User talk:Ikuzaf/Archive (April '05-June '05)

Talk Archives

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings you said, The idea that "If I make X number of edits or make friends with X number of users I'll be automatically be entitled to a barnstar/promotion/whatever" is a very bad one. Yes, and it also sounds disturbingly like EverQuest. "Dinner's ready, honey!" "Hang on, I only need three more 'rv vandalisms' to make Level 10!" FreplySpang (talk) 20:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberty Belle

Given that the article is now about the pre-existing DC Comics character who was referenced in an episode of Powerpuff Girls, rather than simply the reference itself, can I convince you to change your vote? DS 21:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not

This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
It will be used only by users who want to use it.
Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New template

Why did you change the template for the Australian political parties. I now miss the links to information on politics (general) and on elections. I really would prefer the template Politics of Australia. Electionworld 08:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to have a Politics of Australia template like the ones for other countries. These are generally placed in the right up corner of each party and election result. These are often small boxes, in some countries these are larger. A problem is the Party info box, which is placed at the same location. How can we handle that. Electionworld 11:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No offense but...

It really isn't very useful to add a boiler-plate intro to a user's talk page. Frankly, it's just a little patronizing, since you're assuming I haven't gone looking for the instructions myself.

If I'm making ignorant mistakes (and I'm sure I am) it's not because I can't find the documentation. It's because there's so much of it, and it's so convoluted that it's hard to find the particular thing that applies to what I'm doing.

Specific guidance is much more helpful. If you see me screwing up, by all means point it out.

SamuraiClinton et al

I appreciate your comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DOOM cheats, backing up my original reason for removing it. Like most other Wikipedians, the SamuraiClinton/sockpuppet problem is so frustrating that I am doing things that I would not normally do. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michaelm

Hey, I've finally come to the end of my patience with Michaelm. I've documented his latest atrocities at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Michaelm. I think it's time to go to Mediation, and have asked him to join me there. If he accepts, we might make some progress. If he does not, and I expect that he won't, then we've done the necessary steps to seek arbitration. I would be very happy if you would head up these two steps as our spokesperson, but I kind of figure that you've done your part, and we Canadians should take care of this problem with our local boy, so I'm willing to do it if you're not interested. Thanks again for taking the lead on the RfC. Ground Zero 22:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) (formerly User:Kevintoronto.)

Thank you

Hey Lacrimosus. I just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I will make sure not to dissapoint you. Phils 19:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby -- Suggestions

It needs restructuring above all else. It would be better to have a narrative section: this is what happened, first. This is what she is accused of (quote the Indonesian authorities). Then give the defence, introducing Ford. Give any Indonesian reaction to Ford. Make Bakir a separate section. Do not impute motives to him. Just quote him. Quote the Indonesians denying his charges. Don't include words like "vehemently". It's a bit negative. Show the Indonesians in a neutral light by simply reporting what they do and don't do and have said.

Don't say the public believes she's innocent. Quote newspapers saying so. Quote the Indonesians saying she is not, if they say it, for balance. What do Indonesian newspapers say?

Cut this entirely: "Many commentators in the media have raised concerns relating to the slow speed in which the Australian government responded to requests for assistance from Corby's legal team. The Australian government has responded by stating that support was given rapidly and that it was the legal team that has at times been slow to act."

It's of no wider interest. It would only be worth including if she was shot and the family blamed the gov't. That is unlikely to happen.

Cut this: "Belief in Corby's innocence is reportedly widespread in the Australian population". If newspapers have done polls, quote the polls. If opinionmakers are just blathering, forget it. It's not an indication of what people actually think. People who write newspaper columns don't actually know the "man on the street" but they sure do like to irresponsibly claim to know what he's thinking.

Make the progress of the trial a separate section and report it entirely without comment. Do not say that the judge made a "pointed observation". Just quote him or say he said it.

Ditch the photo! Replace it with one of her that doesn't make her look pathetic and helpless. You could use that one lower down. But just put a headshot up top. Remember, most nonAustralians don't have the faintest who she is or what any of this is about.

I don't really have the time to find all the requisite quotes, and I haven't been following the case that closely, although I am living in Brisbane, so I do see it on the news. I'll try to help a bit later in the day.Grace Note 01:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

No problem; it was my pleasure. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Danubis

Heya, i dont know who owns that cool pic of anzac square you speak of... i got it off skyscrapercity.com forums... so presumed it was free for public use. cheers. --Danubis 07:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam references

Thanks for your response. But in my request I noted "Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead." It may sound minor, but is a really important distinction. If some or all of those were all properly used by you or someone else, please move them or rename the section. Thanks - Taxman 13:29, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

QM

He's not Henry Tudor either. My objection was not to removing the HM but to restyling her Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, as you know perfectly well. I'll thnk you not to treat me like an idiot. Adam 13:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bjelke-Petersen

I've reverted it back to my own edit of the page. There's nothing I can find in Wikipedia's style manual or rules that dictate that a subject's quotes *must* go to Wikiquotes. I can't help feeling you've edited it for no other reason than you believe it's your page.

At the very least, you could've let me know why on my own talk page which you didn't do. (You are meant to tell someone if you've reverted their contribution). There's plenty of luminaries on Wikipedia that have quotes as part of their article, Prince Philip et al. If you disagree, we'll take it to arbitration. Peter1968 17:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, have it your way then. It's patently clear to me that you consider the Joh page to be your personal fiefdom, from evidence of the revision history. You win; revel in it. Peter1968 20:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix RfC

If you are interested, please check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyL and certify. — Phil Welch 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Seeing as how you weighed in on another controversial VFD (List of people described as neoconservatives, I was wondering if you could weigh in on this one as well Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of people described as Stalinists. Thank you. TDC 00:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AWU

I agree there is a problem with the names of Labor factions, but the link to Right isn't very helpful. Perhaps we need to write a better section at Australian Labor Party on the factions, and then redirect Socialist Left and Labor Unity there. Adam 02:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Labor Party

Thanks for your careful and logical revision to this article re: standard practice versus normal. You reached the tone or effect that I was looking for. Thanks again! EdwinHJ | Talk 02:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Julian Barendse

I read your vote and assume that your vote is delete. However, you didn't actually say delete. I voted keep (laying aside all biases) because it is the national president and I believe that creates enough notability. Xtra 10:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

troll

I am no longer replying. Remove it if you wish. Xtra 12:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed policy position is this:

That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sudoku

Sorry for the late reply... I never got a chance to clarify what I had to say on FAC. I was thinking that a completed puzzle might be helpful. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

MV Tampa

Being an American, I just learned a few days ago about the whole affair. How embarrassing. Reading the article, I still have a lot of questions. For instance, it says:

The Australian government claimed this was illegal, but under normal law of the sea, and Australian law at the time, it probably wasn't unless it can be established that he was falsely claiming an emergency. As of October 2001, this has not been established.

Any news on this? I also tagged Pacific Solution as needing updates at the same time. It says:

As at March 17, 2004, 1,229 asylum seekers had been processed on Nauru, and 276 remained.

But that was over a year ago. Also, I guess the MV Tampa article ought to link to the Pacific Solution article.

Finally, neither article mentions the whole "children overboard" controversy. (I first learned about this issue from this mp3.) Seems quite relevant to me. Cheers, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)