User talk:AYArktos~enwiki/Archive06

This page is an archive of messages from July 2006 – August 2006. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Re link removals

Looking at your comments below - I was hoping you would hear my opinion as well. It took many years and 1000s of people's contributions to create such an amazing repository of images on underwater.com.au - a community website - and yes it does have commercial aspects as well, but how could a website like that run any other way.

We have a community of people that spend a lot of their time at not charge to put photos into our galleries, to catalogue the underwater world of australia and to encourage visiting these amazing destinations.

I agree with not creating links to purely commercial sites and links that add no further content to wikipedia, but honestly believe these collections (which are constantly growing as the community keep submitting images) are a value add to the articles on wikipedia - most people don't even realise the amount of underwater life and beauty Australia has to offer. We don't need the 10s of click a week we would be getting from wiki links but honestly believed them to be an enrichment of the site.

Also the links are not merely to a collection of pictures - they also crosslink to articles by the community if they are related.

Of course i will respect the decisions of the wiki family and will not post a collection of external links again.

I would like hearing from you.

---

Copied from WP:AWNB

seeking an opinion on external links

Could people please offer opinions on external links added in these edits. The pictures are very pretty and possibly encyclopedic, but I think it skates a fine line it terms of being a commercial website. - What do you think? -- Adz|talk 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding links from one website to a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles with no other content-adding edits? Looks like linkspam to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

* I feel that they fall within the scope for removal under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. The link is merely to a collection of pictures. Interested readers, if they were looking for pictures, could find them in other ways, eg Google. I agree with Pfctdayelise, looks like Linkspam.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They seem clearly commercial to me. The front page (at least from the link in the Broome article) contains items for sale. I would remove them all, along with any other commercial links already there. Kevin 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

* I am removing and will leave a message on talk page of IP--A Y Arktos\talk 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

just checking if you got my comments re the link removals

Response copied from IPs talk page: *Hi I got your message and was mulling it over. I think the problem is also the addition of links about underwater photography to city pages. If the link been dealing with a reef or other predominantly underwater topic, then perhaps would stay. The increasing preference is that external links are really only references to the content, not additional tangential material. Hope this makes sense - if not feel free to queryRegards--A Y Arktos\^talk 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

the thing is that most people forget the underwater life the cities have to offer - appreciation should go underwater as well - which is what we are all about and why we have such an active community of contributors. It is not about the photography, it is about what is to see especially at that location - which is why we have made our gallery based on localities.

But who is the judge of all this - maybe I should write a short article addition on each locality and reference underwater and the gallery - would that be something wikipedia is more happy with ?

Wikiproject:Architecure Peer Review proposal

I'm trying to build a consensus for a Wikiproject Peer review process. I've opened a discussion page here. Would you like to comment? Would you be prepared to take part in the peer review process? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building FAC

Also, I posted the IG Farben Building on the FAC on the 17th July. It currently has a support consensus, but only from 4 people. I'd be more comfortable with a stronger consensus and was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon

I had another bout with your anon friend last night, still behaving as vile as ever. -- Longhair 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been told how to sign posts, and still refuses to do so. It's hardly rocket science. I'm going to block him on that behaviour alone if he persists in ignoring reasonable requests. Nobody needs to go along behind him and clean up - that's not why we're here. The rest of his anti-social behaviour only brings a block even closer. I used to work for his ISP. Contacting them isn't going to be easy, as most technical support staff are outsourced nowadays and any chance of reaching anyone able to do anything about this user are very remote. I think the best course of action if and when they return is simply to block the entire range. Affected customers can then determine if it's worth sticking with an ISP that doesn't act on disruptive users. Any help you need with this character, let me know. -- Longhair 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to archive my talk page, but noted you'd linked to it in your evidence. I'll leave it be for now. I only archive for the convenience of others anyway. It can wait ;) -- Longhair 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine for now. If I decide to archive I'll let you know prior. Edit away. We always need more content, and less politics :) I'll ask around some friends of mine who still work for the Big T. Maybe we can show this guy he's not as invisible as he thinks. -- Longhair 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The offender is online now if you'd like to add to your evidence. Didn't take them long to begin and be blocked accordingly. -- Longhair 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just dropped by to congratulate tou and Longhair on your patience dealing with the anon user on Gundagai. I would have run screaming from the computer if I'd had to put up with what you have. --Roisterer 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They have been attacking again! Mount Kosciuszko History (1 & 2) -- RobertM 13:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They have returned under another IP User:203.54.9.154. -- RobertM 01:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted more under there new IP User:203.54.9.87. -- RobertM 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • They have made a return on another IP User:203.54.186.138 -- RobertM 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And yet again they have returned. User:203.54.9.1 Battle of the Hindenburg Line History. This is starting to get very frustrating! -- RobertM 12:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noted of late you refer to your anon as a she. What gives you the impression the editor is female? Not that it matters, but if I've missed anything of late please fill me in. -- Longhair 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am busy, but I'm free at the moment. I leave today for the new town further north. Warmer climate, here I come :) -- Longhair 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Narooma Pics

pretty, thank you for making my town look nice :) WookMuff 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a wiki search for Mount Dromedary redirects to Mount Gulaga which seems to actually be in NSW (I'm no native!) Apparently, Dromedary was renamed Gulaga at some point in history, but...

