User talk:Rebecca/Archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Contents

Federation Square Revert

I totally disagree in you deleting my comment about the shards. It WAS a VERY controversial time, and I can send you at least 20 articles and statements that can prove that. The fact that you deleted everything I wrote on this and didn't even care to acknowledge my comment shows your ignorance on behalf of the project - one that I have been following closely since day 1. Further discussion on this would be appreciated and I hope that we could come to a suitable compromise. Danbonsai | Talk 12:49, 27 June 2006

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


ACT Politician Pictures

Hi Rebecca, I've added one to Jon Stanhope as well as to Andrew Barr, but now kicking myself for not getting John Hargreaves (note I've just added a stub), Simon Corbell and Katy Gallagher while I had a chance. These were from a community meeting at the Tuggeranong Community Centre, which followed a cabinet meeting on Monday. We were invited to RSVP as part of the Tharwa community re the proposed school closures, but there seemed to be a bunch of other people who rocked in off the street to get a feed - the blue rinse brigade was there, hoping for a quiet cuppa. Anyway, this is all pretty new to me, I'm pretty apolitical. But 9/11 and the Iraq War got me going, as has the ACT 06/07 budget :). Hopefully there will be more opportunities for pics coming up - I'll also get in touch with someone else who had a camera there. Jtneill - Talk 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Geelong photos

There's a heap needed, but the weather is, as usual for this time of year, crap outside. I'm leaving town in 2 weeks. Life calls me to Mildura of all places. Would you like a list? I've started one here. I'll look about and see what's bare and lob you some ideas if you like. The local articles are somewhat heavy on historical images since I raided the State Library for all it's treasure. -- Longhair 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Category:Images of Geelong may be worth a browse to see what's already covered. -- Longhair 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not leaving Geelong period, but yes I'm going to be living some distance away. I always return home. Being a law student, my reasons for leaving may even be interesting to you (legal, not personal). I'd rather say more via irc than here though. I'm sitting in the channel now if you're about for a chat. The list has begun. I was wondering yesterday how best to grade the articles already there. So many ideas. I ditched them all eventually and decided to go over the articles again anyway. Good timing. -- Longhair 22:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm there. I've found the problem. Private messages from unregistered users are currently blocked due to spam problems, but you can always message a staffer. Please register! ( http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#privmsg ). My main pc is already packed, so you'll have to excuse me whilst I fiddle about and reconfigure this one. Unless you know a shortcut? ;) -- Longhair 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Easily solved :) If you register the account (type /msg nickserv register yourpassword), then you should be fine. You might need to identify as well (/msg nickserv identify yourpassword). Rebecca 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done that. Think I'm now live. Sorry about that. Unfamiliar pc :) -- Longhair 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For Netball

Hi Rebecca. You may find these categories helpful in your editing:

I've also been trying to improve the selection of photos on [[1]] Deebki 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you revert me (just kidding)

Hi--I don't know how I overwrote your edits to Wikipedia talk:Community Portal. Sorry about that, it wasn't intentional--there weren't any replies at all when I started editing, but I didn't get an edit conflict warning. *shrug* · rodii · 17:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Can you please refrain from mass-removing any more date links before establishing a consensus that it is, in fact, acceptable to do so? This issue has been debated at length, and if one thing came out of it, it was that a) there is no consensus to be doing anything major on this, and b) that there seemed to be general agreement that automated, mass-scale removal of date links was not acceptable. Please discuss before making any more such edits. Rebecca 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you think this way. I believe I am following the policy stated in WP:DATE, as written--prior or post discussions do not count. When I am editing an article and I find date links that are not needed for the purpose of clarity or content and are not needed for date formatting purposes, I remove them--just as I do with any other unnecessary link. This is following the policy of removing unnecessary links. I am not performing 'automated mass-scale removal'--indeed I do not know how to do such things and don't have the time or interest in just going through articles for the sole purpose of removing such links. Thanks for your concern. Hmains 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:DATE and WP:CONTEXT say that individual months, years, centuries, etc. should not be linked unless there is very good reason to do so. Please stop following people like Bobblewik around reverting their legitimate edits. User:Angr 07:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Next

Big thanks for a positive comment... oh, how I needed one!

I'm not sure. Probably Dunstan - I've been reading so much about him and as a character he's fascinating. Then again, I have other things I can finish off quicker.

