User talk:NuclearUmpf/Archive 1

Sources

I am having a constant issue with a user who I believe does not know how to source or cite properly, or on the bad side, may be adding sources he knows to be false or not relevant simply to remove "citation needed" tags. I recently added some tags to items they added and they added sources from a variety of outlets, encyclopedias, blogs, books, essays etc. The problem with many of them is they do not source the point being made. For instance an accusation is made at one paragraph saying "The US and Israel block attempts to establish a definition of terrorism", this would not be sourced with someone making such an accusations, but with sources that state the UN was trying to make a definition. The arguement being made in the sentence goes unsourced, the background information gets highly sourced, in this case 8 sources, none which saying anything about the US and Israel blocking attempts.

My question is how do I go about putting an end to this, I am worried that they are doing it to shut me up, or possibly to mislead me by having "a source" not a valid source. They previously informed they would not add any sources because things like what was previously mentioned were all common sense, and needed no sources, and now this situation with what seems like shoddy sources. Any help is greatly appreciated or any direction on where to go next. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy require all articles to have external sources in order to be verifiable. I'd point this out for them on a friendly little note at the relevant article talkpage, or at the user's talkpage. Try to find out specifically why they don't feel sources are needed, and if necessary point out Wikipedia:Verifiability for them. Hope this helps! Bjelleklang - talk 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singh

Excuse my ignorance, but I have found a casualty list for an event that happened. A raid by the Indian Peace Keeping Forces against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, in Sri Lanka. Now the casualty list has 20 people on it or so from the 13th Sikh Light Infantry unit. All of the names end in Singh, for instance Surjit Singh, Gurmail Singh etc. Is this a cultural thing related to the Sikh unit or religion etc? Or is my list incomplete or possibly wrong. I do not know if this is equivalent to 20 people dying in a raid in the US Army all named Smith ... --Nuclear Zer0 19:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You found a majority of name under Singh because Singh is a common Sikh surname, and the unit that was involved was the Sikh LI. Besides, a huge number of Sikh's serve in the Indian Army (they kind of constitute the warrior class).Rueben lys 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Need of Sources

How does someone go about finding articles that are in need of sources, particularly current events type events, though any grouping of articles that need sources would be fine. Does such a grouping or listing exist? --NuclearUmpf 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FACT#Articles_that_lack_sources has got a few different catrgories of articles lacking sources. Hope this helps! --Casper2k3 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for your help. --NuclearUmpf 13:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Violation

I found an article that I think may suffer heavily from copyvio issues. The article in question is on Johann Friedrich Overbeck and the source of the information seems to be [1]. I do not see anything on the nndb page that says the text is from Wikipedia and actually says its Copyright of Soylent Communications. Is nndb a partner of Wikipedia, is there anyway to sort out who is using who's text? --NuclearUmpf 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of both articles comes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is in the public domain. The text of the article as it stands is very similar to the original text, which you can see by clicking on the article's "histroy" tab. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i do this?

On the page Wikiepdia Administrators noticeboard/incidents at the section called "Help!", you asked me to upload the email and the matter would be resolved. I'm just asking, how do I upload it and where to? - Ivan Kricancic 12:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy and paste the contents of the email into that thread, remove any IP's of course, or you can contact an admin participating in the discussion about emailing it directly to them. --NuclearUmpf 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history...

I see, from your user contributions, that nominating Muhammad Al Juhani article for deletion was the very first edit from this particular userid.

I think it is the very rare newbie whose first edit is a nomination for deletion. So, I figure it is likely that you have a longer history with the wikipedia.

In the interests of open-ness and transparency would you please consider sharing your previous userids? And, if you are currently editing, or engaging in discussions, from any other userids, would you consider sharing them with us too?

FWIW, I only have one userid.

I am trying my best to understand your edits, and I thought looking at your longer edit history might help. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to circumvent your lack of sources with accusations. I have not broken any Wikipedia rules. Cheers! --NuclearUmpf 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was making a civil request, backed with a civil, meaningful explanation. Let me offer my apologies if you interpreted it as a an accusation. I took a look at some of your edits to administrator's notebook, and elsewhere, where you referred to incidents that seem to have occurred before this userid was created. I am curious about these incidents. I thought it might help me understand your current position -- where you don't seem willing to address the points I try to make. And would like to review them, and see whether I agree with you, or your correspondent. Maybe, if I review them, maybe I will find points we agree on, which we could use as a start to agreeing on a compromise?