In several places on the web, there are references to a "Mount Dromedary" on Tasmania http://www.pabha.dhamma.org/

Also, it's listed as a protected "forest reserve" on http://www.answers.com/topic/protected-areas-of-tasmania

Perhaps there needs to be a disambiguation?

Mike 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

I do not htink I can be accused of being involved in your current dispute over the Lance Armstrong article. I regard your recent edits as violating the 3RR--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism does not break 3RR. Removing POV-tags and requests for citations without consensus is vandalism.

Would you be so kind to look into the actions of both parties? As I lined out at the administrator's noticeboard, JzG violated several important rules. Socafan 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My fourth edit was solely restoring a POV-tag and requests for citations of unsourced quotes, that is no content, it is undoing vandalism and thus not breaking 3RR. Socafan 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Our comments on respective talk pages overlapped. My comments about the 3RR apply to all editors. I am somewhat interested in Armstrong, also Landis and enjoy watching the TdF. I don't have a strong view though whether or not the section is POV or otherwise - thus in the case of the Armstrong article I am not interested in the content - only the behaviour. The other user presently involved seems well aware of the 3RR. If you want tags restored, please use the talk page to state and another editor can make the edit for you if they agree with your request and rationale.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, removing POV-tags without consensus is vandalism, and it can be undone by anyone. I ask you again to please take a look at the actions of both sides. I have lined out at the administrator's noticeboard that your fellow admin JzG violated several rules. He also deleted the article David Walsh (sports reporter) and its history without discussion in spite of two others having found a consensual wording. Socafan 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please just think about it: What is the sense of a POV-tag if it can just be removed by someone without any discussion, claiming there is nothing controversial? The very fact that there is someone who reinserts the tag shows there is a dispute. Of course this someone can be a nerd who sees a dispute where no one else does. This is not the case here, as can be easily seen at the talk page where Calton did not even bother to participate in the discussion. Removing a POV-tag without consensus is vandalism, as is removing requests for citations of unsourced quotes, there is nothing controversial about the fact that a quote in a quote section needs to be sourced. Socafan 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was wrong. WP:Vandalism explains that dispute tags should not be removed twice during a 24 h period. However, it does not count as "simple vandalism", and apparently "complicated vandalism" is not exempt from the 3RR:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

I apologize and will not do it again. However, I ask you to restore the tag, as there is a content dispute. Furthermore, I ask you to think over your question. Can a POV-tag be placed consensually? If there was consensus, no POV-tag would be needed.

I ask you for a third time to review the actions of both sides. JzG clearly violated several rules, even after having been warned by another administrator. Will you take care of that, too? Socafan 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to resolve the conflict. I however find it sad that apparently there's honour among thieves admins. Normal editors easily get blocked by discretion of them, but if an admin breaks several rules rarely do the other ones do anything about it. This undermines the credibility of adminship and thus undermines the whole project. Socafan 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no recent behaviour by JzG to complain about. I have taken on one fellow thief today .. now for those dishes.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG did violate several rules as can be clearly seen from what I explained at the administrator's noticeboard. If you disagree please open my eyes, but do not just make a claim that in my eyes shows a lack of respect. Socafan 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mining Towns in Tasmania

G'day, this seeems to be a new cat with nothing in it, bit curious of the raison d'etre? Surely Tassie towns is sufficient.? If you start a cat like this does this include towns gazetted but no longer in existence? Very interested in a response. :) SatuSuro 01:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, I'll watch the afd arguments with interest! SatuSuro 11:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

History of cricket

Hi. The history of cricket category is being used by the cricket project for generic historical articles like the four or five currently in there. If you want underarm bowling to be in a history category as well as bowling then it needs to be in one of the sub-categories: you may even need to create a new sub-category for similar items. The project is presently reviewing cricket history categorisation. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I apparently wasn't signed in when I wrote the above. I hate IP addresses. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that a new category category:History of New Zealand cricket was created yesterday, I've placed underarm bowling in that and also in the equivalent category:History of Australian cricket so that the 1981 incident is kept in the historical profile. We cannot have specific articles like this in category:History of cricket as eventually we will have enormous and uncontrollable clutter. We are looking into the creation of more new historical sub-categories to assist the process. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet I reckon Greg Chappell was nothing like as bad as his elder brother who frequently brought the game into disrepute. I know this all seems a bit pedantic but it is because of the potential clutter of the main history section that we need to have appropriate sub-categories. Would there be any value in splitting out the incident from the bowling article, but with suitable xrefs, to give the incident a higher profile? There is already an article about a riot at Sydney in the 1880s so a similarly direct title might be better for the 1981 event. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent disambig redirections etc

Hi thanks for watching my edits. For the record I am not an alumnus of WC in Berkshire and have no pro-Berkshire feeling. The move was done because it can well be said that the Berkshire school's public school status brings it a lot more attention (-> notability) and is quite well known internationally for being just that, and is notable enough for it to be noted in the City media. As for the school in NZ, it (like a lot of the NZ school articles) was probably added by an ex-student---its notability is local in nature (restricted to the city region it serves).

