User talk:Greatwalk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Twowalkers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Twowalkers.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Walk Networking

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Great Walk Networking, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of prod template for the second time.

I have removed the "{{prod}}" template once before, and added comment to the edit summary. At the same time, I added a "{{stub}} tag to indicate the article is still under construction. I have followed Wiki's guidelines, and although this organisation (GWN) is of notable historical interest in Western Australia primarily, I am sure there are companion organisations throughout the world.

Great Walk Networking is coming up to its 20th anniversary...the first Great Walk was the subject of a documentary film that is now being digitalised. I hope to include captures and a full description. In addition, the Battye Library of Western Australia also has record of this organisation.

I have not written for Wiki before, but I understand the need to quote sources and I believe I have a grasp of Wiki's notability guidelines. I remind those who regard this article, well before its completion as it is, that "Notability... is not synonymous with fame or importance," but "means 'worthy of being noted.'"

Will you please allow this article to be completed? Please do not remove indicators that the article is under construction. Great Walk Networking has been the subject of a documentary, extensive photo essays, recordings and has published early environmental charters and magazines in Western Australia...all over the past 20 years. It, and this article, does meet Wiki's notability guidelines.

Kind regards, Joanna Hofmann (Greatwalk 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)) 05-01-07, Western Australia


[edit] Back to front

If you havent been on before - for a start you should read this: -


Welcome!

Hello, Greatwalk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  It might help...! SatuSuro 09:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] also

  • No need to sign your name if you have a user name
  • Read my comments at either the project talk page or the article page - you might think otherwise - but I cannot see how the great walk didnt either connect with what came with before or what was still around at the time that it started.

Good idea to read the Franklin River article for something from that era - I dont think it is a good article (because I was involved in a certain sense I have different points of view which I cannot currently backup with reasonable sources yet) for some reasons - but it is better than other articles SatuSuro 09:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Always give admins a careful listen - they can make or break articles... SatuSuro 09:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


If I am not clear enough - the great walk people were involved with the other groups of the late 70's and early 80's - you really need to get a sense of where they came from - and how and why they became involved - and also you need to find something on basil and include it! also the shift from freo to denmark - that is an issue that is of some significance...SatuSuro 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi SatuSuro, Thanks for the welcome, comments and input. It is greatly appreciated. I am hoping that others will contribute to this page. I'm not sure if there is information about Basil himself that I can reference, but he's contactable! We'll see... I am away for a little while, but when I return (if this article is still here!) I'll see what improvements I can make. Thanks again and warm regards. --202.168.98.228 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion debate

You should feel free to participate in the deletion debate. I can't guarantee you will be heard - the opinions of new users and one-article-editors are usually given less weight than the opinions of more experienced and diverse contributors. So maybe you would be wasting your time. But if you want to say your piece, you are entitled to do so. Hesperian 12:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You made a strong case. I would encourage you to continue. Hopefully the article will be judged on reasons other than the number of contributions by yourself. It would be regrettable if newer users could not create articles here, in the humble opinion of a fellow new editor. Please help to improve the wikipedia with contributions on social movements and the history of conservation. Perhaps then the article, Tingle, can be about our tree. Regards – Fred 11:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank for your kind words and encouragement, Fred. I'm hoping several people from the Great Walk, Green Skills, etc. will contribute to this when they get time (and have the references). I think it will be a good entry, but I'll admit this is a small beginning. --Greatwalk 20:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Hesperian...I said my piece. It was a little long, perhaps, but it's done and it didn't feel like a waste of time. :-) Thanks, too, for your input. --Greatwalk 20:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current issues

Hi, reading your user page - I realise that I better discuss any of the details offline - my imac is playing up - so writing from this pc (my kids msn and world of warcraft machine) I cannot use gmail at the moment, so maybe tonight or in a few days - a few things need to be discussed. If I fluke it there will be a gmail message soon, but for some reason if an imac dosnt want... bit like the social worker and the light bulb joke.... cheers SatuSuro 05:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Walk Networking (AfD discussion)

