User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 05

1427:

intentions - a quick look at your edit history raised some reasonable concerns regarding that, and I felt it warranted a nod. There is a huge difference between partisanship or subscription to a particular set of ideological constructs / membership of a political party and POV pushing, one can be done cooperatively, the other almost never so. I don't quite agree re NPOV text - that seems to be a recipe for sterility and would not produce articles people would actually want to read (I am not advocating sensationalism here, just common sense and good policy-compliant writing technique). The idea is that both sides compromise to get the best article. Unfortunately on Australian politics we've had some very bad examples of how not to do all of the above in years past, and the end result has been polarised camps, all of which are at play in the current disputes, and the admins trying to sort the whole mess out. While I would be perceived as being one side of the fence politically, I make no defence of those who I might ideologically agree with who have behaved badly, and was quite ready along with a mix of centre-left and centre-right admins last year to take the whole thing to ArbCom. That may still happen if the current behaviour trend amplifies.

1650:

being able to acknowledge achievements of one's political opponents), and POV pushing which is essentially trying to censor rival opinions and score points for one's own. Most editing on political subjects on Knowledge (XXG) tends to be the former, I think it would be a gross assumption of bad faith to say otherwise. However there are some notorious POV pushers who ultimately get dealt with in the prescribed way... eventually, anyway. WP has been less effective than it could be historically in dealing with these, but is improving with time.

31: 1026: 830: 1239: 1162: 1105: 1257:. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- 799:

at least this budget. There are indeed many reliable sources about the term - quoting the treasurer's attempts to define it no less - and not just in passing. Moreover the article was referenced. Please take the debate to AfD if you want to but speedy in my view was not appropriate for this article.--

1992:

As I suggested at the other talk page yesterday, the problem is always when you raise a concern that you're not causing the same concern yourself in another location. A parallel from my own occupation: it's like when the boy runs into the teacher yelling "He hit me!" and you bring the other boy in to

1848:

Any chance we can end this insanity? I'll reveal here - I have been chatting privately, and separately, to each of you, and I know that each of you knows the allegations you've obliquely levelled against each other in the above section are false. As you're both so convinced you're right, I'm not even

1518:

I beg your pardon. I was the one to post telling people to stop warring after the ban was removed from Howard's article, and have barely been involved in editting. Talk page? I didn't think they were articles. And please don't accuse me of edit wars with my involvement on other articles because there

349:

for a demonstration. While I am of course aware that the inquiry transcript is a public document and that her name has been splashed across the Australian press, I still feel that readers do not need to be reminded about her love life every time they read an article on the Local Government Area. She

2094:

Sorry if you feel that way but I don't have time to investigate each contributor, if I did I would be here all day. Now looking at the facts and what previously is written in the article as well as the east coast papers being listed as such, I believe I am in the right in this case. For the record I

1963:

The comment I was directed to was no better and no worse than I see every day looking around Wiki. I'm not sure that any admin would have seen any cause to act on it. As for my allegedly inventing things, I have made my view known and resent such accusations. I never accused Shot info of threatening

1591:

camps. Then you get the factional players who are actually working out of some MP's office and attempting to subtly demean opponents within the party (or just trying to beatify the boss), and all sorts of others. But most of the regulars here are good faith, (widely) disparate as their views may be.

1408:

Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception. This is a good thing because people without POV are unlikely to contribute to those pages. NPOV is achieved from

2029:

to. There is no critical issues at stake here like the pseudoscience wars, it's just people who can't get along fighting over anything they can find an excuse to fight over. When I'm asked to fix one's transgressors while ignoring their transgressions (considering neither are at the blockable level

1973:

Thanks for the clarification over who is inventing the accusation. Given that I have had no correspondence with Timeshift, other than directly on Knowledge (XXG), it is quite clear that his accusation is a fiction of his own creation. With regards to the directed comment, I concur to your opinion

798:

On the basis that you had no opposition to any admin restoring - I have done so. I think the recent debate with the Swan putting all sorts of people into the scope of the term is hilarious and shows that it isn't a temporary phenomenon at all - it has survived the election and will be a feature of

2109:

Rubbish - I have reverted -and requested further discussion at the talk page and or project page - the reasoning does not convert conservative populism to right wing - the current staff if they watch this would be laughing their heads off at that - maybe a another inside cover story again (sigh)

1873:

Umm, OiC, if you have a look at the original edit, you will note that I'm drawing your attention to some unCIVIL behavour on another user's talkpage. This has little to do with whatever is occuring offline. The fact that Timeshift wishes to bring it to Knowledge (XXG) is largely an issue of your

1771:

Short of clearing the battlefield there's very little any admin can do in this situation. I don't think blocking 6 or 7 people is a useful nor a calming measure, and won't solve the problem as it will resume the moment they get back. There are over 1,500 admins on Knowledge (XXG), and at least two