Happy editing! michael talk 10:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wil Anderson

Hi Bec, I noticed you had been editing in the last few minutes so I'm hoping you are about - I'm about to head off to bed and was wondering if you could keep an eye on Wil Anderson, if you are able to. I've made a couple of broad short-term blocks. I'll check the pages again in the morning! -- Chuq 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reformat of 2006 candidates article

Nice reformat of the Candidates of the Victorian legislative election, 2006 article. It is much easier to read now. Well done. Peter Campbell Talk! 14:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin

I do not believe it would pass. While I am a responsible editor, I use strong language frequently when dealing with certain editors (I despise ass-kissing, naive and patronising remarks, as well as blatant idiocy). If I was an administrator, I would have very little patience with vandals and troublesome editors.

On the other hand, thank you for the kind offer. Its a good show of confidence in my work. michael talk 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert Talk:Australia

Could you tell me a reason of reverting? Thanx, --Lothar25 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mary and the Doc

I just rewrote Mary Gaudron and there's a nice story in there about Doc Evatt which Mark thought would 'tickle' you :) --bainer (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd already read it! Hee.
I keep your contributions page on my watchlist these days. :) Rebecca 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm flattered :) I also liked the story about how she was hired for the second equal pay case. Now, I guess the next question is, who on earth is up editing at 5am? --bainer (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I came on after the soccer, and some things came up. Eh. I'll be off very soon. Rebecca 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the adrenaline rush from those last few minutes has kept me up until now. Although I'm in the process of hitting the wall, so I'll say goodnight. Can't be too tired for the meetup tonight. --bainer (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Luis Medina Cantalejo

