User talk:Rebecca/Archive20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:AMA alerts Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

Contents

Bobblewik

Where is this discussion you talk about located? - Mgm|(talk) 07:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Date links

I rather think that in the process of archiving, you may have missed this comment. Thanks, David Mestel(Talk) 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Zazz

Could you please explain why you want to delete Zazz in the AFD please? Feedyourfeet 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Moyes

Hi Beck,

If you have a moment, can you please have a look over Gordon Moyes. I've put up a PoV notice that was removed without discussion. (By User_talk:Jflegg, who I suspect is his staffer, Jonathan Flegg, but I assume that there's no explicit policy against this.) I'd just like to have more than the two of us before we call it NPoV.

ta,

Nick 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

Hi Rebecca

Thanks for your help with Jackp. It was getting out of hand and dragging on far too long. I've made some comments on his user talk page jackp regarding his apparent edits under his IP. Have a look if you don't mind, and please contribute if you have anything to add. It is so annoying. i've also followed some of his contributions to other pages and they are often even worse than his SYdney edits particularly when he creates new pages with info just copied from other articles. --Merbabu 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Would you care to explain your last edit? Adam 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC) For your info [1] Adam 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In what sense does the bill "explicitly legalise discrimination"? Adam 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

After a quick reading of the bill, the only significant exemptions I can see are for people providing accommodation or employment in their own homes, and for religious organisations. These are standard exemptions under state anti-discrimination laws. I think it is twisting words to say that this "legalises discrimination". The bill prohibits discrimination, while exempting certain circumstances from that prohibition. No form of discrimination which is currently illegal is made legal, which is the meaning of the word "legalise." I agree, however, that the sentence in the article is too broad. I will rephrase it. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the topic of the article. The article makes it clear that Labor does not favour amending the marriage act to allow same-sex marriage. The article should note, however, that Labor opposed the recent Commonwealth over-ruling of the ACT civil unions act. Adam 05:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarajevo FARC

Hi Rebecca: I presume that you mean "keep" in your "oppose" declaration. Can you have a look at Sandy's comment underneath it? Tony 02:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am working to save Sarajevo from being farc'd. Could you review, comment, and copyedit (please!) the following sections Sarajevo#Geography and climate, Sarajevo#Demographics, and Sarajevo#Tourism? I am doing what I can but I cannot do this alone. --Maintain 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Rebecca. I was hoping you'd pop back in to WP:FAR; I was inquiring about your idea of a revert to Sarajevo, and whether that may be the best means of saving its FA. Hope to see you there, Sandy 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if reverting it would help, please do so. My edits are meant to help but if you got a plan I will back you up with whatever I can do. --Maintain 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane suburb stub

Hi. I think I may have caused a bit of a mess with the Brisbane suburb stub. I think I was a bit quick in creating it. I also already posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/July. Should I delete th erequest, and just move the template to Qld geo stub , or should we wait to see what the outcome of the request is? And if I was to move it to qld geo stub, would you be able to delete the Brisbane suburb stub template? -- Adz|talk 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is already a queensland-geo-stub, so there's no need to create a qld-geo-stub (abbreviations tend to be frowned upon anyway). Would you mind if I moved brisbane-suburb-stub to brisbane-geo-stub? This would put it in the standard format for stub categories of that type. Rebecca 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's actually what I meant. It would have helped if that is what I'd typed. If you could do that, that would be great. Should I delete (or strike) the request from the requests page? -- Adz|talk 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nick Xenophon

a) I never said Xenophon abused Foley. Re-read what I typed. I said "involved in an". Both were involved, it takes two to tango. b) How is it not even worthy of a mention? Timeshift 08:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did say that they were "involved". Involvement can be anything. That's why a source was there so people can read. Timeshift 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Then you are deliberately being misleading. Rebecca 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No, i'm being deliberately vague. There's a difference. I decided to give it in the most NPOV way possible, which I achieved by saying both were "involved in" and then linking to the article. Timeshift 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Hi. for the past few months, I've been trying very hard to work out a carefully sourced, NPOV version of the Barbara Bauer article that would satisfy everyone's concerns as well as humanly possible. The other players included someone with a grudge against one of the people cited, who also wanted to leave out mention of someone else who contributed to the chain of events; the original author of the article, who wanted properly sourced information on why this agent was notable and controversial; several other people familiar with the topic, who wanted much the same thing as the original author; a couple of admins who were concerned about sourcing and bios of living persons; Bauer herself, who appears to have repeatedly edited the article to talk at length about early successes or libel others, or both; and a notable editor with a major publisher whom Bauer libeled and tried to get fired. Yes, you might say it's been a long, contentious wrangle!

Anyway, several of us did an extensive survey of online sources, and even researched whether any of Bauer's anonymous (IP edit) claims could be substantiated. They could not, but the rest of the controversy section still needed work. I put together a proposed edit that I ran by Will Beback prior to posting it, sometime in the past week. He said it was okay. I posted it. Avraham did an edit to clean that up a bit, make the references consistent and remove one he considered superfluous. I hoped that was the end of it, but then someone put in the claim that the clients' vanity/self publishing predated their signing with Bauer, because of one instance we found where that is definitely the case. Further research is inconclusive, however, so only one Bauer client's two books can be reliably said to be pre-Bauer. If this had been verifiably true of other books, it would have been a point in Bauer's favor, since steering people into paying for publication is not what an agent is supposed to do, according to Writer Beware and others. I did one more edit to try to clear this up, and to distinguish Bauer's early successes (we can't prove it, but she seems to have placed a few books with real publishers in the 1980s and 1990s) from her apparent lack of recent sales to paying markets. Avi removed the some-predate-Bauer reference completely, but left the rest alone. Shinto fixed a misspelled word, and again I hoped, despite the spectacular row on on Talk page, that the article itself had stabilized again.

Then you removed all the stuff that I had run by Will, that Avi had edited, that I had done my best to make as fair and well-sourced as possible. Please consider looking over the history of the article, and particularly the references cited, and restore at last some version of what's been removed. Despite the personal animosities that have developed, the fact is that the article was well sourced and pretty darn NPOV, given the situation. Please don't let personalities get in the way of a good and careful edit. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 07:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As another editor of this article, I too am somewhat disturbed by the wholesale deletion of items from it, which we had been working for some time to reach consensus on... particularly with an eye to meeting verifiability requirements. Can I ask what the nature of the complaint that prompted this removal was? JulesH 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What is OTRS? I tried to look it up, and failed to find anything that made sense in context. Is it something that can be looked at and/or responded to? If it is a complaint from the subject of the article, that makes sense in context of one of the very paragraphs that is currently in contention. On that subject, is the Ansible citation Jules asked about a reliable source? What about a moderated forum where the moderator reports on a complaint personally received? Does evidence that the subject of the article made edits that contained false and defamatory claims have any bearing on her complaint, if indeed she made one? I think we need a better idea of what's happening and what parameters and constraints exists to proceed from this point. Thanks again. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

from Jackp

"Many people over the space of many weeks have explained to you why edits like this are utterly unacceptable, yet you seem to persist in making these regardless. Furthermore, your threats to block good users when they were in the right and you were in the wrong are even more unacceptable. If you cannot learn how to edit an encyclopedia competently and adequately work with others, then you will be blocked indefinitely. Another incident of this type will be the last straw."

Please tell me what was so wrong with that sentence...do you even know yourself? Jackp 07:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] michael talk 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i think you may have blocked michael can you please assist in remove the block on this User thank you Gnangarra 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look here; there seems to have been collateral damage by your block; I tried to lift the autoblock, but didn't succed (and I don't even know why not). Lectonar 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind; it's ok now. Cheers. Lectonar 08:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help

Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.

The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.

Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.

Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.

Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .

When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.

Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John Clary Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.

That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.

My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.

I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.

Here are some links that might help.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Threeafterthree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?

The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy

Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238

then

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238

Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edits. Potters house 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

2 questions

1st : Why didn't you answer my question about the Revert War you did in May with me? 2nd : Why do you keep reverting edits at the List of bisexual people? I don't say I approve, nor condamn your reverts, I just want to know why. --Deenoe 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For the 1st : I'm talking about an addition I wanted to make to William Shakespeare's entry on the list.
For the 2nd, I'm just talking about you constantly reverting edits... I just want to know the reason. --Deenoe 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unity Party

In an election results box what colour code should I use for the Unity Party?