I don't think there is any reason to apologize for my curiousity. However, if you can explain why my curiousity is misplaced, I'd be happy to apologize for it. Otherwise, let me repeat my request that you consider sharing your full contribution history with the rest of us. -- Geo Swan 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you make an accusation. I await sources on that article that we share, please refrain from posting the same message again or I will have to "speedy archive" my talk page. Cheers! --NuclearUmpf 22:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator Review

Howdy! I've created Wikipedia:Administrator Review as a process proposal, and I would like your thoughts on the subject. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani

Hello NuclearUmpf, thanks for your message. My explanation for considering this individual to be notable and worthy of inclusion in WP is set out perfectly clearly in my posting the AfD in question. As I stated, I believe all these detainees are notable due to the nature of the political event that they are embroiled in. I did not suggest that I had fresh information, thus I cannot provide any. There is no hard and fast metric to measure notability by, and that particular issue will always be subject to personal interpretation, hence AfD will always be a see-saw of sorts. As long as we can abide by consensual decisions that are made, all should be well. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editors

Banned editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; this includes the Administator's Noticeboard. Please stop abetting this violation. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within Wikipedia, a ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on the main articles. A banned user is still able to edit any page; however, the user is discouraged from doing so. A ban is sometimes confused with a block, but the terms have distinct meanings. Blocked users are prevented from editing any page; an attempt to edit will be met with a "User is blocked" page.

--NuclearUmpf 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore comments by blocked users which are appropriately deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now violated 3RR on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please don't revert again or you will be blocked for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. - Wikipedia:Banning policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace articles, try again, are you disputing the above? --NuclearUmpf 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting a Wikipedia disambiguation page, I'm quoting policy. Here's the policy in a nutshell (from that page) Extremely disruptive users may be banned from Wikipedia. Please respect these bans, don't bait banned users and don't help them out. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the freedom of editing the dab page, which indeed didn't reflect the policy correctly. Anybody more policy-savvy than me please feel free to correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just chiming in here. Dabljuh was indefinitely banned by Jimbo, not just over the articles, but over all of Wikipedia and the mailing list as well. The person you've been reverting is JayJG, a member of arbcom. He certainly knows how bans and blocks works as well as anyone. If you suspect he's in error, talk to him about it; don't revert him. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I dont assume anyone knows policy simply because of their position, anything done in voting can be done out of popularity and not knowledge. So I make no assumptions about anyone based on their position. --NuclearUmpf 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His own talk page is protected to keep him from editing, doesn't that give you a clue? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies the two started posting here and plotting world domination. I still think its rude to bait them and expect them not to comment back however. --NuclearUmpf 12:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting users

You're skating on thin ice, I would suggest you stop. You won't convince JayJg or Zoe of your position, that's pretty obvious. You'll just wind up getting blocked for disruption. As for not baiting banned users, true enough it's a policy, but then again so is WP:IAR. --Kbdank71 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point so I am not doing any harm because I believe silencing that user is harming Wikipedia. --NuclearUmpf 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming

Eh. Thanks for the heads up, though. BTW, I did want to tell you that you and I seem to have similar thoughts in AfD and DRV. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new name

Regarding your suggestion to have your new name logged privately, you would have to ask an arbitrator (via e-mail I guess, to keep it private). The point of excercises like arbitration is to make it easier for admins to deal with problem users rather than having to go through the whole mediation/RFC/arbitration process all over again only to find out, it's Lightbringer again, or whomever. That can't be done if you don't tell anyone, and new user names avoiding arbitration are the commonest form of garden variety abusive sockpuppets.

With that out of the way, arbitration is also not supposed to be a club to beat you over the head with indefinitely. If you are not contentious and disruptive (at least, no more so than is usually acceptable) then you shouldn't have to deal with other users following you around trying to hang a scarlet letter around your neck all the time. I don't know that Travb is doing that, but I'm willing to look into it. (It can't be until tomorrow night probably.) If you feel your conduct is improved and you are being unfairly targeted, you could also try an editor review to get some opinions on your current behavior and whether Travb is overreacting to you. Hope this helps, and let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Thatcher131 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will attempt to edit under this name and see if Travb continues, if he does I will contact an Arbcom member to see about having it logged privatly. Thank you again for your quick reply and handling. --NuclearUmpf 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diff to link

I changed the diff you listed on WP:ANI to a link to the version, as the diff made obvious and perminant the material that was a likley BLP violation. JBKramer 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry had not thought of that. --NuclearUmpf 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'You Look Stupid Now'

Well, that's a fancy code. I prefer ROT13 myself. Derex 23:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not suppose to be uber cryptic. I could have went with the DaVinciCode style for fun. --NuclearUmpf 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the trolls get you down. --Tbeatty 03:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha!

