User talk:Rebecca/Archive21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

Contents

Starting a stub

Hi Rebecca, Can you help me start a stub? I'm trying to copy the Australia-Labor-politician-stub template to set one up for The Greens, but I don't understand the process.

Ned Hanlon

Good Idea to move Ned LW77 10:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the useless comment over at Olympia Snowe sorry for trying to fix up a crappy article, I guess i'll leave it up to you then. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

ICJ case names

I just posted a response to your query about names for articles about ICJ cases, on the Project Law talkpage. I don't know that I advanced the discussion much, but I did want you to know someone had noted the question! Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

Hi Rebecca! Just to say that I think banned User:Ste4k has returned as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The latter appeared out of nowhere with a totally in depth knowledge of wikipedia policies the day User Ste4k was banned and continued the same policy of serial deletion of other editors work: contantly quoting wikipedia regs as she swathed through about 50 articles per day wreaking total havok, getting into edit wars and getting other editors into trouble with the admins etc etc Colin4C 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Eastgardens

I should be grateful if you would explain your rollback reversion of this article. JSIN 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Those lovable scamps: The Right

Hi Rebecca, found your tag when I was at a stub at Socialist Left and a quick look around your page indicates you may have some good advice. You are certainly much more experienced. I have been trying to fix what, to my mind, seems obvious bias in some linked articles relating to WA politics. Dr. Lawrence's article was primarily innuendo that she was somehow responsible for Penny Easton's suicide. Many other articles linked back there and contained similar unverified content, that is, libel. Or, if I can assist your contributions, you would be giving a novice some direction. Regards--Fred.e 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lawrence article doesn't imply any such thing. It seems to be a factual account of what happened. Adam 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Your right, it does... now. Thanks for the support. But seriously, it can use some more good edits. Fred.e 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Serial vandal

User:152.163.100.67 has had about six "last warnings." See Kouros for his handiwork. Please crush him like a bug. Adam 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion

This comment is utterly unhelpful, and I would ask that you do not post anything like it in the future. I cannot help but admire the irony of accusing others of being uselessly provocative and lacking conflict resolution skills. How was that comment anything but uselessly provocative, and how could it possibly help to resolve any conflicts? Think before you post!! --Cyde Weys 03:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Members of the South Australian Legislative Council, 2006-2010

Why? Cause half of those listed *weren't* elected at the 2006 election... Timeshift 06:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But to have the intro say they were elected at the 2006 election is incorrect... what is the objection exactly? Timeshift 06:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Le baron's stupid timewasting

  • Please review User:Le baron's recent edit history and Talk page. I and others have asked him many times to stop wasting our time and yet he persists. I think he should be blocked again (he has been warned many times and takes no notice), but I will leave that to you.
  • I seem to be spending a lot of time asking you to deal with vandals and problem editors. Perhaps I should review my reluctance to become an administrator. My fear is that if I do I will spend all my time in disputes about banning and blocking people. What do you think? Adam 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I will take your advice on that. The ruthless PMA has now stepped in and zapped le baron. Adam 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby

Hi Rebecca. Tell me, what do you think of Catstail's edits to the article? I reverted - see my edit summary and his diffs to see what is going on. I don't think his changes are for the best, nor do i like his modus operandi. So far I have reverted once - no reaction yet from him (as I type this). I might let another admin know too in the mean time. Thanks --Merbabu 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, his 20 odd edits over 30mins just stopped once I reverted. No further contribs anywhere since. Coincidence? Ie, he's gone to bed and doesn't know about my revert, or maybe i scared him off??? lol. --Merbabu 23:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Caltabiano

I am interested in why my edits to the article made it worse. It seemed to me they restored some relevant info (the election defeat) and shortened the section while retaining the material. This is not the usual "how dare you revert my edits!" message - I genuinely want to know so it doesn't happen again. Jeendan 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The edit summary seems a little hostile, but I take your point. Jeendan 04:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of User talk:Rebecca:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the transsexualism photo

Well could you, on the appropriate talk page, outline your objections to the newest picture so I can address them. Please? I want to find a compromise that we can all be happy with. Please recognize the rigorous constraints of copywright and suitability for the wikipedia that I have to work under. Finding a picture or pictures to illustrate what needs to be illustrated will not be easy. --Hfarmer 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca. Those pictures are from other wikipedia articles and as I have shown on the talk page that Alison so graciously set up for discussing this matter those pictures do not violate the copywright. The way that I have used them is well within the fair used guidelines of the Wikipedia and the U.S. Copywright office. There is no arguement against them.
So it seems I have to drop diplomacy in this case. I have been able to reason with Lubos Motl on the issue of Loop Quantum gravity. I have been abel to reason with Andrea James on the issue of BBL theory. It seems you will not reason on the issue of this picutre. This is a picture that seems to be in good taste to at least one intereted wikipedian. Andrea Parton who cleaned up the caption and did not delete it.
Whereas you are being unreasonable the edit war has to be on. I have a high speed always on DSL connection and too much time on my hands for a 26 year old. I will wear you down. I will be able to keep this up much longer than you. I will strike everywhere you care about on wikipedia reverting your edits everywhere and reverting anything you do to me. I have more allies than you to help me in this. You will be unable to do anything on the wikipedia.
This is your last warning. The image is back there and it will stay there. Or else things you have done and do like here in the Wikipedia will be subject to votes for deletion and arbitrary cavalier reversion by me and my allies.
 :-) have a nice day. --Hfarmer 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Hi Rebecca. Regarding date links, can you please direct me to the debate where a consensus was reached? I'll gladly follow the community's view. Thanks. Harro5 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been informed by another user on my talk page that, as I had suspected, there is no community consensus on any area of this debate. I don't do these date link edits en masse (only to articles with a date link for every mention of a year) so don't think it is called for to use the rollback power on my edits. Anyway, I may use the script in future where an article is overbloated with such links (as is far too regular on Australian politicians' articles). Unless there is a definitive community vote on the matter (I'd suggest that you raise this at WP:CENT because a wider debate is certianly required for these issues) please don't be too forceful or aggressive in applying what is currently just one opinion on date links. Thanks, and please let me know if a major discussion is established. Harro5 09:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Electoral districts

Thanks Rebecca for your encouragement. It is a shame that I myself only found re-member (totally by accident, its amazing such a useful website is so hard to find!) when I was halfway through creating the pages. Anyway I was hoping to go back and add tables as well as create the remaining district pages before the election, but at the moment most of my spare time is being taken up campainging for said election. In any case in what spare time I do have I'll also work and help you get all this done before the election.

Also, you probably have already come across it as I've referenced it a few times, but in case you haven't Antony Green's election guide for the 1999 election [2] contains brief but sometimes useful background for most seats.

Regards Teiresias84 06:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young

Hi Rebecca, as per your previous opinions on this page I would appreciate you taking another look at it. It has been protected against re-creation without any real reason, when those arguing for its deletion actually encouraged it to be re-created.
Zzymurgy 01:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary Anderton

I am not sure if you have this one on your watchlist but could you keep an eye on it for me. Mainly because its very close to home for me and I am concerned that anything I do on wikipedia might conflict with my relationships in the Liberal Party. A user called User:Sally Moore, who seems to be very close to Anderton, keeps playing down his comments on his blog and removing unfavourable external links. I've written about this in more detail at the talk page. The best thing might be to nominate it for a AfD due to his not-notablity but ironically his whole blog incident possible might have made him notable? I haven't been around long enough to know. Anyway I've fixed up the page for now, but I would appericate someone else kept an active interest in the page. Thanks. Teiresias84 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Eastgardens

Hello, I'm wondering why you restored the article for that shopping area -- such places are not considered to be of encyclopedic interest, and the article was little more than an advert/product listing. I've made it a redirect again -- if you could explain why you think it merits an article, that'd be great. --Improv 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm deleting it as per CSD G11. If you wish, you may challenge it on deletion review. --Improv 05:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebecca, thanks for reverting one of Improv's speedy deletions. I've added a History section to the Westfield Eastgardens article - the construction of the centre was a major political issue in Sydney back in 1982 which is still used against the NSW ALP to this day. Also, at the time it was Australia's biggest shopping centre for several years. Hopefully this makes it notable enough to give sensible admins pause for though before considering speedy deletion (although after the "biscuit wars"[3] I'm not too hopeful! --Canley 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Suncorp Piazza

