User talk:Matilda/Archive12

Dahl

Cheers Matilda! I love the book by Roal Dahl that you are based on BTW. Spykeesam (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Glen Eira Councillors

Hi Matilda, thanks for your assisatnce on this. No I would like it deleted b/c semi-preotection is not permanent and vandals will always come and vandalise this article. I don't see the purpose of the article when it attracts vandalism - hence deletion is mandatory. Thanks again --CatonB (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Knatchbull, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oz II

Henrietta http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/ and NLA http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First were my main sources for Americas Cup 83 and 87 (in moondynes sub page at moment - noted at wp oz noticeboard) if thats any help (or not) - cheers - SatuSuro 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gundagai, New South Wales

Hi. Can I ask where this has been discussed previously? Furthermore, can I invite you to contribute to the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Australian_Collaboration_of_the_Fortnight. Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what the issue is about! I've got no issues with the template for ACOTF (If I was a Admin I would have posted this on that page above). -- Bidgee (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Greetings

Hi, Thanks! Great to see you're still on Wiki. :) ATM I've moved from the Top End due to Rental costs and ATM looking for a new area to move to (Looking at Victoria ATM) but staying in my old home town for now. -- Bidgee (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Powerful

Most likely the same ship, but unfortunately there's little I can offer to shed light on her Australian career. What the sources seem to agree on is that she was reduced to the reserve in 1904 and was a training ship by 1912. It's quite possible that in this gap she was reactivated to serve as the Australian station's flagship, but unfortunately my sources don't mention this, nor do the on-line ones I can find. But this shouldn't rule out the likelihood that this is in fact what happened, but rather a gap in the sources. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Azaria is the new ACOTF

Azaria Chamberlain disappearance is the new Australian collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Semi-protection for user page

Thanks. I was out getting more photos in the City and have only just got back home. Interesting to see it's a NSW Government IP who just copy and pasted everything from the NT police site. After an issue I had today just getting a photo of a building only to be stopped by NSW Police (Using some LAW banning photography which is the first I've heard of it), It really makes me wonder why I've even bothered coming back to this state! -- Bidgee (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Well not really a building yet but the land across the road from the Wagga Wagga Police Station in Sturt Street. I did say to her that the only law I've heard was for was the one in place for Sydney Harbour. She keeped saying that there was one but she never stated what law it was and that I should delete the photo (Which I refused to and won). Not the first time this has happened. RE " defence installation" I know about as it's posted all around the Darwin Airport but people seem to spary paint over them all the time. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Edelsten article issues

Thanks for your comments. I thought WP:COI could be reported at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Michellecrisp (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Noel Desmond Gray

I agree with your removal of the refimprove tag from the above article, but have replaced it with a "primary sources" tag instead. The problem with the referencing is not that there aren't any, but that most of the article is referenced by a self-published work written by the article subject and his son. This is a potentially worthwhile reference but falls short of the definition of secondary sources - hence the primary sources tag.

Not a big deal, just in case you were wondering why the tag you removed has been replaced with a different one. Euryalus (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon IP also adds comments to Geoffrey Wickham and Telectronics. They don't seem to edit general pacemaker articles - their sole interest appears to be in promoting Noel Gray and denigrating his Telectronics colleagues. The posts breach civility guidelines and sometimes NPA but I don't consider them offensive enough to need oversight. I respect QRS's view but I think we're going well enough in slowly improving these articles that no admin action is presently required. As you said, any offensive posts get quickly removed and the anon IP doesn't post often enough to effectively disrupt the page. Euryalus (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Noel Gray.jpg

Matilda, the image used was cropped from an image in "Telectronics - The Early Years",as the copy of the original is badly scratched, so I have deleted it. The use of the image was inserted as a hopeful but misplaced effort - it was hoped that Gray Jnr would have appreciated having an image inserted.QRS (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi Matida, Thanks for your understanding. The image "Geoffrey Wickham" is my own photography, taken on my front verandah in 2004. If you would be so kind as to remedy the Commons page I would appreciate greatly - I thought I'd filled-in all the details correctly.Do not spend your time deleting names and comments from early edits by C Gray; it's no doubt a time consuming & complex procedure. I took the liberty of xxx'ing the names in some of the recent edits - perhaps doing such is not strictly correct, I'm unsure.I recognise that my edits to Noel Desmond Gray, Telectronics & Nucleus Limited may conflict with Wikipedia policy. I was never an employee of either company, but worked in a close relationship with both in research so have a first hand knowledge of who did what and wish to see history accurately recorded. Kind regards QRS (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