1649:

I think we're dealing with the old chestnut of the difference between partisanship, which can lead to innocent POV editing (it is possible to write in an NPOV style, by the way - it requires a level of academic detachment though and a rigorous willingness to accommodate both sides of the story and

1590:

I think you're right, but there's also a collection of chest-beating Howard supporters, many of whom also originate from student politics, and like the far left are so far removed from reality that they can't see past the end of their own nose. I've had interesting dealings with a number from both

350:

is not a politician or a celebrity, has never held herself out to be a public personality and her alleged criminal activity is not a nature that would make one notable. Given that, I feel naming the person in question is unnecessary and unwarranted in the context of an article on the LGA. Cheers,

306:

should be in the article. While it is certainly factual that this evidence was given at the enquiry, there is a BLP issue especially given the person in question is not a public person nor has she been charged with any crime (at present). The point made about perceived corruption is just as well

79:

I'm certain, since the change to the temp on many politicians articles now the images are blown up hugely, because the height isn't restricted. The template image height worked before on the vast majority of politican articles. Perhaps the issue you saw was just relating to the article on that one

1386:

Thanks for putting forward your views in discussion, no thanks for the resumption of edit-warring. You mentioned wikipolicy, which is always better than individual opinions, or even talk-page discussions, because we can draw upon the collective voice of the WP community. As another editor pointed

1916:

Please consider refactoring your unCIVIL edits. Also please cease and desist in the accusation of "implicit off-wiki threats" as no such "implicit off-wiki threats" were made unless invented by either yourself or OiC. Given that you are engaging in unCIVIL behavour it is appropriate that it is

1575:

My position is that there are some people who hate John Howard. We see them at protest marches, chanting slogans, we see them in student newspapers. Some are smart enough to use computers, and some are smart enough to realise that simple vandalism doesn't work. So they choose more subtle ways of

268:

Thanks .. I also checkes ABS. It is a little peculiar as, it seems, while they report on 'indigenous' peoples .. they actually collect information on whether ".. each person is of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin.." .. and I found a little history of this peculiar categorisation

242:

The ironical thing about the claims made in this article, is that it may be the term "Aboriginal" that has the most offensive colonial overtones .. being a term 'preferred' by Australian government officials to ensure their dealings (and non-dealings) with Australian Aborigines were proper, and

1426:

I agree with you re partisanship - we're all in some way partisan, people who aren't usually would have no interest in editing political articles. It's something we have to carefully manage - all of us do, as a community. My criticism was solely addressing behaviour/approach, not the edits or

724:

That's the one! "This page in a nutshell: A new term doesn't belong in Knowledge (XXG) unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." So just to bring the term out of a straight-deletion, it needs WP:RS articles

427:

Have been finding these arts that no WA project tag is on and not many links and this one fits a real weird space - I dunno if you have the time (do we have what?) but I suspect most of the art could be pruned - thought you might ;like first option - i am gonna try to get to it tonight - its

322:

under oath. This is in fact stronger legally than a police confession. In fact, full transcripts of the hearing were available the same day at www.icac.nsw.gov.au as a matter of public record. If in fact the media made up the allegations without her admission then that's a different story.

171:

I understand. Well, I was just giving him some advice and I know I am still in some situations myself. Me and him are good friends here at wikipedia and he understood what I meant. I wasn't trying to upset/discourage him or anything. I was just giving him some advice and my

897:

can't modify it. It shouldn't be protected. The various nav bars typically only get protected temporarily, and unprotected when the danger dies down. A couple random vandal hits isn't enough to justify permanently protecting one of these. Please unprotect this.

641:

I disagree. The fact that a term is a buzzword used by a PM does not confer notability, but it also does not deny notability. The speedy delete criteria don't say we can delete articles on topics that we think non-notable; it says we can delete articles that don't

690:

It really annoys me when I've seen policy but no longer able to find it. Working families, and other buzzwords, have a name, an ism name if I recall correctly, and wikipedia is not a place for them. The fact it is a buzzword/buzzterm AFAIK does deny noteability.

1897:

How about concentrating on your own edits rather than others (where he admitted to POV-pushing, and is ignoring wikipedia policies), as well as stop making implicit off-wiki threats (with no factual basis anyway). I know which is worse, the question is, do you?

1343:

When I need you? - there have been some situations in the last few days if knew you werent secluded in some work/real life situation I would have been on the blower/telling bone like an aching whale (sic re rottnest) - so thank your lucky stars I didnt - :)

2154:

Agreed, I think as an encyclopaedia, we should use last names always (there are exceptions of course). But Australians have a real tendency to use first names even in formal contexts! Your page says you're on a wikibreak...I presume exams? good luck

246:

Whatever the case may be .. Eve expresses a strong preference, and gives reasons for why the noun Aborigine should be used to refer to Aborigines (the race of people indigenous to Australia), in preference to the adjective Aboriginal.