Hi Rebecca, You reverted a change on the Brisbane page that corrected the incorrect name for the Suncorp Piazza. Please visit this page for confirmation of the venue name. http://matrix.ourbrisbane.com/corporate/venues/suncorp_piazza I have made the change to Piazza. This is particularly important as there is a seperate location called Suncorp Plaza located in the brisbane cbd. Thanks Rimmeraj 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne naming

Rebecca, your edit to the Discussion on the various names appears to have wiped out the preceding several comments. Are you able to clean up please? Reversion is such a blunt stick, and I've already redone my own edits once after an edit conflict. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Australia First Party

This article is being repeatedly hacked by Australia First people, and either they need to be scared off or it needs to be protected. Adam 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Date linking, again

Hi again Rebecca. I was interested in the comments you left on User talk:Hmains. I wanted to query your use of the term "mass-delinking". Having scanned through Hmains' contributions I can't see any evidence of this. An edit like [4] for example (selected at random) seems to me like a reasonable attempt to reduce overlinking; as you know, we have a policy that not every linkable item needs to be linked, and I think the guidance given is still Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. We also have "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. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006, although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Correct me if I am wrong, but is your objection not mainly to mass-delinking of dates? I'm trying to see how your mass-reversion of Hmains' edits is helpful to the project, but cannot. You can answer me here or in my user talk. Thanks for your time, --Guinnog 11:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick reply. Having had a (quick) look at the user's contributions, I can't see a pattern that would suggest an automated process. Instead it looks like they are spending a few minutes copyediting an article; albeit, much of this does seem to be delinking years! Here's another random example: ([5]). As someone who does a lot of copyediting myself, I quite often remove links to years (and other links), where they a) are repeated within the article, b) in my view add nothing to the meaning of the article or c) contribute to an article which is made hard to read by overlinking. One comment I would make (and will pass on to my reply to Hmains) is that the edit summaries could and should be more informative, especially in a case like this where it has been the subject of controversy. I would always include wording like "delinked date fragments" or "lose low-value date links" where that was a non-trivial effect of an edit I had made.
Do you think there is any way we can turn this impasse into a productive discussion of policy? I know it has been discussed extensively already, but would prefer to at least attempt this than to witness another instance of friction between good contributors over a matter that seems fairly peripheral to the priorities of the project. Best wishes, --Guinnog 11:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Rebecca: I apologize to you for thinking you were using a different userid. I mis-understood the situation. After I realized my mistake, it was too late to fix it. Sorry. Hmains 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. I'm not stalking you but you seem to pop up on talk pages that are on my watchlist. You say "you'd mind far less if at least some thought went into the matter - "is this date link useful?" rather than "date link! die!"" If this is the case, wouldn't it be more constructive for you to revert only those dates you think should be linked, not a mass revert. It seems to me that leading by example and teaching people which dates are acceptable to revert would be the better route. It is clear that just mass reverting people will cause friction and nothing is learned. David D. (Talk) 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again Rebecca. Would it help for now if Hmains refrained from using the script? Would you then stop reverting his edits? If that is acceptable to both of you, we could then maybe return to discussing the policy implications. Fuzziness in the policy seems to be a lot of the problem here, aside from the misunderstandings which I think have now been ironed out. Best wishes --Guinnog 10:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Shopping malls

Hiya, please explain your reversions? Is there a conversation that I missed somewhere about how we want to have an article on every single shopping mall? --Elonka 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I'm not trying to "sneakily"[6] do anything -- There was a discussion about this kind of thing at the talkpage of WP:LOCAL, and a new template was created today, {{local}} which seemed to directly apply to many of the articles created by Tuddy (talk · contribs). I only tagged those articles which have no credible sources, and left the verifiably notable ones alone. And even with the ones I was tagging, please keep in mind that I was not flagging them for deletion, I was flagging them for expansion or possible merge, which seems completely reasonable to me. Also, please consider that if you would have gone to the trouble of contacting me in a civil manner and bringing up your concerns, or pointing me at any discussions that show there is consensus to keep shopping mall articles, I would have happily gone through and reverted my own changes. Instead, the first I learned of it was when you went through doing a mass revert of my edits. Was that really the best way to handle it? --Elonka 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you please point me to the discussions/AfDs that you refer to, that show that articles about unreferenced shopping malls are routinely being kept? Also, I encourage you to please come in and participate at Wikipedia_talk:Places of local interest as to the usefulness of the {{local}} template. --Elonka 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Victorian election campaign article advice

Rebecca, you may like to add your opinion the discussion about the article format on Talk:2006 Victorian election campaign. Regards, Peter Campbell 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image_talk:Peter_Beattie.jpg

Do you have any other suggestions or are we doomed to have all our politician photos deleted? Timeshift 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A local shop(ping centre) for local people

Hi Rebecca, sorry, didn't mean to have a go at you on the {{local}} discussion. I'm also getting a bit sick of these campaign deletions or dismissive tagging of non-US related articles as "non-notable" or "spam" or "not meeting WP:CORP". I hate to sound parochial, and I know this is a global project, but I think the management, cleanup or deletion of these articles should be left to WP:Australia who can best discuss and understand what is required in an appropriate context. Looking more carefully at Elonka's contributions log, she did only tag Australian shopping centres, and should understand any justifiable reaction from Australians. If she'd tagged all Missouri malls, I'd have deferred to her local knowledge as to the appropriateness of the tag, and I think she should allow Australian users the same courtesy. Take care, maintain the rage, and I'll have a look at that Tea Tree Plaza article, see what can be done. (A few more keep votes just came through by the way!). --Canley 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Tea Tree Plaza

Thanks for the Factiva info. I'll add it to my search tools. I only get 5 hits when I enclose Westfield Tea Tree Plaza in quotes. Does that matter? I really felt the vilification of User:Tuddy was uncalled for. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Date linking yet again

I saw your message to Hmains and your reversion of his edits. Here's a suggestion. Why don't we three (and anyone else that cares to join) pick just one of those articles and see if we can go through it, link by link, and agree principles about when date links are and aren't appropriate? We will likely disagree on some, but I suspect you and he are both too hung up on principle by now. In practice, I think issues like this can only be solved by compromise and black-or-white approaches tend not to work here. What do you think, and if you agree, where is the best place to do it? --Guinnog 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this would be contructive and I think it would help to determine which links are the ones in the grey area and which we all agree on. I have every expectation that there will be disagreements but we need to start somewhere and i see no reason why this exercise could not be done in a calm and intellectual manner. David D. (Talk) 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Please see User:Guinnog/date linking. --Guinnog 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added a table to see if we can establish some kind of rules-of-thumb about the value of different kinds of year links. It has been interesting to examine properly my own assumptions in this area. See if you can add something to it. --Guinnog 14:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution there. You are right that the way I've done it is imperfect; thanks for going along with it anyway. We just needed to get started I think, and I'm glad we did. I think the next step now might be to choose an example and talk about it, link by link. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. If you leave it with me I will draft up an example. --Guinnog 10:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now done this. I made up an example for us to discuss, adapted from a real article. If you look at the resolution page again, I've laid out my thinking and some simple ground rules. I'd like you, in your own time, to copyedit your own version of the article as the next step in taking this forwards. Thanks again for your good will in taking part in this. --Guinnog 12:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I've made the edit I thought you would have made, based on what you said in your various responses, and my own (unchallenged and I think consensual) idea that multiple links to the same article aren't needed in prose. Please, when you get a chance, see if you agree (broadly), that this would fit in with your approach. I'm awfully sorry, I just noticed from your user page that you were studying in real life for final exams. I can totally see why you might have better things to do with your time. Just do me this favour, and accept the diff or make a correction. Very best of luck with your studies. --Guinnog 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Rebecca. I took a preliminary look at the exercise; the results so far are at User talk:Guinnog/date linking. I would value your input. --Guinnog 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've finished for now. Would you mind taking a look? --Guinnog 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon POV soap boxer on Western New Guinea