== Hi Matilda who are you and what do you know in conflict with Chris Gray who was an employee of Telectronics from inception? If you were not an employee of Telectronic how do you know anything above Noel Gray the Managing Director? TUVWXYZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.111.40 (talk • contribs) 6 May 2008

Hi in response to this. I do not know that I am in conflict with anyone over the Noel Gray article other than ensuring that wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research are adhered to. I do this by ensuring that all statements can be sourced to reliable sources and that those sources do not express a conflict of interest . All my knowledge on Noel Gray comes only from reliable sources and also some obituary articles which are not quite as reliable as I would like in the sense that they of course show a bias. I am not an employee of Telectronics, never have been, never benefited from any of their products - I am an outsider! I have no axe to grind.--Matilda ^talk 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK well you should know that all the media stories about Telectronics are full of misleading lies writen by journalists relying on information provided to them by Trainor, Wickham, and Jeffcoat. At no time was Noel Gray interviewed by a journalist who published an article. The conclusion of this fact is that all published material about Telectronics is unreliable when it relates to the contribution of Noel Gray (Managing Director and founding Chairman) and his family. It is sad that Geoffrey Wickham is obsessed with demeaning Noel Gray and his seminal role at Telectronics and now slandering his son. To say that sucess has many fathers failure none is a truism and it applies here. To edit Noel Gray's page in the disparaging way that it has been by Wickham and QRS (whom I suggest is not a cardio thoracic surgeon but is in fact Jeffcoat) is ingratitude at it's ugly best. The articles that you at W wish to use are ok to use but you should acknowledge that there has been a great injustice done by them in not atributing some acknowledgement of Noel Gray and his family for there sacrifice and loyalty to the man who created the company from his vision to make Australia's first sucessfull high-tech medical electronics company. (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.3 (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Red links

Dont let me start on that - it leaves it open to hoaxes and a few other issues - I honestly think they should not be on a list unless there is a linking article - but have left my comment will leave it for the moment - its a serious issue in the indonesian project where the list thing and red links causes some grief for the prject SatuSuro 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies - if I came over friday grumpy abut the red link list - somehow in the near future I will have to face the inevitable wrath of the ad hoc indonesian speaking and not native english speaking adders of red links to lists in the Indonesian project - and by any standard I'm gonna get a whallop for sure - I am sorry If I seemed to intimidate you on this - having been involved in a few quieter projects where red links are never touched at all or developed - I remain unconvinced about follow up - I cannot even follow up on my own inadequate stubs created in my sporadic editing :( SatuSuro 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Random Smile!

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

-WarthogDemon 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts needed.

Hi Matilda. I removed links which I feel break WP:ELNO (one site has a lot of advertising with popups and also a external wiki) which was added [1] by the User:Daniel99091 who also reverted with out a reason [2]. I wanting to see whether if I'm in the wrong or if we (Myself and Daniel99091) are both are. -- Bidgee (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

Korean Fir I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

Adam

Hesp and adam - how could i have forgotten to mention :) SatuSuro 05:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gympie Bloody Pyramid

G'day. I will contest the PROD for the Gympie Pyramid on the grounds that several well known authors, such as Gavin Menzies make references to the Pyramid in their books. I completely agree that the "Pyramid" does not exist, but some people believe it does and thus having an article about it that debunks it is important. I'll do some more work on it now. Gillyweed (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think with the rewrite? Okay? Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Tall Poppy Syndrome

Firstly, I would like to say thank you Matilda, for the welcome and the helpful advice. When first reading the article, it did not make much sense to me. I was not aware of the international English grammatical differences and I'll be aware of that next time I'm making an edit. If I ever have a question in the future on editing or creating an article, I would definitely appreciate your help, considering I'm rather new to the etiquette of Wikipedia. However, I feel confident currently, and look forward to contributing to Wikipedia! Thank you again, Blank Noise (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Territory Police

The Anon returned again today adding the same attack as last time [3]. I just hope this anon isn't going to be like the Gundagai anon/editor.