I started a discussion about the relevance of the "12 seconds remaining" in Talk:Luis Medina Cantalejo. Please respond - thanks! Ytny 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Hi, I'm talking to you on behalf of my client, Hmains. We have become concerned at your persistent reversion of my client's removal of date links. We have therefore come to offer a compromise. Hmains agrees not to revert stand-alone year or century links without leaving a note as to why on the article's talk page. In return, you agree not to revert his removals without first discussing and obtaining consensus on the talk page. Does that sound reasonable? --David.Mestel 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm just asking you to have a look at WP:DATE - where stand-alone links to months or days are discouraged, and, since years and centuries are recognised as a bone of contention, efforts should be made to gain consensus. --David.Mestel 06:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea is that he will keep the page on his watchlist and engage in discussion with you or anyone else who thinks the link removal was inappropriate. --David.Mestel 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that like saying that it's OK to decapitalise second and subsequent words in article titles, but not to go through the 'pedia looking for and fixing them? --David.Mestel 06:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to get rid of what I see as your specious argument that it's OK to remove date links sometimes, but not OK to go around looking for them and removing them where appropriate. Either it's right or it's not. If it is right, then it's OK to do it frequently, if not, then not at all. Are you prepared to accept that? --David.Mestel 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd show me the courtesy of replying. --David.Mestel 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that you're misrepresenting what my client does, or intends to do. He is not going to "shoot all date links on sight", as you put it. He is going to consider each on an individual basis, and, if he feels that they add no relevant context, remove them. You can then discuss this on the article's talk page. --David.Mestel 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to take issue with individual removals, you should do so on the article's talk page, but please don't just revert them on sight, and especially do not use your admin rollback function, as that is only for simple vandalsim. --David.Mestel 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:ADMIN:"Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism" --David.Mestel 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide any policy cites to support your point of view? --David.Mestel 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that like saying, "Well, we should forget that the Encyclopædia Britannica says this, because I'm sure I read somewhere that the other."? --David.Mestel 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my last comment patronising, but don't you think that you're being rather arrogant in disregarding policy in favour of your own point of view? --David.Mestel 16:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem not to have noticed the previous, so I'm reminding you. --David.Mestel 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you confirm that you are not prepared to discuss the legitemacy of your use of the admin rollback function to revert my client's edits? --David.Mestel 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You want a reason other than policy? I'll give you one. Fairness and natural justice. You are engaged in what could be termed an edit war with my client, and, although this state of affairs is of course undesirable, while it persists, it is unfair that either of you should have an advantage. --David.Mestel 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, he makes automated edits? --David.Mestel 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Except that AWB doesn't delink dates. --David.Mestel 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I wish he'd told me that. But are you prepared to not use admin rollback on edits not made with that script? --David.Mestel 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for being so reasonable. But are you prepared to come to some sort of compromise on the substantive issue. For example, perhaps Hmains could monitor the talk pages of the pages he removes date links from, and if you have objections, you two can discuss them on a case-by-case basis. --David.Mestel 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC) But isn't it a general principle on Wikipedia that the onus is on the person wishing something to be included to justify it? --David.Mestel 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Um...no. The MoS basically says that there is no consensus on standalone years, so obviously they should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. --David.Mestel 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about this: if Hmains comes across an article in which he believes that there are unnecessary date links, he will leave a message on the talk page, and/or place a template or cat, if a suitable one can be devised. He will then leave this for a period of 24 or 48 hours. If you have an objection, you can raise it, and you two can talk on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, he can remove the links. How does that sound? --David Mestel(Talk) 19:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmains feels that, stylistically, articles read better without unnecessary date links. Therefore, to make the encyclopedia as good as it can be, he wants to remove those date links that are unnecessary. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Did you have a reason for unblocking Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? You are aware of his history of egregious copyright violations and general incivility, right? --Cyde↔Weys 13:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rebecca. I don't know what to do know. I am going to put all of the information in my archive. I want to put this behind me, but I don't think certain users are going to allow this.
Should I ask user:Duk who unblocked me orginally, on the condition that I do not talk about fair use again, if I can start an RfC or talk on the village pump about fair use? That is the foundation of this problem.
  • I think the agreement was that you wouldn't Fight over fair use. Edits like this are not ok.--Duk 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what to do now. Any suggestions please let me know.
It appears that maybe certain users who have different views about copyright, and are very agressive about their views, are just waiting for any chance to ban me again.
Any suggestions would be great, should I go through the organization you are the head of, maybe contact the two people you suggested?
Or should I just drop it for now?
If you don't want to be involved with this anymore, let me know. I will respect this. You have already done so much...
I just wonder how many people who are not as articulate or willing to discuss the issue as much as me, get booted for possibly dubious reasons all the time. That is why I am so impressed with your organization.
I intern with an immigration center which helps indigent (poor) immigrants who are in deportation proceedings. We help VAWA women, women who wer battered by their US citizen husband, to stay in this great country. It gives you a warm feeling inside to be an active part in changing people's lives, for giving a voice to the voiceless. Thank you Rebecca. Travb (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Rebecca,
Travb has been blocked repeatedly for incivility and for repeated, egregious copyright infringement. His position on fair use is not consistent with policy and has been argued down repeatedly. When blocked, he makes a constant stream of edits to his talk page, presenting multiple different postures in the hopes that one of them will eventually convince an administrator to unblock him. He also emails random admins begging to be unblocked. As soon as he is unblocked, he returns to the behaviors for which he has been blocked; in this case, disruptively attacking our copyright policies. Please exercise caution with respect to this tendentious user. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Kelly Martin, please direct your comments to me personally. We can talk about these issues on my talk page. I would never have e-mailed those users if you would have responded to my e-mail. Please lets not make User:Rebecca's user page a battle ground about my behavior and yours. Travb (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I sent you an email, no need to give me advice, AnnH advised me just to drop it.Travb (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify?

Thanks for your comment re the Altona Gate Shopping Centre. As a relative newcomer here I'm still trying to grasp some of the intricacies of WP. I added the prod tag because the article failed to assert notability and it seemed unlikely that it could reasonably be expanded beyond a stub. You are probably right that it should be nom'd for AfD, but can you clarify the reasons so that I will be able to make better judgements in the future? Spasebaw tovarisch! --Doc Tropics 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for such a speedy and informative response; I really appreciate the time you took to explain so thouroghly. If these articles actually tend to be kept then it would seem better to try and improve it, rather than delete it. I'll see if I can expand on it somehow; any suggestions? --01:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to feel that once I've messed around with an article I should really make an effort to either improve it (best case) or sink it (worst case). So I'll look at the other article you referenced and see what might be done. Thanks for all your input; you were very helpful :) --Doc Tropics 01:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

Hi Rebecca, when you've got a spare moment, would you be able to response to my 'it should be noted that' issue on the Talk:Pauline Hanson page? Thanks, Ashmoo 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Curious re Gregory Lauder-Frost

I'm curious about your statements on the Gregory Lauder-Frost page. You've brought up a few times that you think more recent versions of the article were not neutral, and while that may be true it's not exactly ... helpful in correcting that! I feel one problem is simply that once an article becomes contentious, verifiability and sourcing become very important - and if the coverage in what generally counts as verifiable, reliable sources is biased towards one part of a subject's life, then it's hard for the article to be neutral.

