User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive8

User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive1
User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive2
User talk:Ambi/Archive3
User talk:Ambi/Archive4
User talk:Ambi/Archive5
User talk:Ambi/Archive6
User talk:Ambi/Archive7
Last archived January 11, 2005.

---

BZFlag

Please take a look again at BZFlag, as you wrote an objection on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BZFlag and the specified reasons were fixed.

I know you are moving right now (and I know how hectic things can get), so no rush, just a friendly reminder for when you get a chance. --Lan56 01:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Victorian MPs

It's all here Adam 15:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

NetBot

You previously expressed interest in Netoholic's use of NetBot at Wikipedia talk:Bots#NetBot. The issue has been re-opened, and I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the page again. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your aspirations

BTW, did you get into law? Good luck with that. User:SilasM 13 Jan 05

did you get into law at ANU. ive been doing it at melb for the last few years. Xtra 05:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok. good luck. law can be quite intelectually stimulating and fun if you really get into it. Xtra 05:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, well done. Xtra 23:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johannesburg Featured Article

Hello, this is just a brief message to say that I believe i have addressed your concerns over Johannesburg as a FAC. Thank you! Páll 20:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for updating your comments on the Johannesburg FAC. Would you please give me some suggestions for how to change the demographics section? Thank you. Páll 02:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca, I changed some of the info you had initially added to Sergei Bagapsh last year based on what I found at rulers.org. It lists him as the fourth, not the second prime minister, and says his time as PM ended in Dec. 1999 rather than June 2001 (which it says is when his successor's term ended). I don't want to be guilty of getting anything wrong, though, so I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and make sure. Everyking 21:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again, thanks. Something else to ask of you: Autobiography album design was deleted some time ago, probably in early December. I don't see anybody's name listed as having deleted it, but obviously someone did. I don't contest that, the vote was pretty clearly against me, but I'd like to see it restored and redirected to Autobiography (album) so that the content will exist in the history. Since there were a number of votes to merge, I don't think this would be too radical of a thing to do. I'm afraid to do it myself because someone might say it's abuse of admin powers. Everyking 14:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I figured you just hit restore. I'm not sure I've ever actually done it myself before, though. The reason is that I want the content available to people if they search through the history, so that it isn't gone forever. Of course, I do have it saved in my user space, so it's not that big of a deal. Everyking 15:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking arbitration

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think I took out your vote, I certainly didn't intend to do it, I am just adding bits and pieces to my arbitration request. Sorry. Ollieplatt 10:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I sent you an email. 172 11:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) I sent a response. 172 12:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to my Arbitration request that relates to you. Ollieplatt 13:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Review request

Hi :) If you have a few minutes it be great if you could have a look at West Papua and the re-name proposal at the bottom of its discussion page. Any input, edits, or opinions be great. I've always tried to ensure there was an abundance of supporting evidence before adding content, and avoid emotive wording; I welcome different opinions, just wish they would explain what it is they disagree with. All Best :)

P.S. Help, My mistake, rather than just moving the article back to its original English name, I went to the discussion page first. And Wik's associate has just noticed my return and is back with another person to do his old "revert" trick.

Reversion of edits to Blackburn railway station, Melbourne

Why did you revert my edits to Blackburn railway station, Melbourne? Is something the matter with adding information on trains extended to terminate there? Somebody in the WWW 06:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about bike lockers now? I did not add that, I only moved it to a different section of the page. The version you reverted to made it stand out. And it was all redundant information that I removed. Somebody in the WWW 07:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy in violation of arbitration ruling

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. OneGuy is violating the part of the ruling against him by continuing to make personal attacks against me. Please see Talk:Islamophobia. Can you please let him know that rules apply to him too? 168.209.97.34 13:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tas Dams Case