(from User talk:Quarl) Hi Quarl, I am the primary editor of Great Walk Networking. I noticed that you have relisted the AfD discussion so that consensus may be reached. It is proving difficult to persuade new contributors to improve an article marked for deletion, and I am concerned about the future of the page. Rough consensus appears to have been reached: in particular, two administrators have voted to keep the page (one changed his opinion to 'keep' after others improved the page). Both of these administrators have also removed the COI notice and the primary sources notice. At this point, the only 'delete' opinion belongs to the administrator who nominated the page for deletion. She has not commented since the page was improved, she has never entered into a discussion regarding this page (before or after improvement), and has not really given a reason for nominating the page for deletion other than: "Public awareness walk, tagged for COI; regardless there no evidence to suggest that anyone even noticed it going on." I don't really see how full consensus can be reached when it appears to be impossible to address her unstated concerns, and I'm confused as to why rough consensus is not sufficient in this case. I'm a new editor and would appreciate your comments. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Greatwalk, thanks for writing me. I think you are learning a lot about being a Wikipedian. A deletion debate does not mean you can't edit the article, so I recommend that you keep improving the Great Walk Networking article, especially by adding sources, while the AFD continues. I extended debate because, as you said, we shouldn't steamroll the discussion by closing it before you have a chance to improve it. (BTW, not everyone who participates in AFD is an administrator, in fact most are not.) If everything goes well we can close it in a day or two. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 05:14Z
(from User talk:Quarl):Hi Quarl, Thanks for your assistance. The article has been edited since the AfD notice was put up and has been improved considerably, especially by SatuSuro above. Satu is also from Western Australia and appears to know what Great Walk Networking is, but there are other potential contributors with extensive background who have already been put off by the deletion notice. You are right, I am learning a lot about being a Wikipedian, but I really can't blame new contributors for not bothering! Why would any busy person in their right mind learn new format conventions to contribute to an article tagged for imminent deletion? Regardless, I have put out a call for material and although I believe rough concensus to keep has been reached, I will do my best to improve the article in the next couple of days in spite of the fact I can not guarantee the task is 'do-able' within two - three days. Are you able to spell out for me exactly what improvements you would like to see? Perhaps I can better assist more experienced Satu and I would appreciate your input. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Started

The extra paragraph - as far as I am concerned essential for the context in which gwn started -SatuSuro 13:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Satu...I found a reference to the two organisations you mention, both formed in 1975 and changed the position of the paragraph you added to allow for the inclusion of a paragraph about what distinguishes GWN from other conservation organisations. I would like to add a reference to the connection between songlines and what GWN envisages itself to be actively doing: in particular a connection fostered by Roe family of the Kullari people. I think the Great Walk would prefer to respect the prohibition on mentioning the names of deceased indigenous people, but need to check what is appropriate now. thanks again. --Greatwalk 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You have mailSatuSuro 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Youve got trhough the afd - well done - good idea to keep talk page items on wiki shorter... - but you must keep working at putting verifiable or notable information in - not anything like the wording or usage on the website! vip! SatuSuro 03:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad it got through. History of social movements is an exceptionally difficult area to include on wikipaedia. I have given a lot thought to it since reading about the AfD on Greatwalk. Neutrality is the key, but there is tons of articles on minor entertainments that attract no editor attention. That things like this are challenged leaves me wondering how 'neutral' this community is. You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I will keep thinking about this article and subject, for that I thank you. Will drop back later with some more suggestions. Regards - Fred 10:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just been uncovered by the system as a holder of older secrets (!) and am about to be interrogated (in the nicest terms) about the founding, and early days of one of the larger groups already with an article. In the process - I am hoping to uncover my archive of materials - which inhabits an institutions shelves - and somewhere else- in the process I will probably get around to have all the vital items for WP:V and WP:N of a range of groups - will get around to a long email about it later in the week, cheers SatuSuro 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah same problems for street artist reccorders - real problems with V and N if category challenged or limited imagination persons take some issues literally - there are indeed independent third party sources - but sometimes really odd locations of info that can in fact provide adequate backup to justify the existence of the articles - i suppose i can remember the subterranean aspects of some cultural worlds - having shared houses way back then with students at east sydney tech - and had their works hanging in the living room - and the issue of the viability of young artists then in the bigger community - i can seee how some more conventional thinking eds have problems getting handles on the more marginalised and peripheral parts of the modern cultural fringes - bit like the arguments at the potential afd for the list of haunted places (not a good avenue to explore to find overly scientific eds trying to grapple with their sense of rationality being confronted ) - all good education of the under belly of the article creation and destruction part of the bigger process... SatuSuro 07:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Graffiti

Hello, thank you for your recent contributions to an article relating to Graffiti or Graffiti culture. WikiProject Graffiti is a dedicated group of people working to better Wikipedia's coverage of topics relating to Graffiti. We would greatly value your joining our WikiProject, or adding some input at our talk page.