I appreciate you've taken the article off your watchlist, but some suggestions from what you saw to be problems would be helpful. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from your reply on my talk page. One thing I have noticed is that once the question of an article's notability has been raised on AFD (regardless of one's opinions about the whole 'notability' criterion in the first place), and especially if an article has been deemed a puff piece written by the subject or their supporters, notability criteria end up being applied, wholly improperly, to deciding what subject matter should be in the article.
Thus, I feel, the article becomes only about the subject's claims to notability - which in the case of someone in politics ends up being what they are notorious for, quite often, since those things have gained the most column inches in the press.
There is, I agree with you, a sense in which Wikipedians react to hagiography by swinging the article wildly the other way - a kind of 'Don't push us around!' reaction which is understandable but doesn't necessarily result in a good article either. This is perhaps exacerbated by the article's original creators either poorly sourcing the positive aspects of the subject's life, or their being driven off - either by being banned, or simply being unable to cope with negative aspects of the subject being brought to light.
In the Gregory Lauder-Frost case, I think, on reflection, his supporters have not helped their case by being so focussed on trying to intimidate by legal threats and rather stretched legal theories, and by being utterly fixed on removing any mention of GLF's conviction for embezzlement. This mono-focus has meant that nothing else in the article has recieved any attention from his fans for some time, which resulting slant probably does his image more harm than the simple half-sentence about his conviction that was in more recent versions of the article.
Any other insight? Thanks for what you provided already. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Spencer St Station

Thanks for your advice.

I can't see what is "lousy" about my edits, but I can see what is ungrammatical and inaccurate about your reversions, eg "Also the station has a operating Bus Station with a 24 hour per a day the bus service to Melbourne airport via Skybus", with its incorrect capitalisation, incorrect sentence structure, incorrect indefinite article, and clumsy and unnecessary wording, which I changed to "It has a bus station with 24-hour Skybus service to Melbourne airport"; or "Southern Cross is one of the five stations which comprise the City Loop, an underground railway which", which by using the word "comprise' means that the loop consists of the five stations and nothing else, not even the track between them - obvious nonsense - and omits the necessary comma in front of "which". I changed this to the accurate and grammatical "Southern Cross is one of five stations on the City Loop, an underground railway that".

By reverting these you are accepting inaccuracy and sloppiness, which is rather sad.

And I suggest that your making personal and patronising remarks doesn't exactly strengthen your case.

Happy editing! Birdhurst 11:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You've given me plenty of advice, so I thought I'd share some with you: discuss wholesale reversions with the previous editor, rather than just slagging them off in the edit summary; before doing reversions, check what you're reverting to; and don't leave an article worse off than it was before you started because you're "disinclined" to complete a job.

Further happy editing! Birdhurst 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, I'm Canadian. Could you give me a real short quick&dirty on what this date silliness is all about, or where I can find it? Thanks Bridesmill 17:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh back...Thanks for the explanation. I figured it might be something like that - made me feel like I'd somehow misread the WP:DATE, obviously I didn't. What is bothering me here is he seems to be on a kick at FA noms implying that articles need all date links removed before they can be FA. Consider me on your side here - my thought on dates is that there is such a thing as overdoing it ([wednesday]), but if the author thinks [5th century BCE] helps with context; why not Bridesmill 03:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD

I think a potentially very disruptive template is on verge of being kept. If you have time, please take a look at this TfD discussion. [2] Regards. 172 | Talk 21:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw your "please don't bite the newbies" comment on another editor's talk page. Thank you so very much. I have felt like I've been tilting at windmills going to bat for newcomers' new articles. It's nice to see someone else fighting the good fight.--A. B. 01:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for turning the page on the WP:ACOTF. I guess you now know that the History of Australia series is the current collaboration. Since you nominated it, I'd guess you have some ideas to bring forward. --Scott Davis Talk 00:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: This fortnight's ACOTF