Following sentence added afterwardSorry for not reading the edit summaries before writing this message. Yes obviously NZers will be thinking of the NZ school, but it would not be unreasonable to suggest that someone in... India... would be thinking of the school in the UK.Mr Bluefin 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Bluefin 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded sarcastic in my first sentence---I wanted to say it was good that someone stepped in to review my page move. I didn't intend to offend. You are right about the argument "all the other school in Berkshire follow this format" being weak, haha. My edits concentrate mainly around the NZ school articles, some of which are in a terrible state, hence my attention on this dab page as part of my project. My bone of contention is that having the unqualified dab page linking to qualified article titles for each of the schools could give the impression that all the schools are of equal prominence (which I've expressed was a wrong impression). Lol anyway this is moot for me in the short term since we'll need more discussion :D Cheers Mr Bluefin 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Your unsolicited advice has been noted, logged, and dropped into a shredder. Oh, and thanks for your work in enabling an obvious and unreformed troll like Socafan. --Calton | Talk 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And you have a problem in sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

I am not encouraging a troll... No, you're enabling a troll -- ultimately, not much different. See below for further evidence. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me "frustrating". You see the very respectful reaction above. This user has vandalized the article, now denies it and is personally attacking me. I got blocked four times by guys who violated the policies not to block others they are in a content dispute with and not to block users who act in good faith - as you know that I did. Please also note what JzG did at Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter). Frustrating it is. Socafan 12:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You can call me troll and frustrating as much as you like, it changes nothing about the abuse of admin powers that I showed above. You tell me I shall find a better way to resolve the conflict. I have been asking for help in this conflict for several weeks now, all I get is blocks and derogatory comments. Four different editors and an anon complain about POV at the Lance Armstrong article. Socafan 12:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The only abuse going on is by you, Socafan.

So, this guy REPEATEDLY and falsely calls me a vandal, and you leave a "no personal attacks" warning on MY page? Double standard much? --Calton | Talk 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not take discussion to third users' talk pages. I showed you that removing POV-tags without consensus more than once is vandalism. You did it three times. Socafan 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, looks like your rehab program didn't take, and now Socafan's been community-banned. Your approach worked out REAL well, didn't it? --Calton | Talk 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Sorry, I mistook Calton's remark about "enabling a troll" for yours.
I find it absurd to call another user "frustrating" without pointing out anything specific and then threaten to block him if he again removes a "warning" after he replied to you on your page. I ask you again, as I already did a couple of times, would you be so kind to make a suggestion how to resolve the conflict? Socafan 12:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please restore the POV-tag again that was removed from the Lance Armstrong article without discussion? [1] Socafan 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem: it was inserted without discussion, and the removal was discussed; the fact that your participation is limited to rejecting out of hand the idea that any discussion might be valid does not amount to actual discussion, per se. Just zis Guy you know? 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mt Dromedary and talk pages

You wrote: Firstly, you didn't make it clear in your intital post that you were talking about Mt Dromedary

Well, I entered Mount Dromedary into wiki's search box. Wiki took me to Gulaga - I didn't want to go there; I was taken there. That's why I failed to mention it. Sorry about that.

And no need to further implore me to sign. I signed earlier talks, it was just an oversight. Sorry I made you page thru the site to figure who I am.

Also, so far it has not been clear to me as to what screen/method to use to start/continue/reply to a conversation. Do I try to write on your page, or edit mine, or? Part of the confusion lies in the fact that wiki seemingly uses basically the same interface/software to generate articles as it uses for talk, etc. Cute, but not always clear, and in the case of talks/discussions/whatever, as you point out, there can be no way to have automatic signing. I've never used any kind of chat/forum whereby the author of the comment was not immediately identifiable. Maybe Wiki should think about this. Maybe something's in the FAQ, but so far I've missed it.

--Mike 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Responded on user's talk page--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice wanted on word-for-word lift from external website

Hi AYArktos, its Bluefin from further up the page---I saw that you're an admin so I thought I might ask about what to do with what's going on here. The text was word-for-word lifted from [2] and [3] and after my reversion to the last good version the text was copied again, even after notifying the uploader. Any advice would be appreciated. Mr Bluefin 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Struck by original author of comment after amicable resolution. Mr Bluefin 09:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Floyd Landis sacked

Hi, yes I'm sure it says he is sacked I'll translate the relevant section for you (edit: improved the translation a bit):

Amerikanerens arbejdsgiver, Phonak, tog straks konsekvensen og fyrede ham. Og Landis risikerer desuden at miste sejren i årets Tour de France og to års karantæne.

The American's employer, Phonak, immediately took the consequence and sacked him. And Landis also risks losing the victory in the year's Tour de France and gain two years exclusion.

- Landis har fortsat sine juridiske muligheder, men det er et personligt anliggende, som Phonak ikke vil være involveret i, lyder det i en meddelelse fra det schweiziske cykelhold.

"Landis still has his legal options, but this is a personal matter that Phonak does not wish to be involved in", a message from the Swiss cycling team states.

