Talk Archives[edit]

New Messages at the bottom[edit]

Hey hey. Go Brisbane

Dear Slac, you posted on Template talk:Merovingians:

Because of its size, I'm thinking of dividing up this template into three: Kings of Neustria & Burgundy, Kings of Austrasia, and Kings of All the Franks.

I don't know whether that's feasible, since the branches divide and unite repeatedly. Also, this two-part (or three part) division is not really accurate before 623. What about the kings that do not fit into this division, like Chlodomer, Charibert I, Guntram, Charibert II? Str1977 6 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

Sure, if you can come up with a solution, go ahead. As for inconsistency, I fixed the template list and the "list of Frankish kings". If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Str1977 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

A possibility might be this one: to split it in two templates, one covering the time before 613 - when the kingdoms are very much in flux still - and the other covering the period from 613 to 751 - with the stable duality between a king of Neustria & Burgundy and one king of Austrasia (except Aquitaine). As I have seen, the Carolingian template is also a bit messy. Str1977 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

Maybe, with the Carolingians, there could be one template covering the period until the treaty of Verdun, and then one for the Western branch, one for the Eastern branch, and ... well, I don't know what to do with the Lotharingian, Burgundian, Italian branch. Str1977 7 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

What might still could be added (from Talk:List of Frankish Kings)

Some things that might be missing and could be added:

what about the struggles between Louis the Pious and his sons and among the sons - the distribution of kingdoms during Louis lifetime are not given (and his son Pippin is missing alltogether)
what about mayors that were not Carolingians, but were nonetheless powerful (Ebroin, Erchinoald, Wulfoad) - there is a unhealthy focus on the Carolingians when discussing mayoral power (up to the allegation that Pippin the Middle instigated the murder of Dagobert II - why? because he's the only one known who could have done it)
what about distinctions within the Carolingian family (after Pippin the Middle's death)
separate from any mayoral questions, maybe the Carolinigian template should give - for that period - heads of the family and not so much offices (though these can be included)

Any thoughts on these issues? Str1977 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go Brisbane[edit]

Go Brisbane and the ALP and Catholicism. --Robert McKay 08:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 18:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stop by Wikipedia:Deletion reform!

User page[edit]

Why is my edit (and the most recent to your user page at the time of this posting) listed as #4 on your Vandalism Count -- Ianblair23 03:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because, for some reason, the html coding for that diff ends in "&diff=0", which will always be the most recent edit to the page. Why it does that I don't know, it's a mistake. In any case, in case there's any confusion, I certainly don't mean to imply your edit was vandalism. Slac speak up! 06:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for removing that. May I wish you the best in your quest for adminship -- Ianblair23 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian order of precedence[edit]

Australian order of precedence You made an editing comment about Titles. Some people (and this is especially true in Australia) tend not to use Titles & Honouriffics or not use all they are entittled to, sometimes even in formal situations. They tend to be listed in official documents with their prefered form of address. If in doubt, your local Herald, or to give them their modern title, Protocol Officer can help. They are usually find on Governors and/or Parliamentary staff lists (and are usually happy to help). Hmmm, I wonder if they'd be willing to contribute to wikipedia?

On a connected note, the bit about Mayors of Cities by Order of Population, I think the City of Brisbane hs a large population than the cities of Sydney and Melbourne, even if the Con-urbs are bigger.

Alex Law 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome[edit]

Quick hallo n belated thanx for your nice little welcome Slac... Took me a while to get into Wikipedia but little things like this helped :) --Lisa 08:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Honourable[edit]

Hi Slac,

I note that you reverted out "The Honourable" from Messrs. Howard, Keating, Howe etc. Personally I agree with this, although I can see a case for having the "correct" formal title recorded one way or another. Still you haven't reverted Menzies. Why is this case different?

Thanks,

--Wm 00:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me -- Menzies not on my watch list. Thanks

--Wm 00:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you should give them the titles to which they are entitled unless they have a documentable preference otherwise. Parlinfoweb is a good source for this, eg Keating. I know the title Honourable is often ironic if not absurd, but, in the words of a famous Australian Such is life.

I wish the honours lists were more easily accessable, we should make sure that everyone gets their full Titles Ranks and Honours.