Thanks --Garrie 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don Dunstan

If you so wish, please offer any comments / advice on the peer review page. Any copyediting / fixes would also be welcome. Thanks, michael talk 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's RfA

Hi Rebecca, I see you left an oppose opinion at Nearly Headleess Nick's RfA. It would be very helpful to me if you could provide some diffs that show the behavior you are referring to. As someone who is currently supporting his RfA I would like to know what you are alluding to so I can reconsider my opinion if necessary. Thanks, Gwernol 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarajevo

Hi—The prose of whatever version is being assessed is substandard. Please see my most recent comment at FAR. Are you still keen to keep? Tony 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New South Wales 2004 electoral districts redistribution

according to the SEO , Hills District doesn't exist any more as an electoral district. but I can't workout if they just renamed it to something else?

Any hints/ideas? the maps are a bit low-res...--Garrie 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney

Hi Rebecca. Could you please respond to this? As an aspiring graduate (I'm a postgrad) I would hope that you have an appreciation of the need for sources. Thanks. John Dalton 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) It's been resolved (found a source) John Dalton 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Martin

Trying to delete a vanity page of a candidate with no other notability. But someone disagreed so I guess we have to discuss it. Nick 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca (and RHayworth)

I am respnding to your deletion of my bio on Wiki and comment by RHayworth.

A couple of things, though. Firstly, are you in fact Jon Jenkins? If so, would it be possible for you to verify this, perhaps by contacting myself or another administrator via your parliamentary email address? This just allows us to ensure that this account is not an impostor purporting to be the real person.

I do not use my parliamentary email because the gov systems are too restrictive and I run my own SMTP mail services. I use my own email jon@trac.org.au which you can verify at www.trac.org.au which has direct links to my parliament web page.

Further seeing as there are no email addresses listed on this or your own page it is a little difficult to contact you by email. If you give me an email address I will arrange for the office to send you a confirming email from my parliament address

Secondly, I noticed that you created an article at Dr Jon Jenkins that consisted of your inaugural speech to parliament. The article was nominated for deletion on the basis that it contained no encyclopedic content. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it needs original biographical articles on its subjects.

As far as I can see the other bios for other NSW pollies are almost identical to the content that was deleted! Although mine was somewhat longer and in conversatioonal tone it relayed my life history, employment and political stance

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Rebecca 11:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the article was a verbatim copy from http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20031119037 . It did not acknowledge its source, as required by the copyright terms for the site and in any case those terms are, I believe incompatible with the GFDL. -- RHaworth 12:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

First you need to know that the links are generated dynmaically and change constantly so giving a link is a pointless task. Believe me keeping my website up to dates with speeches is a monster.

Secondly as the speech was written and delivered by me the copyright is not the parliament's to give! I own the copyright on this speech and by delivering it have give the NSW Parliament an enduring righ to reproduce it. This is not true of reports etc which are owned by the Parliament.

However in the interests of compromise I will replace the "long" version with an "encyclopedic" version. I hope that this will not be deleted or censored further

Eric Bana

I was wondering what I could do to change your objection for the Eric Bana article FAC. Looking at other Featured Articles on performers such as Diane Keaton, Uma Thurman and Katie Holmes, they all have seperate sections on the performer's "early life" and "personal life". Also, how would you suggest expanding the section on Bana's comedy career? I have added only bits on this career (from his early days doing standup to his own show) which can be sourced. Very little reliable information has been published in magazines or on the internet which can be used to cite in the article. Looking forward to see what I can do. Thanks for your input. -- Underneath-it-All 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Felix Eldridge

What made my deletion out of process? There is nothing in the article which alleges notability. Being active in student politics is not a notability criterion, and therfore speedy deletion applies. I would appreicate when you undo another admin's actions, to please let the other admin know about it. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted again and started an AfD. Being the head of the National Union of Students is a non-trivial claim of notability so I feel that he needs a debate before being deleted. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am at an utter loss. Listing something for AfD is rude? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shopping Mall articles

Hi, you recently voted to keeep the article Macarthur Square. Could you please suggest something that could be added to the article to make it notable compared to all the other articles for shopping malls on Wikipedia? I ask this because I cannot see what makes one shopping centre notable compared to the one in the next suburb. Not every house has an article, why should every shopping centre? Thanks, I hope to implement some of your suggestions. I am happy to conduct a reasonable amount of web-based investigation to implement some of your thoughts. --Garrie 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to admire you when you were Ambi

Have you changed personalities along with names? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

Please delete Atlas Games (sports event), a hoax article which has sat undetected for a year. Adam 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

14 Year Old Girls

I have added info to the article that help establishes notability, and I was hoping you may re-visit the AfD. Please respond at the AfD rather than this talk page, since I am leaving this message for several editors. Thank you! PT (s-s-s-s) 18:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rose Jackson

User:Zoe has deleted the page Rose Jackson without following proper deletion procedure. Would you be able to rectify this? -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 14:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

Jack seems to be operated from the Adamnet IPs again. See the history at Sydney and London, and also Talk:London#Removed sections from "see_also". I'm not sure what we can do about this. JPD (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

hi

Thanks for your supportive words at FAC talk. The poisonous atmosphere has become very tedious, and I wish it would stop. I'm torn between not even looking at it and feeling I should defend myself (which probably prolongs it). Frankly, I don't care if the "personal" thing is added to the lead sentence for the links under the FA criteria. What is objectionable is the pettiness and the patent agenda to knobble the FA review process. I've tried being nice to SV, but it doesn't seem to work. And she seems to have this (male) idea that you never admit your weaknesses. Hmmmph. Tony 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

The same troll is at work at Division of Melbourne Ports. I've already been blocked once this week for edit-warring so I will have to leave this one to you. Adam 09:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a proposed policy

Wikipedia:Removing_warnings. I've marked it as rejected, and with a little luck Feedyourfeet won't try to apply it further. Please do watch the page!

I am being polite towards feedyourfeet because I am assuming good faith and because I am blaming the process, not the person. This does not nescesarily mean I agree with his behaviour, and in fact I have already asked him to modify it.

Kim Bruning 08:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're still watching, it looks like both the page and the associated templates have consensus, at least from CVU-types, if I'm not mistaken. That's sure going to cause some fireworks at some point <rolls eyes>. <scratches head> Kim Bruning 23:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My Recall

Hello. Your response here will be appreciated. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing a VfD

Could you take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs and see if it can be closed. PMA 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 proposal

Hi, Rebecca, Jayjg has confirmed through checkuser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33.[6] [7] Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on condition that all suspected socks can be assumed to be his, and that he will not revert or make supporting arguments where they are, and that if he votes with them, his votes can be struck through. I think the idea is that if they are his puppets (which he doesn't want to admit, and I see no reason to force a confession), he will ensure that they don't show up to revert for him, and if some future editors turn up who are not his puppets, he's prepared to leave the pages where they are making the kind of reverts and arguments that he would make. I've made a proposal here. If you really have nothing to do with your time, you can read Part One and Part two immediately above! Also, this section of Danny's talk page contains links to all or nearly all the places where this has been discussed. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. MONGO has indicated that he will consider unblocking early, and I'd be happy with that, but I think we need to work out the conditions that Giovanni agrees to first. If the sockpuppeting stops, I'd also be happy to remove the tag from Giovanni's user page, to help him to start afresh with a clean slate. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jfpearce

Rebecca, look's like Jackp's back, but under the Jfpearce sock. His Sydney edits are just the same - ie, the stuff he once said "i understand now" when he was temporarily blocked earlier. Presumably we can do something about this - ie, block again - if not, one wonders what the point of blocking is. It was so tiresome before, hope it can be cracked down on soon. if you look at his contributions, you will see he is starting more pointless and repetive lists and articles. hope you can help, thanks --Merbabu 10:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, From my talk page: "What the hell does Sydney’s status as a global city have to do with the cities economy, its like everything good about Sydney has to be hidden/removed in this article. Why is it under economy, its just ludicrous! Jfpearce 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)"

Danby vs Southwick

Why do you think that it is silly to remove and replace statements that David Southwick deliberately ran just to decrease Michael Danby's Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports? There is no evidence to prove that Southwick did such a thing.

Only people members or supporters of the ALP, Greens and other non-Liberal parties would make such allegations without any evidence whatsoever. All articles must to some degree to be apolitcal. Danby article is pro-ALP.