588:, non-notability. I do not agree. (I am the person who established the page, so you'd probably expect me to say that.) What are the grounds for the non-notability of this idea? Perhaps you have not noticed that the term pervaded the 1391:

is "is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Knowledge (XXG) article." That's for whether we include an article or not. Other criteria are in play for what goes into an article once we have it.

2030:

or close), I'm just not going to act on that and you'd have to find a very unusual admin who would be willing to ignore the complainant's own erratic and at times provocative and inflammatory behaviour when deciding what to do.

2002:

I am quite aware of administrators problems which largely stem from a lack of support from ArbCom and other admins (per Vanished User and JzG's recent "trials"). Sometimes when one is an advocate of IAR, they actually need to

593: 1409:

a synthesis from all these POVs. After everyone has removed material they dislike, we are left with NPOV text. I am merely removing material I find controversial. Consensus is required to INSERT material, not remove it. --

1211: 596:

through until very recent interviews with the Treasurer and Prime Minister? I will count the uses of the term in the 2008 Budget speech. How about you reinstate the entry if the usage exceeds 4. 2 or 3 uses in the Budget

646:

the notability of their topic. From a quick squizz at the article, it quite clearly made a case for the notability of the term, and was reasonably well referenced to boot. I'd like to see it restored and tested at AfD.

435:

01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I also think theres a copyvio against a book im not sure where my copy is - that is not even cited - this might take a day or two to sort out but knowing your penchant for politics pages - :)

1849:

going to hope for a retraction (although I'd appreciate it if each of you would consider retracting or even just striking the comments made above), but I would remind everybody in the John Howard case of the usual

515:

Hi. On the Gold Coast City Council page you have added "and surrounding areas" suggesting that the Gold Coast council governs an additional area that is not the Gold Coast. Could you explain what you mean?

360:

While the initial edit that sparked this was problematic in that it removed factual content, I agree that her name does not need to be there, it would be sufficient to say "a Council planner" or somesuch.

1283:

What would you say to my diatribe at the demographics project startup item at the nat noticeboard - the fact that people do not get caught by various systems (census/elctroate/etc) - any ideas on that ?

745:

have"reliable sources specifically about the term." I remember, for example, reading a couple of Crikey articles specifically discussing Rudd's use of the term, and its significance to the campaign.

725:

discussing the term itself and it's noteability, not simply an article saying how much Rudd has said it, or an article with the term littered throughout, which is not a case for noteworthyness.

2021:

Yes, and my view of the VU situation in particular is well known - WP did not handle that situation well at all. However those macro dramas have little play here - this is trivial stuff that

1002:

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Your thoughts on my project-area contributions were greatly appreciated. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best,

2193:

type of information (even if true) to an article? (I'm asking you because I notice you edited this article previously.) I think it smacks of PR but am not sure if it counts as vandalism?

64:

Can you undo your edit on this please? The height thing does work and is an essential part of the template as without it, various officeholders infobox images are now messed up. Thanks. -

250:

Perhaps a bit more work expanding the article is required .. to see if the preferences documented in the article stand up under the weight of further, possibly more reliable, articles.

2076:

I've been collecting some CL pubs. I've got a book called "Media Tarts" where she's a subject: do you think that can go in the same box with the others? It may also be a reference.

756:

Those arguments would be valid at an AFD, but I'd like to see what the wider community has to say - I tend to agree with Hesperian that it should be reinstated and debated there --

2174:

No worries, about time I actually beat someone to something! =). I even got an amusing spray of abuse on my talk page from the person who added it all... really made my night!

1561:

Indeed I did, and I still feel John Howard's article is full of POV. But nothing on wikipedia excuses your own admission that you are not just partisan, but actively POV-push.

2073:

Hi, just saw you're back and on-line. What's with this Solis guy? He seems to have a grudge against br/'s! I thought those references looked cramped against the line above.

1974:

however must note that prehaps an uninvolved admin viewpoint is pertinent as similar comments made outside of the Australian Political spectrum were noted to be unCIVIL (cf,

1300:

Thanks for your support and wonderful words in my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Knowledge (XXG) community has given me. Cheers!

1486:"The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs." Incorrect. "Mine are no exception." Thanks for the frank admission of your POV partisan edits. 1692:

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

1500:

Saying that the bulk of edits on the political pages are NPOV would seem to fly in the face of the objective evidence of edit warring on all such pages. I refer

555:

Unfortunately people want a criticism section with links to articles from Bolt and the like. Blogs and opinion pieces aren't WP:RS. Your comment is appreciated.

2128: 1372:

of repeatedly excluded material? It was a news story for three days fifteen months ago and has no lasting significance. There is no consensus for inclusion. --

1547:

Just to clarify: that you felt it necessary to call for an end to edit warring on Howard's article is evidence that the bulk of edits on that page are POV. --

1254: 1628:

I didn't get the impression either Skyring or I were discussing parties present - more the sort who adopt drive-bys and IPs. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.)

