Jump to content

User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Government of Australia[edit]

Opinion as to who is Australia's head of state is divided amongst constitutional scholars. The Queen's role in modern Australian affairs is minimal and by reverting my edits you have moved the article towards the partisan point of view held by the ARM and ALP, of which latter Adam Carr is a member. Skyring 06:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me. I wasn't going to complain about it, since I am fairly busy today anyway, but it did have the effect of leaving Skyring in control of the article and was thus rather unfair. I wouldn't have objected if we had both been blocked. I think the 3R rule is stupid, but if it is going to be applied it should be applied to both parties in a revert war. Adam 06:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made a point of counting the reverts in the comments, a fairly obvious implication, I would imagine. I prefer talking to waging an edit war. TBSDY, I wasn't implying that you were pushing a partisan POV, but Adam's opinion seems to match that of ALP and ARM press releases and policy statements, and the lack of research gets right up my nose. Pushing popular myth is no way to find the truth when we are talking about constitutional practice. If popular opinion counts, then we can change our affairs by changing our views, but this is not the case - what matters is the wording of the Constitution and its interpretation by the High Court. Skyring 07:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for taking an interest in this ugly battle. But I'm not sure how to proceed.

The history was that I had added a lot of carefully researched material to this article. user:Ambi then just reverted it without explanation. She has made no contributions other than just saying she does not like it. She could not even be bothered editing the talk page until pushed to by others, and then says very little.

Now you have locked the page in its reverted state. So Ambi has "won". You will see no further discussion on the talk page until it is unlocked and then restored, when it will all be on again.

I welcome some intervention, but please go through the history and talk pages. This is NOT a question of two people disagreeing about how to make a contribution. It is about one person making a contribution, and another just destroying it.

Ambi charges that there is too much coverage of one issue. Fine, let her add coverage of other issues. Please review the talk.

This type of behaviour is poisonous to Wikipedia. I for one will not contribute again for a long time once this is resolved.

Aberglas 07:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Hello Again,

I really do have concerns about your friend Ambi. To just continually revert someone else's well ment contribution without comment is to my mind unconciable. It is also directly against Wikipedia policy. Ambi only bothered to edit the talk page after she had made three reverts.

The "bizzar conspiracy theory" resulted in the NSW state parliament asking for a full enquiry. And Ambi never disputes the widely reported facts. But that is realy not the point. I am happy to discuss contributions. But not just "make it like Ambi wants or she'll revert".

I believe that this is a lot more about ego than fact.

While I realize that you are just trying to mediate, you have in fact just locked out my contribution. Ie. you have (accidentally) taken a firm stand. Have another look at the talk page, and see who is trying to move forward.

Also, note that if someone wants to cut off both of your legs, it is not an acceptable compromize to just let them cut of one leg!

Aberglas 23:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Editing lead section[edit]

I don't have time now to experiment, but you could use JavaScript to add a new tab "edit lead", which would link to "?action=edit&section=0". That's what I do manually: just append that text to the URL shown in your browser, and it'll open the edit form with only the lead section. I'll try tonight whether I can come up with some simple JS to incorporate that in a personalized skin. Even better would of course be to get the SW developers to give us that tab up front. Lupo 10:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Allright, I got it. Check out my skin customizations for monobook. You'd need functions makerawlink, getElementsByClassName, and addLeadSectionTab. If it can find the page title, it'll add a standard "[edit]" link on the right; if no page title can be found, a tab entitled "edit lead" is created. Either happens only if the page is editable, and does have sections with edit links. I.e. for non-admins, it shouldn't generate the link on protected pages, and if someone has section editing turned off, he shouldn't get the lead section edit link either. Tested on Mozilla only. Feel free to copy the code if you think it might be helpful. Lupo 20:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You don't need my stylesheet (monobook.css) if you only want the lead section edit links. Just copy the following into your User:Ta bu shi da yu/monobook.js, and then save it:
function makerawlink (name, url) 
  /* Creates a link pointing to "url", displaying "name" */
  var link = document.createElement('a');
  link.setAttribute('href', url);  
  return link;

function getElementsByClassName (class_name)
  /* Returns an array of all elements having the class "class_name". This simplified version
     works only for single classes. If the length of the returned array is zero, no such
     elements were found. */
  var all_obj;
  var result=new Array();
  var j = 0;

  if (document.all)   /* For IE */
  else if (document.getElementsByTagName && !document.all) /* For Mozilla/Firefox */
     all_obj=document.getElementsByTagName ("*");
  for (i = 0; i < all_obj.length; i++)
    if (all_obj[i].className == class_name)
      result[j] = all_obj[i]; j++;
  return result;

