On more than one occasion you appear (apologies in advance if I'm mistaken) to have "archived" a Talk page by simply deleting the contents without posting a link on the main Talk page to the archive. You might want to read this tutorial on How to archive a talk page in order to learn how to provide a link on the main talk page so that users can see older discussions easily, and I'd strongly suggest that you go back and do this on the pages you've already "archived." Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! Will do so. --Surturz 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted one of your edits (the one to Cake) because of the commented text "<!-- The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie -->" which made me think it was vandalism. After reverting I looked more closely and saw the spelling correction.

I'm puzzled as to what function the comment was meant to serve. If you feel that it should be put back into the article then perhaps the edit summary can allude to the reason. Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to make the comments on the article's talk page. Regards LittleOldMe 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke from the computer game Portal. You were right to remove it. I can't help having a bit of fun around here sometimes :-) You'll notice that a few previous vandalisms on the Cake article have the same joke. --Surturz 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed your editing on various political biographies. While I have nothing against anyone robustly defending their particular viewpoint (I'd be a hypocrite if I did), and even though I agree with one or two of your changes that I've seen while disagreeing with others, edit warring and using edit summaries as proxy for the talk page, as I've seen you do in recent days, is not really acceptable behaviour. I'd also highlight WP:NPOV, given the highly partisan nature of the political aspect of your editing history.

I'm not the only admin on the Australian projects who has seen this sort of situation arise before and it nearly always ends in people fighting over ridiculous minor points with no real import, and articles flitting between two stagnant, inferior versions each preferred by one opponent, and everyone else gets scared off by the hostility and the politics project suffers as a result. The RfCs and straw polls on talk pages are also ridiculous as the camps are by now so established that everyone knows how everyone else will react, and a certain amount of subtle canvassing goes on. There is only so long that goes on before the community decides enough is enough, ArbCom get called in and unpredictability ensues.

If you want to get an article changed, especially if it's in a major way, the best way above all others is to convince the broad majority of editors in the area of the merits of your proposal. Orderinchaos 05:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

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 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. Orderinchaos 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my previous disagreement with your viewpoint. I understand your argument, it has some credible points, but it has not convinced me. --Surturz (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk:Orderinchaos#Reply to comment on my talk page and your posts above, you say there are credible points made, and you admit that you are not just partisan but actively engage in POV-pushing, for the reason that you believe others do too, and is thus justified. Whether you are convinced is frankly irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wanted to use the word 'plausible' instead of credible, but I couldn't for the life of me remember the word at the time :-) My "POV pushing", as you call it, is restricted to removing the more egregious POV-pushing material from those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. At the end of the day I really would prefer it if you would refrain from speculating about my motives. Let us restrict our debate to the issues at hand, shall we? --Surturz (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. There's no speculating about your motives, they are clear. I would like to stick to debating issues if I didn't think you were purposely and with intent not just being partisan, but actively POV-pushing. Timeshift (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mediators do not make decisions! It is a is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute over content - what alternative are you suggesting to proceed?--Matilda ^talk 01:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already made a compromise edit that has survived so far - I added the reference to the "Ally of George Bush" section of the article. I have also suggested that the episode be added to Barack Obama, and if it survives there, then I would acquiesce to its inclusion in John Howard. These are two - I believe constructive - solutions I have proposed. --Surturz (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not compromises, please stop calling them as such. Adding a ref with no context and adding to Obama's page are not compromises. It is obvious that they are being called compromises just to give the impression that the exclusionists are not moving one inch on this issue, no compromises. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my and others' comments again. You are not a neutral party in the mediation, and WP:TALK under "Behaviour that is unacceptable" applies. In general a scoping comment on an agreement is considered acceptable. Orderinchaos 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to neutral editors, such as mediation staff. I'll abide by whatever they decide quite happily, but not a party's - I have every right to scope my comment so that it isn't a simple "agree" and the mediators have the most reliable information on which to base any decision to move forward. Orderinchaos 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Surturz, I write to encourage you to join the RfM. My personal belief is that the current edit waring cannot continue, and won't be allowed to continue, regardless of the RfM. Those who say "Agree" to the RfM are showing that they are at least trying to come to an agreement with the community of Wikipedia editors. I can't speak for the Administrators of Wikipedia, but I know as a fact that many are displeased by the current edit waring, and I predict that penalties will be applied to those who continue to edit war without attempting to form a consensus. You can change your "disagree" to "agree", and it shows that you are attempting to find consensus, and you can input your views. The other alternative is to not join mediation, to continue edit waring to change the article to one's own perspective, and face whatever penalties apply. Have a think about it. Regards, Lester 04:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be agreeing to the RfM, it is a waste of time if you and I are not even trying to work towards content that is acceptable to both of us. A list of specific concerns about the John Howard articles from you and Timeshift9 would be the most helpful contribution you could make at this time. --Surturz (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting an RfM before it even begins demonstrates your unwillingness to compromise and reach a solution that is acceptable to the wikipedia community. Be it on your head. Timeshift (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows an unwillingness to be involved in pointless bureaucracy. I'd rather edit articles. --Surturz (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you admit to actively POV-pushing, and now you show a blatent disregard for wikipedia processes when disputes cannot be resolved. You are digging your grave very quickly. Timeshift (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surturz. It's true that both of us disagree on the content, and which ever way it ends up we won't both be happy. It's not just you, me, Timeshift and Skyring, but the Wikipedia community that'll be looking at this. Some other editors have predicted on the Howard talk page that this article is headed for a nasty resolution at the hands of Arbcom, where they start dishing out penalties to prevent regular editors from participating in that article, or even the whole of Wikipedia. This is not in either of our interests, and I can't see how you would think that such a resolution is advantageous. If such a situation eventuated, I think an editor would look better to have been seen to have participated in Mediation, rather than to have rejected Mediation and continued to edit war, which can't be a good look. The alternative is to have administrators and arbitrators move in on the article, issue penalties and possibly ban people, and forcibly stop the edit war. When that happens, chances are that the article won't be left in the state you like it anyway. Have a read of the Guide to mediation. It's not a vote process, so slim majorities or minorities are irrelevant to the process. They keep the discussion civil, and judge the issue according to Wikipedia rules (eg BLP etc). What I'm saying is that joining mediation may or may not get us what we want, but not joining produces a worse situation. Have a think about it. Cheers, Lester 05:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be agreeing to the RfM and if the powers that be decide to discipline me, then so be it. I would prefer you and all relevant editors to list the issues that have caused them to insist on the POV tag, and I will do my best to make the appropriate changes. --Surturz (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, no one will be blocked, banned or otherwise disciplined because they've refused to participate in mediation. I would encourage you to participate in it myself but ultimately you're right, it is a voluntary process and you don't have to do it if you don't want to. Sarah 06:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise text for the talk page of the RfM