Alex Law 05:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a wise anonymous user noted on Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom,

Re the removing of use of Majesty and HRH. I agree. There are a lot of people here who keep adding on the superfluous use of "His Majesty" or "she married HRH Prince Whoever". HRH and Majesty are forms of ADDRESS and as far as I know one can't address a dead person. In all professional encylopedias, any books written about royals, the Royal website itself (apart from the memorial sites - which is because those people died fairly recently and arent historical figures) - only here, and on selected articles at that, have I seen this constant use. It's not used for the pages of the Tudors etc. It's like saying the page for any untitled person should constantly be referred to as "Mr", so a page about Benjamin Franklin would become "Mr. Benmjamin Franklin" and referring to him as the son of "Mr & Mrs Franklin". I think we should remove them on all royal pages except living royals and make wikipedia look a bit more professional.

Similar comments could be made about The Honourable. Being over-zealous in its use (whether strictly accurate or not), just makes us look foolish and out of touch. Please establish a firm consensus among editors of the Prime Ministerial pages for the inclusion of these styles before (re-)adding them. Slac speak up! 08:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I get time I'll try to dig up a Protocol officer and get formal guidance on Australian usage.

Alex Law 09:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that, if a person is entitled to any formal pre- or postnominals, then they should all appear at the head of the article where the person is being introduced to the reader. But unless any of these things are normally used when referring to the person, they can be dispensed with for the rest of the article. For example, "The Hon Edward Gough Whitlam CH AC QC" (or whatever) is appropriate at the start, but from then on it's just "Gough Whitlam", "Mr Whitlam", "Whitlam" or "he", depending on the context of the sentence.

By the way "the Hon" should never be spelled out as "the Honourable", even if it is spoken that way (we don't spell out Mrs or Mr, exactly same principle). And the "the" should never be capitalised, unless of course it's at the start of a sentence.

Cheers JackofOz 06:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, you are titled the Hon if you have ever been a cabinet minister, and you keep the title for life. I may be wrong though, but I think I heard it when I was last at Parliament House. --Rob McKay 06:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA[edit]

You are quite welcome. Hopefully you can wield that mop in a very sensible fashion.

By the way, have you considered getting a wikimood?

Cheers. Denelson 83 21:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Slac. Your edits are always welcomed. Thanks for your comments too. I hope you and other editors regard my edits as highly as we regard yours. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats! Good to have you join the admin team! --Stormie 01:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations indeed! I too hope to have the opportunity to work with you at some point. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are most welcome — I hope to see you around, cheers, dab (ᛏ) 06:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and best of luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 15:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More congrats down here, and thanks for your comments - indeed my vote was very well spent. --bainer (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your adminship- and thanking people who voted for you was an effort most don't take, the kind of attitude we need in an admin! Cynical 07:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My RfA[edit]

I have received your acknowledgement and you are welcome. As I also plan to become an administrator here sometime soon, you may nominate me if you would like to.--Jusjih 07:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Hemming[edit]

I have rewritten this article to establish notability. She is the CEO and possible owner of Sharman Networks, the owners of Kazaa since 2002. I would be grateful if you have a look at the rewritten article and see what you think. Capitalistroadster 04:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the talk page cleanup[edit]

Thanks for the de-vandalizing, and congrats on your RFA! Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 01:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sir Thomas Jervois[edit]

Slac, could you explain why the redirect on the Sir Thomas Jervois article. It's confusing for me - thanks Lisa 03:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your response: It was either My mistake in the first place or Brookie continuing my mistake I made when I wasn't logged in :D This is why I was keen for it to be speedily deleted. As I noted on the discussion page, I think I made a Freudian slip confusing Thomas Snow and William Jervois :) Shall we just nominate it for speedy delete again - what do you think? --Lisa 03:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there is at least one other Google hit for "Thomas Jervois" that doesn't quote Wikipedia, but I think it is still the same mistake being made. Maybe I'll do some proper research just to make sure, but there doesn't seem to be any record of the former governors of SA including a "Thomas Jervois". Unless William Jervois used "Thomas" as a nickname I doubt Thomas Jervois is real! --Lisa 03:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Thomases in SA history, none of them are Jervois that I know of. Sir Thomas Jervois was in the House of Commons 200 hundred years earlier [1] and at least one online resource has the wrong name for Sir William. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monique deMoan[edit]