hi, there is an anon IP making major POV edits to this page. I feel it already presents all "sides" objectively. But this ed seems to be trying to make a point. The only reason i contact you is that in my experience, it is the anon eds that don't care about NPOV or 3RR etc and I am thus at a disadvantage. --Merbabu 00:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rebecca. He had two goes add modifying the article, but has since stopped since i posted on his talk page. Coincidence or he got the message? Wait and see. have a good weekend --Merbabu 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that Merbabu is doing "Reverts" without any attempt to discuss the topic or their desire to 'revert' the article. Although the person who edited Western New Guinea a fortnight ago failed to cite references and did not explain the situation, their edit claiming the Indonesian action was illegal was correct. Indonesia admitted in 2001 that its attempt to divide the territory into separate Provinces was illegal under Indonesian law; but because Indonesia had already announced their intention to divide the Province they would not reverse the decision. Likewise, article 28 of the Indonesian Constitution protects citizen's rights to free speech and other forms of expression; but, again this is over-look when arresting or shooting West Papuans who raise the West Papuan national flag or discuss self-determination which the TNI and Police interpret as an act of treason.

P.S. There are no "sides", it is not a debate, it is meant to be a factual article. When I first wrote the article in 2001, it was about the territory west of PNG; a territory which had in 1961 elected its own Parliament and rename the territory as "West Papua", since that time Indonesia has used seven different names for the region, 'Irian Jaya' being the sixth name it used. It is a sad reflection that the article was made the subject of a neo-Nazi revert war and multiple re-naming by John Kenney and Wik and their sock-puppets who opposed the historical fact that Melanesian (black) people were able to form a government in 1961 or conduct any civil movement since 1965.Daeron 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

You have made some comments on the talk page of Bathurst railway station that are aimed at the previous comments of Elonka. As creator of this article, I was just wondering if there is something I can do to the article to stop it being deleted. I have undertaken several suggestions from Elonka, including adding refrences and information, but I'm still confused about what I have to do to satisfy Elonka's guidelines.

I have contacted the user on his talk page, but are yet to hear back. I have seen you do some very good and sensible things right across Wikipedia, and know you will be help. --Whats new? 09:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments and reassurance --Whats new? 08:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

58.6.40.187 has had half a dozen "last warnings". Please zap him. Adam 04:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks. Adam 04:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

IRC

No, not on IRC - I'm editing from work :) -- Chuq 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Preselections

I will see what I can do. Referencing will be a problem because this is an area which many people "know" but few people write down. Adam 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

South Osetia

Hi,

I do not think the term "Republic of South Osetia" is a proper one to point out the secessionist territory. There are many other ways to do it without using this term, which is incorrect in essence. For instance: "Secessionist territory of South Osetia". Maribge 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Maribge

South Ossetie

"lame nationalist" - this is not an argument. Maribge 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Maribge

Suburbs

Hi Rebecca, thanks for pointing out the Canberra Suburbs. I had a quick look through and so far the Toowong, Queensland article appears to be close to most of the Canberra articles. If you have the time can you take a look and provide comment on what is missing and you feel really should be added. I plan to use the Toowong article as a guide for all of the other brisbane suburb articles. Thanks Rimmeraj 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The article Waterfall Gully, South Australia in particular is very helpful. I was concerned about the 'list like' feel of the landmarks section and you have confirmed that. Rimmeraj 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Eastgardens

Just wondering if you could give a better reason that "It was better before" for reverting my edits to this article. Also just wondering why you removed the delete tag from the Westfield Tuggerah article. As a admin and a member of the abbitration commitee I thought you would be a little less blunt? Todd661 03:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely you could have assumed good faith and spoke to me about what you find particularly bad about my fist contribution. Rather than just reverting it straight out with no consultaion. It is quite embarressing to have a contribution that you made reversed saying "It was better before." Todd661 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What was so poor? Todd661 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

I'm a bit concerned by your recent conduct and comments at an AFD debate. While everyone should certainly state his or her opinion if desired, I don't believe it's appropriate to accuse a person of bad faith without some reasoning or evidence as to why you believe so. Actually, we should generally assume others are acting in good faith until it's been clearly proven that they are not. I would request that you consider your comments, as this very much appeared to be a personal attack. Seraphimblade 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Along with the above action [7], other actions of concern include the systematic reverting of another person's edits: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. --Elonka 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You have been with Wikipedia for a long time, but I too have become concerned. In the Leisha Harvey article which you initiated and largely wrote, you reverted my Infobox_Politician template, footnoted text on how Harvey's name has been used as a political and legal football since her prison term, and deleted my Persondata template in the and justified your actions by writing in the edit summary "revert mostly worthless edits." 23:54, 20 November 2006 WikiProject Biography established the Infobox_Politician template and the Persondata template for articles such as Leisha Harvey. Harvey's name has been used as a political and legal football since her prison term clearly is not worthless to the Leisha Harvey article. In your 02:33, 19 July 2006 edit summary, you wrote "Actually, fuck this, I won't be intimidated by a psychopath." It appears that this behavior has been going on for at least four months.-- Jreferee 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, spare me the rhetoric. I have no problem with the persondata, but the infobox was completely useless (not to mention factually incorrect in a couple of places), and virtually all of the content you added was indeed worthless - either padding that served no purpose and added nothing to the article, or original research conclusions, such as the vague claims of "her name being used as a political and legal football". Secondly, I'm almost impressed that you bothered to go through all my archives and message everyone I've ever had a dispute with in an attempt to somehow get credence for your edits, rather than trying to write something which actually added to the article. Finally, trying to make something out of my response to a stalker who was threatening me offline is just below the belt, and shows that you're really grasping at straws here. Rebecca 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You are listed as an administrator and thus held to higher behavior standards but continue to fall well below those standards to the significant damage of Wikipedia. (A) You recklessly deleted a persondata template 23:54, 20 November 2006 Rebecca for which you now say you have no problem ("I have no problem with the persondata")[17]. (B) You again delete the Leisha Harvey infobox without proper justification, saying that WikiProject Biography infobox is worthless in this biography article. 03:07, 23 November 2006 Rebecca. (C) Between your reversions 23:54, 20 November 2006 Rebecca and 03:07, 23 November 2006 Rebecca, you twice deleted the following highly relevant, footnoted facts from politicians Leish Harvey's article, your sole explaination being that these facts are worthless padding: (1) In January 2000, the Premier of the Australian state of Queensland makes a press release that he is willing to consider legislation to repossess Leish Harvey's government pension because of her crime. (2) In November 2000, the Premier releases a statement regarding Harvey's government pension, which some suspected that the timing of the release to be politically mischievous. (3) In a December 2000 press conference in reponse to Liberal Party leaflets distributed at Queensland railway stations questioning the Premier's ethics, the Premier states that his political opponents sat in a cabinet with crooks such as Leish Harvey and that people in glass houses shouldn't be hypocrites. (D) On a much wider problem, your archives reveal a long term pattern of repeating the same, numerous Wikipedia violations, yet evading review one way or another for wrong behavior you subsequently continue to engage with different editors. I went through only two of your 21 page archives and was shocked at how you have treated numerous other editors and the damage you have done to numerous Wikipedia articles. [18] The extent of damage you have caused to Wikipedia is even harder to assess because substantially none of your discussion replies are/were posted on your talk page. (F) Despite the numerous concerns expressed in this thread that was started at 11:03, 21 November 2006, you continue to make reversions after reversion over the past two days of the hard work of other editors with insufficient justification.[19], [20], [21], [22], [23].-- Jreferee 14:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
As noted, please don't remove standard features such as infoboxes (an infobox or similar graphic is usually mandatory for anything categorized as a good article; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment). And it's completely inappropriate to accompany such a removal with a benign edit summary describing the deletion of such substantial material as "mostly worthless." MisfitToys 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An AfD nomination that has received some good-faith support shouldn't be regarded as bad-faith. Rather than nominating the person be punished, a more appropriate action would be to call for a moratorium on nominations while discussing the general notability of shopping centres is being done. I'm not sure how early incivility became a problem, but the following occurred on March 20 and June 7 this year.