TH 10:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER

Hello, AYArktos, my 1-week block has just recently expired and I am just here to inform you of User:JoshuaZ's recent comments, [4], which state his/her intentions to file a RfC on my name very soon. I would greatly appreciate your contributions to the RfC and thank you in advance. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 23:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hehe, yes I'd rather be editing as well, but thank you for the assistance. Cheers. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazyInSane

Just letting you know that I have opened an RfC regarding conduct: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrazyInSane. Your thoughts would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Floyd Landis

Hi AYArktos! Please do not remove comments from talk pages. The policies you cite refer to articles. While some of the discussion on talk may be inappropriate there, it is a fairly strong tradition that only personal attacks and legal threats may be removed from talk pages. Hafe fun! --Stephan Schulz 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Responded on user's talk page with reference to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Name of Wagga Wagga

That's what the GNB were told "wagga wagga" means. But they accept whatever anybody tells them. It would be nice, if the article says "in wiradjuri dialect wagga means crow", if we knew that is a correct statement. Similarly the page claims that in the wiradjuri dialect, to make something a plural you repeat it. Is that true? I really don't think the GNB can answer those questions.

If that is the reference you are quoting then please rework the paragraph so that it is not stating facts about the meanings of non-english words. --Garrie 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you are referring pretty much directly to the kind of reader I was trying to refer to. Personally, I can see where they are coming from I just don't appreciate their manner in doing it. I take on board your criticism about me claiming GNB don't back-check place names. I guess I'm repeating a bad arguement? But I think this is the first time I've seen someone provide the reference that GNB cited.

BTW do you know, is there a WP:Wagga / Riverina / Rural NSW? I am interested in contributing more to these articles, the WP:Sydney template is proving very successful in getting articles created (editors create articles listed on the template becuase, due to the number of times the template is used, putting something on the to-do list puts the to-do list item well up on Special:Wantedpages), --Garrie 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Riverina?

I'm sure WP:Wagga Wagga would be too narrow a scope. WP:Rural Australia would be too broad and would exclude, say, Wagga Wagga Marketplace (it's a retail facility in a city!) there is already a WP:Canberra. I would drop a lot of the dross I'm doing on shopping centres and work through an established, coherent to-do list if there was one covering the Riverina or a similar area. I suggest proposing it somewhere on WP:Australia to get other participants, and get some consensus regarding a scope etc. But personally I'd go with WP:Riverina - if it gets worked out we can always move on to WP:Bogan River or something (gee, WP:Bogan would be interesting though!) My main thought is to put the various wagga, temora, cootamundra etc articles into some sort of community that the categories don't go all the way to providing, and maybe help create community between similar articles for the region. --Garrie 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Can you follow this on my talk page please? I'm either double posting or splitting the conversation. Garrie

Spring Holiday

There are a bunch of double redirects in place (pointing to Spring holiday instead of Spring Holiday). Did you check those when you made the move to the new title? Powers 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I trust you. =) Thanks for the quick response. Powers 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [5]

Other Admins contacted [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply

GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [11]

• GoldToeMarionette Contributions
• Breakdown of GoldToeMarionette's Posts
• Example post to 66 article contributors
• Example post removal from 66 article contributors
• HereToCleanup's Contributions
• No AfD participation

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. RealTime 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This user went around spamming all the admins beginning with A, see my talk page Ashibaka tock 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Birthday Greetings

Thanks for the birthday greetings! I'm happy to know that I'm noticed in this community and it feels great to be a part of it :). Thanks for the Welcome message you left on my talk page about a year ago; it made me really enthusiastic to start contributing to Wikipedia! I meant to thank you earlier, but I sort of...um...forgot.

How did you find my Wikibirthday post on my blog? Do you subscribe to my feed or something? It would explain the lone subscriber!

Anyway, thanks again. I hope to be a Wikipedia contributor for more years to come. — JeremyTalk 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Either an article, or my mind, is missing

Excellent summation on AN, if I may say so. Tyrenius 06:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there, thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia!

As a resident of Wagga Wagga I was thrilled to find that others had written some articles on the city and its surrounds. A couple of glaring spelling mistakes were getting on my nerves then I realised, hey, I'm allowed to fix this!

So away I started this afternoon. I hope no-one feels I'm treading on toes, I'm just trying to make things a little more "right".

I'll try and come up with some proper articles or at least add to existing once I've had a chance to read the style guides and really work things out around here.

Cheers, "Dave". Talk

PS: One request if I may. The procedure for doing this is beyond me at present. There's an article in category: Wagga Wagga titled "Wagga Wagga Botanical Gardens". This should REALLY be "Wagga Wagga Botanic Gardens" as that's what the park is called. http://www.tourismwaggawagga.com.au/tww/?tww=attr&sub=tww_gardens&article=86VCWBOG4R23AKUJAP3J is one source.

Moving Wagga Wagga Botanic Gardens

Hi, thanks for the advice. I did TRY to move it but wasn't allowed to - I think I'm too new! So I looked at the "move request" pages and was baffled by the format. (I've had a long day!) I'll have another look in the morning and see if it makes more sense to me. Cheers. Dave

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LtPowers

I kindly direct you to Powers' nom page, I thought for sure he was an admin already, but nominated him when it was revealed he wasn't. He works well with others, including us at Talk:Spring Holiday, and I believe would be a wonderful admin, if he accepts the nom. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rand/LaVey controversy

From what I can tell, the passage from the source is stating that LaVey is better known than Rand is (which I would assume is true; I've seen LaVey interviewed for documentaries on the SciFi Channel, The History Channel, and other TV documentaries, while Rand is mostly ignored by TV). This, if anything, justifies his inclusion, as he is a very well known individual and the most famous Satanist of the 20th century.