I beleive that the replacement sentences have an apolitcal bias and does address that it was the first time that two Jews have run against each other in Melbourne Ports and federal politics. It's not silly - it is sensible and the moral thing to do. I'm a tend to vote Labor and admire Michael Danby as one of the greatest politicians in Australia. But there has to be an element of correct bias.

Hope you understand what I mean.

CatonB 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status

Heya, I came across your profile and saw the bit that part of your contributions involve working on articles up to featured article status. Is the 2006 state election important enough to be considered for featured article status, and if so, what improvements do you reckon it might need to be up to scratch, quality wise? Thanks for your time, much appreciated. Timeshift 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidates of the Queensland legislative election, 2006

Check out Candidates of the Quuensland legislative election, 2006 (made a spelling mistake - don't know how to change it)

It's a WIP

Pls assist - you're good at this stuff

Cheers

CatonB 08:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Siva's RfA-- process screwed

Not that I disagree, but could you elaborate? :) Dlohcierekim 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yolu wrote and two other users responded:

Oppose. The state of this RfA says bucketloads about why the RfA process is screwed. Rebecca 00:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you please clarify? I am not trying to defend the nominee, just to understand what exactly you object to. - CrazyRussian
Agreed, please expand on what you mean. That type of vehement vote with no reasoning given is something I would typically not expect from an editor of your good standing. You've done that a couple times now, and it's not helpful. RfA is a consensus gathering exercise and one can't expect their position to be given as much weight if reasoning isn't given. Just tell us civilly and constructively what you're getting at please. - Taxman

This RfA will be close and it would be very helpful to hear you expand on your opinion. Thanks David D. (Talk) 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Date links

In response to your comment, it's nothing really, but I'm using the tool someone has created (I can't remember who, unfortunately) which creates a "Dates" button up next to "Move" and "Watch" which in one click removes the overlinking of years and the like. So it's not taking me away from other things, and I just think this is overkill to link to, for example, 1983 when talking about when a pollie first won office. I suppose it's just a matter of preference, but I'll stick with your reverts. Thanks for the explanatory note, Harro5 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Harro5 was correct in removing links from isolated years, as stated in the dates section of the MOS:
Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?
The widespread practice is not to have a plethora of links as in this example, so these need to be reverted again. Thanks. Tyrenius 03:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that years are usually linked in the first place because of a misunderstanding that that is the correct thing to do, when it isn't, so it is not in the same category as removing other links, which have been inserted purposefully in the first place. In the example I cited above, I can't see any pressing need for those years to be linked, and it appears to have been done in a mechanical fashion, so the removal was helpful. Have I missed anything here? Tyrenius 04:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to examine this without argumentum ad hominem. I'm certainly not "trying to misrepresent" anything, nor have I stated that people are authorised to go round killing every date link in sight. Let's be clear, I am not talking about date links, with day and month, or day and month plus year, which should all be linked. I am talking about isolated years, which many people link automatically thinking this is the correct thing to do, when, as you have pointed out, it is only correct to do so if it is merited for a special reason.
When I looked at this diff in Paul Lennon it seemed to me that the links were mechanical and not judged on merit. Therefore to revert them was counter-productive and, in this instance at least, Harro5 had achieved the right result, even if possibly through the wrong method, which is a different issue entirely and not one I know anything about. Put it this way, if I had chanced upon that page, I would have deleted the year links.
I suggest that a good way forward would be to find a way to work constructively with Harro5, as his year de-linking would in many instances be doing a good service. If he were, for example, to check each time, and reinstate any year links which did have merit, this would be fulfilling the guidelines. For all we know he may be doing this anyway, so we should AGF, unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.
Who is the script's author? Tyrenius 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats Ambi

I see that Cynna Kydd hit the main page :-) Great work! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kudos! Nice article there. michael talk 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User Boxes

Why do you have no User Boxes ? Culnacreann 21:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be making false accusations

I don't appreciate being falsely accused of vandalism. Cyanna Neele is a quite legitimate name of this person, and a quite legitimate possibility for the article name. In fact, it was already indexed in categories under that name, even though it wasn't what you saw if you looked at those categories, before I changed it.

But then when I found out there wasn't even a redirect from that name, so that if someone entered that name into the "Go" box it wouldn't work, or if someone linked to that name in an article it would be a redlink, it called for immediate attention.

At least after your reversion, things didn't go back to the totally unacceptable status which existed previously. Now that formerly missing redirect does exist. Gene Nygaard 03:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies--I mistyped the name, and the redirect from the maiden name already existed; Rebecca just overlooked the need to change the indexing in the categories when she previously moved the page. Gene Nygaard 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MatthewFenton

Hi,

I've been looking over the circumstances regarding the block of User:MatthewFenton (at the request of said user over IRC), and it seems to me that while his edits were certainly very poor judgment, they don't seem to be ample reason for a block. Although the edits made were slightly disruptive (resulting only in a deleted PROD and an AFD that was immediately closed), they didn't seem like deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia and I see no reason to believe this user has an intention to make disruptive attempts in the future. The user has provided an apology for his actions on the talk page and has a long history of productive edits, and I believe the proper course of action should have been simply to leave a (sternly worded) warning advising him that his actions were misguided.

Blocks are not meant to be punitive, and since I don't believe this user is likely to cause any deliberate disruptions and has shown acknowledgement of the fact that his actions were inappropriate, I'd like to unblock him, with your consent. I'd feel more comfortable with the block if there was a documented long history of abuses, but his action just seems like one huge (but ultimately easily fixable) oversight that happened to attract a lot of attention.

Thanks, Yelyos 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd second this. — Matt Crypto 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: the user in question was unblocked by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Yelyos 03:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackp socks

The existence of continued Jackp socks and their immediate blocking is going to have adverse impacts upon my editing. My ISP uses a Transparent proxy that the Wikipedia servers cannot identify. Therefore, when a Jackp sock is blocked I'm (along with a number of other Wikipedians) usually knocked out (there's three proxy server IP's, so a one in three chance). I know you've blocked a number of Jackp socks, and I was wondering if there would be anywhere to post this information, or if my problem could be rectified.

I do hope you're still in high spirits after the rude attacks on your Cynna Kydd article. michael talk 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sarajevo88.jpg

regarding your question on my talk page: the website owner gave me Permission to release it with NoRightsReserved.

cheers, dmwime --23:40, 23 August 2006

Cynna Kydd

This is regarding the language in the second part of this comment. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Andjam 13:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with WP:NPA before you go stamping further boilerplates on talk pages. Rebecca has not violated policy in the edit you refer to. Thanks, --cj | talk 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel that Rebecca has violated policy. NPA says "Accusatory comments ... can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.". Using a profanity to denegrate other people's opinions is excessive in my opinion. There has been at least one other complaint since about Rebecca's tone in discussing the article. Rebecca has made some badly accusative comments in the past (for which she apologised, saying that she should be more careful in future), and I feel the best way of dealing with incivility is to express concerns sooner rather than later. Thanks, Andjam 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Rebecca. I noticed that you left this comment (Badgerpatrol had, for no apparent reason, torn out two paragraphs which explained the whole departure, leaving absolutely nothing between her hiatus at the end of last season and her settling in at a new team this May. This is further evidence that you're more interested in playing semantic games than actually creating an improved article.). I've looked through all my edits to Cynna Kydd and I can't find any that seem to match up to that description, nor am in the habit of ripping articles apart or removing paragraphs wholesale without very good reason. Is it possible that you're mistaken? If not, please provide diffs. The whole debate (over what I perceive to be a simple instance of mild POV and that I frankly never imagined would persist for this length of time) seems to have taken on the character of a rather unedifying slanging match which isn't doing either of us (or the article) any good. Suggestions for a compromise wording (which are admittedly flawed but which certainly can be used as a basis for advancement) have been made on the talk page. Do you think we can both cool our heads a wee bit and discuss these sensibly? Badgerpatrol 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Moriac, Victoria

Thanks for your article on Moriac. I was intending to create a stub for the town today, but alas, upon my return, it's already been created :) Good work - your article is a great start. -- Longhair 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mary Wooldridge - political candidate article

Rebecca, Mary Wooldridge looks to me like a recently created article profiling a "not notable" political candidate. I am considering nominating it for deletion. What do you think?