627:

FYI I was the one who advised OIC of this non-noteable article. Catch phrases/buzz words are not encyclopedia material, even when used by Prime Ministers.

253:

Out of interest (I might check) .. do you know how the Australian Bureau of statitics classes/categories Australian Aborigines/ Aboriginal Australians??

270: 152:

the article again, and didn't provide a source or contribute to the talk page. Is there any chance you could issue them a warning or even a short block?

1772:

others actively watching, neither of whom have any questions of COI and neither of whom have blocked any of the present participants over this matter.

609:. I could be wrong; and, it seems, you thought I was when you speedily deleted the entry; and, without even the courtesy of a mention on my talk page. 337:

Regardless, I still feel that Knowledge (XXG) has a responsibility to treat non-public persons with respect over and above our obligation to uphold

656:

P.S. Oh, but Peter, it should have been at "working families" not "working family", because the term was almost exclusively invoked in the plural.

1436:

I reiterate my previous disagreement with your viewpoint. I understand your argument, it has some credible points, but it has not convinced me. --

38: 233: 577: 1600:

Chest-beating Howard supporters? I hope you're not counting me in that. It's extremely rare that I add anything to an article, pro or con. --

1993:

talk to him and he has a black eye the original complainant can't explain coherently. Translate that here, and you see the admins' problem.

1964:

anybody, and don't believe that he did. Anyway - I reiterate - I think this needs to end somewhere, and here is as good a place as any.

1693: 145: 1714:

The preamble clearly states that comments should not appear in the voting section. I am just trying to be consistent with WP policy. --

887: 187: 448:

Gawd it was staring me in the face - the wittenoom warning note - hey get better - I know i have the ref somehwere re cane - cheers

1098: 1066: 589: 1614:

Oh I love it. Skyrings comment re: anti-Howard people, then reacts with the above line regarding pro-Howard people. Classic.

1266: 1874:

creation by providing him with confidential information. However this is largly by-the-by and I am willing to continue to

58: 1700:. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, 707: 1321: 770:

I would have no opposition to any admin doing so, although I reserve the right to vote delete at the appropriate time.

970: 931: 901: 1816:

Again, if you wish to make accusations, please back them up with some evidence rather than insulting me. Thankyou.

549: 484: 1324:. It looks like there are some things in there that might be logs, but I'm not sure they include everything. -- 893:

Editors should be able to edit this without getting permission or assistance. I created the thing, and now even

157: 466: 2100: 370:

thanks for your comments, I'm not fussed either way whether it's included...but better to be safe than sorry.

341:. Naming the person involved in the article in question provides no additional insight into the topic:mdash; 2160: 2039:

Ok, will leave it for AN/I in the future. Thanks for your time - and for clarifing the information above.

1917:

pointed out to an admin (per the start of this discussion). OiC prehaps AN/I is a more appropriate forum?

509: 375: 328: 210: 139: 2031: 1994: 1965: 1854: 1773: 1651: 1629: 1592: 1428: 1141: 863: 771: 362: 43: 17: 1533:

I was not accusing you of anything, merely refuting your argument. Sorry if you took it any other way. --

618: 287: 279: 258: 227: 135: 531: 42:

of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on

428:

atrocious in my mind - theres stuff that desnt go into encyc arts in a million years in there- cheers

282:

article .. by compiling and presenting a 'legal' and 'administrative' history of the term/category?!

2213: 2198: 1944: 1903: 1821: 1794: 1756: 1619: 1566: 1524: 1491: 1455: 1061: 853: 761: 730: 715: 696: 674: 666: 632: 560: 408:

No worries. That draft isn't getting completed anytime soon; I don't have that sort of time anymore.

153: 318:

I don't see a problem with someone's name being mentioned because news reports are based on her own

2096: 2044: 2012: 1983: 1922: 1887: 1741: 1305: 780: 746: 657: 648: 85: 69: 30: 2156: 2114: 2081: 1355: 1348: 1287: 1262: 1219: 875: 539: 521: 499: 452: 440: 432: 371: 342: 324: 2217: 2202: 2178: 2164: 2144: 2117: 2104: 2084: 2048: 2034: 2016: 2004: 1997: 1987: 1968: 1948: 1926: 1907: 1891: 1879: 1857: 1825: 1798: 1776: 1760: 1745: 1723: 1708: 1668: 1654: 1632: 1623: 1609: 1595: 1585: 1570: 1556: 1542: 1528: 1513: 1495: 1473: 1459: 1445: 1431: 1418: 1381: 1358: 1333: 1309: 1290: 1270: 1223: 1204: 1147: 1068: 1011: 992: 953: 923: 878: 866: 857: 812: 803: 783: 774: 765: 749: 734: 719: 700: 678: 660: 651: 636: 621: 564: 543: 525: 503: 478: 455: 443: 417: 389: 379: 365: 355: 332: 312: 291: 262: 215: 195: 161: 124: 109: 89: 73: 2139: 1719: 1664: 1605: 1581: 1552: 1538: 1509: 1469: 1441: 1414: 1397: 1377: 1136: 964: 413: 1697: 1329: 1007: 614: 474: 283: 254: 1875: 1853:, especially since this case seems so intractable that ArbCom is its ultimate destination. 1169: 1117: 1086: 1037: 837: 585: 338: 2209: 2194: 1940: 1899: 1850: 1817: 1790: 1752: 1615: 1562: 1520: 1501: 1487: 1451: 1196: 1055: 849: 757: 726: 711: 692: 670: 628: 556: 181: 779:

Indeed; Melburnian having turned up that other page, I believe I would vote "merge". :-)

2175: 2040: 2008: 1979: 1918: 1883: 1737: 1301: 581: 570: 534:

article. I suppose it would also take in part of Tweed such as Salt development etc. --

385: 351: 308: 120: 105: 81: 65: 1388: 2111: 2077: 1975: 1352: 1345: 1284: 1258: 1215: 872: 535: 517: 495: 449: 437: 429: 2138:

ed and typically you live up as always to your name. Best wishes to you my friend.--

494:. Where did you get this information? Do you have any references for these notes? -- 1715: 1660: 1601: 1577: 1548: 1534: 1505: 1465: 1437: 1410: 1393: 1373: 809: 800: 409: 1025: 1504:

to your own voluminous dissertations on the subject on the relevant talk pages --

1320:

If you want to know what was tagged by the bot, it's probably best to go through

871:

Gawd as mine creeps too close - never said it from me - oh well another year etc

605:

be notable; I would contend that 4 or more is certainly notable, and beyond mere

1702: 1689: 1682: 1325: 1003: 470: 829: 100:

I see. Thank you. Is there any chance of avoiding such problems in the future?

1186: 173: 201:

Thank you for your comments and advice. I plan to take heed on them. Cheers,

1238: 610: 606: 319: 116: 101: 1878:(regardless of information to the contrary) if Timeshift wishes to review 1789:

Protective admin? Are you making further wrong and baseless accusations?

1161: 1104: 1097: 469:, which is north of the Central Coast, but I might be able to help? -- 307:

made without the borderline BLP-breaching material. Your thoughts? --

1182: 302:

Hi, just a small point about a recent edit. I'm not 100% sure that

230:, you may or may not have accessed the following online reference: 1751:

About as constructive as threatening wikipedia users i'd say! :-)

1450:

You don't need to be convinced. You've been thoroughly observed.

1125: 1103: 1096: 741:

That's just my point, Timeshift. This particular neologism

1175:

wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day.

2190: 2131: 1735: 1688:

Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the

1369: 346: 303: 149: 1351:

02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC) I can relate to that 145 %

836:

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the

835: 188: 182: 174: 1694:Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard 967:to make way for a page move. I'd appreciate it. 2127:Particularly impressed with your watchlisting of 345:—that isn't there when her name is removed. See 222:Regarding the colonial overtones of "Aborigine"!? 1882:and refactor his comments as I indicate above. 1368:Could you please explain your justification for 1253:Many thanks for your participation in my recent 278:It seems it may be useful to start by expanding 234:Fesi, Eve (1986) "‘Aborigine’ and ‘Aboriginal’" 490:Hi Orderinchaos. I note your recent changes to 203: 8: 2189:Dear Orderinchaos, Is it appropriate to add 1696:. The issue is still being discussed on the 1156: 1075: 1020: 824: 530:Do you think there is justification for a 384:Thank you both for your understanding. -- 243:compliant with Australia's consitution. 25: 1166: 1124:Don't forget to save us all a piece of 1030: 834: 1978:for example). Thanks for your time. 1236: 1032:Just a happy Birthday message to you, 35: 1464:What do you mean by that, exactly? -- 592:campaign and has steeped the tone in 7: 2025:be resolved except nobody seems to 1171:Knowledge (XXG) Birthday Committee 1118:Knowledge (XXG) Birthday Committee 1039:Knowledge (XXG) Birthday Committee 888:Template:WP nav pages (header bar) 838:Knowledge (XXG) Birthday Committee 706:Are you thinking of the guideline 24: 1153:Happy birthday fellow Wikipedian! 808:I have no objection to a merger-- 1404:Reply to comment on my talk page 1237: 1160: 1024: 828: 665:See also the heavy-duty version 590:2007 Australian federal election 29: 1210:I'll add in my best wishes and 423:Campaign Against Nuclear Energy 1142: 1042: 1038: 1034:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 05, 1: 1188: 1045: 1031: 59:Template:Infobox Officeholder 1322:Special:Contributions/STBotI 1197: 1159: 1137: 1111:Wishing Orderinchaos a very 1023: 827: 586:speedy deletion criterion A7 115:Great job. Thank you again. 28: 2208:Thanks for the quick reply! 963:Please delete the redirect 2234: 2132:4 weeks before anyone else 1212:throw in a present as well 550:Talk:Australia 2020 Summit 492:List of Gold Coast suburbs 485:List of Gold Coast suburbs 1730:Hmmmm, Constructive, Yes? 1243: 1095: 1078: 2218:10:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 2203:02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 2179:10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 2165:07:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 2145:00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 2118:08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2105:08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2085:07:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2049:07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2035:07:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2017:07:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1998:07:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1988:07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1969:07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1949:07:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1927:07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1908:07:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1892:07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1858:06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1826:06:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1799:06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1777:06:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1761:05:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1746:05:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1724:04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1709:01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1669:06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1655:06:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1633:10:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1624:09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1610:09:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1596:07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1586:07:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1571:06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1557:06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1543:06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1529:06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1514:06:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1496:06:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1474:13:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1460:06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1446:06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1432:06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1419:06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1382:05:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1359:03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 1334:05:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 1310:01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 1291:12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 1271:06:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1224:21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1205:02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1148:20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1069:19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1012:14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 993:02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 954:01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 924:17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 879:12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 867:15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 858:08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 813:01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 804:01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 784:01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 775:14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 766:14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 750:01:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 735:14:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 720:14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 701:13:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 679:13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 661:13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 652:13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 637:12:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 622:12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 576:Dear Order, I have been 565:12:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 1681:Request for Mediation: 1576:pushing their views. -- 544:02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 526:01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 510:Gold Coast City Council 504:13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 479:06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 456:07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 444:01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 418:01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 390:01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 380:00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 366:00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 356:00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 333:23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 313:12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 292:07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 263:06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 236:Aboriginal Law Bulletin 216:03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 196:23:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 162:09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 125:03:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 110:00:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 90:06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 74:20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 1108: 1101: 80:politician? Thanks. - 18:User talk:Orderinchaos 2095:am no newbie either. 1255:request for adminship 1107: 1100: 280:Australian Aborigines 228:Australian Aborigines 44:the current talk page 667:Hardworking families 601:be a flash-back, or 2123:Excellent foresight 848:Have a good one! -- 708:WP:Avoid neologisms 2142: 1109: 1102: 1088:Birthday Committee 343:City of Wollongong 298:City of Wollongong 53:Archive : May 2008 2140: 1698:article talk page 1276: 1275: 1181:Best wishes from 1179: 1178: 1133: 1132: 1115:on behalf of the 1091: 1052: 1051: 1046:Have a great day! 965:Rocket Man (song) 845: 844: 594:subsequent debate 580:that you deleted 532:Gold Coast region 50: 49: 2225: 1705: 1370:this restoration 1247:RfA: Many thanks 1241: 1234: 1233: 1201: 1192: 1172: 1164: 1157: 1146: 1144: 1139: 1089: 1084: 1076: 1058: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1040: 1028: 1021: 988: 985: 982: 979: 976: 973: 959:Deletion request 949: 946: 943: 940: 937: 934: 919: 916: 913: 910: 907: 904: 841: 832: 825: 226:At the article, 206: 205: 190: 184: 176: 167:Re:Basketball110 33: 26: 2233: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2187: 2172: 2152: 2125: 2092: 2071: 1732: 1703: 1686: 1406: 1366: 1341: 1318: 1298: 1281: 1279:Your experience 1232: 1170: 1155: 1135: 1087: 1081:Happy Birthday 1064: 1056: 1019: 1000: 986: 983: 980: 977: 974: 971: 961: 947: 944: 941: 938: 935: 932: 917: 914: 911: 908: 905: 902: 891: 823: 574: 553: 513: 488: 463: 425: 406: 300: 224: 214: 202: 169: 154:Alice Mudgarden 133: 98: 62: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2231: 2229: 2221: 2220: 2186: 2183: 2171: 2168: 2151: 2148: 2134:. Now that's 2124: 2121: 2097:- Mike Beckham 2091: 2088: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1911: 1910: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1806: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1764: 1763: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1685: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1626: 1545: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1405: 1402: 1365: 1362: 1340: 1337: 1317: 1314: 1297: 1294: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1250: 1249: 1244: 1242: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1177: 1176: 1165: 1154: 1151: 1131: 1130: 1113:happy birthday 1093: 1092: 1082: 1079: 1073: 1062: 1050: 1049: 1029: 1018: 1017:Happy Birthday 1015: 999: 996: 960: 957: 890: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 869: 843: 842: 833: 822: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 754: 753: 752: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 582:Working family 573: 571:Working family 568: 552: 547: 512: 507: 487: 482: 462: 459: 424: 421: 405: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 299: 296: 295: 294: 275: 274: 223: 220: 219: 218: 208: 168: 165: 132: 129: 128: 127: 97: 94: 93: 92: 61: 56: 48: 47: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2230: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2184: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2169: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157:Michellecrisp 2149: 2147: 2146: 2143: 2137: 2133: 2130: 2122: 2120: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2089: 2087: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2068: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1976:pseudoscience 1972: 1971: 1970: 1967: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1851:legal caution 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1778: 1775: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1736: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1706: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1684: 1680: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1653: 1648: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1430: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1403: 1401: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1363: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1339:Where are you 1338: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1315: 1313: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1295: 1293: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1278: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1240: 1235: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1200: 1194: 1193: 1191: 1184: 1174: 1173: 1163: 1158: 1152: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1129: 1127: 1122: 1120: 1119: 1114: 1106: 1099: 1094: 1090: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1041: 1035: 1027: 1022: 1016: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1005: 997: 995: 994: 991: 990: 989: 966: 958: 956: 955: 952: 951: 950: 926: 925: 922: 921: 920: 896: 889: 886: 880: 877: 874: 870: 868: 865: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 847: 846: 839: 831: 826: 820: 814: 811: 807: 806: 805: 802: 797: 796: 785: 782: 778: 777: 776: 773: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 748: 744: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 732: 728: 723: 722: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 704: 703: 702: 698: 694: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 663: 662: 659: 655: 654: 653: 650: 645: 640: 639: 638: 634: 630: 626: 625: 624: 623: 620: 616: 612: 611:Such is life. 608: 604: 600: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 572: 569: 567: 566: 562: 558: 551: 548: 546: 545: 541: 537: 533: 528: 527: 523: 519: 511: 508: 506: 505: 501: 497: 493: 486: 483: 481: 480: 476: 472: 468: 461:Central Coast 460: 458: 457: 454: 451: 446: 445: 442: 439: 434: 431: 422: 420: 419: 415: 411: 403: 391: 387: 383: 382: 381: 377: 373: 372:Michellecrisp 369: 368: 367: 364: 359: 358: 357: 353: 348: 344: 340: 336: 335: 334: 330: 326: 325:Michellecrisp 321: 317: 316: 315: 314: 310: 305: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 276: 272: 267: 266: 265: 264: 260: 256: 251: 248: 244: 240: 239: 237: 231: 229: 221: 217: 213: 212: 211:Tell me yours 204:Basketball110 200: 199: 198: 197: 193: 192: 191: 185: 177: 166: 164: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 144: 141: 137: 136:Theprophet936 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 111: 107: 103: 95: 91: 87: 83: 78: 77: 76: 75: 71: 67: 60: 57: 55: 54: 45: 41: 40: 32: 27: 19: 2188: 2173: 2153: 2135: 2129:Enigma's RFA 2126: 2108: 2093: 2075: 2072: 2032:Orderinchaos 2026: 2022: 1995:Orderinchaos 1966:Orderinchaos 1872: 1855:Orderinchaos 1805: 1774:Orderinchaos 1733: 1701: 1687: 1652:Orderinchaos 1630:Orderinchaos 1593:Orderinchaos 1429:Orderinchaos 1407: 1385: 1367: 1342: 1319: 1299: 1296:my RfA - Ta! 1282: 1246: 1198: 1195: 1189: 1187: 1180: 1168: 1134: 1123: 1116: 1112: 1110: 1072: 1054: 1053: 1033: 1001: 969: 968: 962: 930: 929: 927: 900: 899: 894: 892: 864:Orderinchaos 772:Orderinchaos 742: 689: 643: 602: 598: 575: 554: 529: 514: 491: 489: 471:Athol Mullen 464: 447: 426: 407: 363:Orderinchaos 301: 252: 249: 245: 241: 238:. Number 39. 235: 232: 225: 209: 180: 179: 170: 142: 134: 99: 63: 52: 51: 37: 1939:Go for it. 1690:John Howard 1683:John Howard 1230:RfA thanks! 928:Thank you. 615:Peter Ellis 284:Bruceanthro 255:Bruceanthro 172:opinions.-- 36:This is an 1659:Agreed. -- 1364:Obama spat 1185:! ;-) -- 1057:Meldshal42 998:RFA Thanks 862:Thanks :) 850:Melburnian 758:Melburnian 712:Melburnian 671:Melburnian 584:under the 465:I live in 2176:Lankiveil 2069:Greetings 2041:Shot info 2009:Shot info 1980:Shot info 1941:Timeshift 1919:Shot info 1900:Timeshift 1884:Shot info 1818:Timeshift 1791:Timeshift 1753:Timeshift 1738:Shot info 1616:Timeshift 1563:Timeshift 1521:Timeshift 1488:Timeshift 1452:Timeshift 1302:Gwen Gale 1138:Idontknow 1085:from the 1036:from the 781:Hesperian 747:Hesperian 727:Timeshift 693:Timeshift 658:Hesperian 649:Hesperian 629:Timeshift 607:semantics 557:Timeshift 386:Mattinbgn 352:Mattinbgn 347:this edit 320:testimony 309:Mattinbgn 82:Gennarous 66:Gennarous 2185:question 2078:Retarius 1880:WP:CIVIL 1519:aren't. 1267:contribs 1259:jbmurray 1216:Eusebeus 821:Congrats 578:informed 536:WikiCats 518:WikiCats 496:WikiCats 150:reverted 146:contribs 1716:Surturz 1661:Surturz 1549:Surturz 1535:Surturz 1506:Surturz 1466:Surturz 1438:Surturz 1411:Surturz 810:Matilda 801:Matilda 467:Cardiff 410:Rebecca 404:Corbell 131:St Pats 39:archive 2150:Naming 2090:RE: WA 1876:WP:AGF 1704:Lester 1326:SCZenz 1316:STBotI 1183:Canada 1063:Hit me 1004:Risker 644:assert 339:WP:BLP 189:Review 148:) has 2210:Renee 2195:Renee 2136:order 2023:could 1387:out, 603:might 599:might 175:RyRy5 96:I see 16:< 2214:talk 2199:talk 2191:this 2161:talk 2115:Suro 2112:Satu 2101:talk 2082:Talk 2045:talk 2027:want 2013:talk 1984:talk 1945:talk 1923:talk 1904:talk 1888:talk 1822:talk 1795:talk 1757:talk 1742:talk 1720:talk 1665:talk 1620:talk 1606:talk 1602:Pete 1582:talk 1578:Pete 1567:talk 1553:talk 1539:talk 1525:talk 1510:talk 1492:talk 1470:talk 1456:talk 1442:talk 1415:talk 1398:talk 1394:Pete 1389:WP:N 1378:talk 1374:Pete 1356:Suro 1353:Satu 1349:Suro 1346:Satu 1330:talk 1306:talk 1288:Suro 1285:Satu 1263:talk 1220:talk 1167:The 1126:cake 1008:talk 975:e Tr 936:e Tr 906:e Tr 876:Suro 873:Satu 854:talk 762:talk 731:talk 716:talk 710:? -- 697:talk 675:talk 633:talk 619:Talk 561:talk 540:talk 522:talk 500:talk 475:talk 453:Suro 450:Satu 441:Suro 438:Satu 433:Suro 430:Satu 414:talk 376:talk 329:talk 304:this 288:talk 271:here 259:talk 183:talk 158:talk 140:talk 121:talk 117:Dahn 106:talk 102:Dahn 86:talk 70:talk 2007:. 2005:IAR 1502:you 1312:]] 1190:Rob 1143:610 987:ist 984:man 978:ans 948:ist 945:man 939:ans 918:ist 915:man 909:ans 743:did 2216:) 2201:) 2181:. 2170:MK 2163:) 2141:VS 2103:) 2080:| 2047:) 2015:) 1986:) 1947:) 1925:) 1906:) 1890:) 1824:) 1797:) 1759:) 1744:) 1734:? 1722:) 1667:) 1622:) 1608:) 1584:) 1569:) 1555:) 1541:) 1527:) 1512:) 1494:) 1472:) 1458:) 1444:) 1417:) 1400:) 1392:-- 1380:) 1332:) 1308:) 1269:) 1265:• 1222:) 1214:. 1199:NS 1128:! 1121:! 1010:) 981:hu 972:Th 942:hu 933:Th 912:hu 903:Th 856:) 764:) 733:) 718:) 699:) 677:) 669:-- 635:) 617:- 613:- 563:) 542:) 524:) 516:-- 502:) 477:) 416:) 388:\ 378:) 354:\ 331:) 311:\ 290:) 273:!! 261:) 194:) 186:♠ 160:) 123:) 108:) 88:) 72:) 46:. 2212:( 2197:( 2159:( 2099:( 2043:( 2011:( 1982:( 1943:( 1921:( 1902:( 1886:( 1820:( 1793:( 1755:( 1740:( 1718:( 1663:( 1618:( 1604:( 1580:( 1565:( 1551:( 1537:( 1523:( 1508:( 1490:( 1468:( 1454:( 1440:( 1413:( 1396:( 1376:( 1328:( 1304:( 1261:( 1218:( 1043:! 1006:( 895:I 852:( 840:. 760:( 729:( 714:( 695:( 673:( 631:( 559:( 538:( 520:( 498:( 473:( 412:( 374:( 327:( 286:( 257:( 207:/ 178:( 156:( 143:· 138:( 119:( 104:( 84:( 68:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index