I was wondering who you were, you seemed very familiar with policy from the start. So it's Zer0faults. Ah. (BTW, whatever happened to Añoranza after that RFAR? Did he disappear?) – NSLE/Ch acor 04:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a month after Anoranza quit they got a 24 hour block ... --NuclearUmpf 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundagai Page

The post on the Gundgaai page is correct and easily verifiable. I tried to reply to you on the gundgaai page but they recerted it too. Check the 'history'. They do this to anythign I post. I even tried to comment on Rfc and they wiped it also. Very bizarre.

Weird to claim Gundagai is cradle of reconciliation when it isnt and there were multiple massacres around here. Even weirder though is what some eds do here.

I have put a comment on village pump 'miscellaneous' but they keep reverting it too. Rfc is deleted though so I dont get to have a say and what they are doing is then hidden.

The above IP(s) has been block and there contributions reverted due to personal attacks, not signing comments (Like the above comment), making misleading clams, avoiding blocks by disconnecting then reconnecting to get a new IP and also is abusive. More about this IP(s) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* or contact User:Golden Wattle and User:Longhair. -- Bidgee 11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking sides, but please do not revert this page or the RfC page. You cannot have dispute resolution if one party cannot comment to resolve the dispute. --Nuclear Zer0 11:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I have no rights when the above IP makes misleading clams? -- Bidgee 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What misleaing claims bidgee?? You are like a broken record. You cannot locate the info. Know why? Because you are not entitled to access/locate it. That does not give u the right to go claiming that stuff you cant locate is wrong or misleading. Even if you were a professor of the Internet and were saying that, or a professor of Australian History and were saying that, I would tell you the same. However, if you did have some senior post grad standing in archaeology I might fill you in a bit. As you more likely than not dont, I wont. Even if you are Indigneous I wont tell you as its not for everyone to know and I would want to know your grandmum, your home country and a heap of other stuff plus get my friends to clear it, before I said boo re it and then only to you via your grandmum and from her to her brother then down to you. If you have no idea of archaeology, Indigenous culture and a heap of other stuff, stop floggin a long dead horse, can u. You just do not have the skills to deal with it. If you do not know how to interpret Oz Poetry etc and appreciate some of the really rich hidden stuff of this land recorded in the 1800s and 1900s by our aussie poets etc, you also miss out. I am not responsible if you do not have skills and other stuff in some areas but that does not mean all the world must then dumb down to just what you know and understand, too so that you do not get upset at not finding what you want to but cannot.

On my page you have no rights really, on the RfC you have to let them respond. I am not sure if you are familiar with what an RfC is actually, but its not a punishment forum, its a step in dispute resolution, you cannot have a resolution without the other party participating. If you feel they are lying, produce counter points, dont just attempt to silence them wholesale, it serves no good. Also some ISP's rotate IP's frequently and some use proxy servers that change everytime you open a new browser window etc. My job here uses 5 that I know of and my informatino can be sent over any of them without me even closing the browser window. --Nuclear Zer0 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was vandalism which is why I reverted. It's a dial-up account which you can just disconnect and reconnect. -- Bidgee 12:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, just please be more careful in the future and read the comment before reverting, it may not actually be vandalism. Thanks. I mentioned this on AN/I the RfC that is so hopefully an admin can look at this and put it to bed. --Nuclear Zer0 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the Gundgai issue I have looked into it since I live in the area and I have come up with nothing with there clams. The IP's cites are out of date or they can't be found to prove if it's true or not and they continue to readd it. -- Bidgee 12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Again (if I say it often enough, he may eventually take notice),Bidgee, you do not have a hope in hell of finding stuff re the Coolac Massacre. You do not have the quals to I dont think plus u are also not registered in the survey process. The information is not at wagga library. Its not at ABC Riverina or Prime or 10. Its not on the Internet. Its not in comics. The full cites are in my head which is where I hide all my cites, and some are at the tent embassy and some are at the local land council and nswnp. I do not believe u have access to the files of any of those any of those places so no wonder you found nil. Just because you cannot locate stuff does not then mean it is incorrect. There is a mass of held back info in Australia that few if any ever get to access and the place runs on the 'popular' stuff that you may have access to.