Also, I have added some recent content to the Vic state election article. --Peter Campbell Talk! 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is she is not currently notable. There is no certainty she will be elected - but it would be appropriate to have an article if she is. In the meanwhile, the article is fairly clearly an attempt to build her profile during the campaign. I understand that political candidates are generally not considered worthy of articles (with very few exceptions). Peter Campbell Talk! 23:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian wine

Hi. Australian wine has been selected as the current Australian collaboration, so as you voted for it, any contributions would be welcome. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Children Overboard Affair

Sorry. I didn't read the paragraph carefully before I reverted your reversion. Upon rereading it, I agree it is biased because it implies something controversial without substantiating this. I actually agree with you on the ethics of the affair, so I also want to avoid pro-Liberal bias.

You seem to be a much busier wikipedian than I, and probably a more valuable editor too. Rintrah 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser backlog

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Queensland election candidates

Hi Rebecca,

I came across this article about an election candidate. It looks a vanity article to me that promotes the candidate. Are election candidates worthy of an article or should this be put up for deletion? Cheers --- BrightLights 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Undoing blocks

Hi,

I'd appreciate it if you asked me to undo a block rather than doing it yourself, if you think I'm in error. Odds are, I'll listen. Regarding the block, it's not unreasonable to give someone a brief block if they have a habit of making personal attacks (even if it is a contributor as valuable as Adam Carr). Cheers, — Matt Crypto 16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection of talk page

I've added the sprotection tag and list this page on the list of semi-protected pages.

Why is this page semi-protected? I've unprotected it once before because looking through thed edit history revealed no reason whatsoever that protection of any kind was needed; you chose to re-protect it with a terse comment asking me not to mess with your talk page.

Why are you violating the semi-protection policy? It clearly says "Talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances." and "Pages that are semi-protected are indicated with {{sprotected}} and listed at Wikipedia:Protected page#Semi-protection and Category:Semi-protected." (which you didn't do) and also "Semi-protection is a temporary measure used to stem vandalism on a page until the attack of vandalism is regarded as over." -- --maru (talk) contribs 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well? Have you given it some more thought? --maru (talk) contribs 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Justifiably"? What's justified about telling me that it's none of my business and never giving any reason? --maru (talk) contribs 22:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm on no high horse. I don't like semi-protection and I don't want to see it used any more than is necessary. You are refusing to advance even the vaguest reason for it, and are rudely telling me to buzz off and do something else. --maru (talk) contribs 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So you had a reason. Then no doubt this merely temporary semi-protection can safely be removed. --maru (talk) contribs 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

re:Psephos

Please see my response on the talk page. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Caves

Thanks. I just received a group email from the Western Australian Speliology Group committee, thanking me for the takedown (they knew about it before I did). So I'll take the liberty of passing on their thanks to you. Snottygobble 13:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Marsha

I took a photo of Marsha Thomson today so I have done a stub to go with it. You or someone might like to expend it. Adam 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have some of Tony Lupton, and I will probably be able to get some others during the campaign. Adam 07:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock due to Jack being back - help !

Hi Rebecca, You're block of the Sydney maniac has unfortunately Autoblocked one of the Adam Internet proxy IP's - can you please undo the below autoblock ?

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "River-phoenix-fan93". The reason given for River-phoenix-fan93's block is: "Jackp sock".
Your IP address is 202.6.138.34

Thanks in advance - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


ARCBS article

What is tenuous about the claim that at one time "the ARCBS permanently banned men who had had male-male sex at any time since 1980 from donating blood"?[8] As a regular blood donor since 1994, I can confirm that this was indeed the case. In fact, it went further than that; I was excluded from donation after I began a relationship with a woman who, several years previously, had slept with a bisexual man, and I was only allowed to donate again after ARCBS relaxed those restrictions. It's not a vital part of the article, but I was curious about why it was deleted. --Calair 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Will do. --Calair 04:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr at List of transgender-rights organizations

You have broken 3RR on List of transgender-rights organizations. Please don't do this, even for good reasons William M. Connolley 08:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A 3RR inquiry

Hi Rebecca!

You may have noticed that User:Ntennis has reported you to the WP:AN/3RR for a 3RR violation on the List of transgender-rights organizations. Do you believe these reverts were removing simple vandalism or some other listed exception to the 3RR? At any rate, you can avoid the trouble by self-reverting your fourth revert on that page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Crushing by elephant

Way back in August 2004 you voted to de-feature Crushing by elephant ([9]) due to a lack of sourcing. It's now been substantially rewritten and expanded with much new material, and I've proposed it for restoration to FA status - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crushing by elephant. I'd be interested to know what you think of the revised article. -- ChrisO 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you just meant a deletion, not use of Oversight (does Ambi even have oversight? I didn't think so.). --maru (talk) contribs 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: MATS

It's coming along well, although I haven't been into the state library for some reading lately—too much going on elsewhere in life. Thanks for asking though, I do look forward to your own completed work-in-progress too! :) michael talk 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 SA election as a FA

I would appreciate your alterations and suggestions with South Australian legislative election, 2006 and Talk:South Australian legislative election, 2006 in trying to get the article to FA status. Your valued opinions and experience are always appreciated. Timeshift 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned a negative being the way I listed issues - does it look better the way it's been done in your opinion? I just find it hard to word it in a non-list way. Timeshift 14:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures

Hi Rebecca Trying to upload pictures of pollies and candidates and it is displaying no copyright. But I've put the source of photos. Please assist Scorpio80 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Karmafist (talk · contribs)

Hi there, Rebecca. I see that you have blocked User:Karmafist for the following reason—
11:37, 30 August 2006 Rebecca (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Karmafist (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Enough. I was quite willing to unblock him when he asked, but he's since proven that he's unwilling to actually do any work on the encyclopedia.)
Its not my opinion that unwilling to actually do any work on the encyclopedia is any reason to block a user especially when his his recent diffs are not as incriminating as the reason you have given for the block. Could I have some explanation regarding this? --Nearly Headless Nick 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist has openly stated that he is operating a number of sockpuppets for the purpose of continuing his ongoing vendetta against the project, and has made it plainly clear that he has no intention of editing the article space under the Karmafist account again. I was happy to unblock him as long as he was prepared to behave himself, but he hasn't even gone so far as to apologise for, let alone own up to the specific edits for, the subtle vandalism he had previously boasted about. In these circumstances, I see absolutely no benefit in his being permitted to edit. Rebecca 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Karmafist has posted edits like that before and he got blocked for it and rightly so. But after that incident, he came on IRC and apologized for his behaviour and Tawker unblocked him for the same reason—
12:28, 16 August 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Karmafist (contribs) (I'm taking a risk here but I'm assuming good faith... this one has been discsused a bit and so this is recorded)
I suggest that you unblock him or I could do it, if you permit me to do so. Please reply here, I am watching this page. Regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 11:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I was there when Tawker unblocked him; I was actually in the process of unblocking him myself at the time, but Tawker beat me to it. At the time, he said that he would stop vandalising (though did not, IIRC, apologise), which was enough to assume good faith and give him another chance. Since that time, however, he has a) vowed not to make any more mainspace edits, b) is openly continuing his use of sockpuppets, and c) continued the same antics on Wikipedia Review. This is the basis of the second block, not the prior behaviour. Rebecca 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Karmafist has made an open statement to all users that he will not be vandalising or disrupting the process of Wikipedia again. In my opinion, vowing not to make any more mainspace edits is not a reason good enough for a block. As per your accusation of his continuous and open use of sockpuppets I'd like to see that proved with a checkuser; as far as I know, you are a checkuser and you are free to help yourself; and could you provide me with diffs as to his antics on Wikipedia review? --Nearly Headless Nick 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I explained why I made the block, a response which has so far received nothing but support. You haven't even done the most cursory research into this matter - this issue is not that it is alleged that Karmafist is making sockpuppets, but that he is openly boasting about doing so. All of this stuff is on the public record, whether from Karmafist's own contributions since he was unblocked or from his recent posts at Wikipedia Review. I have more important things to be doing tonight than getting involved in silly games, but if you want to wheel war without doing even the most basic research into the issue, then I think that raises real questions about your competency as an admin, and indeed, vindicates my past concerns that you would turn out to be the next Guanaco. Rebecca 11:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly endorse this block. What did Karmafist promise on Wikipedia Review? A campaign of low-key subversive behaviour that would disrupt Wikipedia while avoiding any concrete policy violation that would warrant a block. What has Karmafist given us since he was unblocked? A campaign of low-key passive-aggressive subversive disruptive spreading of disharmony and negativity. Now we're arguing over whether his behaviour warrants a block. Kudos to Karmafist, his plan is working to perfection. Snottygobble 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Now, you're assuming bad faith on Nearly Headless Nick here. He is just requesting nicely for evidence, you could have done a lot more better in convincing him with some concrete evidence. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I endorse the block, too. --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for the inconvinience caused. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Werdna's RFA