PS. Thanks for the reply with the Underbelly links question :) -- Bidgee (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

African Australians

Hi Matilda. I don't think our positions are all that far apart. I agree at the moment the article has elements of WP:SYNTH in it and needs a major rewrite. However I do think a valid article can be written on the topic and the issues on content dealt with outside the deletion process. If it used as an umbrella term then the content can reflect that.

Perhaps deletion without prejudice to recreation should someone be interested in writing a valid stub would be a compromise? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, now how do we convince others? :-) -Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 05:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Sorry butting in....What I ask is that the copyvio(Afro-Australian) gets speedy deleted as such by an independent admin, the article African Australian be deleted without prejudice. Gnangarra 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC) was what I said in the DRV nomination. I think we are all close to some agreement, suggest maybe a deletion then create a stub saying;

There is no clear definition of what constitutes being an "African Australian", the term could encompass people as disparate as Caribbean British, African Americans or Cape Malays who with an African upbringing or family background have chosen Australia as their new home. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East". Gnangarra 06:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

further comment with a hidden comment at the end of the article requesting a reliably sourced definition be provided, prior to any further expansion. Gnangarra 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quants

I have clarified on User talk:Mattinbgn talk page... Please allow me to write articles on other quants...Jacknote (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah they are mentioned only in passing (everybody wants to not mention failure, you see...) But they were the first quants and these guys were famous on the street for being very rich and for getting insane bonuses (not to mention the mystique they carried, They used pHD level maths which very few people at that time understood.....It gave them a 'exotic' air...)

Personally I don't beleve in this notability bullshit, what is notable for you might not be notable for me and vice-versa, what I'm trying to say is that notability of a person is entirely subjective and trying to define notabilty in rigid objective terms is a pointless excercise........

Also, there's little point in writing articles if it immediately gets deleted.

I don't think it is impractical to include them on the articles of the firms they work simply because they are so many.....I can remember four or five and there must be more...... Awaiting your reply-Jacknote (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks....I get ur point and understand what the articles were missing (now at least).....mattingbn sent me an article that according to him was a quality article --> Myron Scholes. I understand now and I hope to be making a rewrite soon....Thanks for being so patient

P.S- sorry for the late reply...I had problems with my internet Jacknote (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1981Underarm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1981Underarm.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Narooma

Hi Matilda and thanks for cleaning up the Narooma, New South Wales article. You just beat me to it! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Matilda. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Australia-New Zealand relations is ACOTF

Australia-New Zealand relations is the new Australian collaboration. You voted for the article, so please help to improve it in any way you can. You've already done a lot. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in Wikipedia articles

Hi Matilda

I had a kind and helpful message from you in 2006 and found you are an administrator of Wikipedia. May I have some questions about images in Wikipedia articles?

Are there guidelines in Wikipedia answering questions such as;

• (1) How many images can be added within an article?
• (2) How to justify by saying that an article is not a gallery?
• (3) What is the criteria to judge an image whether it is relevant or informative to the article?

Your help is very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance --Donaldtong (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matilda

Thank you so much for your wonderful help, especially with these Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You answers absolutely clarified my points.

Thanks again for your valuable support.