I was specifically reffering to comments made on my talk page and the RfC. I asked about the story he attempted to post and noone but him responded to my request for more information on the topic. The story seems sourced, so is the problem that the source is outdated? was proven false? its folk lore? If the source is real and the story exists, perhaps a good middle ground would be to move it to something like allegations section, folk lore, views of the natives, somethnig to that affect instead fo removing it. That way both parties are satisfied, its not labeled necessarily as true, but its not removed completely. --Nuclear Zer0 12:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never asked Longhair, Golden Wattle or meself about this topic. If Wikipedia is going to have information that is misleading and an user that can get way with the acts they have done I would like all my edits and images removed. -- Bidgee 12:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the talk page of the article. That is where I asked the question. So is the problem the story is not real, the anon user is making it up, is it folk lore, is it proven to have never happened? I am trying to understand the issue with the story so maybe a middle ground can be reached. --Nuclear Zer0 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No nuclear, sadly the massacre happened. It was hidden as in those days colonials were hung for killing Indigneous people. The NSW Police investigated it but by the time they got here the remains had been burned and buried. Its a big secret that decided to come out of the woodwork. I always knew re it (my family came to this place a few years after the massacre so the talk then was still strong re it as it still is 170 years after), but had nil to establish it with. I then started to find significant archaeology and one thing led to the next with stuff being found, identified, understood, notified and protected. Some of the stuff now has NSW Gov protection to stop the aggro ones or vandals, damaging it. The RTA then decided to do the surveys for the new road that required more arch surveys so the story of the massacre in that specific area became public in 2005. because I had done all this other stuff previously and was still in active contact with the different depts and peopel connected with this stuff and other stuff, I registered in the two survey processes as they come through here. Many non Indigenous people have got very aggro re the massacre being made public. That may be understandable from racist locals here for some odd reason. Bidgee isnt a local person at all. He is 100ks away and has no link to this place that I know that he would be so anti re any mention of the massacre. Its really nil to do with him and I dont understand his attitude re it. It took me ages to find cites re stuff and i went Interstate to do it plus via the UK. I also had the advantage of knowing the scientific stuff though after locating it, so though it took ages, it was pretty successful. We are still actively working on this stuff and will for several years yet. No, Wagga library have nil to do with it.

I saw the reversions to VP assistance (I think it was), then your post on the article talk page. An article from ABC.net.au containing the information is linked in the article, so on its face the content seems reliably sourced. I'm not taking sides here, but I can easily understand why the anon might be hostile after being reverted at every avenue: articles, talk, help forums, etc. That seems more likely to escalate a conflict than resolve it. Gimmetrow 12:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I do not know the full history, if there is one, between these users. I found the posting on the AN/I page, which was reverted and I see they have been reverted at Village Pump as well. I hope these guys can come to a middle ground, the story is apparently well documented and references through a reliable source back to the newspaper of past that they sourced it as. While I would not extend this story to mean the people were treated horribly, its just about Yarri and one incident, apparently it says he was treated quite well actually. I will say that it appears to be something that in a small form should be included in the article. Most of what I read on this flood mentions Yarri and Jacky Jacky saving the people and the rewards they received for donig so. From my understanding Thatcher directed them to MedCabal and hopefully that works out for them. --Nuclear Zer0 12:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Anon can prove with verifiable source (As in where it can be found) then I have no problem however I have not found any. abc.net.au new story was about the Coolac Bypass which they said that story was wrong when it's fact. -- Bidgee 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, I will repeat here again as I have for quite a while now, I am NOT posting the cites for Coolac. I have withdrawn it. If you can get your hands on a copy of the archaeologists report in a few months or get someone from the tent embassy to tell you, then so be it - but this contributor is not posting it as I am so tired of the aggro here, here isnt a good palce for it. That arch report wont say much though as stuff is being withheld as far as I know. I have a non Indigneous link to Coolac as well as a cultural one but to my knowledge, you have no link to it so your own being may exclude you from accessing the info. I cant fix the engine of a car as I dont have the skills. I dont then though say nor can anyone else fix cars.

Can you provide the source where Abc says they were wrong? The source I found about kickin Yarri was [2] I think we are looking at the same thing. They date it back to being in a newspaper (Gundagai Times, 29 June 1879). I doubt Yarri went around saving another group during a flood, who really knows, but if you have a source stating ABC recinded the story, that would be great. --Nuclear Zer0 12:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear, the 1852 Flood rescues are well documented in several places. I have yarris traditional name etc and other stuff here etc.