function addLeadSectionTab () {
  /* Only add new tab if the page is editable and has section editing links. */
  if (getElementsByClassName('editsection').length > 0) {
    var edit_tab = document.getElementById ('ca-edit');
    if (edit_tab != null) {
      var href_for_lead = edit_tab.firstChild.getAttribute ('href') + "&section=0";
      var first_title   = getElementsByClassName ('firstHeading');
      if (first_title.length > 0) {
        /* We have a "firstHeading": put "[edit]" to its right */
        var edit_div = document.createElement ('div');
        edit_div.setAttribute ('class', 'editsection');
        edit_div.setAttribute ('style', 'float:right;margin-left:5px;');
        edit_div.appendChild (document.createTextNode ('['));
        edit_div.appendChild (makerawlink ("edit", href_for_lead));
        edit_div.appendChild (document.createTextNode (']'));
        first_title[0].parentNode.insertBefore (edit_div, first_title[0]);
      } else {
        /* No first title found: create a tab */                                   
        var new_tab = document.createElement ('li');
        new_tab.id = 'ca-editlead';
        var link = makerawlink ("Edit lead", href_for_lead);
        new_tab.appendChild (link);
        edit_tab.parentNode.appendChild (new_tab);

function myCustomizations ()
  addLeadSectionTab ();
  /* Add future customizations here... */

if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener("load",myCustomizations,false);
else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload",myCustomizations);
Changes will take effect on newly loaded pages; for pages already loaded, you'll need to do a reload.
If you were planning to take over all of my customizations: my CSS depends on my JS. My JS physically restructures the XHTML such that the foreign language links appear at the top, and my CSS takes advantage of this new structure and defines layouts using relative instead of absolute positioning. If my JS doesn't run, the formatting defined in my CSS screws up the page. Also, my CSS contains some stuff that is obsolete: the light blue background for non-article space pages has since been included in the site-wide stylesheet at MediaWiki:Monobook.css and thus wouldn't be needed anymore in my personal stylesheet. Lupo 08:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3RR block reversal[edit]

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I have been out all day. It is my understanding of the 3RR rule that 4 reverts in 24 hours are permissable only if the user is removing simple vandalism. Whether or not Adam is, in fact, facutaly correct has no bearing on whether he has violated the 3RR. A shorter block, though, may be in order. On my page you said I have unblocked Adam because he is not the POV pusher in this case. the 3RR rule is meant to stop or slow edit wars not to block POV pushers. I would have rathered a block for both parties so as to cool down the article, but Skyring was more careful with his reverts. Cheers. BrokenSegue 22:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


User:Borderer is banned user User:Kenneth Alan. I have blocked that username. -- Decumanus 03:56, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

  • I've changed it back to a stronger wording. The phrase in the template "may be a sockpuppet of" implies that too soft a wording. I know for a fact that it is the banned user in question. See the RfArb link on User:Kenneth Alan. The ambiguity of the "sock puppet" phrase would imply doubt such that the user shouldn't be banned. That is not the case. As an alias of the other user, it is banned immediately. -- Decumanus 04:33, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Bottlenose Dolphin media citation[edit]

Hey TBSDY, I saw the info you just posted to Talk:Bottlenose Dolphin about being cited in the media. I tried to read the article, but the link didn't work for me—I just got redirected to the site's home page. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyline photos[edit]

Here, have a crack at it:

I'm interested what you come up with. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't forget. The current skyline photo from the Commons is kind of ugly. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu, I wanted to move an article but there was already a redirect. I went to Wikipedia:Requested moves and posted a request, but then I saw that I had to add a notice to the talk page and gather a majority et cetera — too complicated. It's just a simple and uncontroversial move, so I thought I'd ask you: Talk:Mandé and Mandé need to be moved to Mande languages. This language family is most widely known as the Mande languages. Giving linguistic family Bla the article 'Bla languages ' is customary at Wikipedia; but note also the change from 'Mandé' to plain 'Mande', which is a far more common term. Thank you! mark 09:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it's perfect! mark 15:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Can you work up a good example of how you envisioned a article/baseline looking? (Complete with a few stages if you will) I want to have some example to work off of. I was chatting with User:Jamesday and he gave me a great starter idea, the ability to copy articles across namespaces WILL make it easier to implement my idea of static distributed articles. Ie: that is how they get to wherever the Static:articles namespace will fall.

