User talk:BenAveling/Archive

Generic Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That was quick. I hope it was automated...

BenAveling 05:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Meelar, are you actually watching this page?

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You know what saddens me? People who tag and run. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bracks

That's what we do at Wikipedia. Quick improvements, unlike any govt. in Australia might I say :p...Harro5 09:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force

the exact reference was not at the bottom of the page at the time, nor did the anon actually refer to any reference. as such, it would not be prudent to just leave an unreferenced change to statistics like that. However unreliable this type of encyclopaedia is, it can be made more reliable by referencing edits which change details. Xtra 09:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So you like the more precise reference? I'm glad. It really didn't take long to find. But I was a little unsure of the convention - to be as specific as possible, or to link to the publication and let the reader find their own way from there. So Thanks! BenAveling 09:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

When you add specific data like that, you either put the reference in the subject line, the talk page, at the bottom of the page or as a numbered reference e.g. [1]. Xtra 11:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I did all of those things!  :-) Or do you mean anon should have? If so, then yes they should have; they're either new, or they assumed people would assume good faith, or they assumed that people would use the existing reference. BenAveling 20:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

" Or do you mean anon should have? " yes. Xtra 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Australian Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005-Shoot to Kill

I see no problem at the moment. but the shoot to kill provisions only apply where it is to prevent serious injury or death to someone else. I think that needs to be made clear as someone who doesnt know the provissions may think it allows shoot first in any circumstance, which it does not. Xtra 03:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My alternative

" One particular clause has drawn the ire of the state premiers, the so called Shoot to kill clause. Based on a similar provision in existing legislation, the clause treats people wanted under detention orders in the same way that current law treats wanted suspects and allows police to shoot where they believe there is a threat to life. "

Xtra 03:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've copied this to Talk:Australian Anti-Terrorism page and responded there.

BenAveling 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your David Hicks edit got reversed. I agree the whole "has not expressed regret for his actions" thing sounds POV. I mean how would we know if he's expressed regret for his actions? I get the feeling there's some sort of judgement implied. Georgeslegloupier 04:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

War on terror

Because it was launched against a TERRORist organization. Copperchair 08:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

But there would be no terrorists in Iraq had not been because of the US-led war. The insurgents entered Iraq to fight the invasion. So the US can't count it as part of the War on Terrorism becuase they created those them. Copperchair 19:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Copperchair,

I'm still curious to know how you define "terror".

I confess, I'm hard put to pick an exact definition myself, though I think that unexpected running and screaming should figure somewhere.

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I know what your sig did last summer

I noticed you asked in an edit summary, what happened with the sig?

What happened is you typed five tildes instead of four. Three tildes is name only, four is name and time, five is time only. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that would do it.

Thanks, Ben Aveling 12:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

sorry. Xtra 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Business Council

I suppose; members, campaigns, stances, work it does. I do not really know what they get up to. Xtra 23:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got a link that shows their members. And their web page shows their current campaigns. I don't just want to try to summarise their website on wiki.

I'm absolutely certain that they're significant. But I don't know what more to say about them right now. Ah well, people will add what they think matters.

Hope you're enjoying the weekend.

Regards, Ben Aveling 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair is taking evidence, if you'd be interested in elaborating on your interactions with him. — Phil Welch 07:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ilayathalapathyvijay/Introduction (essay)

Yeah. I thought user:Ilayathalapathyvijay was creating a new article with a completely random title because it wasn't the first one (eg becoming a star), though you caught it before I did. I've warned them, but the edits seem to have already stopped. I don't think it qualifies for administrator intervention/vandalism in progress unless they do something after being warned, if it does, it'll have to wait until you're back. Then again, apparantly they're an alt of user:Actor Vijay who has the same talk page and created becoming a star previously (see [2]), so if that's grounds for reporting them, let me know for next time. Indium 09:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I just noticed that the alt user:Actor Vijay was suspended for doing that, so I reported Ilayathalapathyvijay anyway. I can't think of much worse than creating an account to get around a suspension and do what got you suspended in the first place all over again. Indium 09:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In fairness, the page he overwrote could easily be a candidate for deletion, and he's not actively making people miserable the way some POV warriors do. But, having been suspended once, there's almost certainly grounds for a repeat punishment. I've db-bio'd Vijay (Actor). Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. Ben Aveling 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Monivae

Yo Ben why is the Monivae page 'seriously not notable?' What does that even mean?

Notable is complicated. If most people would recognise the name, or if a large number of people think it's important, it's probably notable.

Notable...

You know what Ben your not notable.

Yes, I know that.

I suggest your user page be sent to the bad jokes department.

Thanks! :-)

Noteable....(cont)

I suggest you look at this: Notability It is tempting for some people to set a bar of notability for schools, such as by age, size or press coverage. However, any such criteria have proven to be controversial. Thus, the only fitting criterion is how much verifiable, NPOV information can be found on the school.

Thankyou, I would ask you to keep personal attacks out of Wikipedia, we both know that there is no room for that on this site.

That's one person's opinion, what they're saying is that people get so emotional about schools, that enforcing notability isn't worth the effort. They're probably right.

Thanks for visiting, Regards, Ben Aveling 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Ben, why are you speedy deleting Vijay (actor)? With a quick Google search, he seems to be real, and the article certainly does assert notability with the extensive filmography. I think this is clearly not a case for speedy deletion, and I don't even think it would be deleted if it went to AfD. rspeer 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I made a mistake. I was chasing a number of inapropriate pages that had been created about that actor and I tagged one too many.  :-(

Thanks for picking me up, Ben Aveling 00:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I thought i was just qualifying my earlier statement. Xtra 09:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific theory

Re: your message to me, I would be delighted to discuss the issue with you, and very much appreciate you trying to keep it off the rfc, but have you noticed that Benapgar and Ec5618 are in a full scale debate (again) about it on the rfc... ah well. Where to discuss? I would prefer not bouncing back and forth between talk pages. One of us make a sub-page? Or use a messenger prog, where you will learn how badly puppies actually type? KillerChihuahua 11:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy to try using a subpage: user:BenAveling/Scientific theory

I'll let you make a start, it's nearly 11pm here and I'm going to bed.

Later, Ben Aveling 11:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, and normally I do refrain from giving trolls the literary trouncing that they deserve and seek, yet don't listen to, and some seem capable of even understanding simple wiki-concepts. You're right of course, they (and in particular Ben, this one, not you, you couldn't possibly ever be confused...) should not be fed. Some editors have their heads shoved so far up their own arses that nothing will make them see sense. But trolls do, nevertheless, need to be dealt with, and for this one the back each other up approach needs to be implemented if only to save poor FM's sanity. Dunc|☺ 21:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I can be as confused alright. See "Speedy deletion" on this page for evidence of that.  :-)

Thanks for the quick response. And yes, I'm a bit worried about FM's behaviour as well.

Hopefully all concerned will start concentrating on issues and behaviour.

Keep the faith, Ben Aveling 23:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

GBU-37

Thanks for the note. After some deliberation, I changed my vote to a keep. I admit notability may be an issue, but my rationale was content, and I can't deny that it has content now. Deltabeignet 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you would be within your rights to say "although the page is better, it still isn't good enough".

I'll leave my vote as a delete, and propose that we have consensus to keep.

Regards, Ben Aveling 00:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedo

Hi there! It wasn't a new picture, I just changed it to be the same width as the logo above. It's just a pet peeve of mine! It wasn't broken on my browser - se ya, Trollderella 21:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm certainly prepared to have look at it in both sizes and consider.

I can't see why FireFox would barf on a picture. [3] What browser are you using?

I'll check it with Explorer later, see if that makes a difference.

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, It's working now. Go figure. I still prefer the smaller size. I'll raise a Q on the talk page.

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed - if you like the small let's leave it at that. Trollderella 23:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've asked. We'll see what people have to say about how large they like it. Ben Aveling 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Results of the England rugby league team

I know that it's been closed as no consensus now, but I don't see the problem with it being kept. You could look at it the other way and say that: "Oh, look, now that we've deleted List of results of the England rugby league team, there is a precedent for deleting List of Scotland national football team results" which would, IMO, be a complete travesty. To the point - I can certainly see that the list of rugby league results would certainly be useful to some people (to answer questions like "When did England last beat France?", "What was England's longest run of victories?") - and if a list is verifiable, NPOV and useful, then I certainly don't see why it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I suggest you talk to Smerk instead and ask him to improve the article. Sam Vimes 22:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of results of the England national rugby league team

I would have considered changing my vote but it seems the vote has closed. I take your point about analysis being unlikely so give me a shout if you or anyone else relists it and I'll vote delete.

All the best

Keresaspa 14:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it closed about 30 seconds after I left the message for you. Could have been worse, I could very easily have left the message 5 minutes later. :-)

We'll see what happens. Thanks for the response.

Regards, Ben Aveling 19:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ads on Uncyclopedia

Hi, take a look at the ads on Uncyclopedia. They are pretty unobtrusive imo, and if they generate enough money to get Wikipedia working properly I think it would be a small sacrifice to pay for huge benefit. Arniep 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I could live with something like that if the powers that be thought it desireable.

Regards, Ben Aveling 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Learn how to spell [4] — Dunc|☺ 19:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops!  :-) Could have been worse. I try to remember to spell check the contribs themselves....

PS. I notice that you've blanked my support for Thryduulf's comments on your talk page [5].

Would you prefer me to write my own description of why abusive behaviour is unacceptable?

Regards, Ben Aveling 19:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris

Thank you - It was very courteous of you to give me the FYI. KillerChihuahua 04:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris' RFC

Hi, Ben. Have you noticed my move of the Duncharris RFC from "Approved" to "Candidate"? This concerns you, since you are one of the three people who claim to have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute", so I thought I'd better make sure you saw it. Please see links and full explanation of my action here. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

Yes, just noticed it. Going back through my talk page and Dunc's talk page to find where I've discussed Dunc's behaviour with him. Thanks for the heads up. Ben Aveling 19:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi BenAveling. I noticed you posted two copyvios to AfD: Varadharaja Perumal Temple and Kamakshi Amman Temple with a comment that they were non-commercial. Being non-commercial doesn't mean we can use their copyrighted material. We must still delete it, unless they grant us GFDL compliant permission to use it. So next time you come across such an article, whack {{copyvio}} on it, and list it at WP:CP (most easily by following the link at the very top of the template). Thanks. -Splash^talk 00:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC Duncharris again

Ben, I just put a proposal for closing on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Duncharris, please consider it. I'm not nudging any of the other people involved, since if you're in favor of this, I assume you'll want to discuss with them anyway. Best, Bishonen | talk 10:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

Responded to you on my talk page

(feel free to delete this notice once you read it) —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

GWOT scope

Seems fair enough. I'll add it to the War on Terrorism page. The Wookieepedian 07:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

With regards to my statement on the Duncharris RFC

I struck my previous statement about you, which I now consider overly harsh, and placed one which is closer to how I now feel. I don't believe in removing talk page comments unless they are very over the line, but striking it out shows that I have reconsidered my position. I hope that's good. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 12:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free.

