User talk:Skyring
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
[edit] John Howard, David Hicks
At the risk of a third party making the false accusation of canvassing for support, I'd like to point out that any accusation of bias on my behalf and us sharing completely opposing views is likely to be at best simplistic, if not wrong. Take the David Hicks article for example - we shared some common thoughts on that (and some opposing ones too). kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Never thought it for a moment. You seem a reasonable person, as opposed to some of set opinions, so I'm puzzled as to why you think this bit of colour reporting is significant or encyclopaedic. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks. I disagree with your appraisal of this issue, but as a "reasonable person" (wink), will give it further thought over the next few days. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I find it hard to take anyone seriously who thinks this rubbish belongs in an encyclopaedia article about John Howard. If you aren't just playing the giddy galoot or maybe trying to annoy me, perhaps you'd be able to explain just why you personally think it belongs in the article? You're quite happy to edit war over it, so you must have some strong feelings. --Pete (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks. I disagree with your appraisal of this issue, but as a "reasonable person" (wink), will give it further thought over the next few days. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Socks / Wikistalking
I haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Really, sincerely, I think you have a case of mistaken identity on your hands. There are only two places your path has crossed mine (and I only know you as Pete/SkyRing - if you have other aliases, or 'socks', then that's your business) and that's on the John Howard and David Hicks pages (and of course, the rfc related to that). You can see my entire editing history - its all kosher. Its just me, and the things I'm interested in editing. For the sake of your sanity, I suggest you think again before wasting a lot of your time on this pointless exercise. I have absolutely nothing to hide - you and everyone can see everything I've done (and yes, I do log in from a variety of places, but isn't that the point of being web-based?). Please, take a deep breath, and have a good day. Eyedubya (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ==
[edit] Just thought I'd throw a ha'pennies worth in. The Howard piece does seem to miss the scholarly air of other bios of Aussie leaders on Wiki from this point on. I do hear the sound of an axe grinding at various points when I read it.
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
Hey there! If you don't mind, please drop by Lester's talk page and check out this comment I added. If you have any input I'd be happy to hear. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. While you're right, the article should not become purely a forum for the hatred of John Howard, there should be criticism allowed. Only what the press says, though, and it should be worded neutrally, of course. I think that the recent example should be allowed into the article, but more on that in the talk page. Now, if you don't have any objections, could we include that sentence in the article? While I realize you think it is trivial, you have to have a strong argument that is backed at least by policy; otherwise, you can't really veto everyone. It isn't a personal thing, but maybe this way we can have further progress. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re-inclusion
Frankly, *most* political events fit that exact description. I do not see any reason why it should not be there, and the debate over its inclusion or exclusion has frankly stymied all development on the article. Orderinchaos 05:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Abandon the argument
Hi there, re: the continuing debate over the Obama quote in John Howard. I think you and I should stop replying to the other editors' comments. We've all made our positions clear, and the argument is cluttering the talk page. We are just giving the others opportunity to voice their prejudices. What do you think? --Surturz (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- We can move on. Your suggestion about shrinking down the leadership question seems like a good project. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's best to ignore the obvious trolling...not that I seem to be able to resist either. Some admin support would be nice, but those informed are also involved. O well, the creaky mass of Wikipedia is heading for a big ol BLP problem, so may as well leave the hacks to enjoy themselves. Shot info (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation: John Howard
Hello Skyring. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Obama
Put the Obama thing in proper context without inflating its significance, and I've got no objection. - good on you Pete. This is far from what your original position was. Timeshift (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfM
Lester, I'm not agreeing to this, for reasons stated in the RfM. However, if you can withdraw the case and submit a fresh one with only two names as the parties involved, everything the same, then I'll agree to mediation. I'd much rather find ways of working with you than in seeing the situation continue to distintegrate. If some of my guesses about you are correct, then you must be experiencing considerable frustration. I don't want to see useful articles deteriorate into POV, but neither do I want to cause you undue anguish. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Skyring. While it would be much easier to work with 2 people, there are many players in this (on both sides of the fence), and everyone will want a say in how it goes. The RfM allows everyone a say. I know that when the groups are overly large, the Mediator will sometimes ask for everyone on each side to choose a representative to argue for that side. But that would be up to the mediator. I think we need to include everyone in the current dispute, though maybe the Mediator will agree not to include those from a year ago who are no longer interested. But if I re-submit it on my own accord, with most of the names left out, it may cause more frustration for other editors. I definitely think that everyone involved in the recent edit war should be part of the mediation, or else the situation will just continue. Regards, Lester 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Skyring. I appreciate your change of heart on the content issues. I agree there may be other issues in the Aus-US alliance worth adding to the article. But this is not just you and me. There have been numerous editors involved in the edit war. I made a comment on the JH discussion page that I think we need to move past the edit war before the atmosphere is conducive for looking at new content, though a few editors disagreed with me there. The other issue is that the decision about how the Obama issue gets included should really involve the other editors at the RfC, as even if you agree with content I add, they may not. They are all stakeholders, and some are very passionate on both sides. I note that user:Surturz's attempts to reword the US Relations section didn't receive a warm reaction from the other editors. Regards, Lester 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Skying, I see you have reiterated your decision to abstain from mediation, which of course you are free to do. As you know, I believed that mediation would have been the best way for everyone to resolve the Obama content issue. It would have been the easy way to solve it. The community would have made a decision about what gets done with the Obama content, and we probably would have all agreed not to edit war over that. Some have suggested on the RfM talk page that this is about a personal issue between me and you. From my point of view, I have no personal issues with you. The issues are about content (which we disagree on, but that doesn't make it a personal issue), and the ways we go about resolving content disputes. It saddens me that the RfM seems to have failed. Some of the admins on the RfM talk page have suggested it go to Arbcom. To me, the RfM would have been a preferable way to go. I thought it was in all our interests to solve it with community input at the RfM. Anyway, I have absolutely nothing against you personally, and wish you all the best. Lester 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Skyring. I appreciate your change of heart on the content issues. I agree there may be other issues in the Aus-US alliance worth adding to the article. But this is not just you and me. There have been numerous editors involved in the edit war. I made a comment on the JH discussion page that I think we need to move past the edit war before the atmosphere is conducive for looking at new content, though a few editors disagreed with me there. The other issue is that the decision about how the Obama issue gets included should really involve the other editors at the RfC, as even if you agree with content I add, they may not. They are all stakeholders, and some are very passionate on both sides. I note that user:Surturz's attempts to reword the US Relations section didn't receive a warm reaction from the other editors. Regards, Lester 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] dating
My apologies Skyring. I have recently learned how to use this template {{birth date and age|1955|6|8}} in infoboxes. It is nice because it gives the persons age and it updates itself on their birthday without anyone having to go back and change it. The template, as is, uses the US way of showing the date by putting the month first. I was using it in a number of British actors infoboxes and then I discovered that there was a way to keep the day before the month by adding in df=y at the end thus {{birth date and age|1955|6|8|df=y}}. I went back and changed most of the entries that I had made but I missed the one that you found. I have changed it now. Again my apologies and thank you for bringing it to my attention so that I could fix my error. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Date Ranges
I take exception to your justification for changing the date ranges for reruns of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (difference). WP:DATE does not mandate the linked format you have imposed. On the contrary, it seems to discourage it.
The relevant sections are:
Date ranges are preferably given with minimal repetition (5–7 January 1979; September 21–29, 2002), using an unspaced en dash. If the autoformatting function is used, the opening and closing dates of the range must be given in full (see Autoformatting and linking) and be separated by a spaced en dash.
Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes: ... links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31); ...
The first sentence seems to imply that the preferred format is 5-7 January 1979, not January 5-January 7, 1979. The rest of the quoted material offers the option of using the autoformatting, but it clearly does not require it.
Cstaffa (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! You make a good point. I've raised it here for discussion. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for mediation not accepted
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