Hey, thanks for redeleting that. I think that Longhair actually beat you to it: it showed up on my watchlist as a {{deletedpage}}; I wonder if that might be a helpful thing to reinstate given the author's slightly irate nature? Just until the VfU is finished? If not, in a few minutes, we'll have the article back with a Google count included... (see WP:AN/I). -Splash 23:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Splash 23:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also do the same trick with Monique DeMoan (note capitals?). By way of policy justification, the CSD for substantial identicality extends to "by any title". I wonder if someone needs a slap on the wrist... -Splash 23:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie+Kiwi vandalism[edit]

Yeah, I'm sorry about that - I planned to logout and then do add the flag, but I fouled it up. So the real deal here is my utter stupidity at failing to logout properly. Hell, it's not like I was doctoring figures or anything - I wasn't changing the Djibouti page or anything... so, yeah, I'm sorry I vandalised that ugly colonial flag(s) - won't happen again. Sdrawkcab 17:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

Serial vandal[edit]

I do apologise for inadvertently calling you a serial vandal on the Australia article. Silly vandals. Sorry again. -- Ec5618 23:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Australian Antarctic Territory[edit]

It may be questionable. But it is not questionable that Australia claims it. Xtra 02:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok

Congratulations![edit]

Three cheers for the newest mop wielder! Hip hip hurray! Hip hip hurray! Hip hip hurray! Acetic Acid 23:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto that congratulations!! : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

The commonly accepted statistic is 300,000. Your comment that it is "rubbish" has no backing up. The "only" is to indicate that the population has grown significantly in the last 220 years. Please do not remove sentences that are relevant and correct. Jigjog 01:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic plot for world domination[edit]

I can't figure out why you tagged this as a copyvio, unless you were joking or just wanted to hide the offensive material in the original article. I checked the document you said was the copyvio source and all I saw was one line that made a brief reference to the existence of an "Anti catholic book alleging Catholic plot for domination in US," but does not contain so much as a single sentence matching anything in the article. Due to grammar and general bad writing I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the article is a copy of anything published by a print publisher. If you just want to make the offensive material less visible please do it in some other way, and, as a courtesy, major edits made during a VfD really should be noted in the VfD discussion so that people joining the discussion later know that they are discussing something different from what was being discussed earlier. I've reverted the article back to what is essentially its original state.

My reversion of the article does not imply that I agree with it. It's garbage. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies... I've now left a similar query on User_talk:Johann Wolfgang and have removed the comment in VfD suggesting that it was you who tagged it. It was something about that Bwahahahaha edit comment that misled me, I guess. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPA[edit]

Could you IPA-a-fy the various pronounciations on Canberra, thanks. --nixie 03:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix Revolutions[edit]

I'm inserting interpretations under a section called "Interpretations & Analysis". I make it clear that these are interpretations/conclusions/solutions that a significant number of fans agree on. I am simply making the fact of what this interpretation clear. This is handy because it's not actually advocating this opinion's superiority - it's merely stating it exists. In the process, people who find the final film too ambiguous for their taste will be able to easily view one of the more popular interpretations under the knowledge that it is an interpretation.

If there is a flaw in my argument, please explain it to me.

P.S. I'm barely a day old here, so go easy on me, huh?

Max314 23:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Max. I'd like to second the welcome above. I did worry that you would find the edit summaries of me and others in relation to the edits you made to the article a bit curt, and if so, I apologise. They're more for the purpose of describing what you're doing than justifying (which is what talk pages or so). They can thus come off as a bit arrogant if you're not sure of the motivation.

I must commend you on your application in absorbing Wikipedia principles. I think you're learning quite fast.

