User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 07

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

Archive : July 2008

Mucking around on your subpage

Excuse my commenting out of a transclusion of {{dist km mile}} on your subpage but those dist templates are not so great. I'll be putting {{tfd}}s on them. {{Convert}} does a better job or for infoboxes try {{convinfobox}}. JIMp _talk·cont 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

??? =

• I'm not involved in this situation, but I'd note that the guideline Use English, which for this purpose is authoritative, would seem to militate against foreign language names for common items in all but the most exceptional cases in article names. Translation of articles from other language variants when our own are weak is of course encouraged, but it should be noted that transwikied articles are not immune from speedy deletion and other forms of censure applied to new articles on English Wikipedia which fail to meet basic standards (see speedy deletion criteria and regular deletion notes). Also, the need to build consensus for contentious changes is a core policy of the encyclopaedia and one ignores it at considerable peril. Orderinchaos 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of what situation your refer. I don't think anyone has suggested anything other than having articles in English. Nfitz (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Note I said in the above: "Translation of articles from other language variants". I was implying the target language would be English. Orderinchaos 01:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course it would be English. What else could it be??? I'm confused by why we are even discussing this. As far as I know, no one has suggested anything should not be in English. Nfitz (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 (thanks)

Thank you for your attention to the WorkerBee74 situation. On a related note, would you mind looking over the activity of User:Shem as well (I've leaft a note at WP:ANI as well)? Although I do not believe any blocks or other similar actions are necessary for him, my perception is that his approach toward other editors has at times been more confrontational than necessary, so some guidance from an uninvolved admin may be beneficial. For that matter, if there's anything I'm doing that you feel I shouldn't be, or am not doing that I maybe should, feel free to cluebat me as well. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Robot deletion of “common” metric units

Orderinchaos, did Lightmouse answer your concerns to your satisfaction here on Talk:MOSNUM? See my 00:22, 9 July 2008 post. Do those questions and observations match what is on your mind? Is there something I’m missing? Greg L (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Orderinchaos, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block of WorkerBee74 is mentioned in a report I've just filed at AN/I

I think the information I've uncovered is something you'll want to see. You mentioned the previous block of User:WorkerBee74 when you blocked him again, and said you were blocking for a week in part because of the previous block. I'm not going to argue on behalf of WB74 that the block should be taken off or even shortened, but shortening it in light of this information is something I think you will want to consider. I didn't name you or criticize your block in this report, but please take a look at it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing. I welcome your continued watching of the Obama pages. Noroton (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I just wanted you to get a chance to see this new information early on. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your block, but to the extent the previous block played a role in it, it's worth considering new information. Noroton (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As an IP editor, I participated very briefly (in the form of a vote or two) on the Barack Obama page and observed the constant melee. WorkerBee74 was constantly being baited and goaded by Scjessey, LotLE and Shem. His outbursts were completely understandable and fairly mild, considering the amount of baiting that was going on. Noroton, a well established editor, has taken the time to compile a lot of diffs covering the misconduct of Scjessey and others who have tormented WorkerBee74. I think you should consider shortening the block to "time served." Just before you blocked WorkerBee74, another admin named Nandesuka contacted him on his Talk page, and WorkerBee74's final edits at Talk:Barack Obama after that admin contact were calm, non-confrontational and constructive. He responded in a responsible and helpful manner to a request for links, without making any unconstructive comments, and you followed shortly with a one-week block. He may have been turning over a new leaf. That good behavior should not be discouraged with such a harsh punishment. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said to Noroton, I acted in response to the AN/I, and it was a decision pretty much any admin in the same circumstances would have come to. There is regrettably an ever-decreasing number of admins who actually read AN/I as it's largely just drama these days. I am happy for any uninvolved admin, especially if they have better or more up-to-date information than that which I am acting on, to review the block - it would not be considered wheel-warring to do so. However on looking at the relevant AN/I section, discussion on it appears to have dried up, and given the topic of the dispute and its sheer irrelevance to anything remotely related to making Barack Obama an encyclopaedic article, and given some editors' (on both sides) single-minded obsession with the one article and the debates in and around it, I don't feel any great regrets about the action taken. Orderinchaos 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be helpful to know that the above IP was previously reported as an IP-sock of WorkerBee74. WorkerBee74, among others, was cautioned about this at the time. It is curious to note that this is the first time this IP has been seen since, and it's here to defend WB74. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I also edit from home, using the IP address there. These IP addresses change about once a year. It should come as no surprise to Clubjuggle that since Talk:Barack Obama has been semi-protected off and on for over two weeks due to some disgusting racially motivated vandalism, this would be the first time I've been heard from in a few weeks. I will point out that since all the IP address editors were supporting WorkerBee74 and Noroton, and opposing Scjessey and Shem, one side in the content dispute had a lot to gain by convincing admins to semi-protect the page.