You should feel free to make amends, and we all know exactly why I think you are on a witch hunt. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I think Hipocrite may have you confused with this Ben. One puppy's opinion, I could be very wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. KillerChihuahua 22:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comments

Thanks for your comments at User talk:Ed Poor. I agree that piling on about error isn't effective it happens once, but since this is the third time in a couple weeks I feel that Ed needs to know that his actions are not appropriate. Unfortunately, telling someone you feel their actions are wrong are pretty much the only recourse on Wikipedia. I agree that it may not help resolving the issue, as Ed has continued to block in this manner despite others' protests. Do you have a better suggestion? I had hoped that this wouldn't go to RfC, as I'm sure being the subject of an RfC would be unpleasant, but it looks like that might be what happens. If you have any other ideas, I'd be glad to hear them—I'm still hoping the situation can be salvaged. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Two of those would have been Dunc. I guess someone mentioned the other one somewhere, but if you could save me trawling and tell me which is the third one? [6]

I agree there are problems at the moment. I don't know what the solution is. Thicker skins on all sides, I suspect.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume you saw that the third was User:Joshuaschroeder; he said that in response to Ed's "bullying", he was leaving the project and asked his name to be changed to User:ScienceApologist. I don't understand what you mean by thicker skins. Are you suggesting that those who feel they are blocked unfairly should not complain? Or that other users should not protest but should just tolerate what they see as abuse? Incidentally, Ed has indicated that he is open to suggestions and willing to modify his behavior, so hopefully we can resolve the situation and prevent matters from approaching such a breaking point again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I have now seen that. I haven't looked into the details of it, so I can't make an informed comment on it. I was mainly thinking of Ed and Dunc. How to put this? Both of them have a habit of giving at least as good as they get, which makes it explosive when they get together. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

editing comments

Thanks for cleaning up & enhancing my timeline. That said, I should warn you that some people are very strongly opposed to anyone editing signed comments - in future, it would probably be good to drop the person a line and let them know that you did. Again, this isn't a complaint - I was too lazy to add the actual times Guettarda 20:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise until after I left this message that you had just done it. And notifying me was by no means required - it's just that some people get upset about it, and it's probably best to drop someone a note when you do something like that. I would have said "after the fact is fine" but since people are obsessive and spend every waking moment here... ;-) Guettarda 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Howard

I will, look into it, but don't let me stop you. If I disagree with something you do, you will find out. Xtra 11:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You might consider getting a Hansard reference for that Pauline Hanson quote. Xtra 23:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not my quote. I just moved it around. But a good thing to fix.  :-) Thanks, Ben Aveling 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

War on Terror

Copperchair's back... and reverting again.

I made need your help so I don't fall afoul of the 3RR - can you help me protect that page from his blind reversions? JG of Borg 06:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

He's editing it almost every minute, weird edits too... we should probably just let him have his fun trying to hide his edits, then revert it to the not vandalized version, like you did. Though we can't be too slow because then people'll edit his tampered version. Sigh... and we had a nice consensus on that page too, I felt. JG of Borg 07:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

He's ALSO blanking his userpage to hide some stuff about his bad edits. JG of Borg 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, last edit on this page for me today... but his weird edits are to add stuff back in that he doesn't agree with, to hide that some of the stuff is still gone. Quite odd, clever... but we're watching. JG of Borg 07:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

His current edits are nonsensical. Quite strange. Check out the diffs - what is he trying to do? JG of Borg 07:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not reverting. I am only changing some things that don't belong in the article, because the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terrorism. Copperchair 07:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Total War Against Terror

Because there were no terrorists there before the US-led invasion. It is not my opinion, it's a fact. Copperchair 07:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There are because of the invasion, so it makes no sense to say you are battling an enemy you created because of economic interests.

P.S. I won't leave the tag because I am no vandalizing anything. Copperchair 08:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a traveler came along wrapped in a warm cloak.

They agreed that the one who first suceeded in making the traveler take his cloak off should be considered stronger than the other.

Then the North Wind blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveler fold his cloak around him;

and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt. Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveler took off his cloak.

And so the North Wind was obliged to confess that the Sun was the stronger of the two.

Typo

Yeah, it was a typo. I believe by rfa, he meant request for arbitration. The Wookieepedian 10:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Ben Aveling 10:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Correct. I meant to write rfar.-MegamanZero 8:30 8,December 2005 (UTC)

Dobie Gillis Williams

Thank you for clearing that up rather than lashing out in anger. I would have not have guessed it was you. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cnwb's RfA

Ben,

Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim Tam as a token of my gratitude. Cnwb 22:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair

Has Copperchair engaged in any of the following with regards to war on terrorism articles: personal attacks, edit warring, deceptive edit summaries, refusal to abide by agreements he has made, incivility, refusal to follow consensus, or refusal to consider the opinions of others? If so, please add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence. He has a history of engaging in these tactics on Star Wars related articles as you're probably aware, and if he engages in the same behavior on war on terror related articles that should be dealt with in the same RfAr. Thanks. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thx for notifying me. Lectonar 07:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological evolution (disambiguation)

You wrote neither side really understands the other side's understanding of evolution. Nor do they seem to want to. Any idea on how to remedy this? Guettarda 01:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

John Howard edits

True, but there's nothing particularly noteworthy about this. "Lawful ownership by ordinary citizens" has strong POV connotations versus simply "ownership" which is more matter-of-fact. Slac speak up! 06:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Howard and Conscription

Whilst I am prepared to concede that I wear my heart on my sleeve I don't want that to cloud any discussion here or on the John Howard talk fest.

You write: "In short, unless we can find something more, I don't see anything significant to say."

At the risk of appearing to be obtuse is there any chance you would concede that given John Hoawrd's position in the party that he must have supported both NS and the Australian participation in the Vn War?

Basically I would like to be able to reach some form of consensus on what I have to say is to me somewhat obvious. Albatross2147 05:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Ben Aveling 07:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Also at J. Howard 'Menzies minus the myths' Weekend Australian 12-13 November 1994 Books Section, p. 5. he states "...Menzies and his colleagues (and often large sections of the Labor Party) believed it to be in Australia's interests to act in concert with those powerful friends-and that in most cases, that judgement was right." quoted at http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/leftvietnam.htm

AfD Box

Thanks for that. Somethine tells me that was a brainfart on my part when I did that. ^_^ Mo0[talk] 07:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris2

• Duncharris (talk · contribs · block log)
• Ed_Poor (talk · contribs · block log)

Would you please compare Dunc's contribs to mine, and indicate whether I have a right to better treatment than I've been getting? Uncle Ed 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you have a right to better treatment that you have been getting. But I am also prepared to believe that you have a responsibility to behave better that you have been behaving. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair enough. Any specific suggestions? Uncle Ed 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Royal Commission

The name was "Royal Commission into whether there has been any corrupt or criminal conduct by Western Australian Police Officers" exactly as titled. jmd 07:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

I agree. I'm not going to enter an edit-war, especially with a One Nation Party member. They're not fun to argue with. ;-) Just look at this opening salvo on the talk page: That's because you are ignorant and were not involved with the party. This is what we're dealing with. Cnwb 07:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstated the Pauline Pantsdown section, which keeps disappearing. I'm not 100% convinced it belongs there, but my guy feeling is that it does. He hasn't addressed the Pantsdown issue yet. Cnwb 07:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Dancing With The Stars deserves more than a sentence. I think it marked an interesting and important stage of her public life. It almost had a de-politicising effect. But I agree that Pantsdown only really warrants a passing mention, perhaps in a section about public perceptions of her, or critical backlash? Cnwb 07:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Ben, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) If you ever have any questions or need some advice, don't hesitate to ask. --bainer (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Re : InkLink

Hi Ben,

Oh yes it was! (Goodness, what was I thinking?) My bad, apologies about that. It's restored now.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sydney

Reply on talk page. - G^t 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my tone. Let's figure out a reasonable solution to all of this. - G^t 03:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

riot

I really do want some reasonable action - and for that - everything needs to be taken into account. Chronological order is neutral - it focuses on no particular incident, out of many (I question why the 5000 mob should be first up, when the retaliatory violence was far more severe). I'd keep it that way. It makes for much easier reading and understanding too. - G^t 12:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Ben Aveling

A new user has popped up, and as of this post has just one edit and it's a good one, but I'm wondering if you feel comfortable with his user name? If you aren't come back to me and I'll approach the user about Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks. Harro5 21:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:2005 Sydney race riots

Hi, I appreciate that you disagree with the neo nazi section on the talk page. So do I. But please just explain why you disagree, rather than deleting it. Thanks, Ben Aveling 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the section, I am deleting the section. I would appreciate it if you could leave it deleted this time. 211.30.80.121 04:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

trolling and other bad bahaviour

[Moved from FM's talk page] It's trolling if the main reason he's doing it is to get a reaction. As far as I can tell, what he most wants to do is make some changes to the article. He's frustrated and doesn't know what to do because he doesn't understand why you keep rejecting his changes, and he's become convinced that you're collectively out to get him. Maybe he is trolling. But only he knows that for sure. I don't. You don't. Neither does FM. If he is trolling, 'warning' him isn't going to make him stop. And if he isn't trolling, then accusing him of trolling isn't likely to get the reaction you want either, unless the desired reaction is an explosion. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's nice of you to make excuses for such a foul-mouthed person (it's really fun to work with someone who calls you a "shit" and a liar, and lots that's much worse), but if Ben were actually doing what you claim he was doing, why would be use dishonest edit summaries and revert war? As far as desired reactions go - I would much rather never have to edit the same page as someone who acts as disgustingly as Ben does - I feel soiled just editing the same page as him. He's there to make trouble, to launch personal attacks, to insult me and Slim and Jim and everyone else who doesn't share his narrow religious beliefs. It doesn't take a mind-reader to see through that sort of behaviour and call it what it is. Trolling is too kind a term - most trolls don't behave as badly as Ben does. Guettarda 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between an explaination and an excuse. My point is that it doesn't matter if he is a good person or a bad person, you will get a better response if you treat him with respect. Certainly, be firm, but do so without personal attacks. I suggest this to you not because it will make him happier (though it would) but because I believe it would make you happier. ICBW. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Thanks. Guettarda 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit

Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit is a new wiki-project I have thought up. I was wondering if you thought it was a good idea and if you wanted to join up. I need some users backing me before I construct a wikiproject, and you seem to share my views on subjects such as concensus, civilty, etc. Reply on my talkpage if you're interested. Thanks, -MegamanZero|Talk 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

May I ask which answers to which questions you are not comfortable with? Kelly Martin (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Transfer of power

Hi Ben Brookie here - you have Vfd tagged this article but not created its Vfd link etc - can you rectify? Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ben - speedy service! Happy New Year! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not refactor my talk page

It is rather inappropriate of you to remove someone else's comments from my talk page. The only exception for that I might accept is if the comments were a personal attack, and even then I'd prefer that such removals only be done by admins. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, You say at the top of your talk page that comments should be addressed to you, "not to any other editor who may have written something". My question was intended for you, not for him, and I would still like you to address the question. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: My behaviour

In answer to your question, I think it is inappropriate for you to continue questioning Kelly over a Simpsons quote in the way you have. You asked her a question, if she wants to answer it, she will; if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to. Just leave her alone.

