User talk:Deathlibrarian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Deathlibrarian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 14:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 War of 1812 2 Gothic fashion 3 formatting & links 4 AMCA Troupes Aeról Portées Mle. 56 5 Deleted Rowany link 6 Principality of Hutt River 7 Rowany Festival 8 note

[edit] War of 1812

How can the result of the War of 1812 be disputed, it was settled by the Treaty of Ghent --Kev62nesl 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic fashion

hi, i've made some big structural changes. come on over and let me know what you think of them, i'd like your opinion. -- Denstat 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] formatting & links

When you put a single new line into text it does not move things down a line when displaying as a wiki. I have changed your list of created pages to bullet points. And made them links.
--TenguTech 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMCA Troupes Aeról Portées Mle. 56

The article you wrote, AMCA Troupes Aeról Portées Mle. 56, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article.Eli Falk 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Rowany link

The link you placed on the Society_for_creative_anachronism page is inappropriate. It links to a Rowany promotion. It would be more appropriate on the Lochac page if anywhere. GuyWeknow 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Hutt River

Please do not create hoaxes. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. Adding material which potentially is in breach of the relevant nation's security classifications is specifically prohibited. This incident will be reported to the Administrators Noticeboard. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Simply put, you added the content, you perpetuated the hoax, therefore you get the warning. And further to the 'hiding the information' point, that's complete bollocks. The fact is that including a letter like this regardless or not of it's factually accuracy violates the no original research policy as it's factual accuracy cannot be proven, plus it is likely if in fact true to violate laws of a sovereign state regarding the dissemination of state secrets. Would you want to be in the position of being an enjoined party to a prosecution under the Secrets Act for breaching national security, just because you placed a link to a document which could possibly be classified? Would you like to see WP go down because it was being heavily sued in another jurisdiction for disseminating classified information? I would surmise that you would like neither of these to occur, so it is in your own best interests to work within both WP policy and the legal system of the jurisdiction in which you and WP resides. On the issue of the accuracy of the letter itself, I have done some digging myself last night, and based on the research and factual information I have it is extremely unlikely that this letter or the contents therein is genuine in any way, shape or form. My arguments against the letters authenticity are as follows:

1. The letter does not follow due protocol for a ministerial notification. it's quite normal to sign a letter, indicate full name, and date it. A notification without this may in fact have been invalid with just initials - not a legal position you want to leave your minister in if depending on such information.
2. The "austeo secret" positioning on the document is incorrect and would have been rejected by the checker in its form as presented.
3. Why do the 3rd and 4th point not recommend drafting a legislative amendment for immediate attention to manage such alleged shortcomings? Hundreds of uncontroversial procedural amendments go through parliament all the time.
4. The State Government of Western Australia should have been involved. That is also a protocol issue, and they would have been copied in on such correspondence.
5. The Territories Department/Minister for Territories would not handle a request of this type about taxation or foreign affairs, their jurisdiction is/was over territories - that being, NT, ACT, PNG (until full independence in 1974) at that time. The "our considered opinion" line and the points suggest legal advice which should be coming from either Attorney General's office or the Solicitor General, not a staffer of a department office who probably has no legal qualifications.
6. In 1989, the GPO box and telephone number used on the letter belonged to the ACT government, which became in effect institutionally self-governing in 1981 with the capital commission and the bicentenary project, and became legislatively so in March 1989. this can be checked in any white pages from Canberra for that period.
7. The fonts are all wrong - department logos of the time used a serif font, and most likely in 1989 you would expect to see an electric typewriter font as computers were not in common use for letters at that time - and certainly not Microsoft Word (Or a HTML Document in Internet Explorer as the item in question seems to be).

AFAIK, this puts the issue of it's factual accuracy to bed. It is a hoax, and until someone can render a citation to it's actual location within the national archives or a statement is made on the public record from a person without a conflict of interest, then this letter will be regarded as a hoax by the community and attempts to include it within WP articles will be dealt with according to relevant process and procedure. Thewinchester ^(talk) 08:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Winchester, I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but I believe that the public have a right to see this document and will be fighting for them to do so. Your investigations in themselves are against Wikidpedia policy. At Wikipedia we editors we do not do original research, and in any case I have no idea what Investigative qualifications or skills you have to do so. As the letter stands, it is published on two websites, and is referred to by a paper on secessionist states. As far as I'm concerned, it is a valid document, until authority states otherwise. Wikipedia does not employ forensic experts, we just look refer to where information is published. If there is something that is published that says the letter is not valid, then so be it, and if you can find it, then good. But at the moment it appears valid so I assume it stands. You certainly may have a point about the legality of the secrets part, but as it has already been published, and even referred to in an academic context it hardly seems a live issue. There are in fact, plenty of other "Austeo secret" letters published on the web. As for all Wikipedia going down just because they link to this letter I think that to be load of hysterical "bullocks" (as you so charmingly put it). In any case, if its a fake as you think it is, why are you worried? Additionally, Wikipedia is not publishing the letter, the page is just linking to it. As far as I'm concerned, this document should be available for the reader to view on the website, and for them to make up their own minds. If you have some proof that it is a hoax, please provide it, but until that time I will be going ahead with a third opinion dispute resolution to have it put back up where people can read it. Deathlibrarian 10:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the original research policy - it is entirely reasonable to check the veracity of content, and this one is found highly wanting. This document does not constitute a reliable source, cannot be verified, and makes assertions WELL beyond its brief - a legal opinion on a matter involving the Commonwealth must come from the Solicitor General. That would, if the Solicitor General's office confirmed it, be capable of being a reliable source. However, this one is not. The issue with the number belonging to Rosemary Follett's office at the time of this alleged missive (and not a federal government department), together with the absence of any fax or telex numbers (which were institutional on Government letterhead in the 1980s) further suggests a problem to me. One final point - re "the public have a right to see this document" - maybe they do, but they can already do that quite easily at a number of locations - this seems to stray into WP:NOT territory. Orderinchaos 12:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Added point: plenty of Austeo secret letters? they all seem to be the same one. Orderinchaos 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rowany Festival

A few points:

• Back on the 12th of April I did a big tidy-up after you'd added too much "stuff".
• You've just now added even more rambling historical stuff which - and (not surprisingly) got hit with an advt tag and a suggestion for deletion.
• Your heart's in the right place, but really that level of detail (the Tavern not being covered by warranty!) just isn't appropriate.
• Worse, it's a simple cut and past from the sca.au site. Bad bad bad.

I'm sorry, but I've reverted back to the trimmed-down version... Snori 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] note

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_15#Corey_Delaney--Seriousspender (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)