Regards, Dfrg.msc 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for joining I've added your name to the list. You've helped the articles along more than a little, I really appreciate you refforts. It's weird, before the AfD it was just me editing all eleven. Now, other people are making edits and I can see my little articles expand (policy check, not actually my articles per WP:OWN). It's a good feeling. The AfD I think has been a major backfire for the nominator, before the AfD some of the articles were tiny and had little or no attention; now the spotlight is on and they are flourishing, better than ever and stand much less chance of being deleted. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] email

email SatuSuro 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) and again SatuSuro 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

You appear to have a complete misunderstanding of the attribution policy. "Sources" does not mean "a pointer to a random webpage", but a "reliable published source" (my emphasis). You would also be advised to read the reliable sources guideline. You have also misused the {{hangon}} template, but I'll leave you to sort out that mess. --Pak21 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calendars

You are now moving from acceptable behaviour into unacceptable behaviour. Your addition of deleted material to Lunisolar calendar is wrong for at least two reasons:

  1. The votes were to delete that information, not to merge it. The fact you don't like this doesn't change that.
  2. Your additions violate the GFDL, which requires that all information by attributed to its original author. You have not done that.

I am more than willing to discuss these issues, but you seem to be heading down a path which is highly likely to get you blocked if you continue. I strongly suggest you reconsider your actions. --Pak21 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging by his edit summary, Pak appears to think that information can be removed just because the home article for that material was deleted. This is not correct. If someone created an article on Ann-marie de Costa, and it was subsequently deleted as non-notable, we wouldn't then be required to remove "He is married to Ann-marie de Costa" from the Alan Carpenter article. In the same way, a calendar system may be too non-notable to have its own article, yet merit a brief mention in an overview article.
On the other hand, if Pak had provided an edit summary that justified removal of the information based on the absence of an appropriate reference, that would be irrefutably correct. Unreferenced and inappropriately referenced information can be challenged and removed by any editor at any time, and may not be reinserted without an appropriate reference. So in this case his removal of that information is acceptable even if his justification is a bit off.
Pak's comment on the GFDL is also correct; you retain the copyright to your contributions to Wikipedia, but agree to license them under specific conditions including that your authorship be acknowledged. So if you copy-and-paste information from another Wikipedia article, you should mention the original author of that material in your edit summary. But virtually no-one does this. This is a far, far bigger issue than your copy-paste of a couple of sentences.
All in all, I can't fault Pak's actions. But actions are only half the story here: there is also attitude. Seems to me Pak has come to this in a "I'm going to set these idiots straight" frame of mind, and that is most of the problem here. I find it quite difficult to collaborate with aggressive editors myself; but collaborate we must.
At this point I don't think you have any option but to let the articles rest in their current state, and, if you feel strongly enough about it, find a third party reference for the material you want to reinsert. Remember that deleted articles can be undeleted, and removed material can be recovered from the edit history, so nothing has been lost forever. As for Pak's approach to collaboration, I wouldn't waste your energy on it if I were you. Probably he will see this message, and take it as he will. What more can we do? Trying to change people is almost always an exercise in futility.
Good on you for keeping COOL.
Hesperian 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My advice is don't stress about it. By a strict interpretation of the GFDL, you should provide an edit summary that says something like "merge from some article; authors: User:1, User:2, User:3, ...." but this is unworkable when many people have contributed, and impossible if the list exceeds the character limit of the edit summary. This problem arises every time someone decides to merge or split an article. The community's position on this appears to be that this is a software problem, to be resolved by the implementation of some kind of history merging and splitting mechanism. It is very rare for someone to take issue with edits like yours from a GFDL violation point of view, and Pak's comments about this, although strictly speaking correct, did strike me as disingenuous. I doubt he agonises over the GFDL violation when he splits and merges articles. Hesperian 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for your contributions and good manners. Here is something you may find useful: Woodchipping. You inspired me. Just a start, see if you can add something. Best regards - Fred (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah - it was on his user sub page for a while - and I had one in my sub page on wa chip and pulp - so i launched chip and pulp - and egged him on - so it was his work SatuSuro 04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Too modest. Sats and others were an enormous help, sometimes indirectly. Thanks, greatwalk, for the encouragement. - Fred (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A tip