LaVey's influence from Rand was mentioned in an earlier version of the article, but has since been moved the the Objectivist movement article (where LaVeyan Satanism is discussed as having spawned off the movement). Personally, I think it would be worth adding back into Rand's article, but Rand's fans are none too pleased with that idea.

And that is the main problem with editing Rand-related articles. Rand's followers are quite obsessed with supressing dissenting opinions (a quality they've inherited from Rand herself), and thus often delete anything that they find objectionable, source or no source. I have tried over the past year to get them to explain their edits, but they are very unwilling to do so, and when they do they rarely give a strong argument for them. Instead, they usually give a one-line weak justification or an illogical statement to back their POV edits.

The most difficult of these editors to deal with is User:LaszloWalrus, who, despite having violated various Wikipedia policies, is allowed to continue causing problems for those of us who are trying to keep Rand-related articles neutral. His blatant disregard for the NPOV rule causes the majority of the disputes, and no amount of sourcing ever convinces him to stop deleting info that makes Rand and her followers look bad. Although AOluwatoyin seems to be a large threat to the article right now, he is really only secondary to Laszlo's bias.

Nonetheless, I would keep an eye on any of the pro-Rand editors, as they have often worked as a team to force bias into the articles, regardless of the policy violating of members of their ideology. Honestly, I wouldn't put it past them to have create AOluwatoyin as a sock puppet (they've used at least 2 sock puppet accounts in the past). -- LGagnon 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I looked around their site, and it seems to be one of those Ann Coulter-style extreme right-wing sites. This would be quite appropriate for a Rand fan to write for, as Rand is often considered a right-wing extremist herself. Whether or not this Wikipedian is the same person, we know that he is Rand fan, and thus it is quite likely that he at least agrees with the opinions of this right-wing writer and might just be a fan of him. One article of his briefly mentions philosophy, and the Wikipedian claims to be a professor of logic (which is highly unlikely, as he fails to follow the most simple rules of logic, such as avoiding ad hominem). There may be a connection or there may not; I suggest confronting him about this, given that he may be in violation of Wikipedia:Username. -- LGagnon 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:)

hey! great info :)

WP:Pain

The edit of mine that you refer to is not for MrVoluntarist, but for LaszloWalrus, a repeat vandal and violator of the NPOV rule. That comment was in response to his continued attempts to censor Rand's critics. It was not meant as a personal attack, but a serious plea for actual constructive editing from an editor who is known for unconstructive work. If the admins are not going to stop him from skewing articles in his ideology's favor (so far, the only admin intervention for him has been unrelated to Rand-related articles), I can at least ask him not to do so.

As for MrVoluntarist, he continues to make personal attacks against me in an attempt to avoid actual discussion of his edits. He constantly resorts to logical fallacies to support his opinion (usually strawman fallacies), and then makes personal attacks against me when I point out the lack of logic in his comments. He is, unfortunately, unwilling to realize the lack of logic in his actions (despite the fact that I gave him links to articles on the fallacies) and prefers to attack me instead of sticking to the article. -- LGagnon 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. I encourage you, AYArktos, to read the full discussion. Whenever I explained my position, LGagnon would misinterpret it, even after I explain it several times, and then start to browbeat me for trivial reasons, insinuating when I was lazy. Apparently, he doesn't understand the incivility of doing so, even and especially when people start doing that to him. My positions do not contain the fallacies he describes. MrVoluntarist 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not call him lazy. This is just another of his strawmen. What I did say is that he was too reliant on logical fallacies, and that if he could not give his argument without them then he has no real argument. This is not incivil; it is simply pointing out the fact that a non-argument such as his can not prove anything, and thus should not even be treated as an argument. This isn't rocket science, it's Logic 101. -- LGagnon 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried Dispute Resolution over and over again, and have only come to one conclusion: dispute resolution does nothing, especially when it comes to Rand-related articles. The fact of the matter is, even an admin would be outnumbered by the pro-Rand faction that trolls Rand-related articles. They have a tyranny of the majority there, despite the fact that the real philosophic world is heavily skewed against them (as Randism isn't even a real philosophy from an academic view). Pro-Rand Wikipedians such as MrV and Laszlo don't care how much NPOV enforcement we have; they still edit how they want to, and since admins rarely ever takes action against them for it (one of the most notorious pro-Rand vandals took a whole year to get banned for his blatant violations of WP:NPOV), they get to override the NPOV rule. These articles are one of Wikipedia's greatest failures, as we have only once got an admin to help us with it and even then he stopped helping us before even half the problem was solved. It's this constant unwillingness to deal with the pro-Rand faction and to fix the massive neutrality problems of Rand-related articles that has made me unwilling to even bother with dispute resolution anymore.