• You wrote: While we are waiting for the result of the RfM, could all interested editors please look at Talk:John_Howard#Compromise_.236 and comment. I will take silence to imply consensus as per WP:SILENCE. Many thanks, --Surturz (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case you miss my reply - Given that many of us are prepared to participate in mediation and use that process to obtain consensus I find your suggestion that our silence on parallel processes implies consent as not appropriate. Essentially I think it inappropriate that you attempt to run a parallel process to the RfM when you are not prepared to join a mediation attempt that many others are prepared to do on exactly the same question.--Matilda ^talk 07:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:3RR, cause you are very close to violating it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Surturz (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit as per your note to another's talk page. I had noticed the pasteback was outstanding --Matilda ^talk 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite right and I do very much appreciate you fixing the typo / freudian slip / lack of clear thinking /... Rudd and Ruddock are not the same - both politicians but otherwise even I can tell the difference and meant of course to refer to Ruddock I can't think that freud hasd anything to do with it. Thanks Matilda ^talk 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content additions :-) --Matilda ^talk 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed given the number of admins floating around that it would be unlocked once a consensus was reached on the talk page. That being said, however, I see no discussion beyond where I saw it last time - based on that, am I to assume one has been reached privately? If so, I'll unlock, but I would be very disappointed if I saw an edit war resume. (FTR: I actually agree with the removal of the picture, but I think the best way to achieve it is to convince others of the merit of your ideas.) Orderinchaos 08:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please halt your reverts of User:Mlandauer's additions for now thanks. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia#OpenAustralia.org spam? for a discussion on the usefulness of these links. -- Longhair\^talk 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, why would I or anyone join a party that has five climate change policies for supporters to pick from as their favourite? The party is a blubbering mess at the moment, I fear a poor quality opposition will lead to poor quality government. Perhaps that's why Howard was perceived to be so good :) The polls are still sky high, and... oh, you were joking! :D Timeshift (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already expecting another 13 years of coalition opposition. Howard didn't quite make it, did he? Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difference is that the Liberals are leadership driven, so if their leadership is weak or askew, the party has no central ideology or base or caucus to hold it in place, whereas Labor does (oddly enough, so do the Nationals, as they were designed on the Labor model). The back cover of Dean Jaensch's "The Liberals" (1994 I think) pretty much entirely wrote them off as a federal political force, but then there was 1996. Orderinchaos 09:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing like your recent edits on John Howard, especially when they are being discussed by many members on the talk page, are borderline vandalism. --

13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't make a bad edit and attack people who fix it by claiming AGF. The accusation isn't a rival of Howard saying something to a bunch of reporters - it is an official request that he be trialled by the ICC. Regardless, notability is something you must discuss at the talk page and not just delete content from the article as you see fit. --

Carbon Rodney

13:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The above user appears to be unaware that WP:AGF is policy. A content dispute is not "vandalism", nor should it be characterised so. Orderinchaos 13:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I note that an admin reverted your edit with the summary that "bad faith accusations are not tolerated". I leave you to draw your own conclusions." --Surturz

Admins are just users too. The paragraph you removed was originally added by an admin. --

Carbon Rodney

15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding a reversion by another user, I think your addition was a good start - thank you --Matilda ^talk 03:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just read your "constructive rebuke" - I think it is indeed a constructive comment. I am not interested in "attacking" JOhn Howard. I do want to see balance (OK I realise one person's balance is another person's attack but ... I think I really mean it) . I think your point about the focus on suitably eminent Howard-detractors to quote, or allegations of War Crimes is correct in that it isn't working. I am not interested in focussing on the cost of the war though because both good and bad wars cost, what I am interested in is trying to ensure that the idea that Howard personally came under criticism for his support of the war is included - he came under criticism internationally and domestically. This is say in contrast the East Timor intervention. How do you best think we do that? --Matilda ^talk 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I have tried to put in that there were Australian protests and heckling ... --Matilda ^talk 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made a very good point. I'd be curious about your input here if you have a moment. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your action in the article is clear vandalism. You have no consensus to do that. Please immediately restore the content or you will be reported for vandalism. -- Fyslee / talk 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]