Can I also ask you something? You said that your failure to give an edit summary when you proposed deletion of Thomas McCosker was accidental. But with a proposed deletion, anyone, even the author of the article, can remove a prod tag. So how did you expect such a deletion to succeed unless it was done stealthily? Andjam 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I was glad to be alerted to this discussion by one of the participants. I've previously complained to Rebecca about posting obscene language on my talk page, and my opinion is that her behaviour has become increasingly belligerent over the past year. Is it a defensive attitude to real-life that has been leaking onto her dealings on WP? I don't know, but it causes significant numbers of people offense here, and lowers the tone of the project.
I don't say this easily: I'd support any move to demote her from adminship. Admins are supposed to set an example to the rest of us—to resolve conflict, not to create it. Rebecca needs to chill out and do what she does very well: write and edit. Her current attitude and her admin role are a potentially poisonous mix. Tony 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was glad to receive a similar notification. I've been a bit concerned about you ever since you were listing editors you didn't like together in a list of people with "aspergers", along with your threat to continue making bad edits (reverts to remove beneficial edits) just to make sure you encompassed any edits that could also be bad edits. (rather than simply doing them on a case-by-case basis) Personal attacks, grossly inappropriate insults, and intentionally detrimental edits to wikipedia hardly sound like appropriate behaviour for an administrator. Bladestorm 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (Formatting fixed) Tony 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This Asperger's issue troubles me: Bladestorm, do you have a diff or talk page for that - I would like to see the context. Sandy (Talk) 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Bladestorm was referring to this edit [24] that Rebecca made to her subpage, User:Rebecca/Users to watch. --Elonka 15:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Rebecca can offer an explanation for that edit: I've not encountered those editors on the Asperger syndrome article, and I can't find any indication of an AS diagnosis for any of them. I hope AS isn't being used as a means of categorizing editors derogatorily. Sandy (Talk) 15:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how this got on my watchlist but where is this going? It's becoming some bizarre interrogation with no point. The page you're referring to doesn't even say Asperger's anymore so what are you looking for? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What is the point of prosecuting her for something that is no longer there? Is there some damning evidence we are yet to find? There are articles to edit, and time might perhaps be better spent examining those. Rintrah 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pasted from my talk page:

I was tempted not to deign to address this with a reply, but in your case, I'll bite. You've had plenty of opportunities to work out any issues you've had with me, so excuse my cynicism when you jump on the bandwagon when one guy who makes the sort of good-faith, but lousy edits you often complain about degenerating the quality of the project decides to try to whip up a lynch-mob to distract the issue from the basic fact that his edits were, indeed, lousy. Rebecca 01:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Rebecca, thank you for your measured reply. It's the cantankerous ones that people object to. I was part of discussions about six weeks ago to take the matter to the Arbitration Committee, but no one could gather the energy to do it. I must say that if you persist in your belligerent ways, it will happen. Why not move on from all of the negativity that seems to dominate your interactions on WP? Tony 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

Updated DYK query On 22 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leisha Harvey, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!



There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.


How can you help?

  • You can join a Task Force.
  • You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
  • You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
  • You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
  • You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
  • You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
  • You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
  • You can help reference articles.
  • Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
  • You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.


If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Reasoning requested

I would like to know why you reverted my edit to But I'm a Cheerleader. I'm very puzzled and taken aback as to why you would do so. I modernized the infobox, added the usual external links, expanded the plot, added a reception section and moved the awards there so that they could be seen, and removed the tagline since it was not significant.--Supernumerary 05:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Take another look now and tell me if anything is wrong.--Supernumerary 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 23 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steven Pringle, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Assertions of bad faith

Rebecca A lot of the time I agree with you on keep / delete / merge discussions. However, you seem to mention "bad faith" a lot when you enter your opinion in these discussions without actually detailing any qualities of the article at hand. I know I'm not as active an editor as you and I only see a subset of the discussions you contribute to but it seems a common term for you to use and it seems to not be that effective at swaying anyone. Please try mentioning what is right / wrong with the article rather than simply saying you don't agree with the nominator. I think the fact that you say

Keep (or delete depending on issue at hand). Perfectly notable XXX nominated in bad faith.

does nothing to move concensus.

My comments are only meant to help your opinions be listened to positively in AfD's etc. I see from Contributions how much you do and I'm not just trying to piss you off. Garrie 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

I am 99% certain this is Jackp: User:RaptorRobot. But, he seems to be smart enough except on one occassion not to go near Sydney (which is a dead give away), he just uses his anon IP for those edits. But his film contribs are all the same. Also Raptor Robot likes to change Sydney, Australia to Sydney etc, just like Jackp. he also like to play around with the image sizes on Sydney and edited Sydney as an anon 4 mins later. --Merbabu 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

124.176.183.227, repeated vandalism of Joan Kirner and Talk page. (PS I hope you enjoyed election night as much as I did). Adam 04:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Westfield Belconnen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Westfield Belconnen, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Belconnen. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Westfield Chatswood

An article that you have been involved in editing, Westfield Chatswood, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Chatswood. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Westfield Group

User:Elonka has placed the primarysources tag on The Westfield Group. I have dropped something on the talk page there... it is a bit of grandstanding I guess. But it is easier to find site-specific artilces of local interest then it is to find something about the multi-billion dollar retail empire it seems... Is asx.com.au a reliable secondary source of information regarding the company, or is it still only a primary source?

Thanks, Garrie 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume for the moment that The Westfield Group is a notable company - at least it would appear as Starbucks - I would like to get the main TWG article looking more like a WP:CORP FA class article. Do you agree, that in doing this, an important step would be to move the list of locations to List of Westfield shopping centres in ... by nation? I have dropped a proposal on the talk page but no comments there yet.Garrie 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline being developed for malls

You have commented on List of Shopping Malls regarding criteria for having an article. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalwatch

User:Hughes123: repeated vandalism, most recently of Brendan Nelson. Adam 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Finishing off the date linking thing

Hi. Sorry I haven't had much time on this; I'm going to tidy it up and put it away in the next few days if I can. See User talk:Guinnog/date linking for my proposals. Best wishes,--Guinnog 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mass date delinking

Mr. Mains is back to his old ways. You don't seem to be around, but I hope you can attend to this. -- Lonewolf BC 09:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to help me to finish off the solution as I asked above; I have asked hmains to do the same. --Guinnog 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup in planning

Hello, you've indicated that you're interested in future Meetups in Melbourne on this list, so I'm giving you this message to remind you that Melbounre meetup number four is currently in planning. If you haven't already, please go to Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne to suggest possible dates, times and locations. Thanks --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IP check

Hi Bec, could you help me out - I believe you have checkuser access? I (and Tancred) believe User:Tenuous_walker is blocked user User:147.10.112.157 avoiding a block. (see Tancred's comment, bottom of my talk page). Is this suspicion enough for a re-block, or do a need to get someone (ie. you?) to check and see if the IP range is the same? -- Chuq 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure I wouldn't get blasted for it :) -- Chuq 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
have added this to an existing sockpuppet case - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ehinger222 (2nd). also suspect relationship to NSWelshman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Licinius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) Dibo T | C 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hi Beck, long time no talk. Do you think it is appropriate to list Australian ArbCom election candidates at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements? Hesperian 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Places of local interest

You are of course correct that five people are (generally) not representative of consensus among Wikipedia editors. Thus, I've posted a few notes to request further feedback on this page. Your opinion is welcomed on its talk page. Yours, (Radiant) 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Skyring

Please see this and this edit. Xtra 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anaesthetic Dream

