This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thecunninglinguists (talk | contribs) at 23:32, 4 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:32, 4 August 2005 by Thecunninglinguists (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please note I am not an Administrator.
South Thailand insurgency
Nice work on your new article. I was going to list it for DYK but I'm having trouble stringing together coherent sentences tonight. If you could write up a factoid for the main page that'd be great. --nixie 13:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Point taken, :P. Yours is just so much better than most of the items that get suggested.--nixie 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Should South Thailand insurgency merge with Pattani separatism? Those two articles practically talk about the same thing __earth 10:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, fast reply. =p Anyway, I don't really mind which is which as long as the title is descriptive. If you want to absorb the other article into yours, perhaps Pattani separatism could be redirected to South Thailand insurgency. __earth 10:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Check it when you get the chance. Thanks. --TJive 07:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
pre-emptive warning
Just a word of warning - be carefull if either Kate Orman or her husband Jonathan "Jon" Blum start editing here - while they are not quite as bad as a Ruy Lopez, Kate in particular is a very dark shade of pink left wing - she uses terms like "faux-femininsts" - claimed that she was "infuriated" at being informed that opposing the war effectively amounted to supporting Saddam - she saaid she was on "the Iraqi people's side" - just like the kind of Vietnam War protesters you mentioned - that wanted to believe the best of the Hanoi regime and as late as 1978 were singing the praises of Brother Number One in Cambodia. PMA 09:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- and the US government was singing the praises of Brother Number one in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982... Ruy Lopez 15:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Quality of Misplaced Pages
By some chance I found your earlier edit here about problems of Misplaced Pages concept. I very much agree.
One solution would be to have "stable version" of articles. Such feature would prevent vandals and POV pushers taking over this or that topic when reasonable people don't have stomach and time to keep constant watch. I am very suprised not to see people pushing in this direction - it is question of survival of Misplaced Pages, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The Age
Made a few changes to your The Age article which was great. The only thing I thought that should be changed but didn't was Jaspan's nationality, he's English, not Scottish I believe. Newshounder 12:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I think most people think it's a pinko rag, let's face it Adam, it's become a bit of a joke in Melbourne, most people say this including your employer. What were you saying you thought was true? The Packer yarn, you've got to be kidding. Packer may be a grumpy fat old boozing whoring asswipe, doesn't make him a drug dealer. His problem was acting like one, not being one. I remember quite distinctly the front page the Saturday morning they broke the story. All hell broke loose. Newshounder 12:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Please note Ambi reverted every change I made without any reason other than bias. I am happy to work through whatever you think is biased but most of my changes I thought were fair enough. I have much more faith in you than in her, looking at the highly partisan left-wing nature of her edits, so I hope you can look them over with more good faith than she seems capable of. Newshounder 12:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
No worries. Ambi 13:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is looking great. Good work!--Takver 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Daniel Mannix disambiguation
So how would you suggest the disambiguation be handled? There are two others called Daniel Mannix: a fairly notable author, Daniel Pratt Mannix IV (commonly called Daniel Mannix or Daniel P. Mannix); and Daniel P. Mannix III the admiral. Something needs to be done to steer those who search for "Daniel Mannix" to the right one. Tearlach 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Fixed. Adam 14:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sorry about that - I waded into a disambiguation attempt without thinking it through properly. Daniel Mannix is obviously the correct primary one. Tearlach 14:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
User:The Village Idiot
If you are an admin, please ban User:The Village Idiot. He/She has only been vandalizing wikipedia, and has not make any useful contribution till date. Thanks. deeptrivia 09:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Minor gloat
Hi Adam. You have my deepest sympathies for your team's startling decline in form over this season. Fancy falling out of the top 8! It must be very embarassing to have the Fremantle Dockers above the Demons on the ladder. Obviously, as an Eagles fan, I don't have too much to complain about. ;-) - Mark 09:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Homosexuality in India
There is very little on the Internet or on Misplaced Pages about Homosexuality in non-Western cultures, including India. I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards creating a detailed article about Homosexuality in India, one that discusses historical, literary, cultural and religious attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as the current situation. I know for a fact that India has a significant LGBT community, though a lot of it is underground. I wrote the article Gay rights in India. Could you take a look at it and integrate it with a larger article on Homosexuality in India. --Notquiteauden 01:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much...could you reformat it to look more like a wiki article--Notquiteauden 02:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Osamabeenlaughing has just created User:Adam_Corr.