Yes, that's the link I added. Gimmetrow 12:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soruce I'm talking about is the Coolac Bypass (The first issues we had with the anon). -- Bidgee 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on different problems then. Is there anything wrong with the "Kicking Yarri" story he was attempting to add to the Gundagai article? I think we should tackle things one by one. --Nuclear Zer0 12:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundagai anon - Golden Wattle comments

In considering your dealings with the anon, please consider the information at the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and the associated talk page which details most recent history. Also the leading sections of the current Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales page. You can find her reverted edits in the history of the page. I have stated in numerous places including on talk pages and at the RfC that I will revert on sight any unsigned comment and I have stated that over 2 months ago. Others have also adoped that strategy.

The anon was well aware of the RfC (it was announced on talk pages she has edited) but has steered well clear of it for the several months (since late July) it has been active.

If you wish to restore her unsigned comments please use {{unsigned}} with links, the present iteration of the page has plain text (or maybe that is my internet connection problems, see below) and not all comments have the unsigned tag attributed. I am not actually vitally interested in her rewsponse anymore. It is over two months late. Merely continues to attack other editors and does not deal with her breaches of

      1. No original research and Verifiability
      2. No personal attacks, Civility, Etiquette
      3. Blocking policy

As her comments were unsigned (like all her comments), notwithstanding it is a response to the RfC, I reverted as per my previously stated intentions posted on the RfC and other talk pages which she has edited, and which have been endorsed explicitly and implicitly to date.

I note that someone has found a cite for Yarri being mistreated. The ABC story however, also mentions This true story focuses on what may be the first act of 'Reconcilation' in Australin history. ... The rescues are an important demonstration of the common humanity and goodwill that the Aborigines maintained towards the white settlers in spite of the diseases, depopulation and social disruption they had suffered since the advent of the Europeans. For their efforts Yarri and Jacky Jacky were presented with inscribed bronze gorgets (medallions) to be worn around their necks. ... For the remainder of their lives, Yarri and Jacky Jacky were entitled to demand sixpences and other trifles conductive to Aboriginal comfort from all Gundagai residents - which demands, when in reason, were not refused. ... Although Yarri was well treated by most white people as he got older, he did not get the same respect from everyone, as an article in the Gundagai Times dated 29 June 1879 shows: (incident cited) Today there are a number of monuments in Gundagai which honour the memory of Yarri.

Yarri didnt live here as an older man. He left and went to live with his daughter for a long while. A week or so before he died, he did return though.

I don't think that the current statement The community is said to have developed a special affinity with the Wiradjuri people. Although Yarri was maltreated on at least one occasion afer the flood,[5] Gundagai people believe that the flood and its aftermath was the birthplace of reconciliation. quite conveys that contemporaries of Yarri honoured him and Jacky Jacky specifically in their lifetime, that is the mention of the incident unbalances what was otherwise previously a brief mention and the paragraph now needs to be rebalanced to present a more neutral version of the history - leave in the incident of mistreatment but refer to contemporary and later community positive treatment of Yarri also.

You ask Is there anything wrong with the "Kicking Yarri" story he was attempting to add to the Gundagai article? - my issue would be its lack of balance, even in the context of the cite provided. In the context of the anon's past edits, she uses the wikipedia as a soapbox (when not attacking it or various editors she has tangled with).

Geez, thats mean. Artkos why are u so liverish.

I put in the kicking yarri story to balance that surgary incorrect nonsense about reconciliation. Fact: there is an Aborignal mission very close to this town. Why was it established? Was it established because Gundagai people were so welcoming of Indigenous people that they could live here where they had for 40,000 years? No. The mission is 10 miles away. Think. However, in recent times a nearby town has been very conciliatory to Indigenous people so this town dots its i's also or its gunna look too as it is.

At present I am away from home and the modem disconnects every few minutes and most pages can't load; hence I am on a wikibreak till Monday. For example, it took me 7 logons to post a comment to User talk:Thatcher131 (and that was including editing off-line) and to get here has taken another 5 logons! I cannot check the Carr Hansard reference which I think covered the reconciliation comments as well as the sesquicentenary of the flood mention. Nor can I check the article history to verify what was there before. I feel accordingly unable to edit until I return to less temperamental infrastructure.