I am curious why you keep removing the link and editing down the references to Estelle Asmodelle in the page Transsexualism? First of all she was the first transsexual to become a legal transsexual in australia by attaining the very first female birth certificate, issued by the NSW births, deaths and marriages and then also the first transsexual to be issued a new passport with the gender depiction of the new sex. It was a legal and social milestone and although the book is in pre-publishing many people have already reviewed it. On numerous occassions you and another user removed the link to this book. I would think people who are interested in transsexualism would be interested in this - yet someone keep removing this link?? Then it was suggested that the external links section was too long and so I added it internally - then it was again removed. I thought this was a democratic process then why it is being edited contiunually by a couple of people? I can certainly cite any newspaper articl or offical document in support of these claims - yet the page seems bloated with talk about one persons view on issues rather than facts. After all this is an Encyclopedia right? Sincerely Pamela. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pammylove (talk • contribs) 09:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue I - December 4, 2006


Pedder etc

I was one of the TWS people at Bob Brown's house in Liffey when we called it the TWS in the late 70's - as I creep towards my 60's I am trying to come to terms with some aspeccts of it - and I'm trying to get the better handle on the whole saga to materialise some good articles about the whole thing - I had hoped that there might be others of my vintage in the woodwork - it doesnt look like it unfortunately. I really am very impressed by your work on the Franklin article- and if I have expressed myself badly - I am sorry - what I was trying to say was that if we get a good Pedder article up and running (a mere stub as it is) we will find some things that will see some modifications on the Franklin art. I really am not expressing myself well at the moment. Here's hoping there are some others who might pop up to join in getting a more comprehensive and competent article. Best wishes - hope the exams went well SatuSuro 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Project News

  • This is the first newsletter of the LGBT studies Wikiproject! Come and discuss your thoughts on it at the Wikiproject talk page.
  • An LGBT Barnstar has been created for editors who have contributed significantly to LGBT-related articles.
  • The LGBT Portal has been revamped and tidied. It's various sections could do with updating on a weekly basis. Please pitch in if you have the time.
  • The main page of the Wikiproject has also undergone a bit of a rewrite. Your participation is welcome.
  • James Robert Baker became the first known LGBT biography to become a Featured Article on November 22. It was written and nominated by Jeffpw. Well done Jeff!
  • A discussion has been started on the WikiProject talk page about how to get the WikiProject going. Your thoughts would be welcome.
  • Finally, five new users have joined the Wikiproject: Jeffpw, Ikasawak, Dev920, AliceJMarkham, and WereWolf. Please make them feel welcome!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

Forgive me, I do not know how you ended up on my list of Wikiproject LGBT studies members. I will remove you immediately - please remove the newsletter if you desire. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've changed your username. I get it now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing Adem Somyürek in the correct version is not vandalism

The correct Turkish spelling is Adem Somyürek with the letter ü - anglicizing non-English names in the English Wikipedia is not done, except for historical persons. And by the way correcting this detail is absolutely not vandalism. Just because these letters do not exist in the English language is not an excuse; or because the person mentioned above happens to live in an English speaking country and is its citizen. Changing the spelling of English personal names and surnames are not done in the non-English Wikipedia pages. You seem to confuse such kind of contribution with vandalism. It only shows your ignorance as a unilingual speaker. So don't insist. You would also be offended if your name was written differently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Date linking; preliminary conclusions

Hi. Please see what you think of what I wrote at User talk:Guinnog/date linking#Preliminary conclusions. --Guinnog 08:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


CityRail colour coding

I know we've crossed swords in the past, so I'm sure you'll be able to give me some clarity here: am I being unreasonable in removing the coloured text and headings from the CityRail pages and replacing them with text and graphics? See Northern railway line, Sydney (an example) and Template talk:Public transport infrastructure in Sydney (my reasoning). This seems to be a problem for at least one user who has been contributing to these articles for a while. Joestella 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to for you to get involved, I'm just after a fresh pair of eyes. While I'm pissing people off, I'm a bit taken aback by the fact that people are writing articles about individual minor railway stations. While, say, Central and Parramatta are certainly notable, and Wondabyne might have a certain cult status, surely anything really worth saying about a minor/intermediate station can be said on the line page? Any ideas on where I can find guidance on this? Joestella 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I know there are a lot of articles on railway stations, but I doubt there's a consensus. My point is made far more comprehensively here - User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable Joestella 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca - here's my reply to User:Joestella's reply to you. "Allandale is an historical railway station that has been closed - just about every London Underground and suburban London station that has been closed has its own article too, as is the case for other cities and countries - I don't see the difference here. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a CityRail mirror site, I would think closed railway stations represent some value in inclusion as they have more merit in inclusion than just the currently operating stations. As for stopping patterns, they are on railway line articles in London (though they are written out there and not in a table), Perth and other cities as well. I would never include more than that; I actually have asked previously that ridiculous information like telephones, toilets and other trivial and useless information be removed from the station and line pages - they are timetable and trivial information that isn't needed; stopping patterns are an integral part of a line's operation. And as for the codes, they are not internal - they are partially made public on the suburban timetables and are not trivial information. It's all about the identification of the stations."

The articles on Melbourne's railway stations have codes, why can't we?

JROBBO 05:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your quotes page

It's fine if you didn't want the quote I added. I just thought it was an amusing quote. —Doug Bell talk 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Railway station notability

With regard to your posts on this subject, I refer you to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I am stating my personal opinions, not trying to "enforce" them. Initiating a discussion does not constitute "the back door". I do not need an "excuse" to do this. I know you've written about railway topics, but I don't see why that should put a bit of courtesy beyond your reach. OK? Joestella 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your posts on this subject, I refer you to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Initiating a discussion does not constitute "unilaterally delete[ing] or merg[ing] a ton of articles on your own say-so". Again, I know you've written about railway topics, but I don't see why that should put a bit of courtesy beyond your reach. OK? Joestella 03:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the minor railway station articles should be merged, that much is clear. But it would be a waste of my time to edit two to three hundred pages just to add the "merge" tags, if the result was going to be a resounding no. Indeed, I'm not sure myself where to draw the line on notability here. Hence the discussion. If a consensus emerges for mergers on this page, it will save us rehashing the same debate over each and every little unstaffed 4-car platform. If not, well, I've lost debates on Wikipedia before and I'm still here. On a personal note, I think as long as you see yourself as 'fighting' to save parts of the encyclopaedia from 'death', you're bringing too much emotion into what is purely a technical debate about user-friendly information structure and strategies for maintaining standards. Joestella 04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not putting a metaphorical gun to your head, Rebecca. Please try to leave the emotion out of this. I can see that many of the stations could be expanded. But you don't seem to realise that (a) limited information on a given station can still appear on the station's line page; (b) not all railway stations can be expanded upon; and (c) the bulk of these articles quite simply aren't being expanded upon. Take the 'A's in the category for the sake of argument. All list the distance from Central to the nearest 10m (I think the source is a railway fan page) as well as information from the CityRail website and ephemera.
A fair amount of activity, but most of it directed towards creating coloured boxes. When will the expansion happen? Where is the content coming from? Why not create the pages after the actual research has been done? Joestella 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for engaging with my concerns. Time will tell whether these and the other pages will be expanded. History does not favour optimism in this case, at least for Sydney's rail network. Few care more about public transport in Sydney than I (perhaps all of those few are Wikipedians though). You can see from my contributions list that I've researched, designed and written a fair amount of public transport content. I think there are better ways to structure the information we currently have than hundreds of low-quality stubs chain-linked by coloured boxes. Joestella 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Railway station architecture is interesting, certainly. In Sydney you'll find that a given station buildings will closely resemble all or most of the others built around the same time — while others are served by sheds or bare platforms. Central is a combination of at three styles as it has been expanded. I must say that I am heartbroken to watch as CityRail destroys the charmingly retro "colour coded" Eastern Suburbs Railway stations of the 1970s by painting over the terrazzo and brightly-coloured tiles. Joestella 05:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Your points about burnout are well taken. But we're not talking about experts adding verifiable content. We're talking about enthusiasts creating and then abandoning hundreds of stubs. Joestella 06:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD vs Request for Expansion

I agree with what you said - I don't want to see the pages deleted, sorry if my comments show that's my outright preference. I want to see them improved. But the articles are created as stubs and go a long time without being improved and too many of the non-primary references come across to me as fansites/vanity sites. I am honestly suprised that JRobbo hasn't been able to absolutely bomb the cityrail articles with excellent, well respected references from rail journals, engineering references, and other works - he definately seems to have access to the information. Unfortunately between work and my three under school age kids I don't have access to print references on this topic (nor many others) which is why I restrict myself to topics with acceptable secondary electronic references. It is definately a shame to see seasoned, effective contributors (including admins etc) leave over some of the recent AfD's. I don't know if there is more that admins & beurocrats (can't spell it sorry :( ) can do to fudge some of the policies a bit more to promote keeping contributors with good track records. I guess everyone needs to mentor each other (user:Golden Wattle and others come to my mind).