Thanks! No I'm not a lawyer, just a lowly law student. I've been starting to draft a few articles on High Court cases, there's really nothing there to speak of. If there's any requests for law stuff then let me know! --bainer 03:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A list is a good idea, I think I'll get started later today. Your user page says you're studying arts/law this year (me too) - which uni? --bainer 04:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm at Melbourne Uni. btw, austlii.edu.au and comlaw.gov.au have fairly comprehensive full text listings of cases in most Australian jurisdictions, aswell as legislation, if you're looking for stuff like that. --bainer 04:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize

With regard to the Pulitzer Prize article on which you've done a good deal of work, I'm confused over "explanatory" reporting/journalism. On the one hand "explanatory reporting" is included in the 2004 list.On the other hand "explanatory journalism" is listed as a discontinued category. Was it discontinued and then resumed under a slightly different name, then? --Christofurio 13:18, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've found the information I wanted at the Pulitzer website. I wouldn't call the older name, a "discontinued category," when all that happened was a modest name change. --Christofurio 13:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've decided that the term "discontinued category" does no real harm, so long as its explained, and I've added an explanation. Also, I created a new article for the older explanatory journalism prizes, listing the winners there. --Christofurio 00:46, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Too strong?

I was rather startled by some of the statements you have made, so I have increased the amount of evidence dramatically. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute/Proposed_decision#.5B.5BUser:Adraeus.5D.5D. Thank you, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you not get the e-mails I send, or do you just not feel like responding to them? Everyking 14:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then say that so I don't go checking my e-mail every 30 minutes to see if you've responded, please. Everyking 14:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What?! Who's pissed off? I guess I'm a little pissed off, but I voted yes. Everyking 16:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, they can be angry if they want. I honestly don't understand the negativity. What baffles me more than anything is that everybody here is a volunteer—why would someone devote his or her own precious time to doing something here that's not constructive? I mean, we're not talking about vandals here; they're all serious contributors, but I don't understand what drives them. What gives a person such zeal to eliminate information? I have zeal to build an encyclopedia, not deconstruct it piece by piece. But I certainly know my zeal isn't going to run out any time soon. Nothing I've ever done on Wikipedia, and I've done quite a lot, is nearly as important as salvaging those articles. Everyking 23:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nothing I've ever done on Wikipedia, and I've done quite a lot, is nearly as important as salvaging those articles.

Time for a wikibreak, I think. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

I bet you're tired of hearing about this, but there is a whole argument on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard whether or not Jesus == Christianity in regards to the ArbCom ruling. I asked that question on the discussion page because it seems that the ArbCom's ruling was vague in not specifying what it meant by Christianity. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Thank you for your comments on Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883). I have reworked much of the article in the light of your comments. If you have the time, I should be grateful if you would have another look at it and add your comments to the FAC page. Kind regards, jguk 14:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your reversion of the list of the Prime Ministers of Ukraine

You have discarded important information on most prime ministers and threw out info on the predecessor of Vitold Fokin. Congratulations, you did a nice job, indeed! You could, at first, read the discussion to see why you have restored a bad version, at least. Sashazlv 19:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The table is under the discussion tab of that page: [1]. You are more than welcome to edit names to what you consider "standard" convention and put the table back to where it was.

In my opinion, improvements are fine, but blunt deletions are not OK. Especially, if these deletions result in information loss. If you don't like the layout, then, change it, rather than just throw out someone else's hours' work of assembling correct dates piece by piece. Sashazlv 01:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Sashazlv 02:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: The coverage of the Red Terror is fairly one-sided, too. The changes in Russian society fails to mention any negative ones. Are you kidding? If not, reread (or read) the relevant sections or see my response. 172 13:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What to do?

Your user page says you're away, but the deletion log shows you're here.  :-) I just came across Text of the Attribution-ShareAlike License and am puzzled. It doesn't look like something for Wikisource, but it isn't a WP article either. It doesn't qualify as a CSD. Does this really need to go to VfD? I'm looking for a second opinion. What do you think? SWAdair | Talk 12:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It appears that Utcursch has marked it for transwiki to Wikisource. I've never worked with Wikisource before, but I went browsing to see if there was a section with this type of material. On a quick browse I didn't see anything like it. That's why it confused me -- useful material that didn't seem to have a home. SWAdair | Talk 03:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rasputin

See [2] 172 19:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IRC

Yeah, I am - well, for another four or five days, until I move to Canberra.