Am I to take it from the topics on this page that you are an Australian? If so, I find that very disappointing. I like to think that most Australians believe in giving people a fair go, regardless of whether we like or support them, and don't believe in putting the boot in when they're down.

I urge you to back off, leave Kelly alone and stop harassing her. Just give her some space. She's withdrawn from the elections, there's no need for people to keep hounding and interrogating her.

By boorishly and repeatedly demanding Kelly justify her use of a quote from a cartoon series, you're actually acting like the people Mr Burns is talking about in that quote. I'm surprised you can't see that for yourself. Sarah Ewart 03:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as "un-Australian behaviour" lol. Just disappointing. I had no problem with your asking Kelly about the quote or expressing your opinion about it. My problem was with your repeated demands that she answer you. She doesn't have to answer if she doesn't want to.

My basic opinion about the quote is that it's her userpage and if she wants to put it there, she should be allowed to. And no, I don't think she owes you or anyone else an apology. It's a bit of a stretch to conclude that it was somehow intended to be a slight directed at you. As I understand it, you were not eligible to vote, so you did not have any influence in "costing" her the election. Furthermore, you're not an anonymous voter. Neither were any of the people who voted. And I agree with what Mike said about it being intended as a joke.

She's not running for ArbCom anymore, it's time for everyone to stop interrogating her over every little thing and just get over it all.

By the way, when you were in primary school, did you ever learn the song about the Kelly Gang? "There's no crime too great or small, to blame Ned Kelly...Shame, shame upon the name, blame it all on the Kellys." Funnily enough, I'm starting to get the feeling that people have started seeing Kelly like that, and they think they can use any "crime," great or small, as an excuse to get stuck into her with the old jack-boot. Sarah Ewart 06:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that I think the quote was an attack on wiki-democracy, for getting the 'wrong' result. I know I can't change that attitude by myself, but I would like to register a protest against her behaviour. It's then up to her to decide what to do about it. I appreciate you're trying to protect her, either from me, or from herself. But if I understand where she is comming from, the message she hears is not what you said, but "he's the one with a problem". Regards, Ben Aveling 07:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Ben, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the intention behind Kelly's decision to use the quote. I believe it was a joke, and maybe a little poke, but I have trouble believing it was an attack on specific people or on "Wiki-democracy."

You say you just wanted to "register a protest against her behaviour." Okay, you did that with your first comment. There was no need to hassle her and repeatedly demand her response.

I can assure you that I was not attempting to defend Kelly. I don't even know the woman. I simply believe that it was wrong to hound and continue kicking her. That is all. Sarah Ewart 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think we do actually disagree about Kelly's intention. I agree it was a joke - many a true word is spoken in jest and all that. And also I agree it was not aimed at specific people, so much at the class of people who (she thinks) dislike her.

I suspect that she holds two contradictory views: emotionally she tends towards assuming that anyone who disagrees with her is doing so for invalid reasons; intellectually she knows this is sometime true and often false. I don't know if this is so or not, but I have met people who use this pattern, and I can see similarities both in her behaviour and in the reaction she receives from people.

Of course, where we differed was the question of what was to be done. I wanted her to face the issue and issue a response. I expect if she were to make a response then that response would be "OK, I accept that some of those who opposed me had legitimate reasons". Until she says something like that in public, I think that she will continue to act in ways that hurt other people and lead to her being hurt in response. And I don't like seing people do things that lead to them being hurt. So I think your original position of say nothing would have been wrong for me.

My suspicion, based on past experience, is that so long as other people are prepared to speak for her, she will not answer. Only when no one else defends her behaviour will she actually examine it. Of course, there is a large body of people prepared to defend her behaviour. So I have to agree with your latest message - repeating the question was pointless and even damaging because she has now seen her behaviour endorsed by so many people.

Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate it. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Ben! I appreciate your trust. In recognition of your FiPo, you get the FiTh (not to be confused with taking the fifth.) The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is the difference? Xtra 06:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. will use that from now on (if remember) Xtra 07:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

→ ↑ →

The page speaks for itself. Brophy has separate page as does Chesworth. So does clifton hill communnity music centre. Just how old are you? It may come as a shock (are you sitting down ?, take a deep breath) but the world actually existed before 1980. And this may be even more shocking but actual people made and listened to music-some of it was even amplified. If you list this page for del youre not only ignorant but a philistine. Lentisco 04:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only are you a moron philistine but youre lazy-typical of your generation- if its not at your fingertips via your keyboard it not only doesnt exist but it cant be of any possible value. Get off your butt and go and read, look, listen and learn. And talk to someone who is over 30 instead of being so self absorbed. Lentisco 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben, in response to the message you left at my talkpage; They were an important outfit in the development of Melbourne's experimental music scene. Cnwb 07:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One resource you could check is Clinton Walker's Inner City Sound book, which chronicles Australia's early punk / post-punk scene. Tch Tch Tch are mentioned numerous times. This would cover the WP:MUSIC criteria: Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. Cnwb 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:my RFA

thanks for your question I hope you like my response. --Adam1213 Talk + 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA Q9

Hi Adam,

You've answered from the point of view of what's in it for wikip. But what I meant is, what's in it for you? What motivates you to become an admin? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Above

I just added it I hope you like my response --Adam1213 Talk + 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad answer, though it worries me if you think the vandals are wining? I won't vote on this one, but I do suggest you withdraw the AFD. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Police state

Sorry, we were editing at the same time. Incorporated yopur edits. How does it look now?-- Nomen Nescio 11:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that IP is the one belonging to VinnyCee, although I have no idea if he's the same user as is behind all the potential sock puppets. Did we ever get any result from that check? -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks like the same user, and let's face it, the anon signed as VinnyCee. I've added the two of them to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Police State possible sock puppetry. A quick look through their edit history shows it's very similar. In doing so, I spotted another user that also might also be a sock, but I was less sure of that one, so I've left it alone for now. Fun fun fun. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks for catching that signature vandalism, too.... -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I think we've annoyed him by 'correcting' his (I assume) signatures. But while there's no rule against editing from an IP and from a user, it's not kosher to cross-sign when nobody knows if the two accounts are the same person or not. I've suggested to VinnyCee that he put a message on the IP's page clarifying the situation. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

When does an edit become a personal attack?

Thanks for your comment and mediation. Ajdz does not like my edits but for some strange reason refuses to discuss the matter. In addition he is changing[7] and deleting[8] my edit on his talk page.-- Nomen Nescio 08:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this constitute a personal attack?-- Nomen Nescio 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing another user's signed comments is generally a no-no. The section headings are generally fair game, particularly on one's own talk page. Being insulting is a personal attack wherever it happens, and in a section heading is just the same as being insulting in an edit summary - in fact worse, because the section heading is likely to get copied into other people's edit summaries. While "goes nuts" is a pretty weak insult, it hardly helps advance peace and understanding. I'll change it back, he might accept me as relatively neutral.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Apparently I must admit I altered your edit on the Sock poppet request. However, I thought you would not mind since I did not change the text but merely added a link. Hope that's OK.

As to the heading on user pages. I have to say I think changing Revert war into A Dutch leftist goes nuts and now has become An Americaphobe goes nuts makes me doubt that is acceptable. I did not change it since it is his page, but still.-- Nomen Nescio 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even notice you made the change. In fact, I was wondering why you bothered to repeat the link underneath what I'd written.  :-) I think you're right to not change his page, it's such a borderline insult. But I have changed it. And I've left a proposal there for both you to agree or disagree with. Anyway, I'm off. I'll check back later. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. Of course you can ask any question, maybe you first want to look at another debate I had on this topic. I will continue the debate on the original location.

Adding the link twice is indeed a bit silly. I will take it out, has no added value at all.

As to the removal of McCarthyism from unlawful combatant, does this mean you do not agree the latter could also be described as a witchhunt? -- Nomen Nescio 16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Enemy combants and witch hunts

I can see a connection, but on balance, no. The characteristics of a witchhunt are (IMHO)

1. that the accused are considered guilty until proved repentant; there is no need to prove guilt, and no way to prove innocence
2. that the only way to prove repentance is to confess to things you didn't do and accuse other people close to you of sins at least as bad as your own, perpetuating the cycle.

I'm assuming here that (most) 'unlawful' combatants are people I would consider to be prisioners of war. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To that I agree. However, it is not the position of the Bush administration. They determine detainees to be enemy combatant (on what grounds exactly?) and as such, the administration claims, they can be denied POW status (the infamous memos refuting the Geneva Conventions). Clearly the position is that these people are not POW and therefore are not entitled the usual legal protection.

As justification for their extrajudicial treatment the Bush administration has repeatedly stated these people were the "worst of the worst." This comes very close to being guilty untill proven innocent.

Furthermore, it has been shown people are held as enemy combatant but were arrested outside the battlefield and without them being engaged in combat, i.e. Padilla. Two major violations of international law. By definition these prisoners cannot be POW.

As it turns out, many of these enemy combatants are either released without any indictment(!!), or are still (years) waiting for such a procedure. The latter another violation of US and international law.

I will leave it at that, but there is sufficient cause to conclude enemy combatants are not infrequently "bought" from Afghan troops, or apprehended based upon information gathered through torture (I know Bush says the US does not torture) and are not guaranteed legal protection as has been defined in US and international law. To me, this is very similar to a witchhunt.-- Nomen Nescio 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some of the same 'parts'. I think they've been assembled into a different creature. A witch hunt is mostly an internal thing, and almost all 'combatants' are foreigners. In a witch hunt, anybody could be accused, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Scott Mills

Vandalism? I know; who'd have thunk it? ;-) I've been keeping an eye on it since the 18th. A number of reverts, a bunch of vandalism, and a good edit had gone by with some sneaky fan cruft hidden below the ELs. The cat was apparently designed for this purpose, so why not add it. The edit summary was an explanation for people who hadn't picked up on the discussion about the category. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL•07:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. I agree there's a problem, and something should be done. This is something. I'm not sure this is the right thing. So I'm supportive of people's efforts, but I'm not, or not yet, going to put a lot of effort behind the push myself. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Personpersonperson

Ben are you an admin? If so, can you look into this user's edits on Bill Shorten. Xtra 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've had a look at the edits. Personpersonperson is obviously a new account, but I don't see any evidence that he is a puppet of Lentisco. I'll make a quick comment at Shorten, then I've gotta run. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

El C

1. The polite thing to do is ask - see if he comes back

2. Enjoy the block (see User talk:El_C)

3. I don't think the problem is with the description of Linder, it's the allegation that the other guy is Linder

Guettarda 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda, I assume this is a response to this edit? I assure you, I only intended to be polite. Rather than the delete/restore cycle, I was hoping that something a little less factually inaccurate might be more acceptable to all. Perhaps the slur (which is what it looks like) should be removed entirely, but it is a user page, and some borderline behaviour is usually tolerated. I don't feel a deserve a block, and in fact, I don't seem to be blocked. BenAveling (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Regards, Ben Aveling 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The "block" refered to the fact that you altered the page after Voice of All threatened to block anyone who perpetuated the edit war. Hence the link to the talk page. What you did wasn't blockable (nor was the rest, IMO) but it seemed rather bold to go forth and make the change so soon after the warning was issued. (of course, the context is different if you wandered safely through the minefield without realised that the mines were there). Guettarda 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could see that there was reverting going on. I should have read the talk page more carefully. I hope I might still have tried to intervene, though I can't be completely certain that I wouldn't have just decided 'oh well, that lot deserve each other, I'm not getting involved'.  :-) Anyway, there now seems to be consensus to find a version that preserves the intent of the original while being as unslanderous as possible, which seems sensible. Thanks for your concern. Ben Aveling 23:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was surprised to find a whole swag of messages about me over at the club house. I posted a reply there. Thanks for letting me know and thanks for your support. We've now got mentors assigned so I'm hoping I can learn to resolve conflict more effectively. --Comaze 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

David Hicks enlistment

How do you know that Hicks enlisted with al Qaeda? He is widely reported as having enlisted with the Taliban. But yours is the very first report that he enlisted with al Qaeda. You have an authoritative source for that? -- Geo Swan 01:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for voting! Although this is a bit late in coming, I want to thank you for voting (no matter what your vote was) in my recent request for adminship. You might be aware that it did not pass due to a lack of consensus. The final tally was 21/9/10. I think I will try again this spring or summer after I have gained a bit more experience and met a few more fellow editors. Thanks again!

--MatthewUND^(talk) 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: signatures

The omission of the user portion of my signature, thus signing with timestamp only, is deliberate. I'd ask that you at least respect this. Thanks. 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems daft to me. 12:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic conversation moved from Talk:Police state

Nescio, why do you continually harass other users and then falsly accuse them of "vandalism" or other wiki-infringements? Please, do not delete this comment, I am only here as a mediator and this is NOT a personal attack. Only a simple question as to what motivates you to defame other users.

Here are the examples that I have compiled since being introduced to this issue. We have Levine2112 who complains about your harassment on this talk page above. “I have not attacked you. Actually, quite the reverse. I have not exercized censorship. Quite the reverse. What's it called when you accuse others of being something that you actually are?”

Winstonsmith describes your actions as “rootless accusations of "vandalism" in response to my recent edit of the wikipedia article "police state" don't even pass the straight face test.”

Winstonsmith even took the time to write a letter to the administrators about your behavior.

Dear Administrators:

"I would like to file a complaint against user "nescio" for wanton vandalism of the article entitled "Police State". User Nescio has been deleting sections of the article he or she personally disagrees with e.g. historical police state examples " Chile under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet" and "Argentina under the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional", as well as other examples . This childish and irrational behaviour has resulted in a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, which is detrimental to Wikipedia's credibility and accuracy. I have tried to reason with this user, but it is unfortunately to no avail.

Regretfully , I have no choice but to request that this user be blocked from editing at this time.

Sincerely yours,

User Winston Smith

Ajdz describes you as “the worst editor I have EVER encountered on wikipedia” while encouraging you to “Please stop this childish behavior.”

VinnyCee had his warnings to you about harassment deleted and reported you as a vandal *Nescio (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has repeatedly reverted to prior revisions of the police state article after being instructed to view the discussion page. I then placed a warning on Nescio's talk page, which he promptly removed. He continues to remove the warnings. Nescio has requested sources for the addition, at least five have been provided[9], yet Nescio refuses to acknowledge their existence and insists on trying to incite an edit war. -- VinnyCee 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Nescio is continuing to remove edits and warnings of mine from his talk page [10] while falsely accusing me of stalking [11] and sock puppetry. -- VinnyCee 17:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that Nescio and others had understandable grounds on which to suspect you of sockpuppetry. Fact is, you appeared on scene the day of/shortly after three genuine sockpuppets appeared, and you shared the same POV and short history of editing. Sophy's Duckling 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what makes you think that VinnyCee is a sockpuppet? Can you cite these actions of VinnyCee that are considered to be those of a sock-puppet? 203.129.217.6 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. It turns out that Vinny Cee is not a sockpuppet (at least, of anything we checked), but there was good reason to suspect she was. Sophy's Duckling 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So VinnyCee is not a sock puppet. This means that Nescio's accusation of him being a sock puppet is false. Did you "check" into whether the other accusations made by Nescio against other users are also false? I would bet that they are. 203.129.217.6 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The accusations leveled by Ben Aveling, Nlu, myself, and, yes, Nescio, turned out to be false but were reasonable and not completely unfounded, given this recent behavior of yours, Vinny Cee. The other accusations were true with the exception of the one I added. Sophy's Duckling 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Strictly, the accusations were not proven false. They were just not proven true, which is not the same thing. Not that there is necessarily any crime in using Socks, depending on what you use them for. Two users who are wrong and still wrong even if they agree with each other. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you harass anyone who attempts to edit the Police state article without your viewpoint. This is against WP:NPOV policy. Please stop harassing users otherwise more effective measures will have to be undertaken. -- 193.95.80.10 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit wars have not been between you and only Nescio. They have been between only you and many other users. Sophy's Duckling 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As expected, you removed this comment for discussion in violation of wikipedia’s vandalism rules. Please do not remove this again. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- 193.95.80.10 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, Nescio is in violation of the vandalism clause. As was predicted by the users who brought me into the discussion, Nescio has employed his moderator lackeys to ban anyone who is critical of his vandalism. Nescio is not above the rules of Wikipedia. It makes one wonder why he is such a proponent of not allowing anonymous users to post at Wikipedia. It's probably one's only recourse after being unjustly banned by his moderators. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. . -- 202.164.166.154 18:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another moderator has abused his or her powers to ban a user who is simply inquiring about why Nescio continually harasses users who do not share his point of view. Removing this inquiry is in itself a violation of WP:VAND. Please do not continue to remove this legitimate question. -- 62.121.68.159 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 210.212.194.34 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Removing Warnings. 200.69.147.117 08:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you continue to vandalise your own user page? Please leave user comments on this page. How can you rationalize that this inquiry is a "personal attack"? -- 210.92.181.152 09:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a personal attack, because you have singled out Nescio out of at least four editors who disagree with you emphatically. Nescio has shown good faith here, and your efforts to get him banned because he disagrees with you do not reflect well on your own good faith. Sophy's Duckling 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In reality, quite the opposite is occuring. My efforts are focused on the goal of exposing Nescio's abuse of moderators good intentions in order to get others banned who do not share his point of view. 203.129.217.6 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and, just out of curiousity, WHY IS THIS NOT ON NESCIO'S USERPAGE?! Can someone reasonable please get it OFF the police state discussion? Sophy's Duckling 20:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why this is not on nescio's user page is because he keeps deleting it in violation of WP:VAND policy. This issue also pertains directly to this article since at least four users have been harassed and banned by Nescio's false accusations concerning this article. Ask him why he continues to delete this question from his talk page about his "contributions" to this page. -- 203.129.217.6 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to ask you why you (a) persist in disruption of this page and (b) won't sign in and insist on using so many open proxy IP addresses? Sophy's Duckling 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(a) This is not a "disruption" of this page. This discussion pertains deirectly to anyone who wishes to edit this article because if they edit in a manner that Nescio does not agree with, they will likely be harassed and banned by Nescio and his false accusations. People should be outraged that users and/or moderators are abusing thier powers. (b) If I were to sign on under my username, it would most certainly be banned in short order. I wish to see this issue resolved for all parties involved, but I am not willing to risk my status as an editor because of Nescio's frivilous accusations. 203.129.217.6 21:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that. I do see strong evidence of one (or a very small number) of people trying to push a contentious point of view and being blocked in that endeavour. Nescio removes bullshit from his userpage because it's bullshit - I don't agree with that, I leave bullshit on my userpage however egregious, until it's archived, but it's still bullshit. Fro the above references to "getting people blocked" I'm guessing you are VinnyCee - if so, nobody got you blocked but yourself. Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, VinnyCee did report these violations and the response he recieved from moderators when he reported the removals of this material from Nescio's talk page. As far as I can tell, this is vandalism. It does not bode well for wikipedia, or it's editors, when there is a double standard concerning removal of warnings and reports of harassment from user pages. VinnyCee has already been unblocked but has stated that he does not wish to continue contributing to wikipedia if this double standard is still in place. The main question that concerns myself, VinnyCee, and possibly Nescio is wether or not Nescio is ready to play by the rules and allow discussion on his talk page concerning his own actions. Thank you for responding civily and calmly. -- 69.93.127.130 18:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed but when both VinnyCee's and Nescio's actions were investigated, it was VinnyCee who got blocked - twice, I think, the second time for a week. I advised both Vinny and Nescio to step back and calm down. Nescio took that on board, Vinny apparently did not. There is a long-established precedent for dealing with controversial content on Wikipedia: talk about it until consensus is reached, then change the article. Hacking at the article just results in silly edit wars and gets nowhere at all. Vinny was trying to add the USA to the list of modern police states, if memory serves, which is ludicrous by any rational definition of police state. There is no point even trying to do that, whereas expanding on the freedom issues resulting from the PATRIOT act is productive, since the terms in which this was stated a week or two back were far too accepting of an internal terrorist threat for which there is little credible evidence; Guantanamo Bay is also highly problematic for those of us brought up on the Geneva Convention and the concept of fair play. I've said all this before in various places, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Vinny contends that he was unjustly banned for questioning Nescio's Police state reverts on his talk page. Nescio removed the inquiry repeatedly (breaking 3RR in the process) and then frivilously accused Vinny of "Personal attacks". Whether or not Vinny's additions are "ludicrous" is irrelevant, Nescio continually vandalized his own talk page when questioned about his edits. This is vandalism, Vinny reported it and was then harassed by Nescio to the point that he was blocked. Nescio was not blocked for his vandalism. This whole section should be on Nescio's talk page, along with the other sections which are critical of his edits. Thank you for the civility. -- 69.93.127.130 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So where's Vinny, then, to say all these things for himself? siafu 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Vinny is the one who posted all of this. Sophy's Duckling 18:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is going nowhere. The constant posting of personal attacks is unbecoming of any editor. If you really think that your particular complaint is worth it to seek for justice, post it at the Arbitration Committee. If you feel your particular complaint doesnt need to be adressed, I suggest we dont feed the trolls, but just notify them of the ArbCom and go on with being constructive editors. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am back now. The Police_State article has been changed in the same manner that started this whole argument in the first place. Thanks for deleteing that awful list of so-called police states. I think Nescio just wanted to list every country but his own or something. Maybe this discussion should be moved beck to the Police State article and archived since most of it pertains to the recent change made to it. VinnyCee 05:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

interesting, as I remember VinnyCree's contributions, he wanted to include the USA as police state and that, and nothing else, started the ludicrous debate. As to relocating, I do agree it is silly to keep this, far from constructive, debate and was surprised to see it moved here in the first place. Indeed, deletion would be better. Nomen Nescio 11:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

202.6.138.33

I lifted the block. If he still cannot access WP, let me know. I wish admins would read those pages. It clearly says to keep the blocks short. 24/48 hours ain't short. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou

Cheers for the unblock Ben! michael ^talk 12:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And thanks very much for the cat. Cool pic. Guettarda 04:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Very glad you like it. Ben Aveling 09:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming users

Hmm no, I don't watch their pages - why? — FireFox • T • 17:48, 7 March 2006

Ah yes, but this is what I do... I look at my contributions, and check for the talk pages of users I welcomed, and if there is no admin [Rollback] link next to it, I check the page to see what has changed on their talk page since I left the welcome message. So in a way I do keep an eye out :) — FireFox • T • 17:58, 7 March 2006

Hmm well most of them fit in fine... I've seen a couple with a {{subst:test}} warning or two, but nothing major. — FireFox • T • 18:04, 7 March 2006

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: autoblock

After noticing an e-mail from that user, I looked through the Special:Ipblocklist and removed two autoblocks. I'll check again, just in case the blocked account is still attempting to edit. — Apr. 10, '06 [16:50] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

There are no fresh autoblocks. And I unblocked two IPs 40 minutes ago. Perhaps he hadn't updated his talk page since then. — Apr. 10, '06 [16:56] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Fred Carama

You voted to delete this article in its last AfD nomination. A user using different IPs is trying to expand the article using origional research and no citations. I reverting his edits back to my own which ask for citations for each of his claims. I am thinking about putting it up for deletion again because it's clearly a violation of WP:NOR and the OR is the only thing really establishing notability. What do you think? --Strothra 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

actually I went ahead and renominated it anyway. feel free to take a look --Strothra 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Just BTW, Deletion Review might have been a better venue than a 2nd AfD and on a technicality, one can't actually violate prof, just fail to meet it. There are plenty of other ways to be notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

new opinion poll on Off-wiki

Hi. You took previously part in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy. There is a new quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated! See

• Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks

By the way, to the list of fascists on en:, I have written about, has been some five names added today, see [12]. Thx, -jkb- 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Question for anyone passing.

Maybe it's just me, but I find something a little 'off' about this edit. Dear visitor, what do you think? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User page

Hey dude. I just wanted to make a suggestion, though it might be pedantic. You have "at this point of time" on your user page, which is a pleonasm. It can be shortened to "at this point" without the meaning being reduced. Rintrah 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

There was an edit conflict, when I tried to save the first time. I assumed the user had added to the bottom of the talk, so when I came to save again, I put my post in the same place, not realising that the edit conflict had resulted in a new post where mine was destined to go...! Tyrenius 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

deletion review...

Thanks to you and mailer daemon I have a somewhat better understanding of the administrator's role in closing {afd}s.

It is not a vote, it is a seeking for consensus; the admin is authorized to make judgement calls; but, in general, if the number of opinions stated in favor of any opinion is less than roughly 70% of the total of those who logged in, then the result should be recorded as no consensus. I have that correct, right?

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss we have seven opinions stated -- one from an IP user.

IP users don't count, correct?

3 delete votes, 2 keep votes, 1 merge. That would be exactly 50% offering an opinion choosing delete. So, in theory, User:Ryan Delaney, the admin who closed the discussion, should have had a good reason to not record the result as keep -- no consensus, correct?

Well, "mistakes happen" I think you said. And there has to be a "statute of limitations" on these things. And if we are going to keep our wikistress under control, we shouldn't sweat the small stuff.

Again, thanks for filling me in on how the {afd} are supposed to work. -- Geo Swan 08:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For AFDs, IP users count as much as any other user. Kzollman's merge could be considered to be a delete. He was in favour of keeping the content, but not the page. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This surprises me. Anonymous users' comments could be the comments of someone else who had already had their say in the debate. Unfortunately, there are wikipedia contributors who resort to the use of multiple userids, for various reasons. I have had the unfortunate experience to meet several of them. -- Geo Swan 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and it does happen. But it's no less a problem with registered users. In some ways, it's more of a problem because it's often harder to detect. That's another reason that AFD is a discussion, not a vote. Quality of argument, not quantity of argument, if you like. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

tags

Where can i find a listing of WP tags? 2nd Piston Honda 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At WP:TT. Do try not to let anyone's negative feelings about you determine how you feel about them. Always assume good faith, especially when it's not really deserved. It just makes life so much calmer for everyone. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On helping to keep my page nice

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Bishonen | talk 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

You're very welcome.  :-) Ben Aveling 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On deleting items

Sir, 2nd Piston Honda not only impersonated me and deleted comments of mine more than once but if you check his edit summaries he also states that: "none of your previous posts have been deleted, but thanks for the unnecessary update" How can that possibly be considered 'Good Faith' under any circumstances ? I will let it go (once) if he puts all of my comments back on that talk page; otherwise I will not let it go. I'm under the impression that I have to allow him a certain amount of time before I can take the next step in the process. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the page that I'm referring to: If that doesn't work, this should. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=73506896 "Duke53 | Talk" 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, he shouldn't have removed those comments. At the same time, they should have been placed on his talk page, not on GWB's.

He claims to have (mis)copied a comment of yours. If that is the case, then I could still AGF. Either way, blocks are about preventing future misconduct, not about punishing past behaviour. He has admited he made a mistake. While he hasn't (in my opinion) really apologised for that, so long as he doesn't repeat the misconduct, there's no action to be taken against him.

I don't see anything in the deleted comments that talks about GWB, just about people's behaviour on the talk page. If you feel you want to restore anything, I'd suggest you go ahead, but do it on the user's talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm thoroughly confused ... people can do wholesale edits (and deletions) whenever the mood stirikes ... can lie about deleting posts and ??? WTF? Are you some sort of super-editor here or something? If we can all diregard Wikipedia policies when we choose, then this place is for the birds. I am disgusted by this. Odd that you should appear out of nowhere and take this action, very odd. You say that " ... he shouldn't have removed those comments" then you do the same. Some pigs more equal than others? "Duke53 | Talk" 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just an ordinary user, giving you my understanding of current policy. If anyone makes a habit of disregarding policy they will be blocked. I removed the section [13] because it is off topic for that page, and because I thought the matters it covered had been settled. As you feel differently, I've restored it, though I welcome it if you were to move the whole section to somewhere more appropriate, perhaps your talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Winhunter's RfA thanks

Hi BenAveling, thank you for editing in my RfA, which was closed as successful today with a finaly tally of (56/0/3). I will be very careful at first to avoid any mistakes. Please feel free to leave a message in my talk page if you have any comments/suggestions about me in the future. Once again, thank you! --WinHunter (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it. BTW, It doesn't appear in bold on my monitor, so I am not sure how to go about fixing that. Danny 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My beautiful banner

Glad you like it, I always think of the wounded;-) Giano | talk 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That would explain the choice of colour. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No no, I think Giano is simply trying to introduce the spirit of Christmas, slightly early. You see the (stylized) holly-type green border? Bishonen | talk 08:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Maybe :-). I should upload a photo of the Christmas cave. It's a warehouse around the corner that sells nothing but Christmas stuff. And yes, it's open for business already. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question

Thanks Ben, I answered it. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

unconnected and blissfully ignorant (yes)

Please see my reply to your comment at WP:AN. Shenme 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't

Ben, please stop inviting Tony Sidaway to come over to my page. I'd much rather he didn't. I'm taking the arbitration workshop off my watchlist now. It's a deal harder to ignore my own page. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Ben

Hey Ben, thankyou for supporting my recent RfA. I am thrilled that it passed with a final tally of 160/4/1. I feel completely stunned by the fantastic support I received from so many awesome Australian editors. Thank you :). If you ever need any admin help, please don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Methinks you should consider archiving soon. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. Here goes nothing! Ben Aveling 11:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Phew. Finally worked. Ben Aveling 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation with Giano

Hi Ben, you seem to get along well with Giano. Do you think you could advise him to try to be less inflammatory in his comments? He may not realize that speaking like that is not productive. Thanks. (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 07:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Any particular edit? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this one troubling, as it implies anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. --Ideogram 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're free to tell him that. I hope I wouldn't have used such language myself, but it's not enough to worry me into action. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano doesn't like me and won't listen to me. I think the last few weeks have shown what happens when such language goes unchecked. --Ideogram 07:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the language was helpful, but I don't think it was especially bad. Yes, we've seen people react badly to being insulted, even indirectly. But we've also seen people being overly demanding of good behaviour in other people, and I think that's caused more problems. You've got to pick your battles in this life, and I'm not going to the barricades over something as small as that. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't speak to Giano, I will have to, and I guarantee I will be less effective than you would. --Ideogram 07:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about just one comment. I can easily find more examples if you want them. I don't think anyone can quibble with the fact that Giano would be more effective if he was less inflammatory. --Ideogram 07:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a battle? If I tried to talk to Giano it would be a battle. I am asking you to do it on the presumption that you get along with him and your giving him advice would not be a battle. Is that not true? --Ideogram 07:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's true. But I also think that the advice you have for him is not the advice I would give him. Yes? But what do you think I should say to him? And a harder question; if I asked him what advice I should give you, what might he say? Ben Aveling 08:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What advice would you give him? I just want you to say he should try to be less inflammatory. I am sure I have no idea what advice he might give me, but if you ask him I am willing to listen (I don't promise I will agree). --Ideogram 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You must have some idea what he would say. What advice would you give yourself, if you were someone else? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) That is not relevant here. --Ideogram 08:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is. How do you feel about the reputation you have here? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it isn't. I will not respond further to questions on the subject. You never did answer my question as to what advice you would give Giano, or whether it would be better for him to be less inflammatory. --Ideogram 08:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't yet know what advice I will give Giano. I would like him to be less inflammatory, but I don't expect him to change just because I would like him to. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I thank you for trying. --Ideogram 08:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow. Have a think about the questions I've asked, and if you want to add anything, please do. I know you like to respond quickly, but I suggest you take your time on this; I won't respond until tomorrow whatever you do and I think you'll get more value out of a considered reply than a quick one. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm done. That goes for the request below as well. --Ideogram 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. All the best. Ben Aveling 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano's blocking

No, of course not. The following edit makes it clear. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You were talking to Doc? Yes, I think I see now. I guess that also explains why your comment was scrubbed; I had been wondering. All in all, it's all very regretable. Thanks, Ben Aveling 12:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre and SlimVirgin

Do you get along with Geogre and SlimVirgin? --Ideogram 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've interacted with SlimVirgin. I've never interacted with Geogre before today. I know there's been conflict between them and other users I respect, but also a lot of support for them from people I respect. I'm afraid that's probably not much of an answer. Why do you ask? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you could convince Geogre to let me post on his talk page, and SlimVirgin that I am not a troll. If you are not able to do this, it is no matter. Thanks anyway. --Ideogram 08:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm prepared to try. But I need you to answer some questions first. Why doesn't Geogre want you posting on his page? Why does SlimVirgin think you are a troll? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask them to explain that to me. --Ideogram 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can, and I will. But I need to hear your view of their understanding of the situation first. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the situation. You should start with their understanding. --Ideogram 08:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's just look at the facts. What happened before they became annoyed at you? (Is it fair to assume that they became annoyed at you?) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I asked them some questions. I tried to be polite, I don't know what I did wrong. --Ideogram 08:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arch Coal

It seems that the "{{specify}}" tag is a dead one... I'm gonna remove it from Arch Coal. If you still have an issue with the article feel free to bring it up on the talk page. I'm not really sure how the information can be more specific.

Also, your edit summary seems a bit confusing to me. How is adding a tag copy editing? ---J.S (t|c) 18:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I've put an explaination of my issues with the 'low sulphur' comment on Talk:Arch Coal. Re copy editing, what I did was shuffle some stuff around, try to improve what's there without adding or removing any content. As part of that I flagged one or two places where I felt more information is needed. It felt like a copyedit job at the time. Leaving aside whether or not you would have added the tag, what edit summary would you have prefered? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

I see you have been trying to talk to the involved parties. I wish you luck. --Ideogram 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I need it! Ben Aveling 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking out loud about the Giano block

What Giano wrote was offensive, angry and scatological. But I don't believe that his intent was to do damage. Even if it was, does that make blocking him the best thing to do? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ben

Hey Ben, thankyou for supporting my recent RfA. I am thrilled that it passed with a final tally of 160/4/1. I feel completely stunned by the fantastic support I received from so many awesome Australian editors. Thank you :). If you ever need any admin help, please don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Methinks you should consider archiving soon. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. Here goes nothing! Ben Aveling 11:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Phew. Finally worked. Ben Aveling 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre and SlimVirgin

Do you get along with Geogre and SlimVirgin? --Ideogram 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've interacted with SlimVirgin. I've never interacted with Geogre before today. I know there's been conflict between them and other users I respect, but also a lot of support for them from people I respect. I'm afraid that's probably not much of an answer. Why do you ask? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you could convince Geogre to let me post on his talk page, and SlimVirgin that I am not a troll. If you are not able to do this, it is no matter. Thanks anyway. --Ideogram 08:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm prepared to try. But I need you to answer some questions first. Why doesn't Geogre want you posting on his page? Why does SlimVirgin think you are a troll? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask them to explain that to me. --Ideogram 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can, and I will. But I need to hear your view of their understanding of the situation first. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the situation. You should start with their understanding. --Ideogram 08:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's just look at the facts. What happened before they became annoyed at you? (Is it fair to assume that they became annoyed at you?) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I asked them some questions. I tried to be polite, I don't know what I did wrong. --Ideogram 08:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation with Giano

Hi Ben, you seem to get along well with Giano. Do you think you could advise him to try to be less inflammatory in his comments? He may not realize that speaking like that is not productive. Thanks. (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 07:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Any particular edit? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this one troubling, as it implies anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. --Ideogram 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're free to tell him that. I hope I wouldn't have used such language myself, but it's not enough to worry me into action. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano doesn't like me and won't listen to me. I think the last few weeks have shown what happens when such language goes unchecked. --Ideogram 07:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the language was helpful, but I don't think it was especially bad. Yes, we've seen people react badly to being insulted, even indirectly. But we've also seen people being overly demanding of good behaviour in other people, and I think that's caused more problems. You've got to pick your battles in this life, and I'm not going to the barricades over something as small as that. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't speak to Giano, I will have to, and I guarantee I will be less effective than you would. --Ideogram 07:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about just one comment. I can easily find more examples if you want them. I don't think anyone can quibble with the fact that Giano would be more effective if he was less inflammatory. --Ideogram 07:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a battle? If I tried to talk to Giano it would be a battle. I am asking you to do it on the presumption that you get along with him and your giving him advice would not be a battle. Is that not true? --Ideogram 07:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's true. But I also think that the advice you have for him is not the advice I would give him. Yes? But what do you think I should say to him? And a harder question; if I asked him what advice I should give you, what might he say? Ben Aveling 08:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What advice would you give him? I just want you to say he should try to be less inflammatory. I am sure I have no idea what advice he might give me, but if you ask him I am willing to listen (I don't promise I will agree). --Ideogram 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You must have some idea what he would say. What advice would you give yourself, if you were someone else? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) That is not relevant here. --Ideogram 08:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is. How do you feel about the reputation you have here? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it isn't. I will not respond further to questions on the subject. You never did answer my question as to what advice you would give Giano, or whether it would be better for him to be less inflammatory. --Ideogram 08:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't yet know what advice I will give Giano. I would like him to be less inflammatory, but I don't expect him to change just because I would like him to. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I thank you for trying. --Ideogram 08:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow. Have a think about the questions I've asked, and if you want to add anything, please do. I know you like to respond quickly, but I suggest you take your time on this; I won't respond until tomorrow whatever you do and I think you'll get more value out of a considered reply than a quick one. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm done. That goes for the request below as well. --Ideogram 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. All the best. Ben Aveling 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arch Coal

It seems that the "{{specify}}" tag is a dead one... I'm gonna remove it from Arch Coal. If you still have an issue with the article feel free to bring it up on the talk page. I'm not really sure how the information can be more specific.

Also, your edit summary seems a bit confusing to me. How is adding a tag copy editing? ---J.S (t|c) 18:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I've put an explaination of my issues with the 'low sulphur' comment on Talk:Arch Coal. Re copy editing, what I did was shuffle some stuff around, try to improve what's there without adding or removing any content. As part of that I flagged one or two places where I felt more information is needed. It felt like a copyedit job at the time. Leaving aside whether or not you would have added the tag, what edit summary would you have prefered? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano's blocking

No, of course not. The following edit makes it clear. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You were talking to Doc? Yes, I think I see now. I guess that also explains why your comment was scrubbed; I had been wondering. All in all, it's all very regretable. Thanks, Ben Aveling 12:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

I see you have been trying to talk to the involved parties. I wish you luck. --Ideogram 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I need it! Ben Aveling 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking out loud about the Giano block

What Giano wrote was offensive, angry and scatological. But I don't believe that his intent was to do damage. Even if it was, does that make blocking him the best thing to do? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-terrorist

Thanks for the tag, it was an interesting look. The article's only source are from the person who apparently coined the term. Since it's a self-published Tripod page, I deleted it as an unreliable source. Now as for the actual content of the article, it seems to present the view that pseudoterrorism is essentially being an undercover operator. So I added a merge tag to the page with undercover. Finally, since the article does not appear to have any valid references, and is basically a POV fork of undercover (since its not really neutral to call undercover agents "terrorists") I also prodded the page. If the prod is disputed, I'll list it at AFD.

Let me know if you have anything else for me, that was fun.

Regards, ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call. It is clearly a Neologism, but it does get just enough google hits that I wouldn't speedy delete it, and the concept of undercover counter terrorists is clearly a notable concept. Eg, IRA. Merge with undercover sounds as good as anything I can think of. I've added a mergefrom tag to undercover. I guess that covers it for now. Gotta go. Ben Aveling 09:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamanote Halloween Train

It's really not worth the trouble. This is clear admin abuse, but so what :-) Vincent 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. It looks like one, it has a lot in common with one, but it isn't a vote. It's an attempt to achieve a consensus decision, or failing that, to measure community feeling.

What counts most is the quality of an argument. Several registered users saying something does not outweigh one anon saying something else, if the lone anon's arguments are stronger.

The opinions of newcomers and outsiders count, but not always at full value - sometimes they just aren't representative of the wider wikipedian community.

The closing admin uses the page to make a decision, considering first the weight of argument, and then perhaps the weight of numbers. Mistakes happen, which is why WP:DRV exists. The raw numbers are a part of the process, sometimes they they are even the major part of it, but it's not a vote.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamanote Halloween Train

It's really not worth the trouble. This is clear admin abuse, but so what :-) Vincent 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. It looks like one, it has a lot in common with one, but it isn't a vote. It's an attempt to achieve a consensus decision, or failing that, to measure community feeling.

What counts most is the quality of an argument. Several registered users saying something does not outweigh one anon saying something else, if the lone anon's arguments are stronger.

The opinions of newcomers and outsiders count, but not always at full value - sometimes they just aren't representative of the wider wikipedian community.

The closing admin uses the page to make a decision, considering first the weight of argument, and then perhaps the weight of numbers. Mistakes happen, which is why WP:DRV exists. The raw numbers are a part of the process, sometimes they they are even the major part of it, but it's not a vote.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks of Duke53

Ben, thank you for your comments regarding Duke53 and his allegations of personal attacks. I agree that I have been harsh with him, but I certainly did not start out harshly with him. It was only after a multitude of interactions on several articles did I become harsh. He has an axe to grind and I think he abuses the placement of warnings on other editors' pages. I should not have said he was not intelligent, the rest of my comments I do not regard as a personal attack. I should have been more positive, but if you review the long edit history on Mountain Meadows Massacre, for example, you will see that he does not compromise his position on anything. It is very frustrating.

I would ask you to montior his edits and coach him. He does not take counsel easily, but someone has got to take him in hand so that he becomes an asset rather than a nusance. I have found that achieving a NPOV position is difficult for him. Thanks again and I will strive to be more positive, even though it is very difficult with this editor. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin infallibility?

Admins are definitely not infallible. However, they do deserve the benefit of the doubt and an ordinary user should never revert an admin if the admin is stating they are taking an action AS an admin (this has nothing to do with regular content editting). If the ordinary user feels the admin has made a mistake, they should discuss it with the admin first. If that fails to satisfy them, then they should file a complaint at WP:ANI or some other appropriate venue.

I stand by my statement: "[One] should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity." Johntex\^talk 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Duke should not have reverted your change, but that is because your change was right, not because you are an admin. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even admins should not revert other admin actions. To do so is to engage in a Wikipedia:Wheel war. If it is ill-advised for an admin to revert another admin's administrative action, it is definitely ill-advised for a non-admin to do so. Johntex\^talk 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I see Duke is trying to claim that I did not answer his question, but he is twisting the situation. Here is the chronology. Since it is still visible on his Talk page, I will not provide diffs, but I can do so if they are needed:

Initially, Duke did not ask me about my removal of the comment, he simply reverted me. I left him a message on his Talk page advising him not to do that. Here left a message on his talk page' (not on my talk page, which would ensure I saw the reply). Thhe question was "Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented?" If he wanted an immediate answer, he should have left a message on my page so that I would get a message indication.

1. Before I had a chance to answer that question, he asked a second question, again on his talk page. "Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? "
2. I answered the first quesiton by saying "As I said, if you want it for evidence, then you can use a diff - you don't need to revert the change." I felt this was a sufficient answer.
3. Duke apparently disagreed. He asked again here "Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule?"
4. I answered again "I'm telling you just what I said "You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff." You knew you were reverting an administrative action and you did it anyway. That wasn't a good thing to do."
5. He still didn't like that answer, he said "I consider you deleting his comment 'not a good thing' to do. I consider your commenting 'don't revert me like that' 'not a good thing to do'. You're right, I knew what I was doing; I also couldn't find a rule telling me that I couldn't do it. Now I'm asking an admin (you) to show me that rule."
6. I expanded on my answer "Clearly, policy encourages administrators to use discretion in defusing situations. Interfereing with an administrator is against policy. If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting. If discussion fails to satisfy your concern, then you can report me. You should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity."
7. Duke then replied "If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting".. I believe that your idea of 'talking' is quite different than mine; I have asked you numerous questions to which you have never given a straight answer. Your idea of 'talking' is simply for me to 'listen' to you and not expect any answers; I don't feel that admins should act in that manner. You ignore my questions but continue to be evasive; why?" This is a complete red herring. He is twisting things around. I was referring to his initial decision to revert me, instead of talking about it. He did not discuss first. He reverted first. I began the converstaiton, not him. Also, by this time I have answered every question he has asked. I have not been evasive at all.
8. I explained this to him.
9. He replied "Quote the rule to me.
10. I explained "I removed someone else's comments, not yours. You had no reason or right to restore them. You are being argumentative and you keep wanting to distract from the issue at hand, which is that you were wrong to remove my change. This conversation is not going anywhere so I'm taking a break from it. As I said, if you feel I've acted inappropriately, file a complaint. From my perspective, this converation is over. You may have the last word if you want. Just be aware that you have been warned and that if you do such a thing again, I will block you."

Johntex\^talk 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex, thanks for putting in such a full summary of what happened. A couple of points in response I want to make. Firstly, Wikipedia:Wheel war is a guideline, not policy, and it's mainly talking about real admin actions as "unblocking or reblocking a user; undeleting or redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article". I don't believe that just nominating the revertion of another users comments as an admin action makes it an admin action, especially if one is already 'involved' in the discussion. Reverting comments is something that all users can and should do, in certain circumstances. Further, wp:ww doesn't say "never revert", it says "talk first". Basically, it's 3RR for admins. It certainly does not give Admins more rights than other users to decide which comments on a talk page are permissable and which are not. You say that "Interfereing with an administrator is against policy". Which is true, to the extent that interfereing with any user is against policy. It's no more or less wrong to mess people around if one is an admin and the other isn't. Admins have extra tools, not extra rights. Duke was wrong to revert your change, but no more so than if you were not an admin. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with that poster User:Storm Rider

Since you are already involved with this dispute I would like your help. He insists on calling people names and adds other immature comments. I would appreciate it if you took this case. He is persisting in this despite your involvement. TY Duke53 | ^Talk 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he regrets calling you names. But do you understand why he did so? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not apparent from the comments he makes upon editing (since you gave your advice). Will you help me in my complaint against his behavior? I have had no luck in filling out forms around here. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duke, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to complain about his behaviour; the only issue I had with him we've discussed and we've reached agreement on. I think the some of the problems you've had in filling out forms may be because your expectations are quite high. Wikipedia is wonderful and getting better, but it isn't always everything we might like it to be. There are always going to be vague and messy areas, places where the rules don't quite say what to do, even places where the spirit of the rules and the letter of the rules contradict. There are going to be times when other people do slightly the wrong thing, and we have to decide if we live with it or if we spend our time trying to fix it. Sometimes people need us to explain things to them in detail, and sometimes people just tell us things and expect us to work out the detail for ourselves. It's a bit of balancing act, but with a bit of give and take, things generally come out OK. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is wonderful and getting better". Thanks for the laugh; your little idealized vision of wp makes me wonder why you got involved in the first place. If people are allowed to do as they please then why did you care what was going on? I'm pleased that you can be so confident of what is 'a little wrong'. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As per your request on your talk page, I'll leave this unanswered. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Buffalo Family and Joseph Todaro

Hi Ben,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I live in Fort Erie, Ontario and keep an apartment in Buffalo, New York where I was born and raised. I 've spent the last 6 weeks in Buffalo and my internet connection is here in Canada. Like I said i was born and raised in Buffalo and I've read the local news paper every day since I was 15 years old. My father was also a bookmaker and professional gambler (more of a hustler, cards, pool, ponies, sports). He still goes to the occassional late night poker games with some of the "boys" in Buffalo and Cheektowaga. I was raised on the Westside of Buffalo, living on Fargo Ave., Rhode Island Ave., Abbotsford Place and now my apartments on Parkside Ave. by the zoo. The Westside of buffalo was predominately Italian from the early 1900's to the late 1960's, early 1970's and then became predominately Hispanic, I win both ways since my father was born in Italy and my mother in Puerto Rico. I'm researching as much as I can about the Buffalo Family. They had a great site a few years ago by supercrack, but it disappeared right away. I been inside La Nova Pizza a million times, it's a Buffalo landmark, not to mention a $25,000,000 a year business. Can you believe that shit and to be perfectly honest i think they have the second best pizza, with Mr. Pizza on Elmwood Ave. being #1. I did the write up on Joseph Todaro Sr., but I did it more for myself and I'm thimking about doing a buffalo Family page. I'm starting to get that Wikipedia wants short, sweet and to the point when you write so thats what I'll give' em from now on. Anyway take care and by the way, you must have checked the Alexbonaro page, if not it's got alot of good Family charts.

Little Joe Shots

Hi Joe, Do you still have copies of the pages from the Buffalo Family website? Is the other stuff you wrote about online somewhere, or do you know which editions of the paper contained the information? Basically, I think if we can find something that backs up the mafia connection, a lot of the rest of the details can be taken on trust. We just don't want him suing us because we said he has mafia links.  :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some online sources, you have probably seen them all:

• Gangsters-Incorporated.tripod.com article on Buffalo crime family

Note: the Buffalo family page, the Leonard Falzone page and the Joseph Angelo Pieri page all claim the Todaro involvement in, if not running, the Buffalo LCN family

Note: Gangsters-Inc.tripod.com is in no way a source to go straight off but is a source none the less

• Mob Leaders chart on AmericanMafia.com, obviously these claims are back up by the AmericanMafia.com creator, notable true crime author, Rick Porrello, and the articles creator, one Allan May. The chart also cites the Justice Department and mafia turncoat Joseph Valachi as making the claims.
• The site Namebase.com shows that the name Joe Todaro was mentioned in the 1995 true crime book Global Mafia: The New World Order of Organized Crime by Anthonio Nicasso and Lee Lamothe.

I cannot put the link up because wikipedia have blocked the sites URL from being posted due to the site spamming wikipedia or something.

• Laborers.org article claiming Joe Todaro, Jr.'s and Leonard Falzone's involvement in organized crime related union activity.
• History of the Buffalo LCN family on AmericanMafia.com states leadership of Joe, Sr. and Joe, Jr., sources the Justice Department, FBI etc.

Thanks for supporting the Joseph Todaro, Sr. page and being reasonable. Alexbonaro 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll get there. What usually happens is that we have to put something together in user-space, then move it later. I'll wait for Zoe's OK to suggest it to Little Joe, but I think that will work here. I don't think anyone is worried about the claim that Joe T is a gangster, so much as worried that Little Joe might put in something that he knows about that isn't documented elsewhere, eg, that Joe T did something that no-one else knows he did. So it's not enough to show he's a gangster, we need to support each and every claim. Which is a pain, but that's the way it is. Thanks, Ben Aveling 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Thanks for letting me know about the DRV (I was expecting it to be there one way or another). The AfD close was procedural, so I probably won't participate in the DRV debate. --Coredesat 06:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Todaro Sr.