"The unnecessary bitterness brought on by having to fight these sorts of rearguard deletion battles is costing users" ..? That sounds closer to blackmail than a commitment to well-structured, quality content. Joestella 06:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Heya!

I got married last week. Interested in some of the wedding photos? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

decoupling the date-linking and autoformatting syntaxes

Dear Rebecca

You may be aware of my proposal to take a request to BugZilla that they write a parallel mark-up for autoformatting full dates that does not link them.

I wonder whether you'll consider either (1) supporting this bid, or (2) agreeing to leave the matter run its course without objection (conflict/debate on BugZilla would probably sink it, given the distaste for controversy among the developers).

Reading the history of your comments on date-links, it's the mass delinking, without discrimation, that you object to. May I point out that if we succeed in making available a parallel code (could be <<date>>, who knows), it will have no bearing on the principle that you believe is important: retain links where useful, and don't bulldoze them out of WP (whether to leave no mark-up at all, or the new non-linked autoformatting syntax, it's the same). It will involve only full dates, not the simpler chronological items (e.g., 1789) that have involved you in conflict with people such as Hmeans and Bobblewik.

Indeed, I'd have thought that reducing the number of blued (full) dates would make the more useful chronological links stand out more, and make it more likely that readers would follow them.

I'm trying to make the request as simple as possible.

Looking forward to you response, perhaps on my talk page initially (?)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#A_new_parallel_syntax_for_autoformatting_dates

Tony 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca—Thanks for your response. Tony 09:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles from academics

You wrote: "I read articles by two academics yesterday saying that they'd left rather than fight continuing notability disputes over articles in their area from people outside who simply weren't interested" on Joestella's page. Which articles are these? Cheers. enochlau (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ACN etc.

Reply is on my talk page... I hope you're right on this one but I question him being the one to write the article.Garrie 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Pestwatch

User:71.196.154.124 - disruptive editing and personal abuse at Action T4. Adam 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility and Wikipedia

"Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally." Rebecca, I know you've worked longer and more extensively on Wikipedia than I have, but this does not give you license to be rude to me or any other editor. I have raised a valid and comprehensively articulated position and invited discussion: I don't expect your agreement, just your courtesy.

Save for the occasional line or two of engagement, your attitude has been rude, personal and dismissive. You apologised at one point, and now you're at it again. Many people have made abusive comments regarding my views on notability. Yours are particularly galling in that they come from an experienced Wikipedian who should know much, much better.

You must have read Wikipedia:Civility by now. I urge you to cast aside whatever your personal problem with me is and take these principles on board. Joestella 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

SA election FA

G'day Bec. Is there any chance you'd be able to take a look at the SA election article and offer any comments or votes on it's FA nomation? Cheers, michael talk 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

K42

User:K42 appeared at my talk page anonymously, here is the IP's contributions. Altered his old user page and threatened to continue vandalism. I have looked over the IP's edits, it does not appear to have ever been used by anyone making substantially different edits/targets than K42 so I think it's safe to say it's used by him exclusively. Whatever that all means for you, I don't know, but I thought I'd give you the info since you blocked him last. — coelacan talk — 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Marist F.C edit

Hello, I noticed that you reversed my edits to Marist F.C under the caption rv silliness. I don't believe these edits were silly, since they are from reliable sources (from fifa.com and rsssf.com). Is it okay if I restore my edits to this article? Perhaps we should discuss on the article's Talk page? Best regards. Jogurney 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I see it now. Jogurney 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup

Hey, looks like we finally settled on a date for the meetup, it's on 18 December, all the details are at the meetup page. I can't remember when you said you might be in Melbourne, hopefully that hasn't already been and gone and you're able to come :) --bainer (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalwatch

User:209.195.165.6 has now had at least six "last warnings" but continues to vandalise. Please zap him. Adam 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

Since you appear to have had previous dealings with Elonka, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions, which deals in significant part with her behavior. (Radiant) 12:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • While I sympathise, having had to deal with Elonka before, I have nothing to do with this dispute, and just because I've had an unrelated dispute with the same user does not mean I should be dragged in. Rebecca 13:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I can understand that. Never mind, thanks. (Radiant) 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject western australia

Found you very helpful during first edits. Despite my approach my edits remained, mostly. But this is just to let you know WikiProject:Western Australia (WP:WA) has been started and needs suggestions for objectives etc. and/or members. Thanks, Fred.e 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Attack account

Hi Rebecca, I have an issue which I need some help with. It seems our old friend Adrian Jackson has set-up an account called User:And I Tiresias... which I believe he has created in order to attack me - he has had something against me ever since I nominated his original article for deletion. With the first edit under this account, he restored an anti-semetic and libelous edit that I had reverted some time ago [25], [26]. With the second edit he created a new article Gabbor-Brown which is basically (admittedly more subtle) attack page for James Gobbo Jr.

Admittedly that's only two edits but they weren't on the same day which suggests to me he intends to keep using it.

I wasn't sure I was supposed to go with this, but my understanding is accounts designed to imitate or attack other uses are blocked indefinitely, as are accounts created soley for vandalism. Can you set the wheels in motion for me or direct me to where I need to go? Ta. Teiresias84 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

POV fork deleted; the rest is up to you, Beck. Hesperian 04:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a need to block the guy, or is the matter dealt with for now? Rebecca 09:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
All I did was delete the fork. I got the impression from Teiresias' post that there was a bit of history there that made you better qualified to assess the situation. Don't worry; I'll deal with it. Hesperian 10:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi Rebecca. Are you by any chance able to check whether User:Thuringowacityrep and User:Townsvillerocks are the same person, or at least whether they're using the same IP address? Thanks. -- Adz|talk 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca, I just noticed that Adz has referred you to this matter. Please note, for your info, that User:Thuringowacityrep identifies their IP addresses at [27] although the way he/she has been behaving lately I wouldn't be suppressed if he/she was lying and all those anonymous edits was in fact him/her (see [28])

Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

In your edit of one of my change you said it was rv unnecessarily provocative edit) Please explain such harsh statements. Also before reacting go to Category | War crimes and see that it is no longer a mess. I've created a sub category called Category | War crimes by country under it we have War crimes by each country including Georgia. There a over 2 dozen countries listed now. Right now only War crimes committed in Georgian territory is not properly categorized because you thought my edit was unnecessarily provocative. Now I have edited almost all the war crimes related articles (probably 50 or more) no body else seem to have a problem with the reorganization because it was merely clerical not political. I am simply cleaning up a category. I have no POV on who or even whether these articles are war crimes or not. That is for others to figure out. ThanksRaveenS 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I think you are right. It is questionable as to whether these are war crimes or not, second as the breakaway republics not even recognized by their patron Russia they are technically still Georgia. I am not going to get involved in those editsRaveenS 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Port Phillip Herald

Hi - could you help me with an argument over at Talk:Port Phillip Herald PMA 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

DLP

What to do with User:dlpobserver? Since you are involved in dealing with him I assume you are not allowed to block him. Please take this up with another Australian admin. PS As of today I am gloriously unemployed. Adam 23:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am travelling in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia over the summer. Then in March or April I will be off to Europe for a while. By the middle of the year I will probably be out of money so it will be time to look for another job. I would like to work for someone on the election campaign, but just now I have had enough politics for a while.

