User talk:Matilda

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (March to July 2005) / Archive 2 (August to November 2005) / Archive 3 (November 2005 to January 2006) / Archive 4 (February 2006 to April 2006) / Archive 5 (April 2006 to July 2006) / Archive 6 (July 2006 to August 2006) / Archive 7 (August 2006 to September 2006) / Archive 8 (October 2006 to November 2006) / Archive 9 (December 2006 to March 2007)/ Archive 10 (May 2007 to December 2007) / Archive 11 from January 2008 to March 2008 / Archive 12 from March 2008 to May 30 2008 / Archive 13 from May 2008 to ...

---

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 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) 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard

Dear Matilda. I was surprised you reverted to delete the war crimes info on the Howard article, even though you are in your rights to do so. I realise the whole issue is being discussed on the BLP page. I think that some other editors' use of the BLP issue to revert (delete) the content is on very weak foundation. I haven't seen any editor question the facts of the matter (that the group of eminent Australians made a submission to the ICC). Therefore we have consensus among all editors that the information is factual. The only other criteria that could be used is that the information takes up a disproportionate space on the article, which 1 paragraph doesn't. I feel certain that the discussions on the BLPn will go nowhere for that reason. New information deserves to live in the article long enough for the community to decide what happens to it. I strongly disagree with the idea held by quite a few other involved editors that an editor must ask permission before adding new content, which creates the atmosphere that articles can't be changed. It also creates a disincentive for new content to be added, knowing there will be someone waiting there to immediately delete it.--Lester 05:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I am sorry if the delay in crafting an RfC has caused you stress. Trust me, my free time is extremely limited, and this sort of research takes time. If you expect me to finish a twelve hour night shift at three in the morning and then do several hours of careful wikiwork, you are way off target. Normally, I have Saturdays off, but I was travelling yesterday, and I'll get the thing done today. That is not to say that I have been idle, and I've made a solid start using a disposable sock. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I meant every word of my rather long RfC, and I do not resile from my charges of misrepresentation. Although I focussed on your actions, my main target seems to be the same as yours - the poisonous editing environment. I make the point that the situation was peacefully and satisfactorily resolved until you came along, erroneously claiming that the event was notable. --Pete (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Thank you for all the great Admin work you are doing... Johnfos (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Keep up the good work! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread...

...about your block of Skyrings socks here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legitimate_sockpuppets. You seem to have edited in the last few minutes, so I'm hoping you can chime in; I'm about to propose reblocking the socks with autoblock disabled, but would like your input if you're still around. --barneca (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

John Howard Fiasco

Hi Matilda,

I have also found the approach some of the others are taking (ignoring the discussion, misrepresenting information, slandering others' comments and resorting to personal attacks) infuriating and insulting. I think you were targeted more than most people, so I am sure it has been worse for you. I took a couple of days off and it was really helpful, so I think a break will be a good thing. I hope you will come back :)

Carbon Rodney

04:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

In top to bottom order, but not necessarily numerically matching:

1. You had implied she had breached policy (not necessarily 3RR in particular) by blocking one and not the other, that was what I was addressing, as it was 3RR which was invoked. Source or not, MMN's failure to address the issue that was being raised on the talk page and persistence in edit warring was his particular downfall. In his absence, you might note I am actually working on the talk page to find a way to reinclude it in an appropriate manner. I think the concern about edit warring in your case was that you were the originator of the content (as was MMN in this other instance) and edit-warring it, and then using your admin powers against accounts used by the person in dispute with you in violation of WP:BLOCK - there was never any argument you should be blocked for the edit warring, so I don't see the issue being raised here.
2. Sarah and a number of other Australian users and admins (including myself) avoided the page for an extended period or chose to not get involved at all because of the sheer heat of it, it wasn't a pleasant environment and more could be accomplished elsewhere with less gladiatorial effort. She returned as part of a bid by the mainstream Australian editing community to settle the interminable disputes on that article after the Christmas ArbCom fiasco where the page was hitting AN/I literally every four hours and people on IRC and in other locales were seriously starting to ask questions about whether we were missing in action on this one given our reputation for rather efficient management of our own affairs. (Note: Sarah does not use IRC.) I intended to stay neutral in the same respect, but it's no secret that I'm not a very good mediator and I am more inclined to get involved, although not joining or swearing loyalty to any "side" in it - this is why I usually vote in AfDs rather than close them, for instance. Sarah has managed better than most to stay apart from the action.
3. My comment re OTRS may have been based on a misunderstanding in context of what you said. I think all she means, without having talked to Sarah about it and without having seen the OTRS complaint (I have access but no intention of looking, I have that access to help the project and for no other reason - without giving too much away, you have to search for posts given they get hundreds of emails every day and they don't end up in obvious locations), is that if she were to discuss things you have said to OTRS which you have not said here, that would be a breach of policy. That's a fair comment on her part, and implies nothing either way with regard to yourself.
4. No admin of the distance you seek has ever shown any interest or predilection in stepping in to resolve the issues there. The time would have been Christmas 2007, and we were stuck with having to run the thing ourselves or see it escalate in an "infinite loop" - Lester and Brendan and supporters on one side, Skyring and Prester John and supporters on the other. In the end everyone went on Christmas holidays and those involved simply disappeared for a few weeks. The closest we have to that now is barneca, who recently stepped in and offered their considered opinion on the whole situation.
5. You say "drawing a line is not working for me" - I have seen no attempt on your part to draw a line, you seem to feel you have been maligned and must make a point of it in every interaction, making various allegations and impugning just about every other Australian admin simply because they don't agree with you. I honestly find it hard to see how this can be considered disengagement. We are all trying to improve this encyclopaedia, we are all good faith, we are all human and occasionally make mistakes. If we could establish this as a ground to work from and repair the damage in relations which has happened over the past two or so weeks, we'd be in a lot better place. Rubbing salt into old wounds keeps only the enemies of the encyclopaedia happy. Orderinchaos 12:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie

ping, ping, ping, for you my friend. --VS ^talk 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• ditto :) --VS ^talk 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back from your break.--VS ^talk 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard solutions

Hi Matilda. Reading your message on someone else's talk page, regarding solutions to John Howard article behaviour, I have a comment. Better to leave it here, rather than interrupt the other talk page. You didn't mention the act of quickly reverting others' newly added referenced content. This is what I see as the beginning of all the trouble. When someone quickly reverts another's referenced contribution, it is basically saying that the stakes are all or nothing, that there is no compromise. This is why the subsequent talk page arguments never get anywhere, because the revert has already set the scene for no compromises. The incivility always follows an incident, such as a deletion. If the tool of fast deletion of referenced content was taken away, people would then have to look for other tools to get their way with content, such as mediation, and genuinely trying to convince the other side of the merits of their view. While a single revert may not be against the rules, a pattern of such behaviour becomes Tendentious editing, and that can be penalised, and is at the heart of Howard problems. --Lester 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your comments. I don't disagree except I think that we have a policy that covers the situation (3RR) and in that sense no additional policy is required. I take your point about the stakes being firmly established but they can be negotiated in a talk page. it clogs up the talk page though and hence my suggestion for sub-pages to cover specific discussion points. Plus if the discussion does not cover conduct issues the whole thing might progress more quickly. Regards --Matilda ^talk 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I do not think that the action to add the disputed content violated any wikipedia policy (It satisfied WP:Verifiability, WP:BOLD like you mentioned). I may have to note that there are disagreements among editors about other wikipedia policies which is part of editorial process. Of course, the action and reaction which followed that was not very pleasant and unfortunate. A look at the edit history of some of the editors involved in the dispute could demonstrate that there is more than one who has commited questionable actions in the past. I guess it is all part of wikipedia life and if i were you i would just forget about the incident and move on. You are welcome to disagree with me and ignore me. Docku^Hi 02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To Docku: You have a clean block record yourself. Congratulations. Leaving it, and moving on, as you say, may be the answer, except that I did that on every previous occasion. The same issues keep coming back. The Howard article trouble has been going on for years, for longer than I have been there. It is madness that it just keeps continuing. Nobody seems to have a reasonable solution. Nobody is willing to agree to change their ways. We can hope that nobody will talk about other editors on the article talk page, but we all know that the incivility will break out again in the future. At least one editor who reverts to delete new content has vowed to keep reverting in the same manner. So, to forget about it is the same as to accept the current behaviour will continue into the future. --Lester 03:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lester - don't you think taking discussion to sub pages and rigorously focussing on content would work? Or at least isn't worth a try?
To enforce 1RR would require arbcom intervention and one member of that committee does not think arbcom would work at this time.
Incivility needs enfocement and I certianly have been disappointed with the lack of community support to enfoce that to date. As I was too involved I didn't feel able to in relation to incivility I perceived. I think I could in relation to incivility I perceived when it was about others though. I think also the lack of intervention concerning incivility has just ceased in relation to at least one editor.
I do indeed take your point about quick reverts and what they mean in terms of entrenching positions - they certainly entrenched me into a position that I was probably not that wedded to! See for example my response on the talk page to chaser [1] (that was the 29th of July!!!)
Regards --Matilda ^talk 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as not being around here that long, I still probably dont understand the gravity of the situation very well. I hope all parties involved will participate in the good will discussion initiated by Lester. Docku^Hi 13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag – just in case…

Matilda, I’ve put my opinion forward on your use of the POV tag on John Howard. Perhaps it was put forward too directly as the intention behind my comments have been questioned as a personal attack. Thus, this message is to re-emphasise that my possibly rather direct words were not intended as an attack on you, but were intended to be a clear description of my dislike for these tags as anything but a very last resort. I think perhaps more productive would have been to announce that you would place one if a solution wasn’t found. I made these views clear too some months back about a similar tag at JH and from memory over at David Hicks. In summary, I think they discourage collaboration, and entrench positions – ie, they imply a demand from the editor placing it to be fulfilled before they are removed.