"Reported as a sock" is far different from being "proven as a sock" and in this case, the evidence supporting the report was zero (aside from the fact that WB74 and I happened to vote the same way in a consensus poll). If I remember it right, Checkuser said that we are unrelated. I notice here that Orderinchaos has edited the ANI report that Noroton made about Scjessey, and is presumably fully aware of the way in which Scjessey has lied and gamed the system to get WB74 blocked.

I just find this administrative action to be both harsh and one-sided. There was an abundant amount of baiting going on at Talk:Barack Obama by Scjessey and others who agreed with him in a content dispute. The baiting was directed at WB74 and others who disagreed with Scjessey in the content dispute.

Orderinchaos has used the previous, inappropriate block of three days as his reason to block WB74 for a week this time. Because the previous block was inappropriate, this block should be reduced to three days, even if we assume that this block is legitimate. If WB74 does in fact deserve a one-week block, then so does Scjessey.

In any event, blocks are for the purpose of modifying behavior and protecting the project, not for purposes of punishment. A review of WB74's most recent edits at Talk:Barack Obama since admin Nandesuka's intervention indicates that WB74 had already modified his behavior prior to the block, and that further protection of the project against him is therefore not needed. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK

Whats your source? There is still a hell of a lot of work with it but hey your editing hours are intriguing i do hope you dont need medical attention after that :) Pastoral leases of course - the homestead pastoral lease cross checking will still happen, but hey that was a small leap - thanks for that. SatuSuro 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we gotta be careful that we claim that they are all current and that they are on the list - but hey will have the list in the next week or so SatuSuro 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And i think we need some sort of indicator at the top of the list as to where they might be easily located on a map SatuSuro 02:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One big problem is the linking to the regions and local governments in the a and b - do you think the links should be dropped/removed - or only the first mentioned - or what? it has me flummoxed SatuSuro 03:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs)

Hello!

You blocked the above IP for a month as per the relevant ANI thread. Would you mind adding a block template to his talk page to notify him of this? I would have done it but it's a no-no for non-admins.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

was browsing...

..and saw your music choices on the front page! Nice selection :). You might want to try Pure Reason Revolution, later Anathema and The Pineapple Thief if you haven't already. New Oceansize album is fantastic, if you don't have that already. Ironholds 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anathema try anything off "a fine day to exit" (sorta their most alterna-rocky album). For more striking stuff try "dont look too far" "deep" "pitiless" or "empty". PRR have a lot of good stuff released as b-sides, so check out "golden clothes" and "asleep under eiderdown", for example, as well as the stuff off The Dark Third (Of which I recommend "he tried to show them magic/ambassadors return" as a particularly good song. Oh, and Biffy Clyro: Dont know if they've hit in australia yet, but I got to see them with Oceansize as a support act (making me a happy, happy bunny). Did you get the bonus track off the new OCZ album (vorhees)? Ironholds 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks nothing like him doesn't it?

Same with the new Snedden picture, same with any free substitutes for the hundred other photos removed. Not happy. Timeshift (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian Politicians

Try DRV if you like, but I'll caution you that DRV on any of those is really unlikely to be successful; these are very "textbook" examples. The advice I pointed Timeshift9 to is the best advice there is if your goal is populating Australian politician articles with photos; if you need any other help I'm glad to offer (although perhaps you wouldn't be interested). WilyD 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I say, feel free to make the argument, but essentially identical arguments have been made before and the precedent is very clearly that barring amazing exceptional circumstances, photographs to identify a living person fail replacability; I think barring a change of the rule (and it's unclear whether we ever could within the foundation's licensing resolution) the cause is hopeless. I know you went through a similar thing with Australian Judges recently, did you not DRV them?