And while I understand that I should assume good faith, I think at this point I have no reason to do so with the pro-Rand faction. If you've had experience with them (especially LaszloWalrus), you know that the whole group has had multiple NPA violations just for their comments on Rand-related articles. They've shown over and over again that they don't obey Wikipedia's official policy, especially WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility, and WP:Verifiability. Their ideology isn't even made to allow them to do so: they are taught by Rand to disregard others, never help another human being unless they can profit from it, and only work towards their own profit. Their ideology, unfortunately, does not train them in logic (Rand was very anti-academic), and they believe that ad hominem (personal attacks) is perfectly acceptable. Because they are rarely made to follow Wikipedia's policy, I don't see why there is a problem with me pointing out the fact that they are given a free ride by the admins. If I happen to point out that Laszlo's edits are almost always violations of NPOV and I'm right about it, I don't see why I should be scolded for pointing this out. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously by the outside world, I think we should avoid this sort of bully culture and actually stop Wikipedians from bullying their way into absolute control over articles. If we don't, then we might as well not even have official policies. -- LGagnon 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is a reason why I have a hard time assuming good faith in LGagnon. Look at these statements: "Pro-Rand Wikipedians such as MrV and Laszlo don't care how much NPOV enforcement we have;" So, I'm pro-Rand. This, despite my claim on the Talk:Atlas Shrugged page, the the article was deficient in making Rand look too good. This, despite my position here [12] that we should permit a blog source that puts Rand in a negative light even though a blog is not normally acceptable. Despite these, LGagnon seems to have no problem painting me as some Rand fanatic. He is not willing to genuinely listen to what I have to say, so it's hard to justify going through the effort of responding to much more of what he's said here or elsewhere. MrVoluntarist 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're claim that the criticisms make her look too good is done on a fallicious basis. Even worse, it's a thinly vieled attempt to delete criticisms of Rand. You are using wolf-in-sheep's-clothing tactics to trick your way into a pro-Rand article. I'm not about to fall for such simple trickery, and if our admins are smart they won't either.

And yes, I have listened to what you say. When you have given a legit argument, I have been willing to argue fairly. However, you often resort to fallacies to get your point across, and there is no point in arguing agianst a fallacy because it doesn't even make logical sense, and doesn't even have anything to do with the reality of the situation. I will welcome your opinion when you can ground it in logic; in the meantime, I have no reason to debate with you other than to point out the illogic that you are using. -- LGagnon 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again: now I'm a "wolf-in-sheep's clothing". Do we have to go through the whole exercise again where I do your tactics back at you until you cry to mommy, or you can you grow up and try again before I have to resort to that? MrVoluntarist 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have struck out discussions with comments that seem not to be addressed to me. I get confused. Others reading my talk page might too.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't let things like this get to you. Your response was absolutely correct and I said as much in my response on WP:PAIN - the wars over Ayn Rand have been long and messy to say the least. LGagnon frequently complains of mistreatment, but has refused all suggestions for dispute resolution. You know you're doing the right thing the moment people are telling you that you don't deserve to be an admin ;) Welcome to the club! Shell ^babelfish 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2nded. Syrthiss 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. You'll find that you can't please everyone, and as an admin, even less so. Just about the only way not to piss some people off is not to use your admin tools at all. Don't let it bother you. --Kbdank71 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Googling me, eh?

Nice to know you've been googling me for whatever reason! Yes, indeed, I am the one and only, the Anthony Oluwatoyin, journalist-philosopher, savage social critic! (No noble savage for this quasi-"Randian-influenced.")

Thanks for the latest warning. I still don't know why no-one seems to answer my appeals/responses with regard to warnings/blocks. But that's democratized venture for you. You perhaps know what Ayn Rand would have to say about that!AOluwatoyin 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin.

Afternote: I didn't see the "sock-puppet" reference earlier! Moi????! Some Raving-Randian's(s') "creation"???!!!!!! I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!! Didn't you see my Apollonian photo on one of very sites you mentioned in terms of googling me? Now really, could any force less than Divine have created anything of that magnitude?????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lov' your shared ad homs in denouncing my ad hominem!!!!!!!!! AOluwatoyin 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

NSW creek in a WA article.

Indeed it was a mistake: I got carried away while modifying the redirects to Prospect Creek. Anyway, the Prospect Creek (Western Australia) article has just been created. Thank you for your note. Comte0 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Resign?

I don't really know what's going on, but please forget the idea of resigning. Take a break if you need to, but please don't resign. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not goin' anywhere are you?Garrie 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Angus & Robertson article

You added to the article

Angus & Robertson is a bookstore chain in Australia. Its first bookstore was opened in 110½ Market Street, Sydney by Scotsman David Angus in 1884, who was joined two years later by, fellow Scot, George Robertson with whom he had worked with earlier.

I am querying that address... pretty unusual to have fractions in street numbers? Was that meant to be "shop 1 of 2" or something - in which case it could probably be left out.... Garrie 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Delete

Yeah, go ahead and delete the RFC. -- Selmo 22:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Relisting

Could you explain why you don't think it is a 3RR violation? Deuterium 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you think it is a 3RR violation?

Is there a policy against relisting? Deuterium 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just a continuing pattern from yesterday. This editor was essentially making the report look unreviewed in hopes that I'd be blocked by an inexperienced editor. A block would be a sure fire way to prevent this from occurring again. (→Netscott) 00:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is just nuts. There's now been three admins who've seen the (Result: No block) tag and reverted it: User:Robdurbar, User:William M. Connolley, and User:PinchasC Deuterium still reverts. Seriously this person needs to be blocked. (→Netscott) 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet only 1 has explained their decision, and that explanation was nuts. Deuterium 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

You know I was hoping to have a decent chunk of time from my last block before I accepted an RfA. I was reverting User:Deuterium vandalism yesterday where he was trying to have the reviewed 3RR report filed against me appear as though it hadn't been reviewed (to do some admin shopping) and User:William M. Connolley blocked me for edit warring on the 3RR page. Now I've got this nice fat unjustified block on my log which would just look fine and dandy during an RfA. (→Netscott) 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So my WP:ANI report wasn't quick enough? (→Netscott) 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one last question, where did I compromise policy? I got blocked for reverting, "Changing people's comments" vandalism. I posted to ANI looking for help no one responded. I got blocked. (→Netscott) 01:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose I was damned if I did or damned if I didn't (on the 3RR report). The object of User:Deuterium's removal of the report status was towards admin shopping ends. Despite my unassisted efforts to prevent myself from being falsely blocked (even going so far as to request assistance) I was blocked. Comes with the territory I guess. I'm seriously debating about quiting Wikipedia over this. (→Netscott) 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't resorted to contacting other admins because it feels a bit like meatpuppetry and also the old, "I know such and such admin". But I'll try to bear your advice in mind. (→Netscott) 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

I've changed the title and content to be less inflammatory, but I'm keeping the section. Where is it against policy to point out a factual 3RR violation? It's not a personal attack, it's just a bunch of links and a summary. Deuterium 01:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change your mind? This is going too far. There are no personal attacks on my user page and I have every right to list a 3RR violation on my user page.

I note that User:InShanee has vandalized my user page already. Deuterium 02:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even mention Netscott by name, the only point of the section is to show incosistencies in Wikipedia policy. I don't know how it could be seen as harassment or a personal attack. Deuterium 02:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I do prefer people not edit my userpage, but I like that little icon, and I can certainly see the utility. Thanks! --InShaneee 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Eh...without an account, there is really no need for descriptive edit summaries. As for makinng an account, I've had one and got really involved in Wikipedia to the point of being nominated for an admin. Around that time I got really burnt out and declined the nomination. I get the wiki-itch from time to time, hence why I'm here posting at nearly 4 in the morning. There is so much crap underneath the surface with people either elevating or downgrading your view based on what they think of you as an editor. I suppose that is what I like best about posting anon, you can either take what I say seriously or leave it. No worries. I also get a chuckle out of using this anon account since it's a wireless signal that I get at my apartment and coffee shop that must be receiving some kind of booster signal from a local office depot. For me, it's truly anon. 205.157.110.11 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Melbourne Scavenger Hunt

There isn't a clear consensus to delete this article right now, but in any case I have reverted my closure to allow for an another day of discussion. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Boxing Kangaroo Pen

no i was kidding. It's probably not all that encyclopaedic but i thought it was of some interest and seemed like a good idea for my first article.

sorry!

What is AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by *bj* (talk • contribs)

As AYArktos may be away from her pc at present, I've provided a reply to your question on AfD at your talk page. -- Longhair 10:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You aint had the best of runs of late, with words of resignations and all. I thought I'd spray a potential pest for you :) Their behaviour improved somewhat thereafter. Keep your chin up and fight the good fight :) -- Longhair 11:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

G'Day, If it would be possible to retirieve the article and put it in my user space, that would be great. Nothing better to look back on in years to come than your first ever wikipedia article! Thanks again, *bj* 09:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! *bj* 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry to ask a stupid question but where is the article? I dont think its on my user page. *bj* 09:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks again! *bj* 09:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

The statement you made against User:Dark Tichondrias on this edit with this statement "misnaming organisations is inaccurate and casts doubt on the accuracy of anything else you have written" is an ad hominem which is linked to by Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks as a broader identifier for the constitution of a personal attack. It is an Ad hominem abusive because it points out a damning and factual character action, then claims this undermines the logical support there might be for her/his arguments in "anything else you have written". This is against Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks.--Dark Tichondrias 10:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hampden Bridge

I want to do an article on the Hampden Bridge (Which could fall down at any day which was stated by the RTA) in Wagga Wagga however there is another bridge in Kangaroo Valley, New South Wales so I'm after some feedback on what to do. -- Robertmyers 12:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. :) I tryed to put in center but it messed up the page. :| Reuploaded the image as well (added a bit of colour). -- Robertmyers 11:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock

It's ok. I'm glad you responded as you did, assuming good faith. I'm so tired of all the personal attacks by Reneec that, at this point, it's difficult for me to assume good faith when I interact with him/her, and it's refreshing to see an outsider respond calmly and reasonably. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to use "ref" tags

Can you look at this section and tell me if I am getting things right with <ref> and </ref>? I thought for a bit I had to put [ and ] around the reference, then I worked out I can put it just around the URL if it's an online reference...

I like the way it populates the "notes and references" section but I don't know if I'm doing it 100% correctly.

Thanks, Garrie 10:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Longhair has put me straight. Garrie 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunc's bad bahavior

I too ran into Dunc on one page and after going round and round, finally gave up. You know the drill.