Sorry I missed you - I'd gone to bed not long before. I do hope you'll come on again soon - I'd like to talk to you. Ambi 23:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ambi. Managing to find spare time to indulge in my WP addiction isn't easy, but in my short time here, I've noticed some major contributions from locals such as yourself. In short all I wanted to say was well done, you've done some amazing work at Wikipedia for someone with so much youth on their side, and also, congratulations on your new horizons up there in Canberra. I wish you well.

Drop me a line when you're more settled in your new home. Longhair 01:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re: Chris Wilson

I hate these deletion decisions when it's someone with a common name. Unless you are deeply familiar with the person being deleted (which is almost impossible - if they were well known, then their article probably wouldn't have been deleted), it is very difficult to tell whether the "what links here" is showing a valid link to an as-yet unwritten article or was a "spam" link made by the same people who contributed the article.

Knowing that this might be a problem because it's such a common name, I tried to be careful to document the question on each article's talk page. I honestly don't know what I could have done differently.

The backlog in cleaning out VfD/Old is monstrous. I give each one as much time as I can but we have too many people nominating articles for community review and not enough people helping to close the discussion. </rant>

Thanks for your help cleaning it up. Rossami (talk) 15:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

reason i hate ANU students #3456

Wednesday: 5:30 - 8:30 $1 beer at the ANU bar.

-a very bitter UC student. The bellman 04:11, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

p.s hope you get settled in quick, and still have the time to wiki.

Me and a Gun

Talk pages are certainly not binding, but I think it is discourteous to ignore a clear consensus on a talk page without explaining why. Only now do I notice your previous reversion. I'm not going to revert this again because I now know why, but I bet someone else will eventually.

Also, you have created a redundant article by reverting to inferior text (compared to the more complete, better written text about the song in Little Earthquakes), while the situation was fine for two years. I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make by giving this song its own page, but with poorer information. --Grouse 14:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• No, you are the one who created the redundant article after two years of the information being somewhere else without reincorporating it. You unilaterally went against what the previous editors of that articles had decided on without further description and restored a inferior article. It is your responsibility to clean up your own mess. --Grouse 19:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Please do not revert pages without explaination. The burden is on you to "always explain your reverts", not on me to explain my copyedits. -- Netoholic @ 06:34, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

You didn't explain your revert, you asked me to explain my edit. It is a good one, and you're just being silly again. -- Netoholic @ 07:27, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Be brave not reckless

It's great that you contribute to wikipedia. But I was concerned that you just deleted my significant contribution to the Hilton Bombing article and then called that "Minor"!. If you feel that what I wrote was biased then you need to improve and extend it. This leads to better articles. Many people would agree with my comments, articulations as to what might be wrong with them are useful. Arogantly silencing critics is not. And you abused the Minor tag.

Aberglas 03:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Since I moved the above comment from your (Ambi) user page over to here, I took the liberty of reverting Aberglas's revert, and left a reply to his/her complaint at Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing. -- Hadal 03:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Every time you arrogantly delete somebody's well intended work you probably guarantee that they will never contribute to wikipedia again. I'm one of the rare ones that will bother to take you on.

If you want to improve an article then fine. But to revert is to spit in the face of the original author. I note from this log and elsewhere that I am not the only one that you have offended.

Aberglas 10:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Thin Ice

Use:Ambri latest attacks on Sydney Hilton bombing put her on thin ice. No discussion in the talk page, violent disrespect for the careful work of others. She will end up being the one ajudicated if she continues.

Her comments about copyright are nonsense. One can certainly quote fragments of other people's work, this is commonplace. Further, her history says that she is reverting due to copyright issues, yet actually destroys the entire article. That's a lie.

Focus on making positive contributions rather than attacking other people.

