User talk:Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive18: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:59, 6 May 2006

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

month/year/century links

Couldn't agree more. Tony 08:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I just wanted to put forward my apologies to the debate happening over on the National Union of Students of Australia page. I wasn't aware of DarrenRay's dealings with MUSU and the RFAr. I hope you don't think I in anyway sort to discuss the merge of office bearers in the main NUS page as a vendetta on you or anything. I was simply seeking a reasonable alternative to just a huge page of tables and seemingly arbitrary names. I do think that students politics does have a place of Wikipedia. But I feel a centralised and informative article will achieve that goal much better. Anyway, I look forward to working with you on this in the future. Cheers, -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 02:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen

How very perspicacious of you :-) Thanks, fixed now. Snottygobble 04:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 10 Random Pages Test

Hi Ambi, I was inspired by your 10 Random Pages Test so I created my own (and gave you full credit of course!) The results were, well... not good! Take a peek here if you are interested... and thanks for the idea too! Glen :) _{§τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sarfatti

Hi Ambi, I notice you've had prior involvement at this page. I'd appreciate your wise perspective on an editorial disagreement currently going on there. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engagement

Hey, thanks for the note Ambi :-) Things have been that busy I didn't know where to turn, so sorry about the late reply! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: should Category:Disbarred attorneys be linked to Category:Criminals via a see also reference

Hi I posted an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex as to whether the Category:Disbarred attorneys should be linked to Category:Criminals via a see also reference. One user and I did not agree and he suggested that we take it to RfC. The RfC has not engendered any further discussion. I was wondering if you would take a look at the issue at Category talk:Criminals#RfC 28 March 2006? I have asked you because you have taken an interest in legal issues. Many thanks--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gray

Probably not as he didn't get elected. I am not particularly concerned whether his article is removed or not - but I am tilting towards a keep. The particularly high vote for the Greens (15% from memory) in a traditionally conservative electorate (Bragg) is fairly notable - and Ben would have been a significant driving force behind that. michael ^talk 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Booth

Hi Ambi, official results at http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/ -- Barrylb 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowan

I just noticed that Edith Cowan is marked on your to-do list as "needing work". What's the problem with it? (this is one of mine) Ambi 04:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for what probably appears a somewhat insulting comment. That was merely a terse and general note to myself indicating that there is a reason why I haven't crossed it off the list. In this case the issue is that there is a biography of Cowan (A Unique Position by Peter Cowan), and I didn't want to cross the article off the list until the biography has been referenced. Other than that I have no problem with the article; in fact I think it is better than most of my ones.

Since the to-do page is no longer for my eyes only, I'll redact the comment to something less apparently insulting. By the way you are welcome to edit or make use of anything you find in my user space. Snottygobble 04:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting stuff about NSW Govt?

Please provide reference for gossip. and listing unis is only going to cause confusion. they receive no state govt funding (I work in state govt) and the state minister has no control over them.

dirty socks

If I understand this bizarre edit by my latest sockpuppet vengeance vandal, I stand accused of being your sockpuppet. For some reason that greatly amuses me. :-) Snottygobble 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy

Greetings, Ambi. I have proposed a remedy to the date unpleasantness, and it can be found here. Your input is requested. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illingworth

Re Talk:Joseph Gardiner

I've written Frederick Illingworth, but marked the Victorian land boom section {{sectstub}}. I can get Cannon (1966) by request through my public library. If you want to have a crack at it, got for it. Otherwise, I will do it after I'm done with the Drummonds. Snottygobble 00:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde

Hi, I unblocked Clyde...I'm pretty sure it was a April Fools joke...if you object you can put it back. Sorry....let me know if it's a problem, I don't think he was serious :(. Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did a pretty cool gibberish generator, you should check it out. I think there's no reason to really block him, he was only doing it to friends of his. By the way I went around and "vandalised" the pages of a few friends using that tool too. ++Lar: t/c 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Cyde sell his account to User:SPUI or User:David Gerard? I can't decide.