If there's a single, overall problem with the section you put in, it's that unfortunately, it still qualifies as fan speculation. I appreciate that it's quite a well-considered analysis, and that you do genuinely want to explicate the movie to outsiders. It struck me how much your edits would be appropriate for a dedicated Matrix-analysis site, and I ponder now whether it would be worthwhile to construct a dedicated wiki for that specific purpose. A number of general points, not necessarily related to anything you've done, to make about editing the article:

There is such a thing as too much detail. Wikipedia's systemic bias means that items such as The Matrix are always going to have an overwhelming abundance of material compared to say, Culture of Azerbaijan. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is one project that is dedicated to combating this, and another is to be especially selective when covering a topic that due to its nature is going to be of high interest to the English-speaking, male internet-literate types that are Wikipedia's majority population. A simple summary article - cf. one chosen more or less at random, The Godfather Part II - to my mind is if anything, more informative than the overblown morass that is the articles devoted to every aspect of say, Yu-Gi-Oh.
You made clear that the interpretation you placed was just one, and not necessarily better than any other. But precisely because there are so many different interpretations, we need to look seriously at which select few interpretations we are going to make mention of (with a preference for published, well-known and generally recognised pieces). There was a long-running debate a while back over whether to include a link to a Marxist/Maoist analysis of the movie in the "External Links" section. One of the reasons for its removal was that it was argued that the Marxist analyis, while perfectly valid, it was nonetheless an obscure or unimportant interpretation of the film. This of course is always going to be subjective, but when something is your own interpretation, or even that of a whole group of fans, it may not be easy to see whether it's relevant or not.

Anyway, I've gasbagged enough for the moment, but I should say: don't be discouraged from editing the article; try not to take anything anyone has said about the content you've added personally; bring any issues up on the article talk page where they can be discussed, and I encourage you to have a look at editing in some of the many other areas of this fascinating project. Slac speak up! 01:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, and yeah, I do understand and appreciate what you're saying about how the lines distinguishing objective facts from subjective assertions is a tentative one, and because you're an obviously intelligent individual and a more experienced user than myself, I trust your judgement as to what does and does not constitute an 'objective contribution'.

I may have absorbed the rules, but that doesn't prepare you for the emotional onslaught you feel when other people edit your work :-D I know it's nothing to complain about, as being a part of this collective online experience is an honour and a joy. Nevertheless, it does get you in the gut at times when reams of your writing can be exponged at the click of a mouse and very often the people who make such edits are actually correct! I guess I just have to get used to this not being a personal blog, online journal or public forum, heh...

I've given your idea of a wiki for interpretations and analysis of The Matrix Trilogy some thought (I think that 12 hours of audio commentary, countless hours of online discussions, volumes of books that have been written, and entire sub-cultures that have been defined by it would probably warrant as much - the scope is huge), and I think that it might be a good idea to go ahead with it. Just one question, mind: are you suggesting a page on the Wikipedia or an actual independent wiki all of its own? Both would be a significant undertaking, but the latter would probably be the most ambitious of the two.

Look forward to hearing from you...and thanks for being so nice about things ;-D

Max314 21:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Slac: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I am honoured that you and others think highly enough of my contributions here to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 12:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

Hi Lacrimosus, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McIlwraith[edit]

Hi there Lacrimosus. I've changed Germany back to German Empire in this article, since IMO it makes more sense to link directly to the article which discusses the actual political context and State appropriate for the late 19C., rather than to the article concerning the modern (and quite different) State. Given that this passage in the McIlwraith article is concerned with the machinations of European colonialism, I am also still of the view that British Empire is the more direct link than United Kingdom, but as the UK of GB & Ireland was then in existence I've left it unmolested. Would be happy to hear if you've any strong views on the subject, one way or the other....cheers! --cjllw | TALK 00:30, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

For the welcome. I've been learning as I go. Hit the preview button and see what happens, copy something from someone else. This whole Wiki thing is like a gigantic ball of string. Follow one thread and you come upon a dozen more. Just browsing through it is an education! --Surgeonsmate 01:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for intervention[edit]

Hi Slac. I noticed you were active, so I'd like to ask for your help with regard to the Adelaide Institute and 202.7.183.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This anonymous user is repeatedly inserting Nazi apologist POV into articles about Holocaust denial (another target). I have already reverted him three times at Adelaide Institute and thus am reluctant to revert further. Might I ask you to either block the user (for 3RR vio) and/or revert and protect the article?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slac! :)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Skyring[edit]