Hello Rebecca, I value your opinion so interested in hearing the reasons that I should change my opinion. Every interaction I've had with Werdna has been negative. His comments and actions on site and IRC cause me to fear that he holds a grudge against myself and people that opposed his past RFAs. --FloNight 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Voss-strasse

Thanks for your intervention here. I am very pissed off that ProhibitOnions has reopened this dispute after it appeared to be resolved-by-exhaustion. We have now agreed to move the article to Vossstrasse. But now I want a formal policy ruling banning "ß" from article titles. How and where do I go about asking for this? I can't find an "ask for policy decisions" page. Adam 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, thanks for moving the article back to the original name. For some reason though, the talk page didn't move along with it (I've been seeing this bug pop up on other page moves as well). Could I get you to please move the Talk page too? Thanks. --Elonka 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions is about 1000Kb long and nothing ever seems to be resolved there, it looks like just another pedants' playground to me. It has been recommended that I go to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and start a subpage called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ß). That seems a better option. When it comes to decision time I will summon you with the bat signal. Adam 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What would you say to moving Wilhelmstraße and Friedrichstraße to Wilhelmstrasse and Friedrichstrasse in accordance with the policy "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize."? There would no doubt be some resistance to this so persistence would be required. Adam 01:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I expected, your move was immediately reverted. You may have noticed that the user who reverted you is Icelandic. The Icelanders defend the use of the German ß because they expect the Germans will then help them defend the Icelandic ð and þ, which are even less justifiable than ß, since far fewer people visit Iceland than visit Germany. What is to be done about this phenomenon of people from non-English-speaking countries imposing their obscure usages on the English Wikipedia in this arrogant way? Anglophones, revolt! Adam 14:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Sorry to keep pestering you, but could visit Talk:Ahnentafel of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and, if you are satisfied that the terms of the RFM (a poll held over three days, etc) have been met, move the article accordingly and prevent further reversions? Thanks. Adam 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Such promptitude is most gratifying. Much obliged. Adam 08:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review/FA

Heya - before I send it to peer review (and need advice on how to do so), you mentioned that the prose will need fixing up. Should I ask those you suggested first to go over the prose before I go for peer review, or would that be worked on as part of a peer review? Timeshift 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tanya Gadiel

Sorry for the irritable response to your edits - it was out of proportion to the changes you made. Thank you also for your subsequent toning down of the lead, which has addressed my concern about 'claim vs fact' while preserving due reference to the controversy. Jeendan 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik

Hi. Could you explain this edit please? [10] --Guinnog 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

complaints

Dear Rebecca

Why am I receiving email complaints from distressed WPians about "swearing and rollbacks"? I expect it's part of your bizzare obsession with the nuisance-linking of years.

I don't want to be resented by such a good writer as you; far from it, you're the type of person I'd want to collaborate with. But please know that I find your behaviour regrettable, and your obsession with meaningless linking irreconcilable with your writing style, which, to a strong degree, minimises redundancy in language and formatting.

I'm also concerned that you seem to be taking low-level admin duties, and whatever you see as the letter of the law, rather too seriously. In my view, adminship is a demotion for people who would otherwise be making an intellectual contribution to the project.

Tony 10:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No comma after Dear Rebecca — you have insulted her man! To plead your case, you must first afford the proper respect, and not write with this insolence! Rintrah 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and no dot after my name or signature: I'm a minimalist when it comes to formatting—the lineage does it, surely. (Tony)
yes
so am i
indeed the lineage does it
That could be minimised to 'Yeah, and no dot after name or signature: my formatting is minimalist-lineage surely performs it.'Rintrah 10:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, your reply added nothing to what I know of your views. My concern is the emotion that you've allowed to enter your handling of the issue, and the vehemence with which you're pursuing your opposition to mass delinkings when there are lots of things you could be contributing on a much higher level instead. I don't do mass delinkings, but I'm right on side where they occur, to rid WP of this scourge that waters down high-value links. I don't understand why you don't just move on. Tony 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm chiming in down here as you didn't answer me above. I read your replies to Tony, which explained why you stand where you do on date linking. I actually disagree with you on that too, but that is not the point here. I understand you are frustrated over something you regard as settled being breached, and your annoyance at the other editor definitely comes across. The point is though, you shouldn't get that steamed up about what is basically a minor issue of formatting, and you shouldn't, please, make comments like the one you made. It does nothing to help the project. Thanks. --Guinnog 02:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your further response on my page, again, gave me no new information about your views on the matter. Like Guinnog, I'm perplexed as to why it means so much to you, when you ignore many other violations of what would be regarded by some WPians as "settled". I'm not sure that it's "a minor issue of formatting", as Guinnog claims, but aside from that, I agree with her/him.

Can we at least have no more outbursts, such as you put on Bobblewik's page? Tony 04:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm fed up with it" too. Can we please separate the issues of your view on the linking of years, and Bobblewik's delinking of these, from your repeated breach of WP:CIVIL? I want you to be clear that this behaviour is not acceptable. I view it more seriously than the dates thing you seem so exercised about. Will you please respond and undertake to be more civil? Further use of the "f-word" in conversations with other editors on the project may lead to consequences you will be unhappy with, and I am keen to avoid this if possible. Thanks for your consideration. --Guinnog 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to cease your use of abusive language, Rebecca. Now you've plastered it on my user page, which I object to. It underlines what Guinnog and I are saying about your priorities. Tony 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point stands, you say; and so does your extreme language, without apology or withdrawal. You do your reputation no good. Tony 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be very clear in your mind that if I ever see you swear at anybody like that again I will block you for incivility. I'll let the matter rest now and assume you've learned your lesson, in spite perhaps of the lack of actual evidence in that direction. Let's leave it like that, and please don't do it again. As Tony says it does your reputation no good at all. It certainly doesn't help advance the goals of the project. --Guinnog 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for saying I was a good contributor; I know you are too. I understand you're annoyed; it's never nice to be criticised. My warning was neither idle nor pointless, and it does still stand. All you need to do is avoid swearing (specifically using the word "fuck") on the talk pages of the two editors who have asked you not to do it. Should be easy enough. --Guinnog 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, may I add that we look to you and other admins to set an example to other WPs WRT taking the emotion out of difficult situations and using temperate language. I'm very disappointed to hear you say that you "couldn't care less" about the way you are perceived as a result of your outbursts. Please move on and defuse this accumulated frustration that is dominating your mindspace at the moment ("I've had to go through this roundabout about ten times this year with the same people now,... I'm more than entitled to be a little pissed off.")

I think it's true to say that you'd have no hope of getting through an RfA now; I'd certainly bother to go there and vote against you in that hypothetical sitaution. This says a lot about how the process fails miserably to sort out which candidates will turn out to be effective mediators, resolvers of disputes, and good at generally calming heated situations. You appear to do the opposite, and to be at the centre of your own maelstrom.

Now I'm sure that you agree that only a small proportion of date links deserve to be retained. There's no point in generating so much emotion when the odd date link that may be useful can easily be relinked. It's no big deal, so why make it one?

You have a lot to offer intellectually, and I've said before that you're a very good writer, particularly given your youth. Please extend those skills to calming ruffled waters, not making huge waves; it's not nice. Tony 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maraba Coffee

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Rebecca

Hey Rebecca, I just wanted to thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It passed with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. It was fantastic having the support of so many wonderful Aussie editors and administrators and I really appreciate your support. Thanks Rebecca, :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Date links

What is with your absolute obsession with removing date links? I find it absolutely disingenuous that you would resort to blatantly lying to people on WP:PR to try and get your way. As such, I will now treat you exactly the same way as I have Bobblewik, and beginning rollbacking your mass removals on sight. Rebecca 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you've chosen to be confrontational about this. I had no intention of reviving this old conflict, and I had hoped we could have put this all behind us. I have no "absolute obsession" with removing date links. I am not being "absolutely disingenuous", I didn't "blatantly lie" to anyone, and I resent the accusation. I haven't done any mass removals either. Instead of accusing me and threatening me, could you please tell me what you think I said that was inaccurate? – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:Hopefully this will clear things up. It's from the [Manual of Style]:

:Avoid overlinking dates

:If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links.