--Donaldtong (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

- Tinucherian (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello Matilda/Archive12! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Tinucherian (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks For admitting using the NLA catalogue on the australian noticeboard - perhaps - just perhaps if we could convert enough other editors to use that rather than that american oggle thing we could have over time a more balanced approach to what is actually australian domain knowledge without using oggle as a way of checking information - here's hoping! SatuSuro 11:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Re Talk: Noel Desmond Gray Hello Matilda. I have tried to relocate (from the top of the page to the proper place at the bottom) the unsigned edit of 30th April by 203.164.10.40, "Why Noel...etc", but couldn't achieve it. I'm not lazy, just could not find the clues in several hrs of searching Wikipedia's pages. Could you please give me a clue on where to find the proper procedure? For your research info, the photo of the P1 pacer which I inserted into the article Telectronics Pty Ltd is of exactly the same first model as shown on the Powerhouse Museum's display board (but on the board is incorrectly dated as 1963 not 1964). It was certainly not produced in the 1950's by Noel as inferred by Chris Gray in his edit. Thank you for your patience with this subject.QRS (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Repeated names Gawd - i realise having added nugnle bungle it should have been place no towns - any objections to the change (again) sigh ? SatuSuro 07:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Re - your message - I thought I was coming in on an issue that had baggage with it :( - tricky I have stuff on watch but cannot dablle in all of it unfortunately - I have not yet learned to trilocate or bilocate for that matter - one of my javanese fieldwork subjects (long since passed away and an inhabitant of my research site) was thought to have bilocated while he was still mortal - half his luck - perhaps SatuSuro 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) thanks for your work on the double double name name art - good stuff SatuSuro 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC) However puttin the extra info in the list a bit of a folly - either we need to make a table - or something the added info is lookig messy - imho, and the info should be in the arts anyways? just an idea SatuSuro 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC) It sure looks a century away from the xfd stage - well done! SatuSuro 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Chilean Australian I have balanced out discussion on Chilean Australian so go to the talkpage and view my comments please. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, SQL, Matilda, Ned Scott and AussieLegend I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians. TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now. I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful. But now is the time to get this debate finally finished. I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies. Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part. I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC) "Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Talk:Chilean Australian Good work on tidying the page. It makes it a LOT easier to follow the conversation. Now, if only you could do something about making certain comments easier to understand. ;-) --AussieLegend (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) No you will not! You have no right bulllying me with threats just because you choose not to read everything. ''You would not find my comments unclear had you taken the time to read them thoroughly: No you have not quite evident in you continued claims that the reference was provided by Nadine the intern and not the Embassy. I obviously do need to quote myself! "The ABS statistics are quite clearly provided and included in the revision which I have been reverting to. If you saw my comment on Talk:Geography, Talk:Australi and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile, you would see this "I am not referring to the essay written by the intern who was at the Chilean Embassy. I am referring to the data published by the Chilean Embassy on their website! There is no indication that the intern provided this information as she is not credited to it on the page but Kransky fails to fathom this.". She wrote the paper on "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia" and then you can see underneath that summary of her paper, links to her whole paper and appendixes. Then there are two new section provided by the Chilean Embassy not the intern. The following quote is provided by the website: The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons. it is not provided by her and you can verify this by reading her full paper. The data provided by the Embassy does not conflict with the ABS data and provides futher information. I have only kept the revision which is best from both worlds in that it clearly provides the ABS data and also the Embassy of Chile to Australia's data. Also if you read the dispute you can see what data I am opposed to Kransky adding, data which is unreferenced. Simple. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008". I am not assuming bad faith at all I am merely stating was has already happened, this is the past and is not bad faith as it already happened numerous times. "Your edits seem to me to quite frequently not meet the guideline" this statement is a statement of bad faith and is against Wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. you missing keypoints to my argument" is exactly because of the full quote "you missing keypoints to my argument is what happens when you do not make sure you aquaint yourself with the full facts.". This has nothing to do with me and is entirely on you. You are also breaching civility by saying "You have also not listened to others and just ploughed on and made edits" I have quite clearly listened to others in that I have relied to every user with every comment they left on the talkpage! I have also incorporated any newly found information such as "residents" into my further revisions and you are once again going against policy by assuming bad faith. You are also displaying an arrogant attitude with "I also just happen to disagree with you and I think I can state quite fairly that I am a much more experienced editor than you are when it comes to Wikipedia policies about reliable sources", this has no relevance whatsoever and you are once again displaying you have chosen to comment based on editor and not the information and points I am raising. Moreover, it is not an issue of me believing you, it's an issue of you all commenting before becoming aware of the full facts by need I say once more not thoroughly reading what was discussed. Once again you are assuming bad faith. Again you have breached civility "But you even you confess that you hadn't even got around to reading the guidelines and policies before entering into the debate". I did not confess to this at all I only said I had not read the policy and guidline at the particular time of me commenting as it was 5am in the morning and this is the sacrifices I was making for you editors in posting my replies after I had gotten back from my real life. This is not to say I have not read them in the past, I was merely re-reading them to make certain the Embassy was a unreliable source, which I found to be incorrect as there is nothing to suggest this. I suggest you do the same and re-read the policy and guideline for yourself as you seem not to understand. Once again I challenge you with respect to the guideline on reliable sources - see WP:RS - how doesn't the Embassy of Chile in Australia meet that guideline? - quote me some words from that guideline to substantiate your claim. Yes I do understand do you not understand how to read - "but now you know for sure that an expert who is the most reliable source in every sense of the word is agreeing with the Embassy's estimates" - my replies I have been posting. There is no indication the Embassy is not a RS per reading of the policy, the estimate and methodolgy is further supported by Jeff Jupp's own estimate, and moreover they qualify the figure as they state: "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons." As per my reply to him at 15:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC): I'm sorry if I come across ungrateful or disrespectful about Matilda finding that reference. But it has the exact same issues that the Embassy's figure has. I did not need this reference Matilda provided to convince me of the number of Chilean Australians as I was well aware that 45,000 is correct as seems you Pippu, Itsmejudith and maybe PelleSmith of this fact. About the only thing this reference does is explain it simpler in less formal language by using the word "children". The embassy does the exact same thing except it says "second and third generation". If people will just realise the Embassy has provided this and not the intern which I have already said in my replies, then there would be no issues as the Embassy's information does not conflict with the ABS data at all and instead quoting Itsmejudith, "adds another dimension". The reason for the 5,000 number difference is the reference provided by matilda was published in 2001 where as the Embassy published their data in 2006, something else which I alluded to in my previous comment. At least now all this other people who don't understand will have an easier time understanding as there are now two valid references saying the same things. I can indeed read but I find your excessive comments (review the edit history and see how many times you have contributed) unclear - I regard this as commenting on contributors and not content and thus breaching guidelines. I think in fact you will find that Pippu actually does agree with me more than you three I made mention of. As he aknowledges the data to be provided by the Embassy, and it being very realistic especially since it is now supported by Jeff Jupp's own estimate. Yes, PelleSmith had the same problem with understanding that the information was infact supplied by the Embassy and not the intern, but now he has aknowledged his misunderstanding something which you three I made mention of have still failed to do. I have already provided to his comments so go read them. I do not need to learn how to cite properly there is nothing wrong with my citation. Once again I do not need to just because you three say I do doesn't mean I don't! This comment on me also once again breached civility. So once again read and thoroughly and there will be no problems. If you don't understand let one of your people explain to you, go and ask PelleSmith. You need to learn how to read properly and thoroughly and not have such a quick tongue in this matters - sorry but the person who does not read properly and and has a quick tongue, needs to study every aspect of this dispute before commenting and making themselves sound ignorant. At this point I have to say that I find your editing disruptive. For example every edit you have made where you do not understand the information is provided by the Embassy and not Nadine the intern, so if not all your comment the great majority. You have actually reached consensus on the talk page - ie all but a majority - based on your limited knowledge on the matter. You have supported a revision with many flaws which I have already pointed out, and it is only you, PelleSmith, AussieLegend and of course Kransky who provided the flaw-full revision you were supporting. Pippu said he would not vote (and then you go and say he says he supports, even though he specifically said he wouldn't), I have yet to hear from Itsmejudith, Seleccione de la Vida and Confusing Manifestation showing their support for the flaw-full revision posted by Kransky in his asking of support. Even if you all agreed upon it, does not mean you are right and majority does not rule! You can't simply brush this under the carpet and be done with it, it has to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. You are not the owner of this article and have no right in thinking that way. This article is still open to discussion and I feel my revision is much better then the once provided by Kransky in his wishing to close discussions on this page to get his way. And if abuse your power by blocking me for your own fault in not thoroughly reading all facts in this subject I will make sure you get you Administrator privileges removed and have appropriate discipline brought upon you. I have not made disruptive edits to this article and in fact have only contributed to improve it. If you choose to disregard this and behave inappropriately you will suffer the consequences for your own actions. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC) You added Pippu in to support you own agenda! Even after he clearly makes this comment "I'll be honest, I'm not going to vote because everything we need to finish off this debate is actually all sitting there before our very eyes. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) " This is a breach of Wikipedia:Civility as you delibrately violated dot point 9 and 10 and you being an Administrator should be well aware of this! You are not doing yourself any favours Matilda. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Do not warn me again or you will be reported. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC) AN/I I've posted it on AN/I but no response from any Admins[4]. I'm starting to see double standards with me being hit with edit warring in the past yet a user who has been uncivil, not assuming good faith just to name a few isn't banned? If I get banned for saying this so be it, I'm just so frustrated! I'm getting to the point at not sticking around for a project that seems to have a different policies set by some admins for each user rather then having a policy across the board. Bidgee (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the update! :) I've been busy in between making Image:NTRoads.png and Image:The Ghan route map.png during the whole saga. Bidgee (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Clarification I believe all 4 diffs show removal of a recently added content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC) You are quite correct it's easy when it all concerns the same piece of info. However here we have three different pieces of info removed. A good rule of thumb is to ask: if a single editor was to undue all of those four edits, would he break 3RR? If the answer is yes, the edits of the first editor can be a 3RR violation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3RR Before you block me, please note that I did not break 3RR. Check yourself. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC) User:Wfgh66 Also please note these personal attacks by User:Wfgh66. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, I saw you had blocked him. I only wanted to point out the PAs in case there was an unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry about the edit conflicts. I was hoping I could get a promise from Wednesday Next not to edit war in the future but another admin unblocked first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) User_talk:Wednesday Next Hi - Would you like to cast your eye over my comment at the bottom of their page? I think this editor was actually trying to do the right thing here, even though it looks like edit-warring at first glance. The admin who denied the RFU has said he has no objections to an unblock. Black Kite 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC) As you appeared to have gone offline, and it looked as though you were amenable to a second look, I have unblocked. Thanks, Black Kite 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Apologies; I think the problem here is that the user's "edit-warring" reverts are mixed up with their "correct" reverts - (i.e. removing the image - 3RR doesn't apply if you're enforcing policy). If they'd got to 3RR and stopped I'd have probably left them blocked, but there were only two actual "edit-warring" reverts and to be honest I'd argue that placing that reference tag was correct too; this together with the personal attacks they recieved from the other editor and the fact they've have promised not to repeat it changed my mind. Black Kite 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC) The other editor had already been unblocked - let's see if they can play nicely. Black Kite 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Yes agreed, but at least they are using the talkpage now. Black Kite 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC) User:Matilda/draft wikiproject Please note that this page is listed at Category:Wikipedia shortcut box first parameter needs fixing. --DRoll (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Edmund Rice Camps Hey Matilda, Sorry about the Sydney Harbour Bridge page. we had to make radical changes to a page for a Uni project so that we could then discuss the effectiveness of Wikipedia. Just out of interest, how do you come across people who are vandalising Wiki usually? Also, I see that you made deleted the info I put up on the Edmund Rice Camps page. I am unsure of why you did this, becuase I didnt think that this was vandalism. Cheers petridish01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petridish01 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3RR counting automation? Hello Matilda. Since so often people dispute whether they have really made XX many reverts, it might be valuable (partly for self-defence of the admins who close those issues) to have a mechanical revert-counter. I think it could be done, though it's not trivial. If we can't do that, maybe a set of examples could be created so people are aware that reverts of unrelated material during the same 24 hours are still reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Matilda, there was never any warning posted on my Talk page followed by another revert, as required by the Wikipedia policy governing 3RR blocks. I look forward to your apology for blocking me. Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Kossack4Truth, though I'm not Matilda, it appears from your 18 May comment that the term '3RR violation' is not unfamiliar to you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Since you also appear to be familiar with the policy, you should also be aware that it requires the warning to be posted, followed by another revert, or the block is not allowed. That was my understanding of the policy, and it is supported by the plain wording of the policy. Once the warning was posted on my Talk page, I did not revert again and have not reverted since. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Apologies to Matilda for using up the bandwidth on her Talk page. The closest language you can get to what you're claiming is Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. This is from the noticeboard header at WP:AN3. The policy at WP:3RR says nothing about a warning requirement. (It tells you how to warn the user if you wish to do so). It is clear that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters warned you about 3RR on 18 May, and you echoed back her warning in a message of your own. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Lulu did not cite this warning when reporting me for the 3RR violation that wasn't really a 3RR violation. Matilda, did you see this alleged warning (which did not appear on my Talk page, but rather the Talk:Barack Obama page, and did not address me directly, and did not contain the word "warning") before you blocked? Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC) As per Gwen Gale's comment on your talk page Please keep in mind, WP:3rr doesn't require that you be warned at any time before being blocked for edit warring. You can also be blocked for fewer than 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. You were adequately warned on your talk page about your edit patterns and with requests to use talk page and respect consensus. Are you seriously suggesting that you were in ignorance of wikipedia policies concerning editing behaviour? Particularly when one reads the diff which EdJohnston drew attention to above? Having been warned, you may well be blocked again if you continue disruptive editing patterns.--Matilda talk 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Kangaroo Island Hi. I've noticed that in the Kangaroo Island article in the Sea Transport section it reads more like an article for Seaway and Sealink rather then about Sea Transport in Kangaroo Island and I'm just wondering on your thoughts are to improve the article. Bidgee (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the reply and feedback. :) I will start to fix the article up sometime soon. Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Black and White Priory of Sion (Pierre Plantard) and Rennes-le-Chateau (Berenger Sauniere). There is absolutely no middle ground relating to these subject matters between the believers and critical researchers. Nothing more pronounced in being strictly black and white in nature. The believers demand that there is a "mystery" whilst the sceptics can only see the spam of a fabricated mystery. You are obviously an outsider to all of this. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Hi both colours can be referenced. I think they can coexist on wikipedia. See how I tried with two refs ont he disputed article. Yes I am an outsider. I read Brown's book - awful tosh - definitely a page turner (the world's shortest chapters) but yuck. No I don't believe and I didn't even after finishing think it was that great a yarn! i didn't bother to see the film I am only in this space because I got tangled in your edit war. I would really like to help both of you get through it and collaborate productively even from opposite sides of the grey middle ground. Regards --Matilda talk 09:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC) The real PoS and RLC subject matters have very little to do with Dan Brown's treatment, who popularised and attracted attention to the subject matters by offering a (distorted) romanticised version of the subject matters by way of a bestselling novel. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I think Dan Brown's popularisation is encyclopaedic in itself and means that the casual reader may come to wikipedia looking for more information. To help that reader we can be of most use with factual, neutral information that is well referenced to reliable sources. In other words constructive application of the key policies of WP:V and WP:NOR can help enormously. --Matilda talk 00:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I agree with Matilda. A widely noted fictional popularization of a topic, even if it's utter codswallop, is still encyclopedic and bears treatment in an article, since this will only help readers to further understand what's "black" and what's "white," so to speak. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Demographics WikiProject Per your recent edit summary of "lets have a go with adding a Demographics tag to the banner - hmm nothing I think happened - based on preview - need to do more work" [5] at Talk:Chilean Australian, is there something amiss? I got called away from the PC, but I'm about at the moment if things need a tweak in the right direction. -- Longhair\talk 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Horrible feeling the template wants NA and not cat - just tagged cat pages with cat and they are gathering in a group at what looks like the wrong location (to me - its a few months since i did my last dash at this in the oz project domain) - sincrest apols if i got it wrong - you might want to ask longhair whether the coding prefers NA or not - i might be off for a bit today - again - apols if it is wrong SatuSuro 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Please its usually after too much indulgence with brain in certain circuitry - nothing to do with talent - ill go direct to god, er longahir about it - ta SatuSuro 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Abtract, again Abtract is continuing to follow myself (and like Sesshomaru) around to either revert or comment on our edits.[6][7] Is this a violation of any policy? The RfC is active, but so far the only person to respond who isn't involved admits he has absolutely no clue what the RfC is about and seems to have just commenting to disparage folks which only happened after Abtract canvassed for support[8]. He is also edit warring, yet again.