My page for the text of this is still at User_talk:dbroadwell, but will move to a sub page eventually. I'm considering 'Distributepedia' for the name ... Comments? -- Dbroadwell 17:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Why aren't you an arbcom member? I think you should be an arbcom member. I'm going to nominate you next time. Man, I can't believe these guys have 3-year terms. That's a Wiki-eternity. Rad Racer 00:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


See here for details: Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/user --One Salient Oversight 05:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

he's back Talk:Potter's_House_Christian_Fellowship I obviously don't have the energy anymore to fight this. This guy has managed to work around his banning and continue his attacks on me. Can I please please please trust someone to do the RFC and take up my case against this guy? I had the police in the other night and they had no idea what was going on and couldn't help me. This guy has my address and phone number and is quite mad at me. If you look at the way he writes and the content he puts in, it is obvious that he is off the deep end. Help. One Salient Oversight 22:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why did you restore Creep (Radiohead)? It doesn't have any history but the sandbox history. RickK 08:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

No need to get shirty. I'm not ON IRC. RickK 08:09, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question[edit]

MediaWiki:Blockedtext →Raul654 18:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I need some help, please, dealing with a white-supremacist sockpuppet; otherwise I'll be in danger of violating the 3RR. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism[edit]

A poster by the name of AndyL has consistently inserted misleading and disparaging information into this article and has petitioned Jaing to lock it until the issue is resolved. I do not believe it can be resolved because he has shown that his agenda is to provide slanderous, POV information into the article.

For example: He has stated as a matter of factly that the Lehi faction was inspired by Italian fascism and Spanish nationalism. This is hardly the truth as Lehi has different streams, some corporatist some socialist. It was a movement very hard to pinpoint.

Secondly, he has deleted crucial information about the split of the Revisionist movement within Israel and the Diaspora and the fact that Jabotinksy did not have any control over the Irgun faction. He doesnt seem to be interested in historical accuracy and most of his information comes from left wing websites, but he cites outragous and hotly disputed statements as facts.

Please help.

Guy Montag 02:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Removed. An anon recently added it again to the list of new disputes, and I prompty removed that, since it was already listed. At that time i also signed the statement, which probably triggered your watchlist. I just archived the original listing, too. Keep up the good work! -- Chris 73 Talk 09:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

I was dreading coming back to wikipedia. Thanks for your help. If you ever want to stay a night or two up in Newcastle, give me a bell. I make a great Thai Peanut Curry. One Salient Oversight 10:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mediation with Snowspinner et al[edit]

Thanks for the offer, Ta bu. I hold you in the highest regard and I believe you would be the ideal sort of person to act in that capacity, because even when I don't agree with you, I know that I can respect your opinion. However, these people are not interested in resolving a dispute. They tried to bully me into acquiescence and now are trying to use the power they have, and the power they feel others who will agree with them have, to punish me for my adherence to the spirit of Wikipedia.

The problem with the page is that editors such as Snowspinner and Raul will not discuss the issue. They say, oh, there was a poll and the majority wants this and that, so that's it. But in Wikipedia there is no such thing as "that's it". It's a wiki! Ever evolving. Or at least you'd hope so. They are not interested in compromise with me or the others who disagree with the picture (who do exist but have either been banned or worried out of it).

But Wikipedia includes all views, not just the view of the majority. You know this, Ta bu, because you tried very hard to include views that were unpalatable to you when you were dealing with CheeseDreams.

Well, Raul may not like that there is a view that it's not acceptable to display a vulva in an encyclopaedia (and I'm not keen on the view myself, as I have often pointed out) but if he seeks to exclude it, he cannot claim to be working for NPOV.

I do. And for me, NPOV is absolutely nonnegotiable. I might be misguided in my beliefs about what it consists of, on this page and on others, but it is my aim, always. If I'm to be punished for having that aim, so be it, but I'll laugh in the face of anyone who then claims to me that that is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.Dr Zen 05:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Gerv mentioned possible copyvio on Phishing (though he did release it under GFDL). I've added the link to the site he was referring to (found on the talk page). Just wanted to give you a heads up.

Dr Who sourcetag[edit]

Shouldn't the sourcetag go on the bittorrent page, which is the one linked by the cited BBC article (rather than the Dr Who article)? -- John Fader (talk · contribs) 00:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen[edit]

You wrote: I have been talk to Dr Zen via email. Though I'm not officially a mediator, I would be happy to help here, least of all because I think he's a good editor even though I disagree with his actions in this case. Um, could you please review Dr Zen's edit history? He is NOT an editor. Almost all of his time on Wikipedia is spent on Talk pages and policy pages. I was actually trying to find some of his edits to work on, and I couldn't find any! RickK`