Any chance you might have some time to help with this fortnight's ACOTF, the History of Australia series? It's looking quite pitiful at present, so it'd be nice to have all hands on deck on this one. :) Rebecca 04:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly lend a hand. I noticed it was selected this morning, and I had a quick look at it, but I have no idea where to start! The series is certainly something I've had on my to-do list for a long time. I think I'll get my Manning Clark's History of Australia out later and start making sure we're covering the basics. --bainer (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad to help, and did intend to do so. Little actual writing should be involved; information just needs to be transferred, organised and referenced. michael talk 10:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, I noticed you made some changes to the Oldham Riots article; specifically to the dates. After doing a little research, I'm a little confused as to the correct usage of linking dates.

I was advised by User:Bobblewik to remove all links, but it seems that you advocate that this really should not be.

I personally prefer at least some dates in for context (especially those to centuries), but I've since removed some from articles I maintain/created, as per recommendations.

Could you clarify if this should be, as I'd rather edit within proper guidelines!

Hope you can help, Jhamez84 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--Thanks! I suspected this was the case. I read through WP:DATE, but couldn't find any such guideline that explicitly said dates should be delinked, and was most confused when I was told that having dates linked would make an article fail the WP:GA criteria. Thanks very much for your swift reply and clarification. I'll have to go back to a few of the articles in which I've been the primary editor and try to fix this! Jhamez84 09:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Voss-Strasse

Rebecca, I recommend that you review the Wikipedia policy on no original research, which states that no information can be included on Wikipedia unless it already appears in some other outside source. Please do not add uncited information to Wikipedia articles. I would also advise you to review the policy on civility and no personal attacks, and stop referring to other editors' work as "silly" or "idiocy". --Elonka 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The original research policy exists to deal with the likes of crank theories and unverifiable information. It does not, however, deal with information which is (I assume, and no one has actually disputed this), evident to anyone who visits the site. Such information is informative and useful, and it is ridiculously overzealous to remove it on those grounds. Rebecca 23:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, you may regard it as "ridiculously overzealous". That's your opinion. For my part, I regard it as a reasonable concern, and yes, I dispute the sentence. Here's my reasoning: I've spent some time looking around trying to verify the information that is on the page, and have found very very little other than what look like some real estate offerings. As I am sure you know, many people create articles on Wikipedia as a method of self-promotion or vanity. If someone could point me to any English-language sources which would verify the notability of the subject of the article, I would be less inclined to request citations, but so far there have been none, except for a few very casual German-language mentions, and a very emotional writer who is insisting that any challenges to "his" article are harassment (which is absurd, considering I have no idea who he is). In short, in this particular case, I think that either removing what looks like a promotional POV sentence, or requesting a citation for it, is appropriate. --Elonka 23:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should read don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you want the article deleted, you're welcome to express your opinion on that. You're not welcome, however, having failed to do the above, to disrupt the rest of the article by making silly demands. If the article is a "promotional POV sentence", then what on earth is it supposed to be promoting? You've not given one single reason to suggest that either a) it is wrong, or b) it is not obvious to anyone who visits the site. This does not require a source. Rebecca 23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)'
Wow, you're accusing me (and others) with highly emotional terms like being "silly" "ridiculously overzealous", "disrupting the rest of the article", and making "silly demands". That's quite a bit of rage based on one "fact" tag. Are you having a bad day? To answer your question though, my concern is that it's promoting real estate sales, by appealing to the "treasure hunter" nature of people. I've been unable to find any source, anywhere, aside from the individual who wrote the article, that confirms that the street has that kind of treasure-hunter status. Can you point me at a single reference, in any language, which confirms it? That's all I'm asking. --Elonka 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If only that actually made any sense. "Treasure hunter" status? All the sentence describes is the current state of the street. Rebecca 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem really determined to assume bad faith on my part.  :) But yes, "treasure hunter" status. One of my specialties is in investigating hoaxes, such as Priory of Sion and the events around Rennes-le-Chateau. I also maintain a quite popular webpage on Famous Unsolved Codes [3]. One thing I've discovered in my research, is that when someone wants to boost the value of real estate, they tie it to a local mystery. If there is no local mystery, they invent one. The sentence that we're talking about, in the Voss-Strasse article, struck me as such a case of, "there's not much of note here, but there are lots of tourists who are looking for buried treasure (Hitler's bunker)". That's the kind of sentence that I would expect a real estate agent to put into a listing, as a way of increasing property values, even if the statement wasn't true. Or let me put it another way -- if there are tourists who come to Voss-Strasse looking for Hitler's bunker, how are they knowing to go to that street? How are they hearing about it? How is the street famous enough to attract tourists, if there's nothing written about it anywhere? That's what has me concerned. --Elonka 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may add something here: according to this website [4], the location of the Führerbunker is mentioned in the Lonely Planet guide. I haven't looked into it myself, but could verify that, if anyone insists. I suppose that's one way how people could know where to look. Also, if the location of the Führerbunker is mentioned in a travel guide, it seems reasonable to assume that it is a tourist destination. Blur4760 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not helpful