CheckFool evidence indisputably proves that the 3 are sock puppets of each other. The evidence is because I say so, and it is unquestionable, undeniable, not to mention unverifiable. You cannot check this yourself, since you are no Fool, and only Fools can use CheckFool. See WP:CheckFool

-1 Foolish Cyde Weys 17:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 Fair

Opposition leaders Tasmania

In regards to the article Leader of the Opposition of Tasmania howcome the table starts and then just stops half way through? why aren't the other names in the table. I was going to change it but i thouhght id ask first. Kyle sb 06:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, look forward to seeing the finished article! Kyle sb 06:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Leader of the Opposition (Western Australia)

Any chance of seeing this finished off? Ambi 07:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The reason I stopped at 1986 is because that is the edition of my WA Parliamentary Handbook :-( Next time I pop into my local public library I'll get the good oil from a newer edition. Probably Monday. Snottygobble 11:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been to the library this week, but I also haven't forgotten this. You have my word of honour as a Wikipedian that I'll follow through on it as soon as convenient. Snottygobble 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking Åmål and the Category:Fuck

Dear Rebecca, hello. I am the editor who added Fucking Åmål to Category:Fuck, which you reverted without comment. This was a good-faith addition, not a prank. A number of us are trying to establish an encyclopedic repository of concepts and articles semiotically related to the word "fuck", and this movie (which I saw and greatly admire, as I am a great fan of Rebecka Liljeberg's acting in particular) is a prime example, especially the fact of bowdlerizing its title in many countries where it was shown. Respectfully yours, -- Mareklug ^talk 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider populating a category original research? It's writing an encyclopedia -- grouping related material together for others who would use it as a tool in their research. As for the movie, I am well aware that the word "fucking" is used only once in the movie -- that is not significant, nor is anyone making any claim about that. The essential thing about the movie is that the movie title has caused the movie to be retitled in more than one country, while it is no big deal in many others. -- Mareklug ^talk 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hon

It was done when Labor gained control after the 2002 election. The existing version had all the MLCs with "Hon" except ministers, which was a bit strange. Adam 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student pollies

What happened to Darren and Ben? Where they banned? Have they lost interest? Adam 01:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qld pollies

I don't remember writing about Qld pollies - which articles do you mean? If you suggest me some names I'll see what I can come up with, though I am immersed in Thai election results and Khmer art at the moment. Adam 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That old stuff - I thought you meant Wikipedia articles. As I say, if you suggest a name I will see what I can find. I have some old Qld Parly Handbooks somewhere. Adam 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSW Pollie stubs

I've been looking around for some advice there re categories etc. - have left a question at WikiProject Australian politics talk page...? most of the articles today were created so that the links from electorates no longer point to the wrong person (ie persons with the same name as NSW politicians who already had articles on wiki) It won't be fixed today but it will get fixed. Yeah it's all boilerplate right now but I'm looking at a couple of sources to improve all of them. If they're speedied that probably won't matter too much - I'll populate my offline stuff a bit more then recreate. I will admit - I was probably more concerned then I needed to be about what should have been redlinked names, pointing to articles for someone completely different. Garrie 05:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing is - from the pc I'm working at - creating and editing is a bit prone to just "not happening" when I hit the Save Page button - so yeah from that regard I'd rather create a small stub and add small bits to it (similar small bits across a large number of pages one after the other) than create a number of pages, one big page at a time. I go through a lot of links before I get to the "real" internet and this wreaks havoc with my editing. (it just happened again editing this section!) still me :)

And hey if you think these politicians are bad have a look at some of the Suburbs and localities within the City of Fairfield - eg Lansvale. BTW I have updated Sam Toombs today. Hope that is more like it. But I will be away until after Easter.Garrie 00:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help/Advice

Hey Ambi. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with a query. An anon vandal had been continually reverting the University of New South Wales Revues to a completely POV and downright ludicrous version of the article over the last week or so. [1][2][3]. In some of their edit summaries they have actually said "Reverting vanadalism" to my edits, when in fact they are just undoing what I had just reverted. Now normally this wouldn't bother me except in the latest attempt of vandalism they have made the same changes but used the registed name of Ċhanlord in a clear mock of me. The edit was subsequently reverted by Curps [4] but I really don't like the idea of someone making vandalistic edits with a username almost exactly the same as mine. Do you have any advice on what I can do? -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 05:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ambi ^-^ -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C]

06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quadell/remedy

Greetings. BobbleWik has now signed all four points, as have I. I was wondering if you would reconsider signing point four? If not, could you give a reason? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greens categories