Beyond this, I know the Dutch Wikipedia did get some Dutch Party or another to license photos of all their members none too long ago. Americans have it pretty easy in politician articles, but we in the colonies are harder pressed the way things are. Like-minded Wikiproject members may be helpful in any such endevor. In the meantime I think it's a waste of effort to fight the vegans on this front, but your effort is yours. I realise a lot of effort went into this, so I'm willing to offer what help I can, but I don't think that you can convince anyone this stuff gets by replacability, especially given precedent. WilyD 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well. Unfree images/movies/sounds/whatnot is one of the few places where rules are really enforced, which generally makes it a nice place to work on (occasions like this are an exception, of course). I got into these same kind of frustrations back when I was young, but eventually I came to really get excited whenever I could score some free images;

As for nefarious purposes, that's really not very plausible. Technophobes maybe (probbably less younger ones standing for election), but they should (in principle) understand laws pretaining to personality rights ... I think it's a lot of work, probably, and the ones who go courting seem to do well with porn stars, but mediocre with the rest, so maybe people really are reluctant. The prevailing winds seem to be pushing harder and harder against fair dealings anyhow; I'm not sure one can hope to fight the tide. WilyD 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just regarding that, the Liberal Party has infact used free Wikipedia images for nefarious purposes. Here and here are two examples. So yes, I highly doubt either party would be willing to free up their images any time soon. Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never approached anyone to ask for their images, so I'm not sure. It is one of the drawbacks of being part of a large community that things don't always go the way we like; if the will of the community was the push fair use/fair dealings as far as the foundation would let us, then we could, but in the meantime we live with the comprimise we have.

On the first point, a Wikiproject dedicated to talking people into releasing photos might be worthwhile; I've been involved with a Wikiproject that did much, but MILHIST and LGBT RIGHTS seem to actually work, so it is possible. WilyD 14:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"I got into these same kind of frustrations back when I was young, but eventually I came to really get excited whenever I could score some free images" - how patronising. Look at my user page. I would be confident of having contributed the most free images for Australian Politics articles. But some simply do not have a free image that exists, and even with the highly secluded lives former politicians live in, a photo now would be useless, so the highly unlikely is highly useless, it is not a viable option. There is no way out of this and no way to lessen the blow of removing these images, the only images taken at the time. There is no alternative, and the articles will suffer permanently thanks to deletionists. Timeshift (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's harder with retired people who have left public life, but I do think that a lot of political figures would be willing to release an image under a free license for use on their articles. It's in their best interest really. We just need to write to them politely and explain what we're doing. I've contacted three people like this and all have obliged quite happily. I'm perfectly happy to write to MPs myself and ask for an image if we can compile a list of people we need images for to work off. Sarah 14:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Email. Moondyne 13:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Extra lines in templates

Just FYI but when editing templates, be sure that it doesn't add a new line to them, otherwise a new line will be added to every page that transcludes the template ;) Gary King (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding NYScholar

Hey OIC. Thank you for commenting on my talk page regarding NYScholar's accusations and his inability to present any evidence in support of them. I've written a detailed response to his accusations and I just wanted to ask you to review it and confirm that NYScholar's accusations are groundless. I don't really care about his opinion, but I just don't want to have his bogus and utterly ridiculous 3RR warning and accusations that I have violated the "both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR" and that I was "violating WP:LOP [the List of Policies] at whim or will" sitting in my archive unresponded to as it will no doubt look to anyone who happens to see it as though the accusations were true. So I was wondering if you get a few minutes sometime, if you wouldn't mind having a look and confirming that the accusations are without foundation. The section on my talk page is here: Response to 3RR and other accusations by NYScholar. Sorry it's a bit long, but it's actually quite straight forward as I had only made a couple of edits to the ANI section in question in the hour or so that NYScholar accuses me of violating 3RR and LOP. If you don't have time, please don't feel under pressure. Cheers, Sarah 14:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious segregation

Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just readded the section in Religious segregation [1]. I don't want to get invold in this so I thought I'll leave you a message. Bidgee (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Buses routes in Sydney

Thanks for deleting these articles without any discussion. It takes time for articles to evolve, and I was hoping to slowly add details and references to them over time, but I guess not now. Details on history etc are not to be found on the official transport sites, so I could see a role for these articles. Are they less notable than a myriad of articles on indivuiual railway stations and the like?. I took inspiration for them from List of bus routes in London, I guess by the same token, most of the articles listed on that page are also unreferenced and may be original research and should probably be deleted also.Endarrt (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Prester sock

User:Prester John is out there again, editing as Hypopostumus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Someone needs to block him before he does too much damage. --04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another. Mariamu Mtakatifu (talk · contribs) is on the rampage right this minute.--Lester 00:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again

I didn't read your reply to my email, I'm sorry, but I see you and others have been at it trying to fight the deletionist trolls on Australian politicians - thank you. Unfortunately our friend is at it again - see the multiple entries at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_July_10. This guy is seriously starting to annoy me; it's as though he's making these for fun and to annoy Australian users. He needs to be stopped. JRG (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fish slapping time

Please could you give http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Largest_cities_in_Infonesia&redirect=no a fish to the face? thanks SatuSuro 07:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Progress Party

You're probably right; I only inferred that Richardson started it because he was the only person I could find affiliated with it. Feel free to change anything; the internet is extremely unhelpful with this one. Frickeg (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Nice work. Frickeg (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Workers' Party was a conservative (right-wing 'libertarian') outfit which got off the ground around 1972 in Sydney and Adelaide. Their patron saints were Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. They were basically greedy professionals who regarded taxation as theft. It was connected with and probably launched by the controversial Doctors' Reform Society in Sydney (president David Cunningham, secretary Duncan Yuille). In about 1978, I met several other members of the Workers' Party (and, yes, later Progress Party) in Perth. They recruited sitting member Richardson who had fallen out with the Libs and become an Independent. (I helped him organise a makeshift campaign which was, of course, doomed to failure.) I almost certainly have some documentation which, though, may take a long time to bring to light. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Xenophon

Care to comment on the On Dit election rigging? Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

By-elections

It doesn't make any sense to have Western Australia having a different convention from the entire rest of the project just because one editor there has a preference for the latter. If you want it changed, then get a consensus to change it. Rebecca (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

The modern majr general song needs to be re-worded for notability :) SatuSuro 02:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind adding your 2c here? Timeshift (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A case of 50/50 in my view - either view is equally correct, and with quite a few people with that name I tend to weakly favour disambiguation. My advice would be to consult with Rebecca and the other SA users (Peter Ballard and Michael) as their view would on this one be worth more than mine. Orderinchaos 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Watcha think?

I am a bit hamstrung by ips and others adding birthdays of no article re dlink soccer player names http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Indonesia_national_under-19_football_team watcha reckon? (my talk page please dont jumps yet ) SatuSuro 08:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO

Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

---

And you know that this annoys the absolute hell out of me, but whatever. I usually can't be bothered fighting procedural issues, but you will not concede a point ever, and I'm fed up with it. Rebecca (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I check your contributions regularly to see whether you've added anything new about WA politics, just as I check the contributions of a bunch of other users who write great content. Alas, this does also mean that I see it when you're being a pain in the arse. And that doesn't change that it's a bit frustrating when there winds up being a Wikipedia convention and a seperate Orderinchaos articles convention. Rebecca (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How kind of you. Rebecca (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear

You are taking the nat notice board comment to heart? :( SatuSuro 06:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Fixing - some need moving to more relevant titles and some are outright misleading by title and content :( SatuSuro 06:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

List of freeways, highways, major roads and tracks in rural/remote Western Australia is a good start for weirdness and potential misleading item - just looking at titles and contents of this and related - some very weird stuff SatuSuro 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

2006 Brisbane Cessna 206 crash

Hi. I noticed that you deleted the article 2006 Brisbane Cessna 206 crash on July 10, citing an OTRS ticket number and "in particular, is the only similar incident in Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_Australia". Could you please specify the specific reason for the OTRS deletion? Your edit (diff) to the article about two weeks before its deletion, removing the names of the survivors, seems to have targeted a BLP concern, and notability issues were addressed in the deletion discussion, which ended with a "no consensus" outcome. I'd appreciate your clarifications. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. To be honest, I have serious reservations about the principle of "do no harm" as applied to Wikipedia articles, not only due to the potential conflict with the NPOV policy, but also due to the ambiguity of determining whether the presence of an article causes harm ... and to whom. For instance, one could easily argue that having an article about a serial killer causes psychological harm to the relatives of the victims, causes psychological or material harm to the family of the serial killer, and/or causes harm to society in general by giving publicity—which many people desire—to those who commit especially violent criminal acts. I have equally serious reservations about speedy deletion of articles that violate portions of the BLP policy but that are not "entirely negative in tone and unsourced"—and this article was neither negative in tone nor unsourced.