Hi, I do not think it is helpful to justify a revert with the comment "oh don't be silly" (David Marr article). This is pejorative language that might be regarded as counter to the spirit of Wikipedia and the principles of dispute resolution "Be respectful to others and their points of view". Thanks. --Wm 05:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Andy's suggestions

Re:this edit - in what way does User:AndyZ/Suggestions not comply with other guidelines? Raul654 02:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this may have been a misunderstanding--Francis Schonken updated Andy's page to comply with WP:MOSDATE on July 2, before it was re-added to WP:WIAFA. Accordingly, I have reinserted the link. Please tell me if I have misread the situation. --RobthTalk 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerry Nettle

Hi Rebecca, I did read the article. It insinuates he said the F word but he did not confirm or deny it, and with a lack of real quoting, leaving F*** there as a quote, when it is quoted nowhere online AFAIK, I am uneasy with (and i'm not protecting him, IMHO Nettle breathes fresh life in to parliament while Lightfoot just absorbs it) Timeshift 07:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

For being an asshole to you on IRC. SushiGeek 07:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to drop a short thank you note for unblocking me. I'm glad there are still many good admins on Wikipedia such as yourself. This keeps me here. :)Giovanni33 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca:
  • Administrators: Do not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin; see WP:BLOCK. [text of unblock request]
  • If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate. Wikipedia:Blocking policy
I haven't seen any explanation, much less consultation, regarding this action. -Will Beback 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:BLOCK I'm letting you know that I've reinstated the remainder of the block. Giovanni33 is a chronically disruptive editor who more than earned the block. He obviously needs to spend some more time reconsidering his method of contributing to Wikipedia based on his comments here and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 17:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy spoken

Hi. It was I who removed the spoken version as copyvio. The copyrighted material has been removed from the recording. Sorry, I should have clarified this in the edit summary. Can I put it back now? -- Macropode 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

Updated DYK query On July 8, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Australia before 1788, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Werdna's RfA

Though the "No" incident did make me wary about him, this was not the straw that broke the camel's back. I read over what Guettarda said about Dunc and Werdna's reaction to him and this is what made me oppose. I have been hurt by uncivil people before and I don't want to vote one to an administrative position. Also, I had never looked at the edit history on him. It is very low for a person that has been here for almost a year. I am sorry that I cannot support him to adminship, and I am sorry that I did not explain it as well in the RfA discussion. --WillMak050389 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tracey

Yes, I agree with your comment; unfortunately, we need to wait for the review period to elapse before FARCing this one (it was premature of me to place it there the other day).

Do you think that the new procedure (combined FAR/FARC) is working well? Tony 14:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And I think the process comes up against the sleeping giant of WP: the dire shortage of skilled and committed copy-editors and reviewers. My experience in the FAC room brings this home continually. Some nominators become frustrated, even annoyed, when their efforts are criticised and there's no one to help. And too many poorly written nominations are being promoted for want of reviewers who will doggedly insist on high standards. What to do about it? Tony 14:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I'd realised that about adminship. But how to attract and reward people for doing more language stuff is the other side of the coin. I see that Michael is concerned too, below. Tony 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking of Giovanni33