If Little Joe wants to work on it in his name space, that's fine with me. I would undelete the article space if he wouldn't keep putting back the same claims without sourcing them. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression)

You said rename but there is already an article for that purpose. I have posted a coment on AFD page, please take a look. Thank you. --- ALM 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but that will not solve the problem. They will count your vote in keep. The POV filled article will then be kept. Rename is as good as saying keep :( . --- ALM 11:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the contents in the third holiest site article already exist in the related articles of those sites. These individual sections are just listing already existing article in this "third holiest site in Islam" article to create a conspiracy about Muslims third holiest site. The Ziyarat article does not have such contents because it goal is NOT to create similar conspiracy but to list them. I hope you can understand the point I am trying to make? --- ALM 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really understant then I think you should help in delete that article which they have creating based on media website just to make a point (WP:POINT) and dispute Muslims long standing claim about Al-Aqsa Mosque importance. -- ALM 19:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My arbcom questions

I'm asking questions of candidates I'm thinking of voting for. Some I've made up my mind to vote 'yes', based on experience. (George, Flo). Some I've currently expecting to abstain, sometimes because I don't know them at all, sometimes because I expect a pile-on oppose. And some, I'm thinking about voting for, so I'm asking questions. I've read (confession: skimmed) what's already been asked and answered, so I sometimes adjusted on the fly, but the basic questions were

1. Which of the following roles should arbcom members fulfil: judge, jury, executioner, detective, lawyer, psychoanalyst, teacher, leader, parole board, parole officer, weighing machine, opinion poll, weathervane, policeman, keeper of the vision, guardian of the peace, visionary, psychic, nurse, other?

2. What would wikipedia lose if you were appointed to the ArbCom?

3. An individual question. Sometimes tailored to the candidate, sometimes just a random question.

The answer I would give to the first question are judge, jury and none of the others. And also, now that I think of it, asker of questions. What I want to know, and credit to anyone who visits here before answering, is to what extent they see the role of arbcom as weighing the evidence presented, which is my view, vs the more activist role some people seem to imagine.

The answer to the second question should be 'something significant', and preferably something wikipedia related. If you don't expect joining the arbcom doesn't reduce the time you spend on other aspects of wikipedia, then I want to know why.

I'm happy to discus any of the other questions I've asked. Sometimes I have an answer in mind, sometimes I don't. I just want to see how people respond.

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the responses to questions, mine and other peoples, I now expect I will be voting for Geogre, Flo Night, Nandesuka, John and MONGO. Geogre and Flo I've had interactions with before, and I've been impressed. The others on this list, I've seen around, and I liked their answers for different reasons. Perhaps because they all show an ability to think and to be bold in making that clear. There are others I'd be glad to see get up, but I think I'm going to limit myself to 5 yes votes, mainly because there are 5 places on offer. I guess I'm not ruling out changing my mind, but at this stage, that's the thinking. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [14]WikieZach| talk 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Todaro, Sr.

Mr. Aveling,

I was curious if you've heard any news on Joseph Todaro, Sr. article yet ? I've created a temporary subpage to address the issues of the former article, although I haven't heard anything from Zoe yet. MadMax 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Zoe was happy for us to create a new page, so long as we're careful about BLP. So far, it looks good. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on ArbCom votes

Hi there. I noticed that you added a few comments to other people's comments in the ArbCom elections. Well, I seem to remember a few, but can only now find one (would you be able to track down the other ones?). The general agreement seemed to be that comments on votes belonged on the talk page of the voting page, though your comments seemed to be of the "corrective" sort. The example I noticed was here:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Geogre

...where you commented on the first oppose vote, by Cyde. Looking at the history, Cyde removed the comment with this edit, and placed it on the talk page with this edit. I happen to agree with your pointing out that Cyde's comment was not a balanced presentation of what happened. Would you consider asking him to correct his comment himself? More generally, how do you think such matters should be handled in future. Also, if you do find any of the other comments you made and whether they were similarly moved, could you let me know? Thanks. Carcharoth 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Suggestion re ArbComElection report

BenAveling wrote:

Hi Gurch, Would it be possible to color all the columns, much as the last column is colored? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I'll look into doing it next time there's an election, as I'll be rewriting the bot anyway sometime before then to add a couple of other features. Thanks – Gurch 12:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ben

Hey Ben, nice to hear from you--I haven't seen you around for awhile. Thank you for your Christmas wishes. I was down at Sorrento and it was cold and wet all day...reminded me of a Christmas when I was young and we literally got flooded out of my uncle's pool in Kew! I hope you had a good time up at Lake Mountain! All the best for the new year, Ben. Take care, Sarah 10:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why IRC logs can't be published

This is in response to this message.

For one, there is a long-standing rule that anyone publishing IRC logs from any WMF channels without consent from all people involved will be banned from all WMF channels. I can give you my assurances that not all of the people involved have given their consent for logs to be republished.

Also, you seem to be under the misconception that #admins is public. It's not. It's private in all definitions of the word: limited access, disclaimers of privacy, prohibitions against breaching that privacy, etc. Legally, privacy is protected per telecommunications laws (which have since been found, by precedent, to apply to electronic communications as well). Some states are one-party states, meaning that one side can record a conversation unilaterally. Some states are two-party states, meaning that both parties have to agree before a conversation can be recorded. I can assure you that some of the participants in #admins live in two-party states. Additionally, even in one-party states, lurkers wouldn't be allowed to record the conversation anyway, because they're not a party at all. Giano has no right to be sending around other people's private communications, and neither does whoever this lurker was who gave him the logs.

As you can see, it's a mess, and the correct solution is to clean up whatever alleged abuse is taking place on WMF-sanctioned IRC channels. But making these channels public is a non-starter; first of all, that certainly can't be done retroactively, meaning that none of the logs in existence right now can be published. Also, making the channel public will destroy the use of it in the first place — dealing with issues that, for legal reasons, cannot be handled transparently. --Cyde Weys 07:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need the whole logs, just the contentious bits. And while there may be contractual issues between whoever leaked and the other members of the channel, that doesn't bind anyone not present at the time. That's the thing about secrets. If you don't keep them secret, they stop being secret. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

SYDNEY MIDDLE EASTERN RAPES

Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly, the highest Islamic authority in Australia, likened Australian women to "uncoveverd meat" who attract and deserve rape.

It is an Islamic teaching also stated by Sheik Feiz Mohammed.

That is, TWO ISLAMIC sheiks, who represent Islam in Australia, teach that "uncovered meat" attracts "street cats" and that it is not up to the "street cat" to stop itself.

In that context, young Australian gilrs, some as young as 14, were raped by Islamic men who stated "you deserve it because you are an Australian"...

AND "you deserve [to be raped for 5 hours] because you are an Australian" is EXTREMELY RACIST!!

RACIST MIDDLE EASTERN ISLAMISTS, stated that to a young Australian Anglo girl, the Italians, the Vietnamese, the Indonesians etc have not raped an Australian girl because of a racial hatred for Australia.

IT is NOT racist to discuss that Islamic Middle Eastern men in Australia and Europe (Norway, France, Holland etc) attack and rape local girls because of a racial hatred.

ALSO - the highest authority in the Islamic Egyptian ministry states that a Muslim may kill and take the money of a Christian and non-Muslim...

If the nazis had held Hitler to be a prophet of a religion does that mean that to hate nazism is racist because it is a religion, regardless of whether that religion is racist or not......???

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.123.23 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Wiki correctness

Hi Ben. Thanks for your brief pointer/correction on the NLP article a few weeks back. I'm currently editing on the Computing journalism article [15] and there is the use of the "N" word there. I'm not sure which policy to refer to in this regard. I know Wikipedia says objectionable subjects should be covered but I am not sure exactly what to refer to regarding the use of possibly inflamatory words. Any suggestions? AlanBarnet 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the facts check out, there's possibly not much I'd suggest doing. But do we know why the article in question has that name? It might be worth discussing, maybe. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Ben. I doublecheck on the actual source first. AlanBarnet 08:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Greg Bownds

I've added some comments to the Afd regarding his notability, can you take a look and see if you're prepared to reconsider please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 10:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO

Ben Firstly: WP:BIO does not link to the text you quote in AfD discussions. Where should I go to find that text (...Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming...) ? (oops - found it I was looking for the formatting you used.) Secondly: How can you reasonably compare pro-wrestlers to the sports-people section? Pro-wrestlers are entertainers participating in a scripted performance. They aren't sportspeople competing to the best of their ability in a contest of skill. Compare them to the actors section, because that's what they are.Garrie 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Qantas

Actually, you're right, however I do believe that the section needs to be re-written or be layed out in a simple, easy-to-read format.--Golich17 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice... I applaud your work. Thank you.--Golich17 00:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm always much impressed by those who go out and collect facts. My preferred contribution is to polish the presentation of what's already there. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Face

Hi, Ben Aveling, thanks for contacting me on this talk page. Are you an admin on Wikipedia? I wish to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. I intentionally had to create this account because there was no other way for me to communicate with you since User:Guardian Tiger has been blocked and the talk page protected. I cannot access the accounts: User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Guardian Tiger, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, or any other account except the one I'm currently using now. Please read User talk:Guardian Tiger for more details. Please notify the community that I nominate ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. You may block the other accounts except my nominated main account as necessary or request another admin to do it. Could you also notify User:Bishonen of this? If there is any other procedure needed, please notify me. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet more socks?

Not sure what I think of that, Ben. To my mind there's a displeasing lack of logic in "fixing" the permitted behaviour (the socking) while tacitly allowing the abusive behaviour (the stalking and harassment). After the user's egregious rudeness to myself I'm hardly the right person to make these distinctions, however, so I've asked somebody with more experience of puppeteering, User:Mackensen (a checkuser), to take a look at the case. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Update for you. No more socks. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Have replied in place. Thanks for the heads up. Ben Aveling 11:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you at User_talk:Certified.Gangsta.ShuckyDucky 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great thing you are doing, not because of any personal prejudices towards or against any user in particular, but because I think you are keeping a level head and objective stance despite the baying for blood all around. My key objection is that a (IMO less) disruptive user is being repeatedly blocked at the instigation of another (IMO more) disruptive user, who gets off scott free. But I think it'll be hard "rescuing" Guardian Tiger, given the built up animosity and his editing style, not to mention the relentless pursuit of User:Certified.Gangsta. --Sumple (Talk) 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Millrock's images

Thanks for the information. I've asked him to clarify the copyright staus. What image search did you perform? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Why are you getting involved in a discussion that has obviously either been resolved or has died a painful death? Did you just add anything that several others have not already said? Did you bother to read the entire discussion? I nominate you for deletion on the grounds that you are redundant and/or repetitive.--Sand Squid 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)