Aberglas 23:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Reversions on Sydney Hilton bombing

Both yourself and Aberglas have violated Wikipedia's Three-revert rule on this article. I am letting you know now, if either of you violate it again, I'm going to have to block you from editing for 24 hours. Ambi, please, can you try to engage with Aberglas on Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing? It would really help. —Stormie 12:31, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

As an Arbitrator, you clearly should act in a more mature manner. Revert warring doesn't get anywhere. Don't misuse edit summaries by trying to "hold a conversation" with other people. Simply explaining your revert and directing to the talk page is enough. I've reported this to WP:AN/3RR, because I see no reason to let it slide. It's a clear violation of 3RR, and you, even more than Aberglas, should have acted better. -- Netoholic @ 11:28, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

3 revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing listGeni 11:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning out the trash on my Talk page. It never ceases to amaze me how people just want to trash other people instead of making valid contributions. RickK 22:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

People as awesome as Ambi need multiple barnstars. Snowspinner 01:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was probably not the right time to give Ambi a barnstar... See two inches above. Just wanted to write it down. --Edcolins 16:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I was well aware of that when I gave her the star. Snowspinner 03:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

My case pending in ArbCom

Hi Rebecca, I see from your userpage that you are in 'Wikistress' and need to have a rest for a while. To tell you the truth, I perfectly understand how it feels like, "thanks" to a group of users who constantly try to harass me and push for their propaganda right in front of my eyes. I just wrote to inform you about my post in Baku Ibne, et al. talkpage where I give update on recent attacks. Please, have a look when you have time. If you have further questions or need some additional info, please, post it there as well.--Tabib 15:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca. Did you read my recent message Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al.#Rovoam_exposes_his_real_face._What_next_for_Tabib.3F? I just want to make sure that you or anybody else from ArbCom did not miss that message before casting his/her vote. I addressed similar questions to Fred, Grunt and Epopt too. I would appreciate any comment on my message. Thanks. --Tabib 15:34, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I was surprised to find that I was a little disappointed that you accepted the case against me in arbitration.

I don't like you and I don't like your approach to the encyclopaedia, although I do respect the work you do on Australian subjects, but I've always thought you were a stickler for policy, and reasonably fair, despite your antagonism to the more liberal elements here.

I haven't actually done anything wrong at clitoris. I refer you to Wikipedia:Vandalism:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

"Bullying or stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism."

Not only is stubbornness protected by this policy -- this is the reason Raul could not make a block stick and Snowspinner opened this arbitration -- but I have not "disrupted" anything. I have discussed the issue with the other side, at great length. We have neared consensus some times, although of course as is common the majority don't really feel they need to accommodate the minority, and have often said so. My accuser at arbitration, Snowspinner, did not even respond to a suggestion that we mediate. I'm not surprised. Neither he nor Raul has ever discussed this page with me, nor have either of them discussed it with any opponent of the image except to insist that they will not even consider a compromise. Is this what we're about now? You get a majority and then you no longer need to bother discussing anything with anybody.

I don't expect a fair hearing at the arbitration committee -- from what I can see it backs admins, even rogue admins, against anyone it doesn't feel is toeing the line, and it has been unafraid to make ad hoc policy where there was none it felt it could use to do that. You've already done so in fact, by accepting the case brought by a person who has never shown any willingness to even discuss the issue in question, refused mediation and abused policy by using a fraudulent reason to block another user to push his POV against a person who has been very involved in discussing the issue, offered to mediate and has stayed at all times within the policies of Wikipedia.Dr Zen 23:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no case to answer though. Dr Zen 23:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFA

You write: I see some benefit in making him an admin, but I also agree with Everyking, Jonathunder and Cool Hand Luke.