As to the wisdom of your insistence on and repeated unblocking of this editor, one of his first acts upon being unblocked by you was to take revenge against me for reinstating his block: [5] Reinstating a bogus 3RR report against me initially filed by Deuteronomy2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), an obvious sockpuppet of his created just for the occasion. I'm inclined to not only restore the initial block but to extend it, and I'm far from alone in this view. Since you've been so insistent that he be given a yet another chance, now squandered, I'd like you to be the one to reinstate the remaining two days of his original block. Otherwise, I'll reblock, but for an extended period. This editor is apparently irredeemable, his actions upon return have only been to fan the flames and attack me [6], and you've not been present and active in that process. FeloniousMonk 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, either you take responsibility for him by reinstating the remainder of his original block (2.5 days) or I will. I'm not going to let his personal mission of revenge against me prevent me from taking proper action as an "involved party," which I am not. FeloniousMonk 15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer that you'd do it, since you took him under your wing. FeloniousMonk 15:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Concern

"...we're getting more and more people doing the useless drone work, and simply not enough focusing on the core work of articles. It's got so out of hand that I don't have a clue what to do about it anymore."

This is something I have been alarmed about for some time, and why I'm hesitant to even bother requesting adminship. Its nice to know someone else is of this opinion. michael talk 15:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WPFY has a new look!

Check out WP:FY. If you wish, you can add {{WPFY}} to your user or talk page to keep in touch with the project. Zocky | picture popups 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Werdna's RfA

Well, well, well. I really do not know what to make of your comments. I hope that you bear in mind that my comments were in no way exclusive in nature. There were other users who shared similiar sentiments. However, on further hindsight, I admit that my comments were a bit too harsh BUT in no way was it unjustified. On a personal note, I have nothing against Werdna and appreciate his work in Wikipedia. I have no doubt that he would be a fine admin one day and would most definitely support him in the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Werdna showed questionable judgement at Simetrical's RFA. On top of that this and the RfA boycott pageis a concern for me. This also reveals that the candidate lacks emotional maturity occasionally. However, this should not be a discouragement to the user and I would like to emphasis that I will support him in the future. I hope that I have given you a rational explanation for my vote. If you still feel that my explanation on this is unsatisfactory, please feel free to comment your concerns on my talk page. Any constructive criticisms are most welcomed! --Siva1979Talk to me 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK

Rebecca, just to let you know that I posted a suggested compromise to the talk page here saying that nothing in this policy gives the blocking admin a veto over whether a block should stay in place. That might go some way toward addressing your concerns. I think it could be added to the existing wording, so that we're stressing that discussion is needed, but that doesn't mean the blocking admin is "in charge" of the block in any way. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rating of Australian articles

Thanks for the notice regarding the ratings I did - I tried my best using the relatively vague instructions given on the project talk page. The 1986 act was a tough one, and you're right, it should be higher than low (thinking about it now, I don't know why on earth I gave it that). I'm just trying to help by clearing out the over 1000 unrated article backlog.--Iorek85 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Casey Donovan (singer):

You recently protected[7] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 07:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on AN/I

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serial_unblocking_of_Giovanni33. Thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of Jackp and autoblock

Hi Rebecca, your block yesterday of [Jackp] has autoblocked 202.6.138.33 which is one of the adamnet addresses. Can't tell from the blocklist but this may have also got 202.6.138.34 Not sure if this is the correct forum but could you unblockit ? Thanks very much in advance --Peripitus (Talk) 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox you might like

Hi Rebecca,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines
This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.



Lists of TV programs

Erm, did you even look at any of the lists before voting? None of the lists listed are current schedules (or anything in any way resembling one), so why are you claiming that that is all that would be lost? Rebecca 08:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I did look, otherwise I just had said make into categories. And I would call the top of List of programs broadcast by A-Channel and half way of List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company schedules. -- Koffieyahoo 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the nine tenths of them that are not in any way schedules? Rebecca 08:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The main parts of these pages are list, so make a category for each of the lists and include each of the enties in the respective category? -- Koffieyahoo 09:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian Democrats

Do you have a suggestion for a better way to phrase it for NPOV? Timeshift 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rephrased, if you have any concerns let me know. Timeshift 13:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my RFA

I feel that the fact that you have not produced any actual evidence against me weighs sufficiently severely for me to withdraw my nomination. I am happy for you to oppose me if you disagree with anything I have done, but I will not stand being accused of something unspecified, especially not including personal attacks, as in the case of one opposer. I urge you to closely review my contributions and respond on my RFA, or I will withdraw. I regret that this is happening so close to the deadline.

