User talk:Orderinchaos

User Page

Userboxes

Barnstars

Projects

Talk Page

Archives 2006: Mar-Dec 2007: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov-Dec 2008: Jan Rosanna virgin atlantic Rosanna is the only virgin galactic outlet for victoria if you read the list. I thought it was quite funny that the only place you can book a virgin galactic flight in all of victoria was little suburb of rosanna. Maybe it wasn't as interesting as I thought.CRACKERLACKEN —Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Quick note Had to start a new talk page as the old one had 2000+ edits since March 2006 and caused something of a problem when I deleted a few edits from it. For anyone looking in the future for edit history for this page, it is now at User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 01. If you had an active conversation with me and wish to bring it back from that archive, feel free. Orderinchaos 14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC) thx I appreciate the goodwishes oic. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC) You might want to consider [1]--Filll (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC) My Rfa My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC) RfA thanks Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Andrew Laming Would you mind having your 2c worth on this article's talk page? Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Who are the other two? :) Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Jurien Jurien_Bay,_Western_Australia#Politics looks unwell. Can you have a look please. —Moondyne 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Nothing more As I run through the pathetic articles about the localities on the eyre highway I keep coming across the expression locality x is nothing more than a roadhouse, in every case that I find that I see red - I do hope it wasnt you - otherwise I am going to put laughing gas in the next drink that I shout you in the future sometime :) SatuSuro 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Eusebeus I find it disheartening that you unblocked Eusebeus without discussion. The discussion that you cite on the List of Scrubs episodes talkpage contains a ling discussion. After reading that discussion, it was clear that there was no consensus and that a ceasefire (normally, I know WP isn't a battleground,) had occured. After about two weeks of no discussion, Eusebeus reverts with no explanation of his actions on the talk page, and an edit summary consisting of "rv"; not very helpful. On the list of scrubs episodes talk page I found this soundbite: As per above there is no consensus for these latest redirections by Eusebeus. Given the contentiousness nature of this whole topic, I really don't think Eusebeus has a leg to stand on. Woody (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC) We block to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, as is the case in 3RR blocks etc. It was clear to me that Eusebeus was disrupting Wikipedia, but obviously not to you. Woody (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I will try not to misinterpret your comments as veiled threats. I watch AN and ANI and I am aware of the significant controversy surrounding those unblocks. I am not here to debate the intricacies of the blocking policy with you. What I will say is "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." I believe that the block was valid and justified. I think it is an extremely poor argument that sullying someones block log is valid reasoning against blocking. We lose editors for a variety of reasons. I think Eusebeus has not learned anything from this experience and the polarised debate regarding FICTION will continue ad infinitum. To be honest, I think this discussion has reached its end, not least because I am retiring to my quarters. We disagree over this, that is the wonder of Wikipedia, the plethora of indiviual opinions. Woody (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) The time here inhibits my sense of Good Faith, and I apologise for that. After re-reading them, it was clear that you weren't implying anything, simply my overactive, yet tired imagination. This discussion has been helpful in way, though it will be lost in the quagmire of heated opinions that is this whole debate. That is why I stick to Milhist and Footy, fairly sensible and calm areas in comparison. (I really am going now ;) Woody (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Premature closing of an outstanding ANI case: Coloane community ban discussion Hi, u tried to wrap up the abovementioned on Jan 28 but no follow-up action was shown until it was prematurely archived by User:MiszaBot_II on Jan 31 before any final resolution was made. In the interest of accountability, cld u give all parties concerned a safisfactory settlement of this case? If not, this whole case like the previous 2 ANI episodes that were brought up & subsequently frizzled off, is not only a waste of precious time, but may also reflect badly on ANI (& the admins involved) in terms of judgement & fairness deemed by all the affected WikiProject groups seeking final closure on this long-drawn case. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Thank u for your reply earlier. Yes, I was refering to the closing formality that was not follow-up subsequently with a appropriate warning tag (incl. a record link & its topic ban clauses) as per Alice's proposal. The affected WikiProject groups & myself hope that a closing formality not only serves as a final sign for everyone to move on, but also help to dispel the sense of hopelessness & the hyperbole of negativity felt by the community which this disrupter has caused over the past few months. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) I thought the consensus was a ban till June 2008. Without placing a time limit on the ban it is effectively extended, though it might not be your intention. It's like putting someone in jail and saying, "I'm not saying how long the sentence is, but if you behave we'll surely let you out one day." In any case, I'm worried that your credibility will be undermined as this is clearly not what the consensus says. Thank you for your attention. Josuechan (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Well, again, maybe it's a good idea to "avoid a situation where it can simply be 'waited out.'" Maybe it is not. In any case, that is your opinion, and if you feel strongly about it you should have raised it in the discussion. My point is that the consensus is not a ban without a time limit. Alice suggested a period of 9 months, someone else said one year, and I said 1 month. We spent some time discussing that and most people, including Alice, agreed a 4-month ban. I sincerely hope that you respect the discussion. Even if there's no consensus on the duration of the ban (from 1 month to a year), it's certainly not a ban without a time limit. Thank you for your time. Josuechan (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Josuechan, just leave it. Don't talk to them or you are just wasting your invaluable time. There is no credibility and justice here. I just get used to it. The thing you can do is switch to Knol. I am a member and own many articles there. If you like to try I can invite you personally or you can take part later. The ending date of beta experiement of Knol is most likely the ending date of their works over here, believe me or not! Take care!!  :) Coloane (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC) RfA I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Your input Hi. I'd like your input on a situation which I think you've had some experience with. It involves Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs), who is apparently a fairly open alternate account of Lwachowski (talk · contribs). The Lucy account was recently involved in an edit war across several articles with Nealparr (talk · contribs), for which both participants were blocked. I was reviewing this since I'm somewhat familiar with Neal and know him to be a good editor generally dedicated to building consensus. I had not encountered Lucy or any of her other accounts previously. When I realzed that Lucy is apparently an alternate account of a user who is indefinitely blocked (and has had a nunber of sock accounts blocked as well), my instinct was to indefinitely block Lucyintheskywithdada as a block-evading sockpuppet creating independent disruption by edit-warring. However, on looking deeper I see that there is at least some indication that some of her blocks are username blocks, while other accounts of hers have been allegedly independently disruptive. I'm not clear on whether her editing here is above-board or not, so I wanted to get your input since I see you've been involved, before I do anything. I'll be honest, my instinct is that an editor with numerous accounts, all of which are blocked, and ongoing edit-warring probably ought to be treated more harshly than a contributor with an otherwise clean record who made the mistake of getting involved in an edit war with her. But again, I wanted to get your input on the legitimacy of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) before I do anything. MastCell Talk 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Lucy You are free to unblock if it will help you resolve any problems, but please do remind this user that she is on borrowed time, since her editing is problematic in so many ways. I will never have a problem with an unblock if another trustworthy soul is going to be watching the account in question and sincerely believes that some good may come of it. I do appreciate your commenitng and not just unblocking, that is a courtesy which seems to be in decline. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 09:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Re: Whee... Thanks for the barnstar. I see you have similar issues with the whole Geographical coordinates discussion. I don't know if some people understand that simply repeating the same thing again and again doesn't make their point of view any more persuasive. Also, unilateral imposition of one's point of view and calling that "consensus" doesn't make it so. As Wikipedia becomes larger, getting consensus will become more time consuming, but without it a project with such a decentralised power structure as Wikipedia can't work. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC) federal federal, states general Can you get OIC2 to start renaming general to state, federal has been fixed for ages. Thanks if you can. Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Note Regarding the AN/I you commented the defense is here.[2] FT2 decision after review is here.[3] Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC) THanks for your insight. I appreciate your comments. I guess I need a coach because I keep shooting myself in the foot, according to some comments. I've read the page but I am too close to the situation to see it objectively. Do you know where I could get help? Someone who could help point out where I am wikilawyering? Anthon01 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) RE: Glen Huntly Change No dramas. My misspelling in the last edit made me laugh and I thought it may have been construed as vandalism. Cheers Citizen D (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Can this be left with you? [4]. While I don't agree with the IP's recommendations, TS' reasoning is bizarre and it's leading him to give a good nibble at a newbie. Shot info (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC) What preytell is bizarre? Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) roxbo and duggy per my talk page, can you please warn them. Duggy is a repeat offender aswell if you look at the history on my talk page. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, not duggy again :| I remember having to slap him one when I was at a net cafe in Cooma, of all places. Orderinchaos 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) You still upset about being wrong on the Election-Talk-Page as Discussion-Forum-Issue? Your bias on this matter appears again and again in these matters. I'm sorry for recommending to another editor not to revert Timeshift's talk page... I promise never to help Timeshift again. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Excellent. Let's hope you keep to that committment. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I promise never to help you again and I will keep to that committment. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC) BTW, OrderInChaos, by "having to slap him[me] around" do you mean the time you had my account blocked not to stop my reverting (which had stopped days earlier) but to punish me for disagreeing with you on whether breaching the rules was OK or not, or do you mean pointing out to me that the letter of user-talk-page policy should be followed not the spirit? Either way "slapping... around" doesn't sound like appropiate behaviour, but it does sound exactly like your style. Another point to clear up: Are you saying I'm no longer allowed to edit political articles anymore. I know I don't do it often, but to be unable to upsets me a little. Also which three times have I "ended up fighting" with Timeshift? I only remember two... I certainly don't remember fighting with him since the last time this came up. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1. "Slap him *one*", not "slap him around". Different terms, different meanings. 2. "My style"? I find that somewhat offensive, especially given the amount of work I put into helping to resolve disputes. 3. 23 November, 10 December, today. Orderinchaos 11:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Slap you around as a figure of speech. No he did not say on your talk page that you can't edit certain articles. As for the third point, two or three, get over it and stay OFF my talk page lest you be indefinately blocked. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Yes, it's a figure of speech denoting teaching someone a lesson with mild violence. Figuratively it suggests something a lot more than I think he should be doing on wikipedia. He didn't say that I couldn't edit certain articles, but he implied it heavily. He seems to like to threaten and imply things, so I was after a clarification. I don't think that either one of you is a sock puppet for the other, so I'd like that from him, not from you. He's threatening me with blocking based on something that happened months ago, or something that didn't happen today? That's a lot to "get over" Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I am warning you about something you did 47 minutes ago, actually. Orderinchaos 11:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) As an Australian since, well, 9 months before I was born, I know a fair bit of Australian slang and I wouldn't say that "slap somebody one" was "to tell someone in a direct manner that what they are doing is wrong". It's more than that. Telling someone directly is one thing, slapping them around implies mild violence... hitting them gently to prove you can bet them in a fight so you don't have to hit them hard later. There was no edit war, to the best of my knowledge, today. I made one edit to address RObOx (or whatever). I certainly didn't re-edit it once that occured. You seem to think that editing=an interest in the subject or the only reason you'd visit them or thier discussion pages. I like the politics pages. I visit them, I'm interested in the discussion behind the scenes... but I'm not really an expert so I can't really make many changes. That doesn't mean if a merge or deletion or other discussion occurs I don't have an opinion. This doesn't only apply to Politics pages, but to many others. Comics/TV/movies is where I have a little more knowledge and so are able to edit more often... but that's not the only place I visit. You are seeing a pattern of behaviour based edits I make, not everything I do. So you say I "should pay less attention to someone who doesn't edit in areas that [I] edit in." But even though I don't edit, I visit, and when I visit I see things happen. How many edits need I make in a specific area before I pay attention? How are these areas defined? If I make more edits in the Australian Politic area am I allowed to pay attention to behaviour in the American Politics area (I know, I'm just following the stuff that's on the news, but it's more interesting ATM, IMHO) or am I only allowed to notice Australian stuff. Does editting Australian Politics stuff allow me to notice behaviour on other Australian articles or not? If most of my movie edits are comic-book-films related am I allowed to notice behaviour on non-comic-book-film articles? I'm sorry, but I really need clarification on what you're saying I am and am not allowed to do. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) And that, too you, is an edit war? And what personal attacks? Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) You restored content which he had removed from his talk page, when you had not been involved in any way in the previous dealings. I'm not even going to humour the second question with a response - judging from the random unsolicited "lulz" I'm getting offline from those who occasionally check by here, I have better things to do than state the obvious. I'm going to add a request to this to stay off *my* talk page as well. Orderinchaos 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) It gets a bit like that, doesn't it... Timeshift (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC) But you're implying it... Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Please stop annoying me. Orderinchaos 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I'm not trying to annoy you. You're telling me how I should and shouldn't behave, I'm trying be clear on this. I've been blocked once in the time I've been here and and you were the one who called for it to happen. You're telling me that you're going to call for it to happen again if I don't behave a certain way, and I want to be real clear on the specifics. I didn't want you to be involved in this, but you are. Sorry. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I thought I posted this before, but it got lost in an edit conflict, I think. I don't care where, how or in what manner you edit, on two conditions - that you do not harass or stalk contributors, and you do not personally attack contributors. Wikipedia has low tolerance for both kinds of behaviour. Orderinchaos 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) True, but I'd don't feel I did either. I don't see what I did as an edit war with Timeshift. You claim it is. You see it as harrasment, but you only see where I edit not where I visit. I don't think I personally attacked you, but if you have specific claims, I'd be willing to address those. I do feel a little harrased by you, as you made a comment on my page but nothing on RObOx's. This comes after you getting me block, not to stop reversions which had stopped but to punish for stopping your conversation and you jumping into the December stuff when others not (how do you put it) "involved" were dealing with it. Because I'm not seeing the behaviour you're see I need your guidence on this matter. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) You see it as harrasment, but you only see where I edit not where I visit. What does the former have to do with the latter? Timeshift (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) If you look at the history, Roxbo was already being handled by another admin, therefore there was no need for me to handle that side of things. As someone aware of your past behaviour towards Timeshift, I was approached by Timeshift and following that reviewed the situation. I could see that in a dispute in which you had no prior involvement, you reverted a removal of content on Timeshift's page which he and an admin had both removed. Furthermore, you suddenly found this dispute 2 hours and 44 minutes after it had commenced. On 14 December (I said 10th before, I've since checked), 2 hours and 36 minutes after a dispute he had with another user was pretty much resolved, you dropped a random insult on his page. He reverted it, and you reverted it with a plainly trollish edit summary, adding more content each time: ([5] You must have accidently deleted these comments. I'm happy to return them for you, [6] I wish I was here to make you happy, but I'm not.). You subsequently edit warred on his talk page for 45 minutes, making 9 edits in that time. The user he'd been having a dispute with previously reverted your comments, and your response was to post them on your talk page in a section entitled "STUFF DELETED FROM TIMESHIFT'S TALK PAGE". This goes beyond any sane or rational response to a past dispute over a single issue with a user. If you keep acting in this strange manner towards him, you will be stopped from doing so by the Wikipedia community. That is not a threat, as it's not something I can do. I'm just saying based on 2 years here and watching how others who do this sort of thing get handled. Orderinchaos 12:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what your precise timing means. 2:44min after something happened. 2:36 after something finished. I really don't get it. And now you bring up stuff from last time, including stuff you pointed out but another administrator said was fine. This you were told at the time, but in this little incident you've bought it up at least twice? Why? It is really to protect timeshift, or is it because it shows the mistakes you made at the time? You certainly got very defensive about it then anc have trouble letting it go now. Yes, you are "someone aware of your past behaviour towards Timeshift" because you were involved as well. After the edit war I started was resolved you reverted again 18 hours after the war was over. You were wrong. The final result said so. I was wrong starting an edit war, but you and Timeshift blantantly breached policy repeatly, too. You know you were wrong and the guilt has lead you to jump on me any time you had an excuse, and Timeshift offered you another chance. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) It's easy. Walking past a person's house a couple of times each day can be seen as harrasment. Walking from your house to and from the bus stop each day past the same house isn't. Waiting around for you to do something to jump on it could be seen as harrasment. Stumbling upon you doing something that seems to need to be noted isn't. Especially when I was telling someone not to do the very thing I got in trouble for last time. Perspective is very important in these things. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks for clearing up that you know exactly what you're doing. Orderinchaos 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Stumbling upon you doing something that seems to need to be noted isn't. Wrong again. Maybe one day you'll understand Wikipedia policies... Timeshift (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But could you explain how I'm wrong? And can't I say "It should be clear I don't care" like you do when you violate Wikipedia policies? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) He has his own talk page, no need to involve yourself in mine and continue a pattern of placing back comments ive already removed prior. This is the bottom line. Learn that my talk page is my talk page, i'll do what I want with it, and I don't want any harrassment which extends to contributions, either comments, reverts, unreverts, whatsoever on my talk page. Do what you want to articles. And thanks for clearing up that you understand policies but choose not to abide by them. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) He does have his own page, and I posted to both. Happy to have been of help. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC) No, you reverted my edit to add back the contribution I had removed from another user, and with a questionable edit summary. You know perfectly well you didn't "post to both". Timeshift (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Well, it wouldn't have made sense if I didn't. I was just providing context. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) You hadn't been involved in the dispute prior to, and you reverted what I had already removed, and with a questionable edit summary, and this was only the end of a prior history of harrassment. No amount of sugar coating will excuse you from your behaviour. Timeshift (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Timeshift, your behaviour disgraces you. I can't believe you have the gall to complain here after your irresponsible deliberate and peristent editing on the death of Wayne Carey page. Your comments on the discussion page smack of smugness and conceit. Amazing!ROxBo (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Leave it ROxBo, Timeshift is a repeat offender who regularly ignores Wikipedia rules and uses his pet Admins to help him get away with it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I have every right to have Duggy not continue to violate NPA and other harrassment policies toward me. Thankyou and good day. Timeshift (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Someday people are going to learn that overreacting and breaking Wiki policies in response to a situation like that makes it 100x harder for anyone to do anything about it (or even figure out what's going on). I get back from a day out researching sources for articles, and I see a blockable level of harassment on a talk page from someone with form. That's what I end up dealing with. The Wayne Carey stuff was blatant stupidity and should never have been entered without a reliable source (esp considering WP:BLP), and had I seen that first I would have dropped a warning for it. Now I can't because my time appears unfortunately to be tied up in dealing with personal insults and attacks directed at me from someone who was never even involved in the dispute and appears to be getting his satisfaction from being a troll, and to warn him now would be impossible as I've been pushed into a position of defending him. See the problem? Orderinchaos 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I am not a troll. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words. Orderinchaos 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Brahma Kumaris article Hi there. If you get the chance, would you be able to take a look at the current discussion about the use of "tabloid" in reference to the Daily Mail in the article and also to the links policy. It's an ongoing disagreement with two other editors and I would really like some independent input to resolve it. I am aware I may be making too much of it, but I'm pretty sure I have a valid argument. I don't want my position to lead to another edit war, however. I'm happy to abide by whatever conclusions you reach. Appledell (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I had a look at it before - my opinion was that both versions are acceptable and neutral enough (the first line of Daily Mail says "tabloid" quite clearly, so it's not strictly necessary to say it in the BK one, but to say so isn't a problem especially as we're only talking about one word). Orderinchaos 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)