Ambi, there is a lack of consistency on how Australian Greens politicians are categorised - the WA ones have their own sub category while none of the others do. I put the Tasmanian Greens politicians under their own subcategory - which you have just reverted. What is the best approach for this? At present, there is bet each way and it is confusing (e.g. what makes WA so special, now that they are formally part of the Australian Greens?) Peter C Talk! 06:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goforit's RFC

Hi, regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Go for it!, there has been much editing of the initial statement since you signed it. Please read it again and/or consider changing your edits/your signature to avoid the impression of inadequate procedure. Thank you. Kosebamse 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights RFC

Hi Ambi, can I get your thoughts on the inclusion of a paragraph at Gay rights in Australia. There seems to be POV editing on that page today (for some reason). Thanks. PSYCH 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you blanket reverting me? I think you should check your own POV. Just because some vandalising moron accuses me of being homophobic, doesn't mean I am. Xtra 23:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ambi, you're reverting Xtra without discussing things in the article talk page. Are you aware that User:PSYCH has got on his/her user page that he/she is leaving because X is a bigot? Is that the kind of thing a good faith contributor puts on a user page? Andjam 23:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ambi, thanks for the revert, but once again only Xtra's opinion seems to be correct. Xtra, there was never an issue with that passage until you came along and started editing tha gay rights page, even andjam let it be, it was only until you showed up that it became problematic. Coincidence? For the record, I don't know if you are homophobic or not, but you yourself have said you oppose same-sex marriage. Now how can a person who wants to deny gay marriage "because it doesn't conform to [my] bible" have the authority to edit the gay rights page, AND the same-sex marriage page impartially?? PSYCH 03:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi, I am not going to debate this troll here. Or anywhere else for that matter. Xtra 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Stone

You are right about refs for his name, but the first cite is still sort of there and I do not know how to fix it. Also he did make himself Queen's Counsel but I guess we do need to find a source. It is interesting and important. --Bduke 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dar Williams photo

I'm glad you like the Dar Williams photo. I really did take that picture. It's the best I have among about a half dozen Dar photos. Unfortunately, I have no other celebrity photos to add to Wikipedia. I could give you a couple good sunsets though! PJMweb 14:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyser

Thanks. As I get better at the hard stuff, I seem to get worse at the easy stuff. Snottygobble 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Netball

Not really that interested - apart from my general interest in Commonwealth sports. It was just a stub that was reasonably easy to expand. Sam Vimes 09:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quadell/remedy

Ambi,

I would really like to resolve this. It's been a trouble for all of us, and we've almost put it all behind us. But we're waiting on you. Could you please sign point #4, or else explain why you won't and possibly offer an alternate solution? It would mean a lot to me. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and Australia

"I'm Australian. I like Canadians." And rightly so, Canada has much more to offer us than boring old imperialistic US of A. I myself differ from most other Australian in that I am not UK or US oriented in my thinking. I am a strong beleiver in the Australian difference. I am not a (US style) liberterian. Canada is a good example for us Australians to follow becuase in some ways they are more like Europe and less like United States. Did you know that Australian could have been bilingual as well a multicultural? We could have had an antipodean teutophone "Québec" (South Australia)? Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

How so? Didn't know of that... —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral district of Goyder

Thanks for cleaning that up - obviously I didn't take a second glance. michael ^talk 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

Sockpuppets

Itis your policy just to ban who you want. It is quite obvious that you use both i.d.s to achieve your ends. Why would you revert a truer version of football? Why would you make a distinctly incorrect banning that suitd Snottygobble? Why would someone as obviously intelligent as you not simply lie about location and gender? Snottygobble is your sockuppet. Why else would you bother banning? Than spuriously delete the comment? What evidence do you have to ban me? Popoff567

Cool Wikimood thing

Thanks for having it on your userpage. I was just seeing your request for a username change, and I decide to click through and see this need little do-hickie you found. Thx! -- Zanimum 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (a Canuck)[reply]

Insults

You do not gain anything by insulting and calling trolls. In fact you cannot even ban for trolling which is what you did. 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)OKEYJisme

Thanks

for the reversions. By the way, the sockmaster's one month ban expires in five days. Snottygobble 07:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard

People can click the link if they want to read about the reforms. That sentence is not an adequate summary. Xtra 11:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the purpose of all the provisions in the reforms is to free up the labor market to promot jobs growth (e.g. less unemployed). That is not rhetoric, biut the actual aim. If you write down one or two provisions without explaining the purpose that is meaninglessly skewing it. Xtra 12:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ACTU only assume bad faith because their dominance is threatened. But that (being what i said above) is the actual reason for the reforms. The unions are scaremongering and crying wolf. (that does not mean to say that I don't think the reforms went to far, but their purpose is as i stated above) Xtra 12:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

Ambi...I hope I'm not asking a stupid question here, but when you say "drop a line" where is your email address? Or is this talk thing here the way to go?

BTW where's your Law school...and why don't you have internet at home??

Ta jaker5

...unfortunately

You don't like Stewart McArthur? (I would have not thought the result would make a difference to you) Xtra 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbtrip and spam

Thanks for stopping Melbtrip's spamming - I've been having a hard time explaining to him why it's inappropriate for him to be placing links to his site all over Wikipedia. Cheers. --Evan C (Talk) 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to join/help organize Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies

Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monash university

I have repeatedly deleted the inaccurate statement: It is one of Australia's "Group of Eight" leading universities. I do not know why you are replacing it. I have given my reasons for removing it in the discussion, but you seem to believe you have the right to replace it without given reason. So here i go one more time. The Go8 is a LOBBY GROUP. Thats it. It is probably a good thing to have a reference to the Go8 in the article, but the statemen that it is part of the group of 8 leading universitys is misleading. The Go8 has nothing to do with being the leading universities. Its got to do with having the most money, but that is a debate thats not worth getting into. I dont care about a reference to the Go8, but the current statement makes the implication that it is one of the top eight universities in Australia rather than simply a member of a lobby group. --Maverick05 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can spare me your high and mighty patronising crap. Obviously you know nothing about the Go8. "They are the eight universities with the highest entry scores" FALSE (yeah sure if you look at only the top couple of courses that’s true, but look at the whole picture and you will see that it is far from the truth, the University of Melbourne has two of the highest entry requirements for courses in Victoria, but they also have the two lowest in the state, don’t be selective), "the highest demand" FALSE(in Victoria, my area of expertise, the highest demand statistics showed up as a mix between Monash and Deakin, not a Go8 member), "the highest prestige" (true perhaps, but prestige is a ridiculous statistic, prestige is gained simply by the fact that these universities have been around the longest, who really cares, what SHOULD be the measurement of how good a university it is now not 100 years ago), "and the best job prospects" (prestigious stereotypes may lead this to be somewhat true, but in fact if you look at the detailed breakdown job entry rates from Melbourne and Monash the gap is very small, again archaic stereotypes lead people to believe that job entry is easier from these universities, they really hold very little advantage). "Spare your nonsense for someone else." Nonsense??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I’m sure your proud of whatever Go8 university you attend. I however manage to have an objective view on this through my work. I know personally that the Go8 sees itself as nothing more than a lobby group, a powerful arrogant and annoying lobby group but a lobby group nonetheless. Its fine for you to show Monash as being in the Go8, that’s a fact, saying in the Go8 page that it is a lobby group of the most prestigious groups is fine, but there is no mention in the sentence being disputed of the Go8 being a lobby group. It reads to the uninformed that Monash is one of the top 8 universities in Australia, even if that is true, membership of the Go8 is not a valid statistic that shows a university as in the top 8. Rephrase the sentence if you feel it is that important, do not however try to say that the sentence was not misleading, the sentence did not say that the Go8 was a lobby group it was misleading get over it. --Maverick05 11:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you will notice that 6 out of the 8 universities in the Go8 did not make misleading statements in their articles. It was only Monash and Western Australia (now edited). They made corret statements about the Go8. --Maverick05 12:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and civility

Per this edit [5], calling a fellow administrator a newbie in that context is quite incivil and I am glad Naconkantari doesn't seem irked by it. Also, you might look more closely at WP:3RR, it specifically says that editors aren't entitled to their 3 reverts a day, and edit warring is still blockable even if you don't actually make that taboo 4th revert. If you keep up the antics over this issue, and this is not a threat it's just fair disclosure, I will take this to WP:AN/I. Thank you for your time. --W.marsh 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh like I said, it wasn't a threat... sorry you took it that way. --W.marsh 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Hi, could you please compare User:John Stutz and User:Huper (as per Talk:John Stutz. Thanks :) porges 22:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