Yours sincerely,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni and Deuteronomy

Hi, Rebecca, I just saw your notice at AN/I. No hurry for a reply if you're going off for a few days, but would it be appropriate to tag the Deuteronomy2000 account with the real owner? If you feel no, since it wasn't used for extra reverts or votes, fine. I've asked Timothy Usher and Str1977 (both of whom have been witnesses to the obvious puppetry from Giovanni, and have seen him getting caught) to leave the Deuteronomy account alone. Str1977 agrees with me now that it's not Giovanni (even before you mentioned that it was a different user). I felt all along that if he had been using an account just for the purpose of making an anonymous 3RR report (something I have no reason to believe he has ever done), he would have reverted my removal of that report as Deuteronomy, not as Giovanni. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea

Rebecca, please do not remove links in this article. They all are very well important for understanding the issue of this entity - for context see the discussion page. It was very difficult to achieve a compromise on "historic dispute" concerning the GLK past - please do not stirr up a new edit war, this is entirely unnecessary.

PROD

Hey there. Just informing you that [8] was not subst'd. It's been fixed. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U | T | C | E ) 13:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Block of Moviefan

Hi Rebecca, while checking out whether 202.6.138.33 or 202.6.138.34 were unblocked ( see my above message ) I saw this.

18:28, 13 July 2006, Rebecca (Talk) blocked Moviefan (contribs) (expires 18:28, 17 July 2006) (Sockpuppet/new account of Jackp, who still has four days of an existing block to serve.)

Am I missing something - Moviefan appears to be wikilinking from the Nl: wiki to movie related pages and is clearly not Jackp --Peripitus (Talk) 10:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help! I'll be interested to see how Jackp behaves next week --Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Association of Members' Advocates

Hello, Rebecca. :-) I'm a somewhat recent addition to the Association of Members' Advocates, responsible for the new logo and general cleanup of the pages, and I see that you are the Coordinator. I wanted to offer my services or any other help that you may need for the AMA project, so if I can be of use simply send me a message on either my talk page or via email. Peace! :-)

Thanks for the offer of assistance. Alas, the AMA isn't in a particularly healthy state at the moment. I resigned as coordinator three weeks ago and no one has done so much as acknowledge my resignation. It needs a lot of care and attention, and I just don't have the time to make it work properly. Rebecca 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! I had no idea. Would it be too bold of me to rise to the cause and try and breathe the life back into things? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Be my guest! Honestly, the main thing we need is a comprehensive guide of exactly what an advocate should and should not do. If I'd thought of it a few months ago I might have had the energy to make it happen, but it only really struck me the other day. Rebecca 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, at the very least (and, of course, if you're able to :-) ) throw me a list of bullets or ideas and I'll expand them and put them together for you. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 recommendation

I've made a recommendation regarding User:Giovanni33; I'd appreciate it if you would comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Giovanni33 again. Regards, Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for changing your mind. I don't like rodents much, but here are some frogs:

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On a personal note, thank you so much for defending me. That meant a lot. --Chris S. 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation of Electoral Districts

Can you drop by here and let me know how to go... I am looking at some articles thanks to suggestbot and one of these is William Forster, which referred to a lot of NSW Electoral Districts that don't exist any more but share names with Federal Districts.

I just want to get it right when I put links into the William Forster article, and have them refer to articles for NSW districts rather than federal districts - even if they are redlinked for a while until someone is interested in making articles for electoral districts from pre-federation... --Garrie 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Transsexualism

I noticed that you removed the paragraph in this article on issues related to children of transsexual people, describing it as "horseshit." While I agree that there were a few problems with the paragraph, issues for children of transpeople seem like something the article should address. Though I have to say, the article is becoming quite long, and has already been split in to several sub-articles. I plan to start a separate article soon on the causes of transsexualism as well. Please explain your reasoning for removing the paragraph you removed. Andrea Parton 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert of back in the days

Just wondering.. Back around May 26 2006, I edited the List of Bisexual people to add a small line to William Shakespeare, but apparently you kept reverting the versions. May I know why? (Curiosity) --Deenoe 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Are you referring to Fred or Homey in this edit [9]? Homey is the one making the proposal but you refer to Fred. --Ben Houston 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF

This is an act of pure venegance on the part of an opposing party.

I ask you to remove this statement as it violates WP:AGF and is also false.Homey 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)