BenAveling (talk | contribs) Create a subpage for exploring the issue of Theory. |
Duncharris (talk | contribs) Feeding the trolls |
||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
Later, [[User:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 11:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC) |
Later, [[User:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 11:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Feeding the [[troll]]s == |
|||
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. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 21:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:33, 9 November 2005
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)
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)
- 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)