:Usage of links for date preferences

:* year only. So 1974 → 1974. Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic.
:* month only. So April → April. Generally, do not link
:* century. So 20th century → 20th century. Generally, do not link
:* decade. So 1970s → 1970s. Generally, do not link (Including an apostrophe [1970's] is incorrect)
:* year and month. So April 1974 → April 1974 Generally, do not link
:* new year and month. So April 2000 → April 2000 Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. Presently, articles only exist for combinations from the year 2000 to current
:* day of the week (with or without other date elements). So Tuesday → Tuesday. Generally, do not link. --Tenebrae 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's what I summarized and linked to in my discussion with a single user at WP:CP. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Caveat: This comment by me is based on my understanding of the debate as of ~2 months ago. Things could have changed. I think you should understand that the change that was done to WP:MOS that supports what Bobblewik has done was made by none other than Bobblewik himself, without any consultation or discussion at the time. I've not kept tabs on this debate, but there's some poor underpinnings to the actions. Changing policy and then citing policy as the reason for your actions is disingenuous at best. Bobblewik has been blocked several times over this dispute, and yet the dispute rages on. Patience disappeared a long time ago for some people involved in this, and not without reason. While I don't agree with the uncivil nature of some of the comments made by Rebecca, I do agree with the principals she is supporting. --Durin 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik last edited the policy on May 29. Rebecca has edited the policy four times since then, most recently on August 23. That's all beside the point though. My issue is that I left some constructive criticisms on a WP:PR page -- all accurate, and in good faith -- and I was insulted, called a liar, stalked, and threatened because of it. And Rebecca implied that I have a mental problem as well. That's not supporting principals. What Bobblewik does with dates, and what Rebecca does with dates, doesn't concern me in the least. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The change to WP:MOS by Bobblewik that I am referring to pre-dates this dispute, which has gone one for most of this year. --Durin 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Rebecca, I apologize for not realizing the Manual of Style policy had changed. Coming from old-world print journalism, I honestly didn't realize a style manual could be so malleable. Mea culpa.
The current MOS on dates, I discovered, is, amazingly, a great big cop-out: "Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text." Well, that clears it up: There is no style! It's all up in the air, and so editors get into ugly situations such as this — the very sort of thing a style manual is designed to keep from happening.
Ah, well. If nobody else cares, neither should I !   :-) Good Wiki-ing to all, Tenebrae 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent communications

Hi again Rebecca. I couldn't help noticing these:

On the first one, Bobblewik is concerned that you are wikistalking him, and I have to say that your behaviour does seem a little worrying. Comments like "All reverted. Shall I rinse and repeat tomorrow morning or will you stop and move on to something useful?" would seem to endorse his view. On the second, "As such, I will now treat you exactly the same way as I have Bobblewik, and beginning rollbacking your mass removals on sight" seems at the very best to be as bad as the editing behaviour you are disputing in the user, and "blatantly lying to people" seems to breach our civility policy (as you have not supplied a diff there I am unable to judge whether there is any substance to your allegation). Your use of a category "Aspergers" to describe other users in a publicly visible subpage on Wikipedia is utterly unacceptable to me.

You are obviously an intelligent and able person, and it pains me to see you heading in such a futile and unproductive direction. As User:Tenebrae has pointed out just above, you seem to be plain wrong on the date-linking thing; but my real issue is that of your apparent mass reversion of other editors' changes, and threats to do so in the future, together with your highly uncivil communications with other contributors, including me. This kind of behaviour causes stress for other people, and to no real end that I can see. Can you please stop? --Guinnog 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I assure you I don't want to come over like a police officer. Your apology to Quadell is very encouraging.
I hold a different opinion from you on the date-linking thing. For what it's worth, I have nearly always routinely removed "extra" date links from articles I copyedit, as an aesthetic thing, and according to the sensible principle of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I have seen articles that contained literally hundreds of year links, some of them duplicated several or many times, which I see as gratuitous overlinking. Of the thousands of articles I have copyedited, I think I have only had two complaints; I think one was Seattle, I can't remember what the other one was. I don't think most users, editors or admins care that much about the issue frankly. It isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things, in my view. I don't think I would ever get so wound-up about such an issue that I would mass-revert or tell someone to "Fucking quit it".
Having read a little into the history of your dispute with Bobblewik and others about it, and having read Durin's points, I think I can see why you were annoyed. I think it's very important that we take this dispute to place where it can be properly resolved; the MoS talk is very difficult to navigate (I spent nearly an hour trying to track down your edits to the MoS, for example). I assure you I only want to try and help resolve what seems (no insult intended) like something of a storm in a teacup, without any more rancour being created. If you feel Bobblewik has acted disruptively, why not take it to RfA or AN/I? Or even start with a calm message to him asking him to stop, and see what happens.
To me, the main way forward would be to clarify the MoS guideline about date delinking. There still seems to be a prevailing view among some that all years should be linked, which I think is silly. But there is room to debate on it without getting stressed or causing others stress. If there is any way I can help you, just say.
Finally, I have thought about the Aspergers thing; I know some non-Wikipedians who consider all of us who edit an online encyclopedia for fun to be a bit weird in that way. I used to teach kids who actually had the disorder, and I suppose there may be some truth in that characterisation. It's obviously a spectrum, and everybody is somewhere or other on the spectrum. Nonetheless, such labelling of those you disagree with won't help resolve things. Obviously neither will swearing at people, but I think you know that already, and I have already taken too much of your time with this long message. --Guinnog 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nathannoblet

Help please. I'm losing hair. Nathannoblet (talk • contribs • logs) - a very young kid, a slow learner, or a troll looking to drive editors insane? -- Longhair 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Civility

Hello. I'm certain you haven't a clue who I am, or why I'm meddling in this situation, but I was drifting through articles and came across your disputes with bobblewik (and also a couple other users).
I would humbly request that you please refrain from making things far worse than they need to be. I'm sure you've had a terrible history with certain members, and perhaps that's why you feel justified in acting the way you do. However, look at the Atlantis article.
Do you realize that you actually asserted that linking November by itself was significant and relevent to a space shuttle? As well as asserting that July is similarly connected directly to said space shuttle?
While although I can sympathize with the instinct to automatically revert all actions performed by a person you think is causing a disruption... it nevertheless remains that you certainly made bad edits, and decreased the quality of an article, simply for the sake of reverting the actions of a user you don't like.
In the case of the Atlantis article, the linking was unnecessary, and decreased the readability of the article. And yet, you insisted that it must be present. Your revert was a statement that it was absolutely relevent and necessary for the completeness of the article. However, that is entirely untrue.
In no way am I suggesting that you should abandon your quest to stop the needless removal of valid date-links. However, I would request that you not damage articles in the pursuit of that goal. And furthermore, if you are trying to stop a person's behaviour, I would request that you only act upon the examples of such behaviour that are actually bad. Undoing their good work is hardly a way to discourage their bad work.
Additionally, I've noticed that you have listed three users under a group called "Aspergers". This is a horrible thing to do.
It's hateful, spiteful, mean-spirited, and only ensures that conflicts will continue.
How can you possibly expect things to settle down and work smoothly if you engage in personal, not to mention incredibly distasteful, attacks like that?
What's more, Aspergers is a serious condition, and one that can make life very difficult for good people. Trivializing their hardships simply for the sake of taking juvenile jabs at people is... well, let's just say troubling. And hardly constructive.

