typos) - Revert plus update [5]
01:59, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (The article is a composite from several sources.) - Revert [6]
01:37, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (format) - Revert plus update [7]

I've blocked Alberuni for 24 hours. Johnleemk | Talk 09:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Viriditas | Talk 09:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Facility Tables

The facility tables were an experiment to see how they looked. I only added it to Box Hill railway station, Melbourne to see how it looked and was going to remove it later. Somebody in the WWW 23:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Bert Newton== You voted for Bert Newton, this week's Australian Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Thanks.

Error

Thanks for spotting that error. Adam 13:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Auto

Hi, Rebecca. In November, when I nominated Autobiography (album) for FAC, you were fairly vocal in telling me where it was flawed. As I remember, you mainly complained about it having a POV slant and it needing concert info...isn't that right? Well, I've done a fair bit of NPOVing and expansion since then, including some concert info, and although I still have more work ahead of me, I'm considering nominating it again for FAC at some point not too far off. I was wondering if you'd look over it for me and tell me if you think the problems have all been properly remedied or not, or what else I can do to improve it. Also, do you have any idea what span of time I should wait before renominating it? Do you think people would be fine if I renominated it a month or so after the original nomination? Everyking 00:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the critical review section is basically balanced. Maybe I'll throw in another negative quote or two if possible. And I can't fix the "stylistic problems" unless you tell me what you mean by that. What's an example? Everyking 03:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The detail is what makes a great article. I wouldn't want some stub of an article to be featured. Those chart positions are great content; it's that kind of thing that makes a Wikipedia article great. As for the critical summary, it seems to me that you ought to represent both positive and negative reviews of an album, unless there really aren't any of one or the other (or none that are significant), and that you ought to write the article so as to roughly present the critical opinion according to what it is. If it's mostly positive, with some dissenters, you have maybe 1 negative cite for every 3 or 4 positive cites; in this case, where it's roughly even, you represent it as mixed by having about as many positive as negative cites. I don't see what better way there could be to do it, and that's basically what I think I've done with the article in question. Everyking 06:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's not the style of the prose that you object to, it's the level of detail. I have every reason to want to discuss it with you if I can expect you to veto a FAC nomination. You know how important this is to me. You ought to either tell me what I can do to get you to drop your opposition, or just abstain from voting on it. I'm thinking of ways to expand the intro, so if I do that'll be one of the problems remedied. And I'm thinking of ways to incorporate more negative criticism without being unfair. Everyking 06:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You think the data from outside North America is sorely lacking? I've gone to a lot of trouble to dig up info on chart positions from various other countries. Anyway, the paragraph that you say is terribly written is summarized. That's why I created the chart, so I could summarize that paragraph and present the data more clearly at the same time. However, the paragraph is necessary because it includes sales figures, which the chart doesn't do, and because it includes cites everything, which the chart can't do, and because it includes other little bits of info, like the fact that the Now! album displaced it or the fact that it increased 61% in sales last week. And there's really no way I can remove the quotes, because things need to be cited; nobody wants to hear my opinion on "Love Makes the World Go Round", but I assume people would like to know what the critics think about it. Everyking 07:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

Image:Kerrynettle.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks, Kbh3rd 04:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Solicitation

We've just finished a (lengthy) discussion and revision over at Reformed Egyptian, and those of use who were involved consider your opinion both valuable and likely-to-be-reasoned-and-equitable. So we wondered if you would do us the favour of looking it over and letting us know if you think the article as it stands is both fair and accurate? - Nauvoo 20:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)