This is in response to your post on my user page concerning my protest against defamation of my name and character by user IsabellaW on the ARB page about the Prem Rawat articles. For your information, the issue isn't one of my being outed or having private or personal material about myself and other named individuals on Wikipedia exposed here. It's a matter of people using Wikipedia for the purpose of libelling and discrediting myself and other editors by labelling us as a hate-group. I've used my real name here on many occasions, as have other former followers of Prem Rawat, who in fact have as their usernames, their real names. Outing is not the point or the issue. But, I noticed that IsabellaW has escalated and added more retaliatory "stuff" to her section, so I don't know what the solution to this situation might be today. There really is nothing in IsabellaW's posts that would, could, or should be considered as evidence that deserves a response, and I think it's inappropriate for me to respond to her because her diatribe has nothing to do with the Prem Rawat articles. I definitely am not into engaging in a "tit-for-tat," roll in the mud with IsabellaW, because she seems to be quite volitile right now and on a full-blown smear campaign. At this point I'll confine my participation on the ARB to the discussion page and for now will take a wait and see attitude concerning this. Thanks for your response and concern. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up. cheers Michellecrisp (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted in the checkuser discussion, the two editors are not editing at the same time. I think conflict of interest is reasonably apparent in their edits but as WP:COI is only a guideline, I think any response to the editor should take into account policy breaches, such as introducing bias into the article by removing material which is referenced by reliable sources and cannot be shown to be of undue weight - thus the editor breaches WP:NPOV policy.--Matilda ^talk 05:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought 2 editors at the same time would be a sockpuppet case rather than conflict of interest, due to the nature of this person's edits, it seems they are closely connected to Edelsten. I did previously warn Zeumic about inserting fake references to glorify Edelsten. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why it doesn't become blockable. It's something we have an awareness of now in dealing with the situation, rather than an extra thing in and of itself. If the user kept up the behaviour they have been displaying in recent days, though, they might find themselves blocked for entirely other reasons (i.e. WP:DISRUPT/WP:EDITWAR). Orderinchaos 05:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser came back as unrelated, and since you and a few other users are willing to vouch for him, consider the issue a moot point now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd no idea. I just removed every occurrence of "different to" from every article I could find it in. I guess they'll revert to normal Australian form in due course, so if I spot those reverts I'll pop them into my exclusion list so they don't get accidentally picked up again. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very belated quibble, but I've just found an edit in the Division of Swan where you removed the Western Australian Party affiliation from John Forrest (1906-1910), stating "per source on 1906 election". The parliamentary handbook has his affiliation as "WAP" for that period, as does Adam Carr on Psephos. Could you provide your source? Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right - thanks. Would you say that your source has precedence over the handbook, or vice versa? Perhaps, as two reputable sources give contradictions, this should be noted in the article? (Footnote, perhaps?) Frickeg (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to your comments, you said that I was mistaken with TY being a member of WP homeschooling. I was not, and he did recently quit the project. If you don't believe me then you can check the history of the Project page. Kimu 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering about if there could be any outside Wikipedia consequences for vandalism and threats such as with the police or other formal prosecution? Thanks for your reply in advance.