Your deletion of "Colleen Hartland (Australian Politician)"

I note you pre-emptively deleted the Colleen Hartland (Australian Politician) [29] article stating that "most of the article directly plagiarised from her campaign site". I think it would be more appropriate to raise these concerns on the article talk page prior to just deleting it. What about the content that was not derived from the "campaign website" - such as that she is now a Greens MLC? Could you please restore this article? Peter Campbell 04:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The material was referenced and used as a source, not directly plagiarised. I am gobsmacked that you would make this accusation. Other editors had contributed to the article as well, but you have now deleted their work too. How about reinstating the article and getting some other opinions on it? I think you are displaying considerable bias and hostility on this matter, which really suprises me. As you are refusing to reinstate the article I would like to lodge a complaint about this deletion - how should I do this?. Peter Campbell 05:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to delete or update the notice at the top of your userpage about being on hiatus until November. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmains

That still isn't going to work, as he's still entirely free to shoot each and every date link on sight, as he's always done. The onus should not be on me to make him provide justifications for his edits - he should provide that himself, and if he doesn't have one, he shouldn't be making them. "Taking into account the value" will simply be interpreted as "I can kill them all as I don't think they have any value", just as before. Rebecca 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It was hard to write a form of words I thought you could both live with. I worried that you might not find it acceptable. I'm afraid it seems I was right to be worried.
Would you trust me just to "enforce" the spirit of the agreement then? I know I came at this from a very different angle than you, but I hope I know your objections well enough to keep check that someone is keeping to the spirit of an agreement, and I hope you trust me to do that faithfully to the best of my abilities, which I would certainly undertake to do.
It would be personally very satisfying to me to wrap this up today, if we can all three agree. Although I am not a Christian myself, I recognise the nice symbol that getting this resolved on Christmas Day would constitute.
I would furthermore say I'd like to enlist both of you to help me in the New Year to take this whole argument forward even further with the aim of using our findings here to try to improve the MoS guidance to prevent such disagreements from happening in the future. --Guinnog 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the current form of words? --Guinnog 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmains has indicated his agreement with the form of words I proposed, as amended by your suggestion. I do hope this can be more than a Christmas truce and can lead to lasting improvements of our project. Thanks for the willingness you have shown to compromise. Have a good holiday (did you ever get the results of those exams you were doing by the way?), Guinnog 04:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Please see User talk:Guinnog/date linking. Thank you for your time and trouble. --Guinnog 09:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalwatch

User:Keelan1993 has done nothing but vandalise. He has been warned but continues. Adam 13:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

O'Connor

My advice is that he has made no move to appeal his deselection to the National Executive, which is his only recourse under ALP rules. If he intends running as an independent he has not said so. I don't really think you can report a negative. Until he says he is running, or someone else says he is, the article should assume he is not. Adam 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

David and Goliath (clothing company)

Aww... just "nyet?" Not even "Nyet, see talk?" - brenneman 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a notable company, and has survived AfD before for precisely that reason. I see no reason to unilaterally delete it and redirect the article to one of the company's products. Rebecca 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Err, no deletion happened, almost all edits are "unilateral," the Afd made claims to notability that the article doesn't have. How about some citations, some press, some "multiple non-trivial mentions?" Note that they's need to not be about the "boys throw rocks" shirt, but the company all on its lonesome. - brenneman 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It was a deletion - you redirected, removing the entire article content. As you pointed out, there are plenty of sources verifying the company's notability, mostly in the context of the product line they are most famous for. There is nothing in the notability guidelines about "multiple, non-trivial references that don't include things Brenneman wishes to exclude". Rebecca 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Alrighty then, I'll not engage in sophistry on the "deletion" question, but I'd suggest that you bandy your definition around with your peers a little bit to see if you're in line with the commonly accepted view on it. With regard to the other A) Why is this here not the article's talk, and B) Is there some reason you stepped right up to incivility rather than arguing the actual case? Have I done something to you _personally_ to warrant it? - brenneman 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      You deleted the content of the article. How about that? As for the broader question, I'm fed up with having to deal with this new phenomena of people who, instead of actually writing new content, spend their time revisiting deletion decisions which were done and closed long ago. This is the umpteenth case of this I've had to deal with the last month, and I'm sick of having to spend time arguing each individual case again, purely because it doesn't interest one person or another. There is no good reason to delete this company - it is a well-known company that makes famous products, which should be plenty enough for us to have an article on it, bureaucratic hoops or no bureaucratic hoops. Rebecca 00:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      That's famous product in the singular as far as I can see. But, ok, I'm sorry if you're cranky about something else or someone else, or some other debate, but that's not what happened here, and it's insulting to suggest that it did.
      • I was working on the speedy deletion backlog, and one very minor company referenced this very minor company.
      • A redirection is a fairly unconvtroversial edit, and in particular if it's a question of source (which this is) than the easiest thing to do is, erm, add some sources. There's clearly no need to have two articles on this.
      • I don't think that I've ever wanted to delete something because it "doesn't interest" me, and I'm dissapointed in the lack of respect in that statement.
      • I'd also object to the implication that I don't "add" anything to the encyclopedia, as well.
      Anyway, I'll leave you to clean up the article, actually writing new content, adding sources, etc. I'll look back in a month or two.
      brenneman 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      The article is reasonable as it is, although it, like vast swathes of the encyclopedia, is unsourced. This is still, however, not a deletion criterion. I also find it striking how it's always the articles that someone wants deleted, rather than those that are actually in dispute, or are say, of living persons, that seem to get the focus on references. Rebecca 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tassie

Hi just to let you know a couple of project creators and I - with chuq's blessing will be converting WP Hobart into WP Tasmania over the weekend - as you have been a generous watcher of things tassie in past - we are alerting you in case we need help to go through with the conversion. SatuSuro 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also - there's an issue that needs an arbcom level of adjudication - I will email re this SatuSuro 05:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone trying to hijack WikiProject Gender Studies...

An anonymous user has edited Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and has edited its aims so that it reads (the following quote is taken from the talk page):

* Correct articles where the term 'gender' is overused, used incorrectly, or used pejoratively to pander to (what Christina Hoff-Sommers, Wendy McElroy and other more moderate feminists call) a "gender-feminist" POV.

  • Correct articles where the term "gender" is used (without reference to NPOV dictionaries and other NPOV sources) to replace the term 'sex' as a ploy to pander to "gender"-feminist POV. Correct the usages so that the proper definition is used without regard to UNTESTED and often invalid 'gender theories', so distinctions can be made between 'gender' and 'sex', and so that the usage reflects some sort of NPOV take on a highly loaded term. Just because some widely criticized academic fields have used totalitarian tactics to force 'gender' and censor the usage of 'sex', in US humanities programs is no indication of the validity of this politically-loaded term. Consult NPOV sources such as dictionaries, opponents of "gender"-feminists and NPOV mass media sources to balance 'gender' POV with 'sex' POV.
  • Correct articles where the term 'gender' is being used gynocentrically as a front for 'oppression'-feminist political, legal or cultural power plays. For example, in feminism (Status) there is no mention that for the male 'gender', military mortality is 98% compared to 2% for the female 'gender' (in Iraq)...but other forms of far less serious female "gender" oppression are implicated (covertly and most disengenously) as having something to do with the gender "oppression" of women. This kind of blatant, gynocentric "gender" bias is no less POV than the other forms listed here.