This is the user formally known as Licinius and I have been waiting for my ban to end and than when I logged in again, I had been banned indefinitely, why??? Not these accusations about sockpuppeting again, I have not used any sockpuppet for disruptive purposes??? I have actually been hard at it increasing this encyclopedia's knowledge, so why was the ban continued??? I suppose you are the wrong person to ask seeing you banned for spurious reasons in the first place??? But could you turn the ban off yeah??? Yeah what and why 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unrecognized countries

It wasn't a grammar fix, it's repeated POV-pushing (the anon has been reverting to that version several times now) I attempted to make it more neutral, but he/she just reverted. Do you have any suggestion of what I should do? —Khoikhoi 08:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess you're right. It's just when people normally speak of "international recognition", they're talking about recognition by countries, not subnational entities. However, check out the anon's edits on the Cyprus page - a very clear example of POV-pushing. —Khoikhoi 09:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, about this, I guess the differences are obvious:

- The only word (for countries)
- The separation in two sentences, usually improves grammar. I am not an expert though, so maybe you could choose to rephrase the two sentences... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar: I repeat: Splitting a sentence usually improves grammar. Since you continue focusing on the poor grammar, I'll try to rephrase the two sentences myself (although IANAL, so please help):

The only country that recognizes this state is Turkey. In the late 1990's, the subnational Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, an exclave of Azerbaijan, recognized it as well.

Only: Turkey invaded and Turkey is the only real country recognizing it... Isn't it worth stressing?

Native: I was tempted to include en-N in my babel, since I've always had an english-speaking nanny when I was a kid, I went to an American school where I was taught half the lessons in English, and I finished an American College. I chose to be modest with en-4. What other languages do you speak, by the way? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. I'll let you keep it as it is, so that instead of poor grammar it'll have inconclusive content due to insufficient stress. I am fed up too. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pnatt

He was blocked by Scott for 24 hours yesterday; that said he's about to come out of that. michael ^talk 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now a week-long block. -Objectivist-C 02:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Burnside

Thankyou for the advice and kind comment! :D michael ^talk 10:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring

I closed that debate because it was wholly redundant with the argument on the talk page. The same arguments (both ways!) were being made, and, after all those comments, nobody offered a reason leaving that page on Wikipedia as a rejected proposal would hurt the project.

Since A) the utility of the proposal is still an open question and B) nobody gave any arguments except as to the utility of the proposal, I decided to close an MFD that served no purpose.

In the future, should you feel the need to edit or delete my closing comments, I would appreciate a courtesy note on my talk page at the very least. If you have a problem with one of my closes, please inform me and, if necessary, take the matter to deletion review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reward board

Hi,

I've been looking at Wikipedia talk:Reward board and Wikipedia talk:Bounty board, and the posts you've made don't seem to discuss what objections you have to the Reward Board, or why you feel a consensus is needed for the Reward Board to proceed. That's making it difficult to respond to your position. Could you post on Wikipedia talk:Reward board giving your position on this matter? -- Creidieki 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree with your position, but I'm uncomfortable with you removing material without discussing this on Wikipedia talk:Reward board. You seem to be communicating your position through edit summaries, which makes it difficult to have a dialog with you. I suggested several potential guidelines or rules earlier on the talk page, to try and reduce the possibility of bias; I'd be interested in your comments on this. I'd prefer if you respond on the project talk page, rather than to me personally. Thank you. -- Creidieki 12:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser on Julianna Rose Mauriello

Can you check to see if this user has edited either from New York State, California, or Iceland? This user claims to be Julianna Rose Mauriello, who logically only should have been editing from these places. "Julianna" has made questionable edits recently, and been blocked for impersonation. -- Zanimum 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons of accountability, would you mind making this at WP:RFCU? (This has also has the advantage that it will probably get to a better CheckUser than I...) Ambi 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I couldn't find that page, though I knew it existed. Thanks! -- Zanimum 14:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date proposal

Ambi,

I'm not sure if you're still following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I've been trying to rewrite the section on dates in the Manual of Style to be acceptable to everyone, so that we can avoid the constant arguments. You can read my current draft at User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal. As you were one of the main participants in the previous discussions, I'd really welcome your comments: would my new text be acceptable to you? Please do come and join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Stephen's proposal.