That said, I see your point regarding the lack of substantial coverage of the event or of medium- or long-term significance. I recognise that our criteria for inclusion have become stricter since the time of the AfD and that, today, the article would likely be deleted under the "not a news source" provision of WP:NOT. So, I'll not pursue a deletion review since I think that you're correct that it most likely would constitute "process for process's own sake". However, I do appreciate your detailed explanation. Best, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian Road Infoboxes

You certainly are an "Orderinchaos"!

Mentioning major junctions the way you wish to display them, looks cluttered and for any one that may want to know the route number, in addition to the name of the road in a conventional format should be kept as it was.

If you believe that not all major intersections be listed in the Infobox, you are welcome to reduce this, but please, please do not leave the major junctions cluttered (as you did it). It makes it confusing to read (and longer), and makes the page more untidy.

I will revert them all back, and hope in good faith you will leave the format as is.

Thanks :)

--Rom rulz424 (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. I also have reduced the size of the route allocations, so the Infobox is not so big.

Since you seem so opposed, we need to compromise, because you're the one with the problem with the Infobox! So, what if, we keep the route numbers for the major intersections, but reduce them in size from 25px to 20px, and you can suggest to me any other improvements, that you would like. --Rom rulz424 (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you restore this version and delete the later edits in this page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting

Hi, I saw your post at Lightmouse's page. MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for raw date-formatting, irrespective of whether or not a date is autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm interested to receive your feedback. Tony (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Limits

Thank You! Exactly, I don't see why we have to have a "limit" or have to wait for a week to nominate articles, the project barely even pays attention to them.--S_RX 12:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou from Kambalda West!

Thanks for your input and suggestions. I am going to concentrate on teaching how to encode and reference properly before I get carried away on the Kambalda page (baby steps!) I was just wondering, as a teacher, is there a good way of avoiding blatant plagarism (in the context of a high school)? I just know they're all going to try to just cut and paste stuff from other sites...

I don't mean to invade your privacy, but I am very curious as to who you are and how you became a Wiki administrator. I am a second year teacher myself, but to be honest there aren't many other teachers around here who do this sort of thing. Perhaps you should be running PD's??? I would come!

-I have just read your userpage and I have to say I am surprised at how much we have in common! Once again, keep up your great work, you seem like a very valuable person to know!

Dan C

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambaldawdhs (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 

Thank you

Thank you SatuSuro 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

3rr block

Care to clarify why you think the block is unfortunate . The 3RR page clearly states that exceptions are made for vandalism but not otherwise. Are you accusing me of being a vandal? Perhaps you can explain why no one else was reverting despite a number of people watching the page. For example Gnangarra did not remove the item from the article despite disagreeing with it - he obviously did not think it a BLP violation which was Skyring's justification. Skyring was given the opportunity to avoid the block by self-reverting as the blocking admin thought it not a BLP violation per the article talk page discussion and his own assessment. Skyring declined the opportunity and went on to revert a 5th time. --Matilda ^talk 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO this doesnt need any more drama, its unfortunate the dispute/discussion got to such a situation. The JH article needs more edit-revert-talk rather than the current situation of e-r-r-r-r-r....block..... Gnangarra 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the problem is that most of the disputes on the JH article, even if concluded in one or other direction, actually do nothing to develop the article - it's not like we're talking about helpful or useful additions, it just seems to be the left or right trying to score points by adding some "hot potato" to it. In this case I think Skyring was helping to protect Wikipedia from its own excesses, although the means by which he did so could have been better. Further, a block in these situations gives encouragement to his opponents, who probably now believe they are "right" because someone on the other side got blocked. Hence, unfortunate. Orderinchaos 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but I am not of the left or the right. As for his opponents - well personal attacks are not the way to win friends in my view. --Matilda ^talk 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you were. I was thinking of certain new users to the topic who have suddenly made this non-issue an issue. You and I and a number of others are left trying to deal with the new circumstances when that sort of thing happens. It's been my opinion for a long time that the John Howard article needs a complete rewrite, as its current form inspires many of the problems and disputes which arise on it, but my own time is very spare and I've now got a fairly major on-wiki project to manage which will take all my time here from now till the end of September. Orderinchaos 02:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Socks!