Cheers, --Loy Wong (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr's Vandalsleuth Award For going above and beyond the call of duty in fighting vandals, I hereby award you this vandal-burning infrared beam intensifier disc and a set a matching stainless steeel vandal-grabbers. You probably won't actually need them, though, seeing as you already seem to handle vandals quite nicely without either. But, I figured some extra tools might help. :P Thanks again, and keep up the amazing work. =) --slakr\ talk / 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. The way I see it... Philippe here is my unofficial big brother. I met him in a 3rr warning (ick) and since then if I have any issues, I go ahead and bring it to him. Otherwise, I do some digging for answers to random things such as format, policy, images and all that fun stuff. But see, the fact that I do that searching is a good thing, because instead of someone spoon feeding me the stuff, I actually learn how to find utilities. Anyway. I didnt want to actually "vote" in the MfD since I had a previous issue with RyRy and I didnt want anyone to figure a conflict of interest. Thanks for your comments! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely seperate note... I wanted to know if you had noticed that Diligent Terrier has a userbox that says that they perform admin duties... but when I check the list of admins his name does not show there. Is he an admin? Or just masquerading? Its a little confusing. Cheers! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 13:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My brain hurts :( SatuSuro 11:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Could you do the honours per gmail? SatuSuro 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Oh you had done it ta cheers SatuSuro 11:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, please don't edit war, as your edit summary asks. Re-removing the messages merely makes them more obvious. - auburnpilot talk 13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me not to edit war... all I did was add back the message you removed. That isn't "warring". Please check up on what edit warring is before accusing others of doing it - what you did certainly was edit warring though. Majorly (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heads up. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received and replied. Rudget (review) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that ive changed the name from Twenty Years to Five Years. Thanks. Five Years 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, why are you doing this? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN#Cabals, part 2. There's an RFC in the making. Just notifying you in case you don't check AN, as I'd like to have the entire community (or at least a lot of opinions) in this. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in assuming this? · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering if I could get some advise concerning some of the previous local government articles:

City of Cairns Council and Mulgrave Shire Council (yet to be created) merged in 1995 to form City of Cairns

Then in 2008 City of Cairns and Shire of Douglas merged to become Cairns Regional Council

I was wondering what your thoughts were on the naming scheme specifically the City of Cairns Council and City of Cairns articles? Fosnez (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orderinchaos. You have new messages at Milk's Favorite Cookie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The IRC Buddy Barnstar
		For helping to cheer me up when I was in the worst mood I've ever been in as a result of Wikistress, and for just generally making #wikipedia-en-admins a far more cheerful place, I hereby award you this Barnstar. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to explain the formatting issue regarding Template:Emmerdale episodes to the user whom I was mentioning. Regrettably, they have ignored this and quite disrespectfully reverted your change back to their own last one, ignoring time formatting differences and the ability of preference changes (diff). How should this best be progressed? Cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your efforts. I'll keep an eye on AN/I for updates. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of technical reasons (bugzilla:13507), once SUL has been started, no username can be changed to one matching an SUL name. As such I can not rename the account to Orderinchaos. Since the account does not exist on Simple:WP, you should have no difficulty logging in directly under that name. I would suggest just creating the account and moving/redirecting your pages over to it. As the "78" account has only a few edits, there should not be major issues with doing this. The other option would be waiting for the bug to get fixed and requesting a rename at that time. Creol (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I restored the edit to Template:Victoria former LGAs that you so quickly reverted. The template in question indexes articles about former local governments. The City of Geelong page is not such an article—in fact, it is not an article at all, just a disambiguation page that provides links to articles. The only article on Wikipedia that contains any information about the former City of Geelong local government is Geelong, Victoria; specifically, the "History" and (to some extent) "Government" sections of that article. So there was a good reason for changing the template. --Russ (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem ... BTW, Twinkle is your friend. Blueboy96 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New info

I've received some new info about this issue which is important. I've e-mailed it to you. thanks for your attention to the issue. regards --Merbabu (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - thanks. Orderinchaos 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there had been a previous attempt to delete this page which was then overturned - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6 - why did you decide to delete without any consultation. I had planned to add a further reference to the school School repair gets F any comment? --AgentMole (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to undo your block of MONGO. I realize you've already done that, then you reconsidered and reduced the time, but I'd like to undo it entirely. There's evidence of prior bad feeling between MONGO and Tango, so the first block was not appropriate, and MONGO is now saying he has retired, which makes the current block unnecessary and more than a little humiliating (which I realize is not your doing at all — quite the reverse). Please let me know your thoughts. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am second here, he already has served more than 5 hours that IMHO is much to long for a minor incivility of a major content producer, especially as Tango had conflicts of interests here Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enacted it as a reading of consensus which I personally disagreed with, as AN/I was howling at my decision to unblock per time served which I thought avoided unnecessary drama and still made whatever point people felt had to be made. I have no problem with anyone reviewing/undoing it. Orderinchaos 02:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]