Unless there actually was a user named "User:User:Skyring", you accidentally blocked a non-existent user. On the block IP page, you need to remember not to add "User:"; Mediawiki does this automatically. Ral 315 W_S 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a funny co-incidence. He certainly seems to be pathological in some sense. Thanks Slac. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Mertz article[edit]

I listed the David Mertz article for deletion once again, just wanted to see if you still had an issue with it or wanted to vote. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for seeing the article like I see it. Sorry to say it looks like it's gonna squeek through again though. While we're kind of seeing eye-to-eye here i thought i should mention i'm trying to be elected as an admin and our friend has given me an opposing vote because i listed him for deletion. If you care to vote for me, i would certainly appreciate it and it would help me out. The link is here.--ScottyBoy900Q 04:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

just wanted to say thanks for your vote. its really discouraging having people oppose on such childish terms. thanks for your support though. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FSF RFA[edit]

Thanks for your support. I saw you mentioned the wikproject against systematic bias - you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. freestylefrappe 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize to "(Australian politician)"?[edit]

Re yr edit, thanks for the diligence, but "standardizing" the Dab'g suffixes for article titles

is a lousy idea bcz it forces long, distracting and potentially confusing titles on the 95% of Dab'd articles for which a short one would work fine;
can't work for the articles that cross domains and would thus be subject to two or more conflicting "standards" (e.g., Australian politicians notable
- in other fields like writing about political science or policy matters, or acting in movies,
- for roles in international organizations,
- for receiving prizes,
- for (like Pres. Carter) using public office as a stepping-stone to greatness,
- etc.)
is irresponsible if you don't have a means (better than editing the URL; ask me) to find the (supposedly) non-standard existing rd-lks, so you can count them and, if still appropriate, "fix" them; the 16 IW (politician) lks (mostly old) should convince you of this.

As at least an interim remedy, i'm reverting that edit.
--Jerzy•t 00:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a little trouble following some of the bases of your objection. Specifically,

It's two words - no more, no less - this seems to me to largely eliminate the potential for distraction. Articles on politicians are relatively common on wikipedia; for those who have common names, it's likely that we'll require nationality disambiguators (Mike Ahern comes to mind here). One downside of inconsistently using nationality disambiguators is that some politician articles get saddled with the "long, distracting and potentially confusing" extra bit, while others don't. More common names will require more extensive disambiguators than less common ones, which is undesirable.
I believe it does work for people who cross domains; John Latham (Australian jurist) and Denis Murphy (Australian politician) come to mind. At any rate; redirects are cheap - eg. John Latham (Australian politician) already exists. If we settle on a few standard terms to use (eg. politician, author, journalist) etc, but not "Nobel-prize winner", "human rights advocate" etc, confusion is reduced.
I don't see how the fact that non-standard links are hard to find is a basis for not eliminating them. It's precisely *because* they're hard to find that they must be eliminated.
Slac speak up! 03:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is slow in coming partly bcz i got distracted, partly bcz i wanted to disengage & reread it before committing it to a save, and partly bcz i spent a day without access to my local copy of the draft. And i needed that, in fact: i see now that i was wrong in thinking i understood your multiple-negative point 3; i've progressed at this moment to the point of knowing i don't get it. (OK, i've reread your pt 3, and changed what i was going say slightly.)

Sorry, i find i often am precise about only the aspects that are already obvious....

You (L) said: It's two words - no more, no less - this seems to me to largely eliminate the potential for distraction. Articles on politicians are relatively common on wikipedia; for those who have common names, it's likely that we'll require nationality disambiguators (Mike Ahern comes to mind here). One downside of inconsistently using nationality disambiguators is that some politician articles get saddled with the "long, distracting and potentially confusing" extra bit, while others don't. More common names will require more extensive disambiguators than less common ones, which is undesirable.
_ _ I hope "some politician articles get saddled" being "undesirable" isn't about being fair to those politicians; our job is to take care of the readers by minimizing their burden, and increasing the total and average burdens is exactly what i call "undesirable". Using a four-word title where a three-word one will do is certainly a distraction; when it draws the unconscious mind into "Hmm, is the other Ian Wilson pol a Brit, Canadian,...?", it edges into confusion. Bear in mind that introspective judgements about "one more word can't be a significant burden" are unsound, as there is so much unconscious processing going on. We have no idea how much effort is going into our reading, and come closest when we look at our own mistakes, saying "How in the world did i manage to screw that up?"

_ _ And your implicit idea that one is sometimes not enuf, but two always is, is wrong: how would you handle the father and son or even grandson politician dupes, where they've made a point of blurring the awareness of them as separate people by not using an initial or Jr. to distinguish them -- i've seen more than one such case in the last two weeks -- do you go to Ian Wilson (Australian politician - son), or admit that your idea of a standard is an illusion? In fact, why should we have George Washington instead of George Washington (American politician)? We do so bcz consistency in the style of the dab'g suffix is of no particular value, and minimizing the total user effort is better than raising everything to the worst-case level.

_ _ While i'll admit that it is not definitive evidence, note the single-word Dab'g phrases favored at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages and throughout Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Likewise, IMO, existing names suggest the de facto standard is not a numerical rule, but rather "no longer than necessary to Dab in the particular real case".
L said: I believe it does work for people who cross domains; John Latham (Australian jurist) and Denis Murphy (Australian politician) come to mind. At any rate; redirects are cheap - eg. John Latham (Australian politician) already exists. If we settle on a few standard terms to use (eg. politician, author, journalist) etc, but not "Nobel-prize winner", "human rights advocate" etc, confusion is reduced.
_ _I thot for a moment that i had misinterpreted your intention when i talking about straddling domain boundaries, but reading again, you make the point that politician bios are common enough for that to impose this need, i.e., that this is a standard for politicians, and not, say, for physicists. My point is that your "standard" for politicians may require two words, but that for the other category may reflect the need for two words being negligible or literally zero in that field, calling for a shorter standard. Which standard "wins" when two apply? (In fact, i expect one real domain has a bizarre enough standard to reshape your conception of what you are implying: Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy has set a clear standard: Zack (Final Fantasy) is unacceptable, bcz the character Zack only appears in one game of the series: the correct title for his article is Zack (Final Fantasy VII)!)

_ _ I do applaud your recognition of the value of "a few standard terms". Much of my editing time is on edits where "Rm micro-bio" is in my summary; in the List of people by name tree, i convert e.g.
Jimmy Carter, (born 1924), President of the United States

to
Jimmy Carter, (born 1924), American politician & activist

bcz that information is quite sufficient to avoid anyone looking for one or another Jimmy Carter lk'g to the wrong one. On the other hand, IMO you are again trying to strait-jacket the assignment of such descriptions, if you aren't flexible enuf to use "South Australia" or "mayor" or "Liberal" in addition to (or even in place of) words that don't get the Dab'n job done.

_ _ Yes, rdrs are cheap, but we're talking abt what the article titles should be, not how the lk should be coded. (Even tho lks should be coded with the title, and those that are coded with redirects eventually get snapped into title refs by wandering bots.) As i say, i don't lk rdrs without articles as targets; also IMO no one should use a rdr when they know it is not the article title, and of course a bot will eventually come along and conv the lk to the rdr into a lk to the article, so using them is not abt
L said: I don't see how the fact that non-standard links are hard to find is a basis for not eliminating them. It's precisely *because* they're hard to find that they must be eliminated.
_ _ My third point was only secondarily another reason why "Australian politician" was wrong, and difficulty was not actually germane to it. It's not difficult, but it's the sort of thing that makes more work for others when you undertake it without a clear grasp of the consequences of your actions. So my concern is to inform you about how to responsibly respond to an unsuitable rd-lk, and make clear why i had to revert you, even if we end up with Ian Wilson (Australian politician): there are more than a dozen lks to Ian Wilson (politician) in current articles; your changing one of them (without a rdr, which is a bad idea until an article exists for it to point to) would, if i had not noted it, probably have converted a blue-lk-to be into a rd lk that would stay rd after someone wrote an article in response to one of the other 15 articles.
_ _ (Here's the procedure i was offering, which i didn't want to bother explaining if you knew it already but for one reason or another didn't apply it.
1. Before you say "that's a lousy rd-lk" & edit it, click on it anyway. It takes you to a blank edit page.
2. Click on that page's What links here.
3. If it lists 16 articles, as in this case, you need to either reconsider whether your peers may not be that dumb, or change the lk in the other 15 articles as well. (Or write a stub, and then create a rdr that gets the other 15 bad lks to the article, instead of to an invitation to write a competing article under the bad title.)
4. If you want to give "your own side" of that question a chance to get heard, type your choice for replacement title into the Search box and hit Go.
5. Since you used the Search box this time, you don't go straight to the edit page, but to a page that says the article doesn't exist. Click on "create an article with this title".
6. Now you're at the blank edit page; click on this What links here as well.
7. Now you see how busy those who agree with you have been in creating lks.
I didn't do it that way; i started with a Google search within WP for
"Ian Wilson"