[9][10][11] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Hi, I am sure you will forgive me for intruding on your space but I feel the need to defend myself a little. Both Sess (who admits to reading my contributions list and making edits after me) and Coll, have informed me that reading an editor's contributions list and making edits as a result of this is not against policy (this followed me complaining at Sess for doing just that). Having been given the go ahead, I now, quite unashamedly, look at the contributions lists of Sess and Coll and make appropriate comments/edits/changes etc. They gave me the advice ... but now they are crying "foul" ... read this [12] to guage the type of people you are dealing with. Abtract (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Once again, you are twisting things to justify your harassment. Being a disruptive editor, as you have been, yes, others will look at your contribs to ensure you are not acting in the same disruptive manner. Using that as an excuse to harass other editors and undoing/changing their edits just to do so is not an appropriate reason to follow their contribs. Thanks for admitting to the wiki-stalking though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC) my RfA - Ta! Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle. Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Huh? Whats happening - with class= how come you are putting NA things up - oz project is a cat zone :( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Demographics_of_Australia i disagree that it should be NA - it should be like all the rest at class=cat Then there is a stroke of genius - not:- 05:07 (Deletion log) . . MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category talk:List-Class Demographics of Australia articles" (csd g8) It must be bloody monday morning in polite language :| SatuSuro 01:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Hey thanks for putting up with me - yeah maybe the main thing is a NA - anyways trust its going ok so far - SatuSuro 03:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Request for Mediation: John Howard Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply Mediators do not make decisions! It is a is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute over content - what alternative are you suggesting to proceed?--Matilda talk 01:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I have already made a compromise edit that has survived so far - I added the reference to the "Ally of George Bush" section of the article. I have also suggested that the episode be added to Barack Obama, and if it survives there, then I would acquiesce to its inclusion in John Howard. These are two - I believe constructive - solutions I have proposed. Mediation and straw polling will not convince me that the episode warrants inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Road marker Not sure if you have come across these before (Image:Road distance marker.jpg Image:Road distance marker 1.jpg) but first time I've seen them and guessing it was part of the Route 41 days? Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Way before my time (Usage of Miles). It's a wonder thats still there!. I've fixed the KM to Miles but left it as is (IR: Didn't add the KM). I thought I may have been wrong since about 500m (est) down the road was the sign with 2KM to Wagga. Bidgee (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Reponse to your post Ah, I could see how you would think it was a problem if it was the same article. The article involved in our block was Bérenger Saunière. We didn't go back to it but had new disagreements on Pierre Plantard and Jesus bloodline. In both cases we went to the talk page much sooner and neither of us were in danger of breaking 3RR. That was my mistake as I used the wrong article title in my own post! We did not restart a conflict on Pierre Plantard, the new article involved was and we both went to the talk page much sooner and neither of us were in danger of breaking 3RR. As for the rest of your post, Wfgh66 is a passionate debunker. He frequently inserts his own opinions and original research in his enthusiasm to debunk. For some reason he thinks I am a "true believer" in the Priory of Sion stuff, when in actuality I simply want the articles to be accurate and balanced. I request citations because that is the only way I can sort the referenced facts from the mixed-in opinions. This has worked very well on other related articles in helping to show up the interspersed uncited material. He also likes to throw in various emotionally charged words in what should be a neutral presentation of the facts. I agree with him that Wikipedia should certainly not be presenting the fringe POV, but I also believe it is possible to go too far in the other direction if one gets too emotionally involved in "debunking" beyond the facts which can be cited to reliable sources. I've explained my position in the matter to him a number of times, but he still casts me as a fringe theory supporter simply because I try to reign in his debunking approach where it starts to veer into OR. Hope this helps you understand the situation from my POV. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I only get time to edit one or two days a week... Wednesday Next (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Wednesday Next (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Re User_talk:Mukadderat#On 3RR I've done some thinking and now I understand the reasons why lists of any real or alleged misdeeds are not good in wikipedia unless created in course of formal complaint. Thank you for bringing my attention to this. My excuse is that I had only two conflicts in wikipedia so far, so I don't have enough experience in this area :-) Mukadderat (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Australian Americans I just put the tag up 8 minutes ago and was in the midst of explaining why on the talk page when you posted. I'll be finished shortly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Hey I reckon in the end - just getting to standardising some stuff will be an achievement in itself for the larger project :| SatuSuro 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)