I do this all the time :-] When one copies to (or creates a category in) a 'sandbox' or 'user sub-page', they are included in that category. My sandpit was an 'article for deletion' at one stage. One way to avoid this (or to link a cat without inclusion) is

  • [[:Category:Geography of Western Australia]] (two colons) or
  • <nowiki>[[Category:Geography of Western Australia]]</nowiki> instead of
  • [[Category:Geography of Western Australia]] (regular, one colon)

I hope I'm making sense here. I don't know why it works, only that it does. Hesperian or orderinchaos would probably explain it better.

Anyway, I have been meaning to write to you about early conservation movements in WA. I will do that soon. Best regards Fred 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But it was not a random tip. Category:Western Australia contains your name. So does Category:Environmental organization stubs. I can't dig around anothers user page to find it. It is not considered polite. However, I will if you ask me. Otherwise keep up the excellent contributions. Fred 13:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD answers

I answered on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lunisolar, etc.

Greatwalk, thanks indeed go to people like you who stood up for allowing the (apparently unheard of) idea of allowing concepts to be written about in an encyclopedia! I noticed that some are still fighting the idea of including deleted information in main articles, as if the concepts themselves could be banned as "non-notable." I also think the entire deletion Jihad was ill-advised, poorly handled and an unnecessary over-reaction. It also severely misinterpreted the guidelines and policies. The entire episode - the most recent of MANY disheartening incidents I've seen here - have led me to basically take a long "wikibreak" from Wikipedia and focus my energies elsewhere. Thanks again for your reasoned arguments and reasonable discussions of this issue. - Nhprman 02:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

What was the deal? Did you think someone was forging my name during that AfD? For some reason, my comments were deleted. = Nhprman 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw your comment explaining it. No problem! ;-) - Nhprman 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, dude

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
You have been an example to us all in defending articles wrongfully proposed for deletion. Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Lunisolar Calendar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young (2nd nomination), , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian King, and so on (there's quite few, right?) was just so amazingly eye opening! Keep defending the Wikpedia. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Rejoice, dude, you have opened another eye. Well, not entirely open, though. I have already become so disgusted at the crappy arguments at the deletion debate for Ian King that I changed my position to keep, declaring agreement with the crappiest of them all. But, the downgrading stuff was a real eye-opener (never shall I try again to get an article right while it's in a deletion discussion).

Now, would you, please, check Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines to get a whiff of what I meant when I stood against the amazon.com citation? I also have left messages on Talk:Ian King, but my poor articulation and confrontational style may not make comments more useful than the guideline page. And, while you are at it, please, check Wikipedia:Citing sources as well. It might come real handy in your drive to substantiate poorly cited articles.

And, oh, I was pretty upset that instead of addressing the issues I raised citing WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, you decided to address the fact that I downgraded the article, thus rendering all my argument null. Please, understand again that I have nothing against Ian King. I don't know him, but I have reasons to believe that I know the WP. In fact I have posted a comment to User:Yankees76, the original keep-sayer to take another look at the stuff on the debate.