I stupidly allowed my true identity to be known. Then Dunc proceeded to seek out and delete/revert every posting of mine he could find under the excuse that, because I had cited some of my own scietific publications, this was a violation of the vanity guidelines. I then pointed out that this was specifically-allowed under Wikipedia:No original research. As usual without discussion, he then proceeded to attempt to change the rule. An edit war ensued and this page has been frozen.

I have placed a poll at Wikipedia talk:No original research under 15)"Expert editors" concerning Dunc's changing the guidelines to make experts check in with the "Vanity Commissar" before citing their published works. I appreciate all support to revert Dunc's changes. Pproctor 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Need for a helping hand

Greetings AYArktos, I'm having difficulty with a couple of prominent editors who are thwarting my efforts to establish neutral point of view on New anti-Semitism relative to an image that is displayed to show anti-Semitism. Could you possibly take a look at the situation and comment on this section of talk? Essentially I'm trying to edit into the article that, "X says Y about Z" to ensure NPOV and my edits are gettting reverted. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm not really wanting to have the image removed but merely would like it's relevance to the article stated in the caption in a neutral point of view way. The simplest solution would be to include what the image's source says about it being an example of anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Best not to edit war on removing the image. The caption wording need NPOVing though since User:Leifern's edit of it. (→Netscott) 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As a result of all of this hullabaloo I've gone ahead and started work on a change to WP:NPOV. I was wondering if you could take a look at what I've got so far and possibly comment. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Based upon your own editing in this affair you might want to join this discussion as well. (→Netscott) 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again AYArktos. Your continued input relative to the issues stemming from this discussion have been appreciated. I have a verfiaible and reliable source that is saying that that poster was created by the organization A.N.S.W.E.R. and I've now tried twice to include this information in the caption about the image and the first time my wikilink was removed without discussion by User:SlimVirgin then when I pointed out that a reliable and verifiable source was saying so and again tried to re-establish the wikilink she again removed it and put in her edit summary that I should stop being disruptive. Could you possibly comment again with your level-headedness on this talk concering the caption? Essentially SlimVirgin is saying that she has to verify who made the poster before such information goes into the article (which needless to say is very discouraging when I'm editing in good faith). Thanks. (→Netscott) 10:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

yo

yo

Semaphore

Semaphore seems like a good case for a disambiguation page to me. I'm not at all clear that the communication method is predominant these days. Powers ^T 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm criticizing the way you did it. =) I also note that the three-year-old discussion was predicated on the disambiguation page having only one item on it; that's clearly not the case now. Mainly, my argument is that the flag usage is not unambiguously the main meaning; I certainly concede that it's arguably so, but I believe the convention is "when in doubt, disambiguate". It's not a big deal, though; I mainly was curious about your reasons. Powers ^T 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

It's an article on New anti-Semitism. It quotes reliable sources on the subject. Which reliable sources have discussed New anti-Semitism in the context of Lebanon? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The 2006 Lebanon conflict is a month old! I doubt there are many reliable sources that have discussed it in terms of New anti-Semitism. Certainly none of the many published books and papers that are currently referenced in the article. The Finkelstein book long predates it. The Foxman article doesn't discuss anti-Semitism (and he's not the author of The New anti-Semitism), etc. It's been a long, uphill struggle to get anything into the article at all; even now respected authors and professors who have been studying these issues for decades are being dismissed on the Talk: page as "conspiracy theorists" and "insignificant", with the notion of deleting the entire contents of the article. If you can find good stuff out there that discusses this issue in the context of this article, feel free to add it, but I'm baffled as to why you think this topic is being "ignored". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Very abusive anon

Thanks for rolling back that edit. I suspect the anon is User:Kyrie eleison who I blocked last night. Their tongues move in much the same fashion. I can take as good as I give and I wasn't offended. I surely hope you weren't. Potty mouthed for sure. -- Longhair 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural institutions in Australia

Thanks for your message. I thought your article was very interesting. I'll give the title some thought. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, AYArktos. I don't know if this is of any use for the image gallery on your Cultural Institutions page, but I uploaded a picture of the Sorrento Mechanics Institute here: [13]. I've been giving your title some thought and I think maybe it needs to be more specific about its context, i.e that it is an historical overview, rather than overview of cultural institutions today. I haven't been able to think of a good way to word it, though. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD

I'm fine with a DRV if someone wants to write a proper article with the same name. It's better than leaving in place a bad disambiguation page until someone gets around to it. =) Besides, I would consider "This is a completely different article" as "new information", and it was my understanding that AfD comments on the content not the title. A good title with bad content can still be deleted; I've seen it happen frequently.

Then again, you're an admin and I'm not so maybe my understanding is flawed. Powers ^T 11:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a note from Wikipedia:Deletion review: "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." No DRV necessary. =) Powers ^T 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hey, smartass................

you really thought you blocked me, didn't you? :) P.S. get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.255.159 (talk • contribs) .

AWNB

Welcome. I've been having a look at the question of whether New Guinea is part of Meganesia too, but haven't found a compelling reference yet. Snottygobble 02:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

reply:old warnings

Hello, I'd just like to let you know I have replied on my talk page, cheers. KOS | talk 02:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)