In short, you've made detrimental edits to articles for reasons that were not specifically related to those articles in particular, and you've used wikipedia as a foundation for making personal attacks against people, including hateful references to people with lamentable conditions.
By all means, continue 'watching' whatever editors you wish (how you choose to spend your time is none of my business). And continue reverting any removals of date-links which are actually relevent to the articles.
However, I would request that you not revert edits that are actually valid and constructive to the article, and I would especially request that you refrain from adding categories like "Aspergers" again. As it is, someone has already removed that category for you. So, I would only request that you not revert his edit.
(btw, if you should wish to reply to this, then you may wish to do so on your own talk page, for the sake of readability. Of course, that's only a suggestion. Similarly, I won't be offended if you choose to delete this entire message, if you wish to do so.) Bladestorm 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Rebecca,

Thanks for your apology. It was very heartening. We still disagree on date linking, which is fine, but I'd like us to respect each other and try not to provoke each other unnecessarily. Peace, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Rebecca,

I've told Bobblewik that (s)he's asking for trouble with persisting with de-linking dates.

But you've shot yourself in the foot with the incivil way you've gone about it. Look at how many people are coming to the defence of someone who has banned repeatedly for the same behaviour. Andjam 11:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you help Ivan?

Ivan to Adam: I have great respect for you and your work, and I'm wondering if you can help me. This user, User:Abu badali, keeps on trying to delete fair use images that I've uploaded, especially Image:Allison Mack1.jpg and Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I have gotten permission from the websites owners to use these images, and I have written a detailed fair use rationale for both of them, and they both have the fair use tag on them. Even after a lengthy discussion, he still will not accept that they are fair use and he keeps trying to delete them! Loooking at his talk page and his contributions, he seems to think that he is the highest authority on all things "fair use", but he obviously is not. Can you please help me, or get some other administrators to help me, convince him that they are in fact fair use images and should not be deleted? It would be greatly appreciated, and he must be stopped before he lists every single fair use image for deletion. Than you. - Ivan Kricancic 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam to Ivan: Dear Ivan, thanks for your message. I'm afraid I gave up long ago trying to understand photo copyright issues at Wikipedia. These days I do not upload any images except (a) my own photos and maps and (b) Australian images which were published at least 50 years ago, which I know are out of copyright. I have no understanding of "fair use" at all. I will pass your enquiry on to User:Rebecca, who is both Australian and awesomely knowledgable about Wikipedia and all its rules. She is also an Admin and will protect you if you are being unfairly treated. Cheers. Adam 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AMA advocate

Hi, I'm User:Pedant I've been asked to take Hmains' advocacy case... if it's not too inconvenient, would you take a moment and summarise the current status of your date-linking conflict for me? (what's the problem, who's involved, what resolution would be best in your opinion... and like that) Thanks. It would be most convenient for me if we keep this discussion here:User:Pedant/Rebecca Thanks again, sorry to come in in the middle like this, and I really appreciate your help User:Pedant 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Hi again, just realised who you are, glad to see you are still around, even with a new name. User:Pedant 02:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to discussing this with me? User:Pedant 06:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this dispute still in effect/is there still an unresolved conflict re datelinking ? I would a pprecite it if you would take a moment to answer, I would like to close this case if there is no action needed. Thanks very much. User:Pedant 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychotic category deletion nominator

Hi Rebecca. You are an admin, right? I was after either advice or action from you concerning a categories nominated for deletion. An editor has gone seemingly “nuts” nominating any fauna related category for deletion. His 'modus operandi appears to be to nominate 100s of categories with a macro, then make a comment saying that some categories are pointless (I agree, some no doubt are) but then uses this to justify the removal of ALL. Some Fauna by Country categories are excellent – see Category:Fauna of Australia, Category:Fauna of United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of Indonesia, Category:Fauna of Brazil. The problem is, if one removes a category, you can’t just revert it. Indonesia has almost 200 articles under this category. I feel the editor should state his reason for nomination of deletion of each category. I have removed the Indonesia tag because he still hasn’t provided any reason for that categories deletion.

Thus, my question/request is: is this appropriate way to nominate? There is literally 100s without explanation. Should he not provide reasoning for all?

Please pass this question onto someone else if it is not something you can deal with. Best regards --Merbabu 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. OK, so maybe i am being a bit premature in my concern. My worry is thought that agreement to nominate admittedly pointless categories for some areas maybe seen as agreement to delete highly valuable ones. He has not yet acknowledged that some have value --Merbabu 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of Indonesia

I don't appreciate having my nomination called "stupid" here and feel that your doing so violates the Wikipedia:Civility policy. You are welcome to disagree with my opinions, but to characterize me as being stupid (which is what your comment implies) is a personal attack and violates that policy as well. Please refrain from such characterizations in the future. Thank you.—Chidom talk  06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to block Adrian, I think

(diff) (hist) . . Division of Melbourne Ports‎; 12:29 . . 144.138.198.129 (Talk) (Mr Carr as you say your are not an administrator just a fucking interfering poofter) Adam 14:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that diff above from the article's edit history, per WP:LIBEL. Not that it would have bothered Adam, but I see no reason why such comments should by permitted to remain. Snottygobble 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I am surprised that you were neither polite nor decent enough a person to apologize for accusing me of "vandalism". It seems exceedingly likely that you read my reply to you earlier, yet you lacked the grace and politeness to reply (of course, you could simply go back to previous versions of this page to see my reply if you hadn't read it already). You obviously don't read what you comment on, and one can assume that given your political leanings (which are implicit from your user page), that you simply jumped to conclusions and thought "Oh, no! Someone is vandalizing the page of a progressive!" If you had actually bothered to patiently and maturely read what I had written, and the original pages, you would have seen that I consistently praise the talents, accomplishments and personal character of the article subject. My only point has been and remains that that person is simply not notable. That's all. But, I don't expect much from you, since you had neither the decency nor grace to offer a simple, friendly apology after your obnoxious and specious claims of "vandalism", nor did you even have the decency to introduce yourself in a friendly manner in the first place. --Nottingham 16:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Adrian again

Longhair has blocked his new IP but no doubt he will be back. Could you delete this from the Division of Melbourne Ports edit history?
(cur) (last) 11:57, 29 September 2006 144.138.196.220 (Talk) (Danby filthy jew c***)
Thanks. Adam 14:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuck my nose in again. Snottygobble 23:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review of Albert Piddington (Australian politician) and related articles

Albert Piddington (Australian politician) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Albert Piddington (Australian politician). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pollie deletions

Just a quick reminder on some of the deletions on politicians you're performing. Remember to delete the talk page also :) -- Longhair\talk 07:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your more into politics than I. If you deem them worthy of deletion, who am I to disagree? I'll pop over and take a look shortly. Cheers. -- Longhair\talk 07:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a glance. I noticed Andrew Fraser (New South Wales politician) on the list. Some time back we met at the disambig page, when I added the discraced Melbourne based drug trafficking lawyer (currently in the news re: the Peter Dupas confession. Have you now changed your mind of his notability [14] , or is he another Fraser? -- Longhair\talk 07:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Understood now. Sorry for that, I only noticed Fraser on the list and thought wait a minute before reading your rationale for deletion. I gave the deleted articles some more time and checked into them all and now agree, they're mostly dud articles which add nothing more to the encyclopedia than the subject's name and their role in parliament. Looking forward to their re-creation when you find the time. -- Longhair\talk 08:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop the reversions

Please stop the asinine reversions such as going back to a misspelling at Dong Hoi in this edit.

In general, stop violating the rules about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Gene Nygaard 03:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And, could you please go back and fix the damage you've done. Gene Nygaard 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Aussie Pollie Stubs

I am very concerned about the recent deletion of around 50 stubs on Australian politicians. These articles lay the foundation for what Wikipedia will one day be..."a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" (Jimmy Wales). This however will not happen overnight. I draw parallels to my own project on Central Coast, New South Wales articles. 90% of the suburbs are stubs. But these stubs encourage anyone to edit. Even trivial information has a place on Wikipedia. It should not worry YOU if the articles contained very little information, but you should be happy that the articles had information. In many cases these articles only needed an infobox and they would have been reasonably adequate. In closing I ask anyone who has supported their deletion, that you reconsider your vote by visiting this page: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30#Albert Piddington (Australian politician) Todd661 10:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Bobblewik

Greetings. I understand why you have been reverting Bobblewik's changes. Unfortunately, many of the changes you have reverted over the past couple of days have been unambiguously positive, and your reverts have been to clearly inferior versions. Examples: here, here, here, here, etc. You have also reverted some of his comments on talk pages, which I assume you did not mean to do. I read your reply to User:Gene Nygaard explaining why you reverted all of Bobblewik's changes without reviewing them each individually, but this seems to be a violation of WP:POINT to me. I would ask that you not revert any user's edits en masse without reviewing to ensure that your revert is warranted.