Please review [1]. Mmk? Thanx. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yep, all of those today, after I commented to him that he didn't seem to ever edit anything. RickK 05:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I explained to him that I had been away but apparently that doesn't count. Not to worry. Some people get an idea about you and it's very hard to shake. It's true that I've been very embroiled in clitoris since my return, but it's not as though I only intend to fight that battle! What a dull time I'd have of Wikipedia if I did. I'm no CheeseDreams or HistoryBuffEr. Dr Zen 06:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


appreciate it.  :-) Antandrus 04:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anthere recently added a note confirming my bot account's status. Can you please unblock the account? I thought Anthere had done it when she listed it. It was on indefinite block by RickK pending that approval, but he would prefer that someone else unblock it.  :) -- Netoholic @ 05:16, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Thanks. And very nice parasol picture on your user page ;) -- Netoholic @ 05:50, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)


Can you redirect all of the pages to Haiti? Yesor No? Pick or I will block you from editing. --Tskovitch of Moldova 05:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite sure what you would like me to do... could you clarify please? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I want you to redirect all of the pages to Haiti. I have the password to destroy wikipedia for ever. Do as I say Iwill join the reigh of terror to destroy wikipedia. --Tskovitch of Moldova 05:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Suuuurrrre... doing it right now... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good! Thank You for your help. Now I can save wikipedia from Jimmy Wales reign of chaos. --Tskovitch of Moldova 05:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No worries. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hebranaut is a sockpuppet created for the purpose of abuse, and as such (by policy) should be blocked indefinitely. The sob story e-mails he sent to a number of administrators are irrelevant. Please review my talk page on this subject, and his edit summaries as well. If you have further questions you can contact me as well. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrapped in clitoris[edit]

That made me laugh! Sadly, I doubt I will be for long. I will probably get banned. It's a pity. Still, I'm really hopeful of finding a compromise that many if not all involved parties can live with. If you have a moment and are at all interested, perhaps you'd like to read some of the exchange me and Timbo have had. One of my Wikiaims is to manage to create a compromise between two irreconcilable viewpoints -- because I believe that with goodwill, it's nearly always possible. My methods might not suit everybody's taste but I hope that I'll at least go some way towards making it happen. Next time I'll pick something easier though, like the historicity of Jesus ;-) Dr Zen 06:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's truly irreconcilable. Very few things are. I have faith in my fellows, Ta bu.

I know I shouldn't take the picture off the page but I have my reasons. If Raul comes to my page and discusses it, well, I would stop straight away. I haven't done it that many times when you look back. It remains a question of a difference of opinion. I'll never agree that the majority should just win. That is one of the causes of Wikipedia's not always being very good. The original plan is better: include all views. I know you are far keener on the majority's winning than I am. Perhaps your mind can be changed if in the course of our relationship I find you a few examples where the majority has prevailed but has been provably wrong. I will try. As for the likes of Raul, I don't think he has an open mind. Perhaps he will prove me wrong one day.

I would gladly work on an article to get it to that point. I haven't found one that enthused me enough yet. I have an awful lot of articles to write about Brisbane's suburbs before I get to it, I suspect. I made a start under another username, but I've been very busy and haven't had the time.

I don't expect to be completely blocked. That would be totally unfair. I expect I'll be banned from the article in question, maybe others related. That would also be unfair, given that I actually have tried to make this a better encyclopaedia. I still believe that something like a page fork (Cool Hand Luke's images in/out template) makes that page better -- because if we can make any page more broadly usable that has to be an improvement. Simply saying anyone that is offended should not read our encyclopaedia actually upsets me. I thought we were doing it for the whole world, not just people who think the same way we do. Dr Zen 06:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ta bu, the tagging and switching off might not be needed if we just use a bit of common sense. Cool Hand Luke and VioletRiga came up with suggestions for template transclusions, which would permit the page with image to carry a link, saying "this page can be seen with/without images", that would take you to a page without images. There were minor technical issues, and it's hard to agree the wording of the link, but I can't see any genuine major objection from either side to this. The biggest objection was from Tony Sidaway, who didn't think any method to allow people not to see the images should be permitted. He thought they shouldn't read Wikipedia! Of course, I'm saying that only those who are willing to consider a compromise should discuss it at first, with an open mind, and then they can present it to the hardliners on either side. As it happens, 198, who was very anti the image, is very willing to compromise.

But what do you think of template transclusion? Is it a goer? Dr Zen 23:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reckon it's about time someone gave you a barnstar. Lacrimosus 07:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Help banning user IP addresses?[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Cumbey.2FUser: I would appreciate any help you can give us on this issue. --One Salient Oversight 22:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I protected it and threw the "protected to deal with vandalism from spambots" template on it, although I'm almost positive I've seen a template that says "protected and blanked to deal with vandalism recreation", but I can't find it. I posted a message on the relevant talk page. If we figure out what this template is the article can be deleted, recreated, and the template can be thrown in there. Hopefully you'll follow up on this if I'm not around. And yes, I know I could tell you this on IRC, but I find it prudent to use talk pages and leave a "paper trail". Cheers. CryptoDerk 02:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)