The flood comments are merely the latest dispute in a series. Editors have been trying to work with her to establish verifiability of the "Coolac massacre" since June. They do not apparently exist. The anon editor is relying on textual interpretation of the poem to infer a massacre; textual interpretation that has also not been published. She refuses to acknowledge that this might be original research. You will find that discussion at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1. On the current talk page there are responses to her accusations of plagiarism.

I will repeat again here as I have several times previously - I am not posting the cites for Coolac. That does not mean they dont exist at all and anyone who takes that attack is being deliberatley unpleasant.

In conclusion, in dealing with this editor, while it is always good to assume good faith, please assume good faith also of those who have dealt with her before and recognise that they have been thoroughly abused for their pains over a considerable period of time (since mid-June).--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how does anyone make good faith out of an intention to get someone to interfere with my telco via a back door.

I appreciate the run down but it appears the problem was already solved. The ABC article is accepted as WP:RS and should be included as well as the Kicking Yarri story, however I am steering clear of any massacre issue, though as I stated, the story about the dog being the reason Gundagai is famous world wide is true, I presented a source for that as well. Also its not right to start a RfC then remove the persons comments, RfC is not a penalty, its a mediation attempt to resolve the problem, you cannot resolve the issue as I told the user above by silencing the other side. --Nuclear Zer0 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dog story is really interesting nuclear. I'd tell you if I could but have some cultural restrictions there. Its core Australian prehistory and cultural heritage stuff and on a scale of importance re this nations story, a 9.8/10 - but so much has been hidden/covered up because of the past, people are now very wary re stuff once the attacks start. Right now too, even the archs are only just really realising as stuff was even lost to them, so stuff is being recast etc. Its not for preschoolers at this point to be honest. Maybe in 10 years or so some can come out. Because I have a non Indigenous link to this too given my families long residence here, that side is my own cultural stuff so I can say as i lke there, and have to some who dont go on lonney, but the tech stuff I cant.

I thought on Wikipedia you can not call people names such as what the Anon did by calling us Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals, [3] and what was also added on to the anons Edit summary which is against Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and the anon also vandalised the Wagga Wagga article to try and make a point about the "Coolac massacre". -- Bidgee 01:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, why are you telling me however. If you feel you have been the victim of a personal attack you should post on WP:PAIN. I am not sure if you feel that since he did some wrong things that nothing he contributed should be considered, this is false. The information for which I was concerned being the Yarri story for Gundagai article was sourced correctly per Wikipedia standards and is allowed to be added, the context in which it has been added, highlighting it as a single incident, is appropriate as that is all the source calls it. Again, WP:PAIN For personal attack complaints, and please do not start an RfC if you do not wish the other person to comment, RfC /= punishment, its a dispute resolution step. --Nuclear Zer0 01:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear, can you not refer to me as 'he'. For 55 years I have been a she so know I am that.

My apologies, I refer to everyone as a he if I do not know their gender, just a bad habit. --Nuclear Zer0 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You do realize that two of the "please sign" diffs are from Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales, and that the talk page is splashed with {{Talkheader}} which has the sig thingy? Thatcher131 03:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to assume some evil intention of this user but I have not seen any. It seems to me they simply do not know, I see no malicious intent or any other reason just not to do it. --Nuclear Zer0 03:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about evil, but calling other editors racist, liars, vandals, thugs, feral, hoons, and having too much aggro does not strike me as the innocent victim of a misunderstanding. Regardless, agree to disagree etc. etc. Cheerio. Thatcher131 03:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW, I think if this does get accepted, some editors are going to get slapped (and rightfully so) for blanket reverting in a content dispute, and for adopting a policy of reverting all unsigned posts. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. BUT, the abuse started much earlier, and was very much one-sided until some folks' patience ran out. (Look at the diffs in the RFC from before the unsigned "policy" was adopted.) TTFN. Thatcher131 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I think you are biased. Were u areound earlier and party to all the other stuff I posted and how friendly artkos was all the time pushing for the cites to coolac? The more I wouldnt post them, (I cant right now as reg in a process so there is an ethical issue), the more the aggro appeared. A Graememc appeared (that name is on Longhairs archived pages0, claiming he was former RTA so had specialist knowledge of Coolac and totally discredited a massacre at which point they turned on me but because I am so involved in it the lie from Gmc bounced big time. Lies always out. That ome imemdiately bounced and still is months later.