I have reviewed all your reversions of Bobblewik's changes. On those few occasions where your reversion simply changed from one arguably acceptable style to another (e.g. "1999" to "1999"), I left it alone. But in the great majority of your reverts, Bobblewik's changes were consistent with the MOS, and the version you reverted to was clearly not (e.g. "August 12" to "August 12th", or "5%" to "5 per cent"). I have restored the correct format to these. Six other users, besides me, have reverted at least one of your reversions to Bobblewik's edits, judging (correctly) that Bobblewik's version was correct and yours was not. These users were not "recruited" and are not (so far as I can tell) aware of each other. The reason we all have re-reverted your reverts is that your version was clearly incorrectly formatted. Again, these are not ambiguous cases where there is disagreement about the best format, as in the linking of lone years -- these are cases where Bobblewik changed a clear violation of the MOS and made it correct. (Incidentally, I could not find any instances where Bobblewik's edit summaries were "openly deceptive". He has seemed extremely careful to describe his changes accurately.)

I will never revert any of your changes, if those changes could possibly be seen as falling within guidelines. If Bobblewik changes 2002 to 2002 and you revert him, I'm staying completely out of it. But I will ask that you not throw the baby out with the bathwater -- that you not revert anyone's changes without reviewing them. If, as you indicated to Gene Nygaard, it is too much work to review Bobblewik's changes individually to see if they are correct or not, then it would be better for you not to revert his changes at all.

All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask you to cut this out. [15] [16] [17] [18] and [19] are mindless reverts that make the articles worse; they're essentially vandalism and will be treated as such by me in the future. TomTheHand 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to this too. You are doing more harm than good. Please stop. --Guinnog 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply to all of you once here. I will make an effort, on days where Bobblewik only makes tens (as opposed to hundreds) of bot edits to double-check them before rollbacking. However, with one single revert of his script page, Bobblewik could stop making deliberately deceptive edit summaries, and this problem could be completely avoided. Either he can do this, and edits like this can happily remain as is, or I have to shoot the lot on sight. It's very simple - I'm disinclined to waste time that could be spent improving the encyclopedia having to dance around the deliberate deception of a particularly bad editor. Rebecca 01:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a deceptive edit summary from his recent edits, please? --Guinnog 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's simply not acceptable to use admin powers to revert a user's edits without checking them, unless you are certain the edits are vandalism. You are not certain of this, so your rollbacks are against our policy at Help:Reverting and an abuse of the admin "rollback" ability. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

"Fucking" is by definition profanity, which is included in the policy Wikipedia:Civility as a serious example of breaking that policy. According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies" so persistent use of such profanity that causes other editors to be distressed can result in being banned without the use of the formalism of arbcom. The point of the Wikipedia:Civility policy is because uncivil behavior is bad for wikipedia. Disrupting wikipedia by persistent profanity even after being warned can be expected to result in being blocked and eventually banned if the conduct does not improve. This message is going to Bobblewik and Rebecca. WAS 4.250 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So ... just who is being disruptive?

You say "Every month or so, he turns on his script, gets yelled at, gets blocked, and stops for another month until he thinks people will have forgotten, and starts again. He very nearly escaped a community ban for this last time it happened. A couple of months ago, a second user, Hmains, copied Bobblewik's script and started with the same behaviour. Both of them have shown an absolute refusal to enter into any discussion unless it involves them being able to continue to run their scripts each day unfettered." [20] Is his behavior actually against policy? Is the behavior persistent? If so, is the persistent policy breaking disruptive? Can you get "uninvolved Wikipedians" to form a consensus that this is true? It might sound like a lot of hoops to jump thru but in actual practice, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing can be quite useful. So ... who is being disruptive here? I don't know. I don't care. But whoever is the one being disruptive (if either) ... good riddance. WAS 4.250 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Note this discussion thread

Hi Rebecca, you've been quoted in this discussion thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rudeness. Don't know whether you were aware, so I thought I bring this to your attention.

Regarding the date delinking issue:

  • for de-linking not covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), I've, in the past, posted the account of such behaviour on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Usually this leads to a block of the de-linking Wikipedian within minutes. What I want to say is: often it is better to give a precise (and as neutral as possible) description of the behaviour on WP:AN/I (while preferably also warning the involved wikipedian), and leave the decisions to be taken to others, than getting mess spread everywhere.
  • The procedure mentioned in the previous point, however, usually leaves the questionable edits themselves untouched. At least, I've not yet been able to trigger a revert of the questionable delinking as a result of posting on WP:AN/I. Thanks for the courage to proceed with such reverts anyhow. That is not without risk however, while this may involve reverting of what would generally be considered as improvements ("good edits"). Yes, the issue has become more sticky lately, while the "date delinking" is now often a "rider" on less questionable (semi-)automated edits.

The best I've been able to come up with regarding the issue mentioned in the second bullet above, was the idea of asking the person engaging in the serialising of questionable edits to undo these edits him/herself to avoid a block. That was the idea enclosed in the former wikipedia:semi-bots proposal (now rejected).

Anyhow, here are some (new) ideas:

  • It would, for instance, be possible to negotiate (for instance through mediation) that (semi-)automated processes for changing Wikipedia's content effectuated with the assistance of *code* (like the code displayed at User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js) would be subject to the rules and procedures of WP:BOTS;
  • Alternatively, it could for instance also be negotiated directly that date delinking lines of code would be commented out on (or: removed from) javascript code pages. Note that the "solitary year delinking" code is only a very few lines of the elaborate code at, for instance, User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. The other code on that page seems quite OK with respect to implementing MoS recommendations, as far as I can see.

Don't know whether this helps, but I tried. --Francis Schonken 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Rudeness

I commend your remarkable forbearance in the case of Bobblewik - David Gerard 23:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary Wooldridge

Hey Rebecca,

On the Mary Wooldridge article someone re-added the Liberal politician category that I earlier removed (she is currently only a candidate). When I removed the category again, an anon user (on their first edit) reverted the change, giving the reason:

Revert Roisterer's stub & cat deletions (Wiki definition of politician: a politician is an individual involved in politics. She clearly is. Definition is not limited to an elected officeholder).)

Firstly, I'm unaware of this definition. Is it actually the case that anyone involved in politics is a politician as far as wikipedia concerned or is the anon talking through their ring. Secondly, I'm interested in the fact that someone apparently making their first edit to wikipedia is able to cite supposed wiki definitions and know how to add categories and the like. I'm guessing it's a Woolridge supporter adding POV.

I'm going to remove the politician category again, pending the election result but I guess her page will be worth watching (as will all the pages relating to the upcoming Victorian election). Cheers --Roisterer 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Anthony Valentine Patrick JOHNSON

If he is known as Tony - then can you move his wikipedia article also and refer to it correctly rather than pointing the list of members direct to an article about a footballer?

see http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/6897595c62112b64ca256e3b00839e43!OpenDocument

I think his posters said "Anthony" but I don't have one on me.Garrie 03:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


BTW "Anthony" and "Johnson" are both common names so there are LOTS of reasons why you might get LOTS of google hits for Tony Johnson. Garrie 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey I wasn't trying to be condescending you know. I get hits for an indigenous australian activist from Queensland if I type in "Tony Johnson" and restrict to pages from Australia. Shortening Anthony to Tony is very cultural it isn't automatic. "I'm a bit sick of having to correct you and Newhoggy putting articles at names that the people concerned rarely, if ever, actually used" - well I haven't even been working on polical articles for quite a while so I'll happily disregard that one, I was only checking to see what vandalism was going on during the school holidays. Anyway, it was Randwicked that put the page where at Anthony Johnson (Australian Politician) so get it right if you're having a go at people. Have a look at my contributions, I agree when I was first starting I "assumed" it best to use formal names but to be honest, you've probably picked up on every other non-common name I have had anything to do with and I have moved quite a few articles eg Reg Ansett.

IF YOU HAD MOVED THE ARTICLE FROM Anthony Johnson (Australian Politician) at the same time as changing the name in the list, I would never have noticed!

And lastly, If you want "credit", don't quote "google", quote real links that go to an actual web page. Like a link to a local newspaper where there is no confusion as to weather the article is about the same person, who hasn't been a politican for quite a while...

Garrie 03:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)