Osamabeenlaughing has just created User:Adam_Corr. Drew Devereux 01:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Khmer Rouge
You see what happens as soon as you unprotect? Adam 07:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
That some editors come back and try to change the thing? Naughty people! That is *so* wrong! I should have left it protected for another month! :-D --Tony Sidaway 08:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
communist propagandist Ruy Lopez filling it full of his communist propaganda and starting endless edit wars. As soon as the article is unprotected he starts again. Now there will be another round until it is protected again. Adam 08:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're expected to adopt an adult approach. Have you thought of discussing wha you consider propaganda with Ruy Lopez, explaining why it isn't appropriate to Misplaced Pages? Looking at the edit history, edit summaries like "Today's reverts: Communist Party of Misplaced Pages 2, me 1)" surely cannot help. If there's a serious content dispute, consider a RfC. --Tony Sidaway 08:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
*Rolls eyes at naive comments.* Since you clearly have had no experience in dealing with Lopez or his many clones, or with this article in particular, I suggest you stay out of it and let those of us familiar with the problem deal with it. Adam 08:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well if he's really that bad, you should be taking the case to arbitration, not trying to chase other editors off. --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I and others are working on a case, but it is extremely difficult to get any effective action against politically-motivated wreckers like Lopez. Adam 08:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well without commenting on the merits of this individual case, I have to say I've not found that to be the case. The trouble here is that you yourself seem to have been involved in pretty much the same persistent edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 09:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- RVing of misleading propaganda is better than trying to engage the circular "arguments" Ruy uses on Talk. There're some users that cannot be dealt with through compromise and Ruy is one of them. J. Parker Stone 10:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the above comments are a microcosm of this. Mr. Sidaway, you are of course correct in saying edit summaries like "Today's reverts: Communist Party of Misplaced Pages 2, me 1)" surely cannot help. I think Stone describes the mindset when he says "RVing of misleading propaganda is better than trying to engage the circular 'arguments' Ruy uses on Talk. There're some users that cannot be dealt with through compromise and Ruy is one of them." Stone is correct that I do make arguments on talk, I have put a lot of documentation on talk from the major Cambodia scholars. Stone also shows the prevailing attitude by him (before he was banned from editing political articles) and some others which has been not to discuss, not to compromise but just to revert.
I should also add that the "communist propaganda" I am currently trying to add can be read in many of the major scholarly works on Cambodia, works I have cited. In fact, Carr and others have cited works from the same people for their work that paints the CPK (KR) in a bad light. But when I put in material which doesn't put the CPK in a bad light, from the same scholars, it is reverted as "communist propaganda".
I should note I have been presenting evidence on the discussion page for a long time. Carr doesn't care about this and simply makes ad hominem attacks. Work from scholars he quotes is "communist propaganda", I'm accused of being in a communist sect/cult and anytime someone new (say you) gets involved in this, Carr doesn't talk about any of the issues on the page but just hits me with a barrage of mud and ad hominem attacks. Because I want this page to be NPOV I somehow become a member of some far-out communist sect. The funny thing is Carr says he used to belong to a communist sect. I do not, and never have. As far as ArbCom cases he talks about, Carr was recently chastised for this type of behavior. He has also said he would not accept a mediators decision on this page, whereas I would (although we both thought Ed Poor would make a poor mediator). I would be happy to have some higher body come in help sort out the issues on this page in a deux ex machina fashion. This page has been RFC'd two or three times - when it goes into RFC, an admin comes in and locks it for a few weeks, and then it goes back to an edit war. So I'm not sure what good an RFC will do, an RFC thusfar has effectively been a notice board for admins to lock the page. Which doesn't solve the months long edit war. Ruy Lopez 17:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Same old, same old. J. Parker Stone 07:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Amanda Vanstone
Hi Adam! I didn't mean to step on toes, but if you're going to revert changes, make sure you don't revert the bits that should stay. I improved the External Links and added a References section that both got lost in your revert.
As to a standard format for Australian politicians, from the articles I looked at there doesn't seem to be much of a standard format, and certainly no cohesion with the better written US politician articles. Regardless, the article needs considerable work from both a content and rewriting perspective. I'm sure we can come up with a better format that the existing one. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Your rightist lies
You call group separatist.
Then you say you don't know what they want.
Your logic poor.
Doctor of Philosophy, heal thyself.
As for Iraq, you clear American agent, how much they pay?