I believe, you have a wonderful mind that can really help taking Wikipedia forward. That is the reason I am requesting you to really help the Ian King article become an encyclopedia entry, not a repeat of promotional claims. It surely is getting a keep verdict, but this encyclopedia should be more important than keeping it populated with Australians (please, don't get me wrong, this far hte keep-sayers have been almost exclusively Australians, and just one with an interest in the sport... though Bangladesh is playing Australia today in the Cricket Worldcup). Hoping to here from you on my talk page. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pauline Hanson

I see you did not like my artist impression of Pauline, and removed it, fair enough if you honestly think its that bad. I did not mean it as disparaging as you have suggested, earlier I in fact removed some biased and irrelevant references to a questionable DNA test results that I believe were more disparaging. I thought it was an alright image, that others could improve upon perhaps, and another user did say it was a good likeness, but I suppose a photo would be better, its just the old one was removed.WunNation 12:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

LOL... the most tactful and diplomatic editor I've had a disagreement with? Indeed. Do I take that as a complement? Seriously, dear, I came to you page to write in a strong language, which is what I usually do. But, taking a look at whatever you've been doing here, I was so impressed that I had to award you barnstar (you deserve it more than many others who have awarded with the same barnstar).

About the capital E and small e stuff, there indeed is long disagreement between two groups of editors - the Inclusionists and the exclusionists - and, conflicts of philosophy doesn't end just there. It's a real trip down the rabbit's hole.

But, let me clear up two things. First, Wikipedida or any encyclopedia at that is not about truth, they are more about what can be verified as truth. And then, you have to depend on independent sources because sources associated with the subject may have an intrinsic bias toawards over claim or a presenting facts in a way that exaggerates them (example, the Aamazon.com claim of champion and trainer of world class athletes).

WP:ATT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. (There's quite a number of questions that clarify the process of attribution on Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ)

WP:NOTE: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. That doesn't include Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works should be someone else writing about the subject. The note there says - The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor).

WP:BIO: For sports bios - competitors who have played in a fully professional league or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport, or competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports. For writers/journalists - the subject may be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

The sources that went along with the Ian King article were (including Lou Schuler's, Tom Venuto's and Rob Wilkin's) were either from a co-author or from websites that clearly were designed to promote various stuff (even the language of these sites are highly non-objective and doesn't confirm any of the claims made about Ian King, i.e. champion or trainer of world class athletes). And, oh, offline sources are highly encouraged, as long they are bookflap material on the author of the book.

Finally, don't sweat over the suitable barnstar. Check out {{subst:The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|message ~~~~}}, if you are looking for barnstar that rewards kind words (I already have received one)... LOL. Nice meeting you. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

I saw your report at AIV about the IP who was vandalizing Gowanda, New York. I also noted that you referred to reaching your revert limit. WP:3RR is obviously an important principle, but I just wanted to point out that there are exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism, copyright violations, and WP:BLP violations. Just an FYI...--Kubigula (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Red herrings

Here comes a delayed response. Delayed partly because a sudden bout of intense real life issues kept me somewhat away from my favorite virtual world, partly because it is not easy to provide answers to people with more practice in intelligence.

Now, I really want to point out that the red herrings you mentioned are actual pieces of Wikipedia policy (not even guidelines, and certainly not essays). You or I may have discomforts with the policies, or guidelines, and that is encouraged too. I have fought against at least two policies, and lost. Participated in devising another, which got shelved and raised voice against a merger of three core policies (including WP:ATT). But, article talk, deletion discussion or such are not suitable places to do that. It may be done on editors forums, project pages and policy or guideline talks.

And, my long post may have obscured the fact that I did respond to the differences of interpretation of guidelines you presented. A large part of your difference stood on the assumption that the sources given would not falsify information. While agreeing on that I take this opportunity to repeat myself again - true or not, these sources can support the claims (which they did poorly, considering none were able to tell where was the subject made a champion or which kind of world class athletes he trained), bu can't be the mainstay of verifying claims. Reliability doesn't only depend upon the the position of the person quoted, it also depend upon the intention of the source. At that a promotional is promotional is a promotional (this attitude of the community also serves to keep advertisement and spam out of Wikipedia).

Besides, these red herrings (i.e. policies, guidelines, help and essays) serve one very important purpose - for any social being that does not a have hive mind (like the Borgs in Star Trek) it is important to have behavioral guidelines, otherwise the community may degenerate into anarchy. It is even more important for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia project perpetually hovering at the brink of a total free-for-all. Ian King may be a minor issue, but if you let that through it might become an example for bigger troubles. Just take a look at those terrorist' articles, or anything that has a reference of inter-nation conflict, or even celebrity vanity articles and fancruft.