Gundagai Page Continues

The Gundagai article antics continue. Did some editing there today, some with Wattle. (Asbestos Hill etc, then the Asbestos). Then along came a stirrer reverting. Then the edits got put back. Then gone again. Then put back. In between a stirring visit or two by the toolbags. Then big threat claiming the cache on my computer loaded old page. This is so silly re my computer as its set to empty when browser closed but I then also empty the Internet files, then 7 times out of 10, clean disk and defrag. <<Just a habit I have. So, the claim that I may have had old cache image was nonsense. Also, the history files were different. Its also set to new page each time I move. So, I got banned, and when I came back, my reply noting all this was also missing off the Gundagai discussion page. I then put it on the Rfc thingy then thought I might let you know also. Its not about me. Its about that they can do this to anyone and it is bullying etc.

Have to go finish an essay due Friday so thanks.

Nothing was reverted. The Anon has been uncivil on Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales -- Bidgee 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are still interested in this you should definitely check the page history and the diffs for last night and you will see that during the time she alleges she was reverted, she was the only contributor. She was warned by another uninvolved admin, Sarah Ewart, to not call other editors vandals, and she responded by calling Sarah a "pompous troublemaker" and told her to "buzz off." Thatcher131 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:SikhLI.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SikhLI.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milblogger article for deletion

This seems to be a general subject article where you may have knowledge. A milblogger created a Wikipedia article about himself. Please consider commenting on the deletion review for this article.

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

at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uncle_Jimbo

Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding refs for Thai Rak Thai article

Thanks for finding references for the Thai Rak Thai article. I had long wondered where a lot of that content had come from. Cheers, Patiwat 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Jihad

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Word Terroist

In light of the discussion concerning the use of the word terrorist in relation to the Al-Qaeda organzation, I have made a RfC. If you would like to comment, you can do so here. Thank youTrojan traveler 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for Al Qaeda self-describing itself as terrorist? That would be most useful for the article! crazyeddie 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your source that Al Qaeda sees itself as terrorist... crazyeddie 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. --Nuclear Zer0 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Could you do me a favor and have your signature point to just one account?--MONGO 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I was asked by an admin to have both to make it clear that I had used the zer0faults account and was not hiding it. --Nuclear Zer0 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you switch accounts?--MONGO 05:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask Thatcher131. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear, your current userpage delineates that you also edited as User:Zer0faults. Not trying to be a hardcase, but why not just use NuclearUmpf as your sig, maybe linking the Umpf section to your talkpage...since you clearly stated on your userpage you had another account and the current sig is confusing, I can't see why anyone would think you're trying cover something up. Just trying to help you out, is all.--MONGO 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a quick glance through AN/I and some comments from Travb there you would think I was actually trying to hide the other account. Hence its important it stays ni the signature since apparently some people are not willing to view a userpage. This is the most effective way without disturbing my old page, and allowing people to see my past history, which seems to be a big issue as you can view this page history and see the harrassment from RyanFriesling/NGBPWS/Travb etc. I documented this on AN/I but apparently noone cared and instead you lowered the block applied to NGBPWS. I have put a strike through the zer0 portion and if that does not help there is nothing more I am willing to do. I have nothing but respect for you Mongo, but Thatcher131 asked me to make it clear I had two accounts and this is what I am doing. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand...just trying to help all involved parties from getting hot under the collar. Thatcher isn't necessarily the one who should determine your sig (not that I am). He only recently became an admin, so maybe asking over at arbcom...Fred Bauder or someone involved in prior case work.--MONGO 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not feel they told me what to do. I feel as though Thatcher131 made a simple request that was easy to oblige, as I state, if you check AN/I under the thread NGBPWS, you can see some documented events where users in my opinion were harrassing me, however if its not seen as harrassment, then its seen as them obviously not knowing I had another account, further reason why the split should stay in the sig. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh this is why I started a new name, to get away fromt he people watching my talk page, contacting eachother about me [4] making accusatiosn that checkuser has twice told them are false. I wrote an entire article yesterday, Kimberly Osorio, and heavily sourced it in the few moments I had of peace, just to return to see more non article related comments, find Ryan is still watching my talk page even though they said the issue was now over for them, and Derex here complaining about my sig, where he previously complained he didnt realize I had another account, if anything the sig makes that clearer, not more vague. All I want is some peace to edit Mongo, and I hoped this would have acheived it, however Travb made a stink, and started telling everyone I had a dispute with what my old username was, then about Arbcom, its just annoying, then he starts to post the Arbcom ruling in edit summaries as some means of intimidation, even though he refused to actually add sources to the article he did it on. I refer everyone to Thatcher131 because she has been handling this since Travb cried foul over the new name. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the pages and found the comments by Travb and the one arbcom member. They didn't seem pleased that you had created a new account without informing them, but you explained yourself there and here, so now I see why you use the new name.--MONGO 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I admitedly made a mistake in thinking an arbcom member may follow up and ask for the name, however I tried to rectify that by following Thatchers suggestions, and hence why the sig as is. Thank you for your understanding in the situation, I am trying to put all that behind me as best I can. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Latest violation of policy. Let me know if you file ArbCom or RfC. It's not hard finding evidence.--Tbeatty 08:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought I would at least have been made a "Super Friend."[5] At least I'm at the top of the list. Morton devonshire 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what drives everyone to give me such attention. I am on quite a few lists apparently. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence theory