Here's some socks for you! Socks (when they're the clothing variety, rather than the disruptive type) somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is almost the most disgusting pun I have ever seen on a wikipedia talk page - I hope the sender gets wet socks - and all wikilove persons should be covered in wet socks - with mud as well if possible :) SatuSuro 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP1.0 bot

There's a link to force the bot to run, which I presume you've been doing. I've lost the url. Can you advise? Moondyne 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

John Howard

Like I told Surturz: He can't make a bad edit and then claim I have assumed bad faith. Bad faith is evident, and I called him out on it. He should be talking it out on the talk page.

How is "Reverting this rubbish" not POV?

Carbon Rodney

13:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Absence of removal has been taken as acceptance of the material by certain parties so anyone that disagrees with inclusion has to remove it to show lack of consensus but then if they remove it they get accused of making POV edits, vandalism and so on. It's rather a lose-lose situation for people who believe this material violates policy. Sarah 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: had Surturz reverted it with a summary "not notable" / "BLP vio" I would have not accused him of POV removal. Referring to contentious material as 'rubbish' is a fairly good indication of POV. If he was only doing it to signify that consensus has not been reached then he has definitely done the wrong thing. Like I said, he needs to take that to the talk page

Order: I didn't accuse him of vandalism, I accused him of POV pushing. I disagree that it is an UNDUE or BLP issue, but you can see my posts on the talk page about that. Of course I seem invested, I am the one under attack here for reverting an unhelpful edit! I'm not letting any personal feelings of mine get in the way here - I am just in the habit of reverting people who make unhelpful edits to my watched articles.

Carbon Rodney

14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had characterised the edit as vandalism, my summary would have been simply "vandalism" and Surturz would have gotten a a caution template. My use of the word borderline here is much like your use of it in your summary "borderline BLP": Although it is NOT vandalism / BLP, it is certainly getting there.

Thank you, it is good to know the policy that in edit wars, consensus is required to add new material. I dropped into this discussion when an adequately cited paragraph was removed, but knowing we need consensus before it's included makes me feel a lot better about it not being there until consensus is reached.

OK, I can certainly understand how this might seem like one of those times. But... it is a little different don't you think? Although its contended, its a small paragraph, about an official process...

Carbon Rodney

14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi Orderinchaos. You recently said in another post: "Wikipedia's consensus procedure holds that in order to add something contentious to a contested page, one has to obtain consensus on the talk page first". Does it really say that? Just curious. I'd be interested to know if that is the case. Regards, --Lester 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted)

Technically, no, it is not covered by WP:CON, and we also have WP:BOLD. However, if something is going to massively elevate drama with little or no end benefit, it seems sensible to take the less dramatic route. In other contentious environments (I'm thinking particularly of the ones where nationalism is an issue), this sort of idea is generally held to be the case. Orderinchaos 11:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wonder if that is the less dramatic route, or the most drama-filled route of all. A few Wikipedians seem to feel that editors must ask permission before posting new material, and they feel they are obeying Wikipedia rules by instantly reverting it. By hovering over the article and instantly reverting that content, it relieves the deleting editor of the need to justify that deletion on the talk page, as the revert is a more powerful tool that talk. Maybe Wikipedia rules need to more explicitly define the situations when reverting is acceptable, but I question whether instant deletions reduce drama or should be encouraged. When it comes to whole article deletions, when there is no consensus, or if there is doubt, the article is kept. Shouldn't that also apply to paragraph deletions?--Lester 22:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "must", because it isn't in policy. However, in this case, we had an edit which was poorly justified in terms of WP:UNDUE and, as it turned out, very weakly sourced being added to a high traffic article where the editing atmosphere was already at breaking point. Compare this, for example, to the Obama situation where both sources and import were clearly on the addition's side. Taking either to the talk page would have saved the article from being protected. I don't think reverting such as it occurred on the article is ever accepted, and I also don't think the theory espoused by one editor that any editor who does not revert agrees with the new state of affairs really leads down a good path. On an article like this you will of course get ideological opposition to (or indeed support for) contested additions or deletions which has nothing to do with their merits, but what we're interested in is how it can be justified under Wikipedia policy. If it can't be, it shouldn't be there. Had the WA election not decided to jump several months ahead, I would much have liked to help rewrite the article so that a lot of these sockets waiting for a plug to come along just aren't there, but circumstances are otherwise. The WA politics section is the weakest of any state's on Wikipedia and I'm probably the only person with the scope of resources to improve it. Orderinchaos 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)