Thank you,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

WP:ANI#Community ban for Licinius. Snottygobble 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When I saw Stephen's edit summary "Date proposal", I thought for a moment he had asked you out for dinner and a movie! :-)

Licinius has posted an apology and promise to reform at User talk:J is me. There's currently a (counter-)proposal under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban for Licinius to unblock Licinius' IP to allow him to reform himself under a new account. As a long-term victim of his attacks, you might like to comment. Snottygobble 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates

Hello Ambi. A few questions. Is it a convention to make the text small, as in Template:Electoral districts of Queensland, or is that because there are 89 of them, and space needs to be saved? Also, is there any reason why you unalphabetized my alphabetization of that template? Finally, I was wondering where I could find a list of the previous members of electorates and stuff because the VIC and WLD electoral webpages do not seem to keep the complete list of members unlike the SA electoral office. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningful RfC votes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used in Australian rules

Delete. Die. Ambi 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify this? I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a personal attack, or some sort of cryptic comment regarding notability or verifiability, or what. -- Synapse 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Victorian election article

Ambi, how long/big should an article such as the Victorian legislative election, 2006 I am working on get? Should some of the content (e.g. tables of members) be split off into separate articles?Peter C Talk! 12:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irshad Manji

Irshad Manji is self professed lesbian. May I know why did you reveret my edit ? Siddiqui 07:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIS open day

Hi Ambi,

I'm not sure if you live in Melbourne or Canberra (or a quantum superposition of the two) , but there's going to be an AIS open day which will apparently include some notable Australian netballers. Andjam 13:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psephos

Ambi, several people have asked me why Psephos doesn't rate an article, and why I don't write one. It is after all the world's largest online archive of election statistics, and quite unique now that Wilfried has folded Electionworld into Wikipedia. I don't however think it would appropriate for me to write an article about my own website, although I know of others who have done so. Since you spend a lot of time on election-related articles, perhaps you might have a try, or ask someone else to do so. Cheers Adam 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What have you called it? I am about to be banned for reverting communists at Elections in Cuba, of all absurd articles, so I may be taking a little wikibreak. Adam 10:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will send you some suggestions. Adam 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aus

Hi, if you're around could you revert the edit by Sliat 1981 to the Australia article. Thanks.--nixie 06:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from vandalising articles. You have been warned. Constructive improvements are welcome, as is discussion. Vandalism is not. Carl Kenner 10:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Carl Kenner

Hi,

Since election in Cuba has been locked. Could you unblock Carl Kenner so that he could at least discuss things at the talk page? I am an wikipedia administrator too and I found locking an article at the same time with blocking editor is redundant over-protection, as well as non constructive.

Regards

CarlKenner block

Hi Ambi, I see that you issued a warning to CarlKenner to stop an edit war at 10:37, 5 May 2006 "Please don't revert elections in Cuba... if you do so again, you're asking to be blocked" I see that after your warning CarlKenner stopped reverting with his last edit being at 10:36UTC. Even though CarlKenner heeded your warning you blocked him anyway at 10:57UTC. Also I see that you personally joined in the same edit war at 10:35 and 10:39. It is curious that you only issued an edit war warning (and block) to one of the parties of the edit war, as I see that user Adam_Carr engaged in seven reverts as part of this edit war. This all seems odd, but I may not understand what happened, could you please clarify and explain your administrative actions? BruceHallman 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is sheer vandalism amit_jain_online^{(t a l k)}

Some person bearing username Mastersofworld has edited or i must say vandalize my user page, has removed my email id and put his/her email id, now can i ask the moderators what action u are going to take against this vandalism, and do let me know if is there any way to protect my user page from being vandalise again.

amit_jain_online^{(t a l k)} 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Adenridgeway.jpg

Aloha! Whilst editing, I came across an article using Image:Adenridgeway.jpg, which you uploaded. You've provided a licence, but unfortunately Wikipedia also requires that all images used in articles have source information, in order that the license can be verified. If you're still around, could you edit the image to include where you found the image, or if you created it yourself, a statement to that effect? If a source is not provided, the image may well be removed from Wikipedia without further notice. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email