Thanks again for the good humor, for believing in the community and for applying you considerable thinking prowess to the development of this wonderful project (if you like I can provide appropriate citation for every claim in this last paragraph... LOL). Aditya Kabir 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver polish

Thanks for your diligent work cleaning up the latest Silver vanity. Just when we think it's all gone it pops up again. -Will Beback · † · 08:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit revert

I reverted two edits at this page. They are available from your hisstory page if you want them - I say if. Happy editing, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking to do that...they're from a new user, so I'm altering their location a bit. --Greatwalk 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is my content being deleted?

I'm adding the following to "artificial flavor".

Its an unbiased added to Wikipedia inline with these links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2xist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-IN2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussie_bum


If you allow these companies content on wikipedia then you must allow this content below. Or you delete their as it is only fair? no?

thanks!

<spam removed by —Moondyne 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)>

Hi Lawrobber, I've responded on your talk page. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CUtWlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CUtWlogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:CUtWlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CUtWlogo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Graffiti Newsletter

wham!

Greetings from WikiProject Graffiti, you are part of a dedicated group of people working to better Wikipedia's coverage of topics relating to Graffiti. Latest News:

If you are looking for something to do:

Graffiti Portal
  • We still have a To Do list.
  • You can help spread important templates.
  • You can improve these pages.
  • You can also help but uploading pictures or images of Graffiti and Street art.

And remember you can add some input at our talk page. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perth Meetup Notification

 Perth Meetup
Next: TBA
Last: 13/02/2008
This box: view • talk • edit
  • You are invited to a meetup of Western Australian Wikipedians on the 19th August 2007 in the tearooms of Tranby House. Please sign on the Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 if you are able to attend. you recieved this message as your account has been active during May, June 2007 and your user page is listed in the Category:Wikipedians in Western Australia Gnangarra 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania 2008

Hey! I'm contacting all the members of wikiproject Perth because, I have put in an incomplete bid for Perth to hold Wikimania 2008. Please show your support by adding your name to the list and help contribute by improving our bid which is incomplete and located here - thanks Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 is next sunday 19th August, if you haven't already please sign on the meetup page if your coming, if your still unsure indicate anyway so I can confirm numbers with the venue thankyou Gnangarra 00:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name

Hesperian...you are one person I would ask this advice from: Do I need a name change? If this article is called Great Walk and its main editor/contributor is also called User:greatwalk, will not the article constantly be plagued with accusations of WP:COI? It seems a likely possibility at this point...--Greatwalk Talk 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a very amusing bot going around named COIBot, which reports edits where the username resembles the article title. It once reported me for editing Esperance Plains, for both user and article have "esper" in them. Criminal! I also remember once it reported Moondyne for editing Moondyne, which at least makes superficial sense. Somehow it seems not to have noticed your edits to Great Walk Networking yet, but I suppose eventually it will, and your name will appear on a WikiProject Spam report, and some well-intentioned spam hunter will examine the article and your good self, and you may or may not find your time consumed by yet another AfD. So to answer your last question first, yes, I think the article probably will be plagued by COI accusations for as long as you are editing it under that username.
I think we might as well face the fact that you do have a conflict of interest, in the literal (and banal) sense that you have written an article about an entity with which you are closely involved. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Conflicts of interest are not bad: what is bad is the poor or biased judgment that sometimes (i.e. often) stems from them. Your judgment hasn't been tested yet — if and when a reputable source publishes encyclopedic information about Great Walk Networking that reflects poorly upon it, leaving you to decide whether to improve the article at the expense of GWN's image, then we'll find out what you're made of. Until then, we have this guideline called assume good faith. AGF would have to be one of the most oft-quoted guidelines on Wikipedia, yet for some reason it is invariably set aside when it comes to conflicts of interest. People see a conflict of interest and just assume you're up to no good.
Changing your name won't change the fact that you have a conflict of interest. All it will do is hide the fact from COIBot and his minions. Considering what a hammering you've taken from them so far, I can understand why you'd want to do so. Personally, I would if I were you.
If you do want to go ahead with it, it is easily done; just follow the instructions at WP:CHU.
Hesperian 12:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC).