User talk:CJ/Archive 8

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship (despite not always sharing my views :-) ). I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you continue to remove a link to the

I don't consider Relegion to merely anything, but it is a branch of Philosophy all the same. Any efforts to enhance access to Relegion portals should be concentrated on

talk

10:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I happened across an interesting conversation. I tried expanding the browsebar too (with Health), but it really is at its capacity now with ten topics (because People was replaced with Biography). The wrapping problem is that once the bar gets too long, a word gets shoved down to the next line. It doesn't look good, and pushes the content of the rest of the page down, so you see less of it on the initial screen. And this bar design is on many pages. On Wikipedia's topic categorization scheme, religion falls under philosophy. --Go for it! 11:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the content of featured articles and such belong in the main namespace, as do lists of links to content in the main namespace, why have you moved the Featured Content Portal to the Wikipedia namespace? It seemed perfect as a Portal. It might be "featured" which is self-referential (being project-based), but it is also encyclopedic content. And since Portals include references to both project-based and encyclopedic material, it seemed like the perfect venue for this material. I'm curious as to what your reasons are, in case I agree with you. Though I've never seen actual articles nor article lists in the Wikipedia namespace before. --11:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to respond fully later, but you might be able to get the gist of the reasons for the move from

talk

11:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now how it fits in with the theme of the Featured content projects, all of which are in the Wikipedia namespace. Therefore, I agree with you that it should remain in Wikipedia namespace, and I agree with CBDunkerson that it is a portal and should be renamed accordingly. Wikipedia:Featured Content Portal. --Go for it! 13:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the move to

I'm wondering, however, why CBDunkerson's rotating content system has been abandoned. To me, it makes more sense to display featured content from the past than it does to duplicate the items from the main page. When I have the free time, I intend to begin creating {{

This seems sensible, I support the notion. Though I hope you can figure out how to use a bot to copy all those pages into the new format, because there are hundreds of them. --Go for it! 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have battled you on the topic of the Portal:Rugby header, and will probably continue to disagree. I have posted some recent comments on this topic. However, I would like to say to you that I do appreciate the quality edits you have made to the portals on union and league. Thank you,

Rowlan 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I've made some changes already, see my responses. Pls explain thumb mark up, I don't know what you mean. Rlevse 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried a second new background color. Is this one okay? Rlevse 12:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything but the access format of Europe/ConLang. Can you look it over at this point and let me know if you're okay with it so far before I tackle the access format issue? Thanks. Rlevse 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The portal has been promoted (though I made a final suggestion on its nom page). Congratulations, --

Thanks! I am planning to make a box on Scouting by region and I'll add 1-2 more DYKs per months. Rlevse 21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the above, added region box and a DYK, I'll have at least two DYKs a month. Rlevse 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How long does a portal have to be in

I've looked in MediaWiki:Common.css, and it is not there.

Does anyone know where I can find the definition for this class?
--Go for it! 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not finding it anywhere on Monobook. If you want to take a look, Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes has a list of all the stylesheets used by all the skins. --cesarb 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find it with a quick grep through the skin directories in CVS. Where did you see this class referenced? Rob Church (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The class is used on the Main Page, and the Main Page redesign draft. I'm beginning to think they are code remnants referring to a class that no longer exists. --Go for it! 05:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like it's the case. Rob Church (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie, I don't have access to protected pages, so will you handle this please? --Go for it! 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what it is you would like me to do.--

talk

05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Class="MainPageBG" doesn't exist. I removed it from the Main Page alternates' source text, and its removal had no effect on the pages' display, so it is safe to remove. It's cruft, and needs to be removed from the Main Page's source, and the Main Page Redesign's source, so that others don't waste time trying to find it to learn what its formatting parameters are, like I did. Cheers, mate. --Go for it! 10:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On this page, there are 9 FPs. Seven are bolded and two are not. What is the difference? There is no explanation at the top. Rlevse 11:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a clarification to

talk

07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a page where we can see what the Portal of the Week was before and will be in the near future? Rlevse 12:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your edit much better - it smacked of POV to say things like "in spite of" and "claim the word football". The FFA never did these things, they only said that they would refer to the game as football rather than soccer, and that they would stop calling the team "Socceroos" but not force people to adopt the change if they didn't want. I remember seeing a press release about this, I'll try and dig it out and hopefully that should settle the issue once and for all (in terms of who was claiming what and so on). Cursive 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyberjunkie, Belated thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia. Your kind words were (and are) appreciated. I was wondering whether you could tell me where I can find links like you have on your user page (like the Australian English box etc.) Thanks in advanceadamm 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brisbaneairport1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You voted for

Good to see you're back in action! michael ^talk 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Adelaidefromabove.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the rewrite! I've just started researching to get that article to featured status (inspired by the weekend's election success!), but that'll take me aaaaages at the rate I'm going. Ambi 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to find more information (and specific sources, but theres nothing in the way of literature (well, for now at least) and I can't get onto Factiva! Good luck with the effort regardless. I'd be happy to help if I can.--

talk

07:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How come you can't get onto Factiva? I'm starting from the very beginning and going through just about everything (as I always do with these things), but I'm only up to March 1998 at this point, so I think I'll be here for a while yet! Ambi 07:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think my uni's subscription only allows one person access to it at a time, and I'm unfortunately not that person at the moment.--

talk

07:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think ANU lets about four people. Most of the time, it's not an issue - it doesn't seem to have too many users here, thankfully. Still a nuisance when there are too many, though. Ambi 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not quite understand what Zondor was doing on Australia. Also his addition to Ambi's userpage are making me wonder what he is up to. I don't understand why a regular contributor would make such edits. Xtra 10:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was completely out of the loop about his behaviour towards Ambi, which, reading up on it, was entirely inappropriate. It was also odd that he didn't simply revert the vandalism by

talk

01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you dont mind me asking, how did you get the headings of each section on the New Zealand portal to be blue? Im trying to help someone with making a portal and it would really improve the appearance if i knew how to change the color.

Hi Tutmosis. The way most portal colours are set is through a

talk

14:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding to my question. Your help is greatly appreciated. Im sorry I wasted your time.

Tutmosis

23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't do that. I'm happy to help. Out of curiosity, what portal are you working on?--

talk

00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont think Im doing all the work for this portal but im trying to help out with

Tutmosis

00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Ive been a major contributor to the

Hi Empty2005. I don't think either page warrants protection at this time. See the

talk

14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For That! Cheers Empty2005 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyberjunkie. I was wondering whether you could take a look at a recent block/edits and provide some advice or if you don't have time, suggest another admin to refer it to. There has recently been some debate at Cyclone Larry as to whether or not the cyclone should be classified as a category 3 or 4 according to an American classification scale. On the talk page under the heading Talk:Cyclone Larry#Cat 3, NSLE blocked TydeNet for 31 hours. TydeNet had made some personal attacks, and was (sort of) warned by Titoxd. I say sort of because Titoxd was involved in the debate, and on reading the comments Titoxd had made, I felt that they were cheeky and provocative. NSLE had been involved in the discussion putting a view contrary to the one TydeNet was arguing (also under the heading 'Category' further up the page) and was involved in editing the article. NSLE didn't post a warning on TydeNet's user page before blocking him. User:PH34R then posted messages on NSLE's talk page (which has now been

Hi Adz. I've briefly read over the relevant comments at

WP:NPA

really only advocates blocking as a last resort or in severe cases. Clearly, neither applied. Nevertheless, I don't think this could be labeled "admin abuse", which seems a catch-cry these days. I don't think there was malice behind NLSE's response. Nor was it resolutely inappropriate to have performed the block himself. Having been part of the discussion, I expect he wasn't fully impartial, and to that extent it was very unwise, but not being the subject of the attack he was still entitled to moderate - at least technically.

What does concern me is his conduct at his own talk page. The above surely warranted an explanation if not a caution to be more prudent. That he didn't acknowledge the concerns, and in fact rolled them back, is poor behavior for an admin – though I understand that he may have felt encircled.

This comes down basically to a question of where one draws the line. I think the tendency of late is for admins to be tougher on uncivil editors, and this may just be a manifestation of that. With regards to the blanking of complaints, this also depends on ones opinion of the autonomy of user pages. Generally speaking, they can be edited as the user sees fit. However, Wikipedia does not extend a carte blanche and blanking is frowned-upon, sometimes punishable, practice. In fact, a candidate for adminship would struggle to succeed if they were known to blank or conceal unfavorable messages.

How you decide to proceed is up to you. I think this is relatively minor, and somewhat moot given NLSE's wikibreak. But if you are unsatisfied with the response you have received, then

talk

16:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've sent an email alerting NSLE to the couple of messages I've posted on my talk page and on the Cyclone Larry page and will see what he comes back with. I'm mindful that a few other people have chimed in with comments on the Cyclone larry talk page and NSLE might feel under seige so I will try to go easy. Hopefully we'll be able to put this issue to rest. I'm reluctant to turn it into something bigger than it needs to be. Will wait to see what happens. Thanks again. -- Adz|talk 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there cj. I noticed on the Esperanza members page that you had quit. Has someone done something to you to make you lose faith in the Esperanza/kindness campaign? Are you OK?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen. My reasons for leaving Esperanza are more to do with a changed perspective than any specific incidence, although I won't hesitate in saying that some participants are less than perfect. I suppose my change in thinking followed the userbox happenings when I re-evaluated what I wanted Wikipedia to be, and how that was best achieved. Though I think some mechanisms of Esperanza are worthwhile (the Stress Watch in particular), it hasn't followed the project overall hasn't followed the path I thought it would when I joined. I'm still part of the Kindness Campaign, but not in any active capacity. In fact, I've updated my userpage to state what my main activities are on Wikipedia at the time being. Happy editing, --

talk

13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your work on portals in general and featured portals in particular, I award you this overdue Barnstar. Congrats! Brisvegas 10:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I'm flattered. Thanks sincerely, --

talk

05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyberjunkie! User:Jackp, as well as doing all sorts of not necessarily helpful things to Sydney every couple of days, has created (or tried to create) a Sydney portal. I haven't had anythign to do with portals, so maybe you could have a look at it? JPD (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look at it.--

talk

05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

cj,

I don't like to make such requests, but I need an uninvolved administrator to get their hands dirty per my comment at User talk:Jimididit. I can provide further background if required.

If you don't wish to be involved, that's fine; let me know so I can ask someone else.

Snottygobble 23:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Aaron has offered to handle it. Snottygobble 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm sorry I wasn't around to help. I hadn't realised just how far this "football" turf war extended. --

talk

05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a football turf war. I have never edited

Football (soccer), Rugby league or Rugby union. My only edits to Australian rules football were four redirect bypasses. The football turf war has nothing to do with me. This is not about football; it is about sockpuppets, trolls and vandals who like to disrupt editors and rip down admins. Snottygobble

05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the aggressive tone; I've lost days that could have been spent in constructive editing because of this garbage, and I'm starting to get just a wee bit tense about it. Snottygobble 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Quite clearly you are not engaged in any war; you attend the discussion as a rational Wikipedian. To my eyes, however, this entire problem arises from the fact that vested interests are fighting amongst themselves. These users are not behaving as Wikipedians - they are parochial, and should be dealt with harshly when they overstep the mark, as they did in attacking you.--

talk

06:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Attend the discussion as a rational Wikipedian"? - not even that. I was unaware of the discussion until Grant65's user page was vandalised. My only actions in this affair have been to revert persistent vandalism of his user page, and to block said persistent vandal. Suggestions that I have adopted a position in, participated in, or could even care less about, the discussion are untrue. Gotta go offline before I get any louder. Snottygobble 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misread the discussion page.--

talk

06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering two things

1. What do you think are the chances that Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Wars/archive1 will become featured?
2. Do you have any ideas of what can still be changed for the good on Portal:Star Wars?

Thanks! Jedi6-(need help?) 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyberjunkie. I've just seen your note on the Brisbane talk page. I have recently asked myself the same question and was planning on rewriting the section and moving the list to a separate article. I'm currently placing notes on people's talk pages trying to drum up some interest in the

Hey, I don't wanna edit the actual page, but the source I was using was the official site http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/election2006/ but I couldn't link directly to the result page, so I didn't bother with a link... well, she did win anyway. Anyway, now you've goshdarned infected me w/Userboxes... I hope you're happy! ZanderSchubert 09:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't encourage userboxes. The SEO's data is out-of-date. As reported in the media, Hanna eventually prevailed - but only just. Happy editing, --

talk

09:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Is hereby awarded to Cyberjunkie for his great many contributions to, and ceaseless devotion to the improvement of, Wikipedia's portals. Go for it! 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Almost two years without any, then I get two in one week! Happy editing, --

talk

02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi cj. Thanks for fixing up the portal that I am experimenting with. Did you know about this from my userpage? - I think I should put notices up more often. Thanks for all the help.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I first noticed it on Ian's talk page but followed the links from your user page. --

talk

07:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyberjunkie! It wasn't clear from your edit summary in this edit why you changed the otheruses text at the top of Sydney. As mentioned on the talk page, a few of us felt it would be helpful to make it clear that the article was not about the LGA City of Sydney. Do we need to use the otheruses template, or can we be more flexible? JPD (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there had been discussion on the matter. I didn't think it was necessary to disambiguate it, but if an ambiguity was causing problems than I suppose it's fine. The clarification could be made at the disambiguation page though.--

talk

09:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help to make it clear somewhere. I'd actually prefer to have a link in the intro, but I couldn't see a way of fitting it in nicely. JPD (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You use the Australian flag in your signature, right? If you do, you're going to start having to use

No, I don't use the flag in my signature. I used it briefly in the first half of last year, but grew quickly tired of it. However, as I edit prolifically, you've probably come across it quite a lot. Happy editing, --

talk

23:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie, you recently deleted my article on "the

sincerely, √αzzρεr 03:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the work was entirely a piece of

talk

04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

i apologize for certain wikipolicies that you think i have breached. However i disagree that the topic does not deserve a page of its own. there are thousands of "stubs" on the wikipedia network that have a page of thier own, most of which are completely explained on other pages. This is a topic that is not touched on in more than a sentence anywhere else, and it needs it's own page. Please allow me to revise my contribution, sticking with all wikipolicies, and allow it to remain on a separate page to the European exploration of Australia page, which is nought but an overview of an extremely broad topic. What i don't understand is that there are individual pages on the Mahogany Ship, the Geelong Keys, and Dieppe maps, yet an overview of these topics in context is not allowed. please reply again

sincerely, √αzzρεr 04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And to add, I have to say that I disagree about your policy on theories. Quite simply, the Big bang is a theory. Darwinism is a theory. Theories are essential to the human world of knowledge because they provide valid possibilities for topics that we can never be completly sure about

sincerely once again, √αzzρεr 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not have a policy against theories: we have a policy prohibiting

talk

04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I must stress that this IS NOT original thought. Everything that I expressed is put forth in the book The secret discovery of Australia by Gordon McIntyre, a renowned and respected Australian Historian.

cheers, √αzzρεr 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KG McIntyre is neither renowned or respected, and his title as an historian is dubious at best. His book is not evidence.--

talk

07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Although I agree with your opinion on the deletion of this thing, you did ask how it might be useful. Among other things, one feature I find theoretically interesting about a "famous slaves" portal is that no distinction regarding epoch and nationality. Hence, Frederick Douglass could be listed alongside Spartacus. I find this a captivating way to re-classify a topic as ancient as recorded history. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyberjunkie! Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know whether you would have a use for this or not, but since it has a definite "portal" theme to it, I thought you might want to at least be made aware of it. --Go for it! 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't use it to represent portals. It might be good as portal-related award, though. Thanks, --

talk

03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

CJ can you please see the discussion at the personal attacks intervention notice board, and on User talk:MartinRe and recent edits by user:PSYCH. If this were last month, I believe that PSYCH would be breaching his personal attack parole. Xtra 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To encourage centralised discussion, I will post a comment to

talk

04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyber, the rules state clearly, "comment on content, not on other users." How can Xtra be allowed to still, a year after an arb case, refer to the case and ti ne BY NAME when on User:Lefty on campus's page he was asked to remove a link to Xtra in the same manner Xtra isaplys now? Xtra is perpetuating the case, keeping it alive and rubbing it in, and you stand by and let it happen. The rules state, explicitly, not to "kick a person when they're down." How is including an expired link for all to see not kicking a person when they're down? If this is the type of hatred and claer homophobia that gos on on wikipedia, maybe it really isn't a place for me. I'll leave xtra to hate whoever he wants and get away with it with the support of his friends, greeat to see the rules still aplpy to eveyone but Xtra. |Swan Song| PSYCH 05:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the policy. A

incivility

. At the time you lodged your complaint, Xtra's user page in no way attacked you. It linked to an arbitration case in which he was a key party and in which he ultimately successful. That you weren't is something you need accept and move on from. The "comment on content, not the contributor" aspect of the policy relates to content disputes, and does correlate to your objection. Xtra was not commenting on you nor were you and he disputing content. Lefty on campus, by contrast, did make a personal attack: he had slandered Xtra.

This has nothing to do with homophobia or conservatism and everything to do with misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and

talk

06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The line ""comment on content, not the contributor"" comes from the NPA [[Template:Npa}warning]], to quote

"Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users."

It does not refer to content disputes at all. So Xtra's actions would constitute a personal attack, but most people turn a blind eye to Xtra and his violation of wiki policy (like you just did, even in the face of wikipolicy). On Lefty's page, I'm referring to him being asked to remove a link "My Successful Block" by Mark. Again, same behaviour, different outcomes. Obviously not a nice environment when some people are above the law and others feel the full force. My last post, obviously not worth it, because no matter what anyone says, Xtra can do and say whatever he feels lke it, and there's always someone there to defend his attacks. 85.219.247.52 06:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (intentionally unsigned).

I note the concern, but draw your attention to the following, which is from the MOS; "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.". This portal is meant to be more specific than 'Portal:Ancient History', and i feel 'Portal:Classical antiquity' and 'Portal:Antiquity' just don't sound right. Note also that Classical Civilisation is the name of the course that most people take (or classics granted). [repeated on article talk page]. Pydos 15:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My dear CJ, on a completely different note, i must thank you for your clean-up of the article i composed about Admiralty House in Sydney. As i lack certain intricate wiki code-editing skills, I was wondering if you could add one or few photographs from one of my internet references. I hope that this composition of mine shows you an example of my work that is reliable and completely referenced, and I would like to express that the portuguese discovery article is no less reliable than this. PLEASE rethink the assumptions you made about that particular article of mine. -√αzzρεr 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, if you can recall any other article to which you have listed yourself as the "brains", go to it and remove such reference or let me know so that I may do it for you. Wikipedia articles are open and collaborative works and no user can assert

talk

07:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr Cyberjunkie, understand what you are putting forth, and will revise what you see to be a near personal attack. I just simply ask of you to allow me publish a revised edition of my article about the

Portuguese Discovery of Australia

, and let it be. The new article would be completely free of all aspects which you have criticised over the past week. Please. Let me try again.

Here is a thought, may I somehow post a revised edition on your talk page, and if you deem it acceptable you can post it or tell me what needs to be changed?

Thanks mate. I know you have it in you. √αzzρεr 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi cyberjunkie I was wanting to start a wiki on SA local history. It seems possible that it would be fine instead to build content for wikipedia generally. I am applying for a grant for this work and would like to have advice from someone more experienced both in wikipedia and in editing the SA section of the site. Perhaps youd be interested in beling involved in the grant work which would mostly be training people in how to contribute. I am generally on #bettong or #technest or #sfd on irc on freenode. [email protected]

I've adressed most of your objections on Portal:Food, though could you be more specific on the small font? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said "small font", I thought you were referring to a certain section of the portal, as some sections have different fonts than the others (such as the 'Things to do" section). Anyhow, I've increased the overall font, so take a look --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From your good friend

Yes. I posted a request to

talk

03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

cj, I would like to ask you to reinstate that section. Chances are someone else will, but it offered an oppourtunity for something seemingly taboo (bringing user actions to attention) to be discussed. Nothing will be fixed if you destroy the debate to bring about a solution. Cheers, michael ^talk 12:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I was "destroying" anything valid. I presume you're hoping for a debate on how to deal with PSYCH, but that was not where it was heading nor is AWNB the appropriate forum (rather

talk

12:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for reverting. Yes I am hoping for a debate to deal with the PSYCH issue, I couldn't care less about what given topic is caught up in it; moreso wishing for a community response to irritant vandals and then appropriate outcomes. Apologies if my words were a bit striking or heated, even. Cheers, michael ^talk 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not sure that the vandals can be dealt with sufficiently short of banning anonymous editing. Even then there could be a flood of username vandals. The sad fact is that if they are determined enough, vandals can evade blocks and bans. The upside is that they all eventually get bored or realise the errors of their ways.--

talk

12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Have a good one, - √αʑʑρεɾ 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)