In relation to the AfD: I added to the article 3 NY Times articles which use the term.Edison 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

Oops - sorry about not signing that comment on the RfC page. I meant to do so, so thank you.--TheOtherBob 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The anonymous Gundagai editor is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Parekh

I have just placed this notice on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh page, and am bringing every voter's attention to it as promised.

Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----), We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry.

I don't know whether this changes your vote, but thought you should know. Vizjim 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hey there. I don’t know the procedures of RfC and when I would be allowed to give my input or endorse a finding. I will need to watch what others do and give my two cents. For what is worth, I find F.A.A.F.A.’s behavior very disruptive and harassing of others, especially moving others comments in AfD’s. Also, if I remember correctly, he posted an AfD within an AfD, which interfered with the normal flow of the discussion process. I will be out over the next several hours, so I might not respond to any messages for a while. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your guidance here. Please check the edit I did to my sandbox. Did I do this correctly? JungleCat talk/contrib 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - I had a brain freeze, that was not for us to comment, but FAAFA's accusation of your notifications. This editing Wiki does not come naturally for me. JungleCat talk/contrib 04:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question.

I know you interaction has been breif but its also been neutral. --NuclearZer0 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will comment. - Che Nuevara 23:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I seen you acting as a mediator on Democratic Underground and it seemed you may have a very neutral view of dealing with the person in question. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you an update I have little to do with Democratic Underground and the issue with FAAFA that I have takes place mainly outside of that. I had compiled a page following what I felt were bad edits to a noticeboard and have kept it since, this was while he was editing under NBGPWS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). After he changed his name I kept the list of incidents and it just happens that many of the people coincide with that articles as they seem to know eachother off wiki, or butted heads in the past. That is why it seems odd that I am introducing it. I am not involved in the Democratic Underground debate at all, the issue stems from outside of it, but contains many of the same people. --NuclearZer0 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand you, and I was not faulting your attempt at bringing resolution to this insanity. However, the fact remains that the people involved are all at each others' throats and any attempt at resolution should involve them all. - Che Nuevara 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that I responded to your "technical issue" re: edit summaries on the talk page of the RfC. - Che Nuevara 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 19 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network, 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) • 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Endorsement

You wrote:

Can you please reduce your endorsement of my outside view on the Seabhcan RfC to just a signature. Comments like the ones you left can be seen as baiting and I do not endorse that nor wish for it in my section. Thank you.

You may redact my comments if you feel the need to do so, and I won't repost them. I stand by my sentiments, and after reading trav's commentary thought them appropriate. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also redact my 'shock' if you want. It's not meant to be baiting. I am genuinely and pleasantly surprised given my past observation of you. Derex 13:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My worry wasnt of baiting me, it was of baiting others, the cabal comment etc in FAAFA's post. I do not find anything wrong with people being shocked of my behavior =) --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting the help template for my archiving quandry! I didn't even know that template existed! I don't think I've EVER seen it! Where does one go to see others who have asked for help? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where others go, I just know when I first got to Wikipedia that template came in handy for getting quick answer, happy it helped you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc section

I created the section that you may think SalvNaut added [6]. I did this as he was rebutting in the main section above that and in actuality, that sort of rebuttal should be in the the response or talk page areas, not in the same section. Seabhcan also is rebutting the evidence in the inappropriate sections, as he has an entire response section he should be doing this in.--MONGO 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, all of the rebuttal sections should be removed, I noticed that one as it was prominent but I will go through it again to clean out what I may have missed. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]