and then for
"Ian Wilson" politician

and each time i found a new lk in a political context (always the Australian one, as it turned out), got a count for that lk. As it happened, the majority agreed with my choice. (If they hadn't, i'd have probably saved my own effort by converting the minority to the wrong version.))

_ _ I think you'll now see the slight relevance of this to what the title should be: you were fooling yourself about there being a standard, and to the extent that there's a de facto standard, this is evidence that it's the opposite of what you thot. (But IMO that's a poorer reason than the two i'd already given.)

I'm not sure i've got that all as right as i could get it, but i've delayed too long already; please bear with me, if i've left new loose ends to be cleaned up.
--Jerzy•t 00:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi Slac! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy late birthday[edit]

User:Jenmoa/birthday --User:Jenmoa 14:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Budgie Smuggler[edit]

Hi, I get the references all right - but I think (and this non-notable original research and unverifiable) that the reason budgie is being mis-spelled as budgy is due it being attracted by another word bulgy which tends to spring to mind in this particular context i.e. budgie+bulgy -> bulgy Dlyons493 Talk 19:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macklin[edit]

While I agree that the comment about Macklin you deleted can't go in as unsupported opinion, it is in fact quite accurate. Adam 07:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qld MP/MLA[edit]

I got a definitive answer from qpl, but no guidance on Members prior to the change-over date.

It was resolved at a meeting (19/10/2000) of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (Qld branch) that Members of the Legislative Assembly should be known as MP rather than MLA.. Alex Law 11:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the Catholic Church of Wikipedia[edit]

As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Message to Pro-Life Wikipedians[edit]

The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toowoomba North[edit]

I'd like a chance to talk to you sometime about Toowoomba North and the next State Election. q0010573 (squiggle) mail.connect.usq.edu.au

Extraordinary citizens[edit]

Re your edits at John Howard, true, but what about the government itself? It may still own such weapons, via the various services. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And lawful ownership being illegal is a contradiction in terms. I agree it's an improvement. And I can't think of anything better, so as it is, it stays. Thanks for the input. Ben Aveling 07:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toowong[edit]

Thanks for reverting the Toowong edits so quickly. I don't know if you saw my question at WP:AWNB or whether you just picked them up yourself. Saved me going back and doing them. -- Adz 02:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion[edit]

Hi, I see that you are listed as a Roman Catholic Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities I think this is an interesting and worth while category. Afterall not all celebrities are pro-abortion. Dwain 02:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier][edit]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete[edit]

Could you please look at case analysis and case study analysis? They were just created recently and are not useful whatsoever.

Reconquista[edit]

Please use edit summaries when deleting something [2]. Thank you. --Kefalonia 10:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions[edit]

Thanks for reverting LaBaron's edits and saving me the trouble of doing so. How can we solve this endless battle with these silly style-and-title queens? My suggestion is a section in the infobox called "Formal style" in which could be put "Rt Hon Cedric Montague-Smythe, AB, CD, EF, GHI etc etc", on condition that they agree to leave the text of the article alone. Adam 12:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ripper[edit]

Sorry about the edit conflicts on the Eric Ripper page. I think they may have undone some of the reverts that you did but I think I've put it all back now. As my PC is being very slow atm, I'm happy to step back from it for a bit and let you work on it. -- Adz|talk 09:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]