Thanks, it's been good to get feedback on what people think of my conduct. If there is anything I could do in the next few months to improve your opinion of me with respect to fitness for adminship, please let me know. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

As you see I have finally succumbed to the temption of the Electoral Division series. It will take me a few weeks to get through them all. I must be mad. Adam 23:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone else will have to worry about state seats for now. I created Higinbotham Province to give me somewhere to move the irrelevant material from Division of Higinbotham. Adam 00:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Dear Ambi:

Please see the Talk:Abkhazia Talk page, where I tried to explain why this article looks like pro-Georgian (it's my POV) Rovoam 18:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garishwiki.jpg listed for deletion

An image that you uploaded, Garishwiki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it lacks source and license information, and it is not used in any articles. Please go there to voice your opinion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Re : Please be careful when deleting VFDd articles

Hi Ambi,

Whoops, my bad! It was Wikipedia:Association for Unbiased Prosecution that was supposed to be deleted (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Association for Unbiased Prosecution). My apologies, someone apprently redirected [3] to Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations and I totally forgot about the possibility of redirects. Time to double-verify my delete logs, I will be more careful (and slower) next time. :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

my user page

You wrote:

I simply meant that the comments of five people known for their support of anarchic dispute resolution methods does not necessarily represent the community as a whole.

Had you explained that a week ago, I would never have placed the link on my user page, and there would have been no need for officious threats. It is gone. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HI Ambi , I am not sure which last page you looked at. Did you check from this list: Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics. If so, you will see that the last page (29) was actually erased once it was done. The current last page, 28 still has quiet a bit to do. Danny 10:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EB2004

Danny, I'm a bit confused about this project. I just had a look at the history of the last page, which is marked as done, and there's still quite a lot of red links there. I thought the links were meant to be blue before they were removed?

Also, is there any chance you'd be able to archive your talk page? The size of it is a bit nasty for those of us who have to pay by the megabyte for our bandwidth. Ambi 03:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some of them from /29 got moved into /28 but rest assured no red topics were deleted. Pcb21| Pete 11:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the deleted page 29, and it looks as if there's still a lot of red links there, which has me a tad confused. Oh well. Ambi 14:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at the bottom of page 28, I am sure you will see there the same red links that are on the deleted page 29 - Zwischengoldglaser is in this category for example. So it is just a matter of shuffling so that we could say we've finished a page ;). Don't worry we are taking this task quite seriously, massive thought it is! Pcb21| Pete 14:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of User:STP please

User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [4] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [5] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [6]. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [7] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [8], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [9] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 12:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Qld political topics

Thanks. I'll have to see what I can do about getting some pictures, the articles currently look a bit bare. I'll also get round to fixing up the quarter-finished politics of Queensland sometime. Slac speak up! 02:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my adminship nomination. How's Canberra working out for you? One of the best things about ANU is that campus looks so nice in autumn.--nixie 11:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WTF?

Accept reject? whats all that about?

Queensland Parliamentary Handbook

I seem to recall rumours of such a thing while I was working at a state MP's office. I'll investigate. Slac speak up! 21:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aha - on investigation, turns out it's now called the Queensland Parliamentary Record and doesn't seem to exist online. If I can't find a library copy anywhere, I might consider ordering a copy for myself (it's $66); at any rate, if you're interested, the order form can be reached here. If I remember, I'll give Parliamentary Services a ring on Monday and see if there's some way I can get my hands on one. Slac speak up! 21:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:BrianGreig.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if you can't give the copyright status of this image, please give the source. Have a nice day. --Ellmist 05:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for giving the source of this image. Also thank you for your continued efforts to determine its copyright status. --Ellmist 05:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. :) – ClockworkSoul 01:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell

User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine [10], just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page [11] because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page [12]. I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE:Thank's also

That's very kind of you, but Darwin's still a fair way from completion. Starting at such an early point in a city article has giving me some ideas for improving the Adelaide article. But the thanks really should be going to you! Hopefully the clean-up and your motivation will end this stagnate period, and get Aussie Wikipedians contributing where they can.--Cyberjunkie 08:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vote on wikisource

there is a new vote on wikisource, on language subdomains. please vote! ThomasV

Melbourne railway stations

I think that Essendon railway station, Melbourne has now surpassed Ashburton railway station, Melbourne in article quality, and I'm thinking I like the layout too. I'd like to start flushing the format throughout the network. What's your opinion? Josh Parris ✉ 07:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)