Said user has further edited the talk page suggesting that (the following quote is taken from the talk page):

I suspect this project was created to pander to the points of view of misandric, gender-ginning, 'patriarchal oppression' feminists (please see Women's studies, misandry and feminism ) who use the term 'gender' as a cunning, covert, and blatantly gynocentric weapon of war. Many other more moderate feminists and non-feminists have challenged these blatantly gynocentric, and often misandric "gender feminist" ideologies. I insist on a non-sexist, non-'genderist', non-reverse sexist project...otherwise this project is just the usual type of cunning totalitarian tactic we see so much in other politically correct channels. To revert the above content just because none of the orginal authors of this project page like it is a POV stunt to have ones cake and eat it too. I am going to reinsert the content. I insist that before it is reverted again good NPOV reasons be provided. My aim here is some kind of GENUINE non-sexist, non-reverse sexist, and non-'genderist' NPOV...as may be shown well in Sexism (drop in editor) 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the term gender (that is, the idea that at least some of the differences between the roles of men and women in society) is socially constructed, yet 'sex' (i.e. that any differences between men and women are essentially biological), at the very least, looks like misogyny|misoginist]] POV bias of the worst kind. Any assistance arguing against the point would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, - AmishThrasher 08:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Circle Sentencing

Are you aware of any articles relating to this indiginous australian legal issue (using semi-traditional legal systems to reduce indiginous representation in Australian gaols)? the courthouse at Mount Druitt is apparently the first one in the Sydney area to make use of Circle Sentencing. It has been in use in regional areas for some time. I am pretty sure there isn't too much published case studies showing impacts yet as the systems haven't been operating very long... Lawlink have this which mentions which courts are using it. TIAGarrie 12:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine what you mean I think... Although I live in an area where this is going to be very relevant, due to my work I would prefer to stay away from the whole justice side of things... but was hoping that "rattling the cage" could get something started...
I'm all for affirmative actions and intervening in a timely manner but it seems that the only thing that qualifies people for circle sentencing is their ethnic background (aboriginality) - not the circumstances of the alleged crime. That seems wrong to me - the resources probably should be going into diverting the behaviour before the law is broken rather than diverting the individual (who has been found guilty!) from recieving equal treatment under the law to any other person (even illegal resident!)... sorry, end rant... I was really only looking for a backlink for Mount Druitt, New South Wales...
BTW, have a great NYE... Garrie 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind message! I've certainly been a bit busy of late, but I hope to get involved again. It's always nice to know one's work is appreciated. All the best during your holidays, Bec. michael talk 08:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

another thank you

Hi Rebecca. Another thank you message. ... thanks for the message on my talk page. It's nice to get feedback and to know that edits get noticed. I've been taking photos of places I've travelled through over the Christmas break and places close to where I live. I've got a few pictures of Hughes, Fyshwick and Greenway, and am keen to put more up of Belconnen. I don't know how much time I'll get over January, but will try to keep it up. Thanks again. -- Adz|talk 10:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)


Happy New Year from Tony the Marine 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen
Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue II - January 1, 2007
Happy New Year to all our members!
Project News

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

Longest-serving Australian Greens MPs

Hi rebecca. what do you think about moving the Longest-serving Australian Greens MPs article as per the talk page. I think its a good idea but don't want to cause a bun fight. I think that the current name is a bit inapropriate as it probably lists every Greens parliamentarian there ever was. -- Adz|talk 06:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

Hi Rebecca, I saw that you beat me to reverting some spam a little bit ago that was done by an anonymous user. That link went to a site that User:ligroyjones spammed several other sites with earlier tonight... I posted a {{subst:welcomespam}} on that user's talk page. I thought I'd let you know, as it looks like someone is persistent. Aleta 08:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hello there, my name is Peter Dodge (aka Wizardry Dragon) and I am a checkuser clerk. If it's not prying too much, I haven't seen you at Requests for Checkuser until recently - are you a former arbitrator, or how did you acquire checkuser privelages? Just curious. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a little something

To wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Becca on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Rebecca. Thanks. --Rebecca 10:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong page :P — Nearly Headless Nick 11:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Werriwa by-election

Thanks for actually creating the article and I'm impressed with the detail.

I have a few suggestions I could make about it which I might change, although my problem is partly that I don't have sources for a lot of the information and I don't want to be putting unverified stuff up. But I'll try and contribute. Ben Raue (Talk) 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Great work. Well researched (or at least, an impressive set of references ~ I'm too simple to tell the difference... ). Garrie 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), it is informative and I have picked up some useful info from watching both it and the Australian-related AfD's. So I think the main issue here is, you promoted your work in the right place for me to see it! Garrie 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I knew it wasn't a stub and it wasn't (quite) A-Class... Garrie 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Playford to Playford

Hey there Bec. Is there any way for my draft to overwrite the current Playford article while keeping the edit history intact? I'm about to put it to peer review, ready for FAC. michael talk 10:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your qualm regarding his social views... this is noted in this paragraph:
The conservatism of the Liberal and Country League did not keep up with the modern-day situation. There was dissatisfaction with the restrictive drinking laws; environmentalists campaigned for more natural parks and more 'green' practices; police powers stood strong, 'no loitering' legislation remained in place; gambling was almost completely restricted. The constituents who loudly demanded changes were mostly immigrants and their offspring, used to more libertarian conditions in their countries of origin. Their homes, usually built by the Housing Trust, sprawled into 'rural' electoral districts that were controlled by the League. Labor pledged to introduce social legislation to meet their demands; Playford, who did not drink, smoke or gamble, had no interest in doing so. His own candidates knew that the election of 1965 would be unwinnable if Playford did not budge. The economy was still going strong and incomes were still increasing, so the Premier did not change his position on social reform.
I do not know whether that is enough, but I certainly didn't want to concentrate heavily on his social views—little is made of them in Cockburn's book (excepting what is stated above); Crocker writes well, but his work is also a (very conservative) opinion peice on the era; Jeansch pays little attention to it. Other than what was mentioned, few demands for social reform seem to have been made during that period; such things were much more prominent in the years that followed, and hence why so much more attention is paid to them in Dunstan's article. michael talk 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

National Union of Students

With all due respect, I take some offence at your comment "find somewhere else to push your opinion" deleting all my changes, particularly as the changes you made are factually incorrect.


1)Jamila resigned as a National Officer bearer. The position is currently vacant. 2)It is an established fact, as attested by the newspaper article linked, that the Liberal students voted for Matthew Chuk. Considering Chuk won by 39 votes, and the Liberals controlled 55 votes, to deny mentioning them is childish at best. I would suggest you look at the Student Unity website for a more detailed description of how events took place - and note that the edits and debate there never questioned the role Liberal students played 3)I fail to see the logic behind having the VSU discussion in two seperate places - crediting the ALSF with achieving it in state governments, which is no longer relevant, yet not Federally. This seems to make no sense from a structural perspective. 4)You can't support blantant and unverified accusations against student unity such as "Often, while Student Unity held the position of National General Secretary, students" This is purely a matter of opinion, and violates Wiki policy. Even changing it to allegedly as I had it still arguably pushes the line.

The changes I made were purely of a factual nature to remove inaccuracies, insert omissions, and get rid of bias. They should not be removed.

--LibStu 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Place etc

Thanks for your hanging in there and holding fort - a bunch of us west ozzies are in there now - no doubt muddying the water in our own special way! SatuSuro 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New Project

Not sure yet... it's still a relief to get over this one :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timeshift9 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Allucquere Rosanne Stone

Hi, I just noticed you reversed mu link to an beginning article of Sandy Stone, now her link is red again on the list of transgendered people, I think that's too bad. Artgoyle 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RFAR Followup

Hi Rebecca,

A few weeks ago (during the Giano dustup) you indicated that you'd be willing to create an RFAR to follow up on your accusation that I acted improperly when I blocked him and needed to be de-sysopped. You mentioned that you were busy at the time, so I'm following up now. Please let me know what I can do to help, I'll assist in any way needed. I stand on my statement that I did not collaborate, conspire, plot, or anything else on IRC, of course, and I welcome the opportunity to defend myself and clear my name with you and the rest of the folks assumed bad faith regarding my actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca, I see that you've been editing. I'd appreciate the pleasure of your response. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year linking and delinking

Hi there. I've posted a cut-down version of our discussion at the above policy talk page. I hope you'll be able to contribute there. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorphin Album Names

Thanks for the move/rename to correct the capitalisation of the articles I wrote for Embrace (Endorphin album) and Skin (Endorphin album). I saw the mistake myself, but had to wait until my Wiki account had been active for 4 days before it would let me :)

Jesus Christ Cafe

Rebecca, would you please the URL and credibility of JesusChristCafe.com before deleting the artcile without so much as a consideration for the explanation of the post on the talk page. Thank you.