Irrespective of their merits – or otherwise – as a consensus garnering tool, they are visible to all our readers and this one is non-specific. It doesn’t say which part of the article has a balance/POV problem. Thus, I’ve moved it down to the section it relates to. I hope you don’t mind, however, if you have to revert this, I won’t re-revert.

I hope that you, Surturz, and the rest of us can find a compromise position and that trench warfare doesn’t become, well, more entrenched (again, not a personal comment). Perhaps I’ve missed something here, so I’m happy to hear your views that I may have overlooked. Cheers. Kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Referenced information at John Howard

Hello Matilda. My own reading of the problems that plague the John Howard article is that wild disagreements start when someone deletes referenced content soon after it was added. I'm not concerned if someone deletes vandalism or unreferenced content. But if the content is referenced to a major reliable source, then it should be allowed to remain in the article until the community has made a decision about what to do with it. Do you think that is a good idea? When I think back on the major article content conflicts, most times it was not an argument about whether the facts were true or not. Instead the arguments were mainly about whether the fact is notable or relevant. For example, nobody disputed whether Howard criticised Obama, or whether Obama criticised Howard. By leaving the content in, it would exist for a few weeks until the community process is finished. That would usually just involve discussion, though for more controversial content, it may involve RfC and RfM. Yes, it is an involved process, but I think it should be given a go, rather than everyone deleting/reverting newly added content, and then fighting over the scraps like hyenas. Is it a good idea for everyone to agree not to quickly delete newly added well referenced content? --Lester 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Lester, the problem occurs when Howard-hating editors insert yet more trivial text that criticises Howard. Even if every addition is well referenced, by only inserting negative stuff, the article becomes biased. Editors should ask themselves "if I add this text in, will it be challenged by other editors?" and, if so, they should discuss it on the talk page before adding it. --Surturz (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As a person who supported the inclusion, may be i should make it clear that I do neither love nor hate Howard. Would your contention also mean that there are only Blair haters who are editing his article? I am just asking you because you choose to define people as Howard haters for supporting of the inclusion of the same or similar information which is sitting in Blair article. Docku^Hi 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving up

I find Howard talk page pretty hostile and I guess I really dont anymore want to waste my time there. I really have no passion for the article to be one way or the other. I just got in there accidentally and guess it is time that I step out. The serious assumption of bad faith and personal attacks sometimes become intolerable. I really dont want to be childish complaining about personal attacks to administrators all the time or involve in attacks myself only to get blocked. Nice meeting you and some other nice people. I dont think about leaving wikipedia though. We will surely bump into each other somewhere else. (I really hope I will not change my mind). Docku^Hi 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Marking your edits as minor

Thanks for your message. can you please tell me which ones, because most of my edits are reverting vandalism and i thought they must marked as minor. Should i make a second edit on all pages and mark them as major?
Regards   ■ MMXX^c.t  07:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Rollback marks edits as minor by default.   ■ MMXX^c.t  07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank you very much for pointing it out. I will keep it in mind in the future.   ■ MMXX^c.t  13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Endeavour is ACOTF

Hi. After far too long, I got round to updating the Australian Collaboration last night. Please help to update HM Bark Endeavour in any way you can. Thanks for your support. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OR or not OR?

I feel that the IP is adding WP:OR on the Tiger article[2]. I've taken this up on the Admin's notice borad but nothing has been said. Bidgee (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine

Sure, but how did you find out what I wrote on someone else's page? Im just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojan51 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh

Are you from Australia too. Cuz im from Seattle. You know where that is?--Turn off your Spanish Televisions (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah summer is the only nice time here. Rest of the year is cold and wet. Ive heard Australia is very hot and has the world's highest rate of skin cancer.--Turn off your Spanish Televisions (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah i see what you mean. The hottest cities in USA in the summertime are Palm Springs, California, Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada, and why do you guys have to wait so long to get a Driver's License compared to us americans?--Turn off your Spanish Televisions (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 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) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates

I say there is no consensus on delinking dates according to the Style Manual changes. The linking of dates was around for years and had major use and consensus. There was no notification of Australian users as to whether they supported the change - therefore no consensus among Australian users. We have a right to reject them, and hence my reverts. I'm not happy with the lack of consultation and I will continue to do so until I get some. Please reply here. JRG (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no consensus on delinking dates. The discussion has been happening over a considerable time. The manual of style has been updated and there seems no significant disagreement with the fundamental question of delinking. Readers who are not logged in do not benefit and it has been found that even most logged-in readers (ie editors who have signed up) have not bothered to adjust their date preferences. Overlinking is deprecated and linking to pages that it is not valuable to click through to is unhelpful to the reader. Australian readers do not have to be notified as a body and I disagree that we have the right to reject changes that have been very thoroughly discussed by the wikipedian community.
However, I might understand better where you are coming from if I knew where you had sought to be involved in the discussion - I assume you have done so and have felt ignored. Is that the problem? Regards --Matilda ^talk 07:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this (as a former opponent of delinking of dates). Personally I would prefer users do it than a bot so that it can be done carefully and with consideration, but I have not seen any major stuffups by the bot operation (indeed, it has fixed inconsistencies in some articles). My understanding is amongst the Australian users that the "apathy vote" is the consensus - most people do not care one way or the other - but I also think an increasing number of people have come to see the change as a good thing, certainly that reflects the comments both publicly and privately that I've received. Orderinchaos 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your comments--Matilda ^talk 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I did see your reply. I haven't had time to reply yet, I'm sorry. To answer your question, I would like to have been involved in the discussion. Unfortunately I was not told of anything to do with the delinking, and though there was the Aussie car discussion, that really only revolved around the right date format. I resent articles that have been worked on thoroughly with a long-held consensus to link dates suddenly being changed by bots without anyone being told of the changes - which I was not. "Consensus" on policy things like that is generally only determined by a handful of biased users (and I mean that in a neutral way, in that they have their own opinions on how things are to be interpreted and discussed and generally don't seek an outside view) - and for style and policy changes it's something everyone works on, so it's important to seek a wider view. I have a problem with there not being a wider consensus - even if people do agree later on. As for dates, I actually think it's important to highlight dates in some way because they are an important part of an article - and the linking did do that - I would be happy to have the important dates in an article, such as dates of birth and death in a personal article, in bold, for example, as a compromise - (I also like the consistency in format which linking dates produced - perhaps a non-logged in compromise would have been better to fix that??) - however I my experience in arguing anything against Wikipedia style and/or policy is that I believe I won't get listened to and my argument will be shut down quickly - I've been quite discouraged arguing with staunch deletionists who do not listen about adopting a common-sense approach to how NFCC are interpreted, for example. JRG (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Unfortunately I was not told of anything to do with the delinking - wikipedia doesn't really work like that - you don't get told about debates, you have to watch out for them or stumble across them :-( . Delinking has been discussed at many places and over a very long period of time. See for example Wikipedia talk:Date debate where the matter is being raised in 2005. The wider view has been sought and many many editors were involved in the debate - the debate is now over and it is not useful to revisit.
An important guideline is Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and this seems to be coming to more prominence than it has before. Within the guideline important dates can be linked. I don't think bolding is OK. But I am not sure why you would want to link dates, important or otherwise. Take for example Bob Hawke - don't know why I did but just thought of him - if you look his birth date is not a particularly special date (was to him and his parents I guess) and there is clarity in the presentation of the information in a non-linked form. I do in fact find blue links harder to read - plain unformatted text in the normal style - ie for Hawke = born 9 December 1929 is much easier to read in my view than born 9 December 1929. Nobody needs to click through to the article on either 29/12 or 1929 - it doesn't inform you any more about Mr Hawke.
The non-logged in compromise was never going to be of interest once it was revealed that most logged in users hadn't set their preferences anyway.
I think to change articles to comply with the current standard of MOSNUM is fine. There is no content change so I can't see the difficulty with bots changing articles to conform.
I am sorry you feel as though you are not listened to in debates - I guess none of us feel as though we have a significant voice - in particular I feel as though I often debate against the common view - it doesn't stop me, I say my 2 cents and I try to move on - I might offer my 2 cents several times in a debate, in other words I don't necessarily move on straight away and I can't say I really enjoy my valuable and well-though through ;-) ideas being dismissed - but I do accept that is part of the project - it is not worth getting upset over. Regards Matilda ^talk 23:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if WP doesn't work like that - I wasn't told and I'm not happy about it; the editors who post regularly on that page should not be the only say in the whole debate; regional noticeboards should be notified of important changes which affect the whole project.

While you have your view on linking dates, I don't think you are right - and we'll have to leave it at that. I think certain dates are important and it's important to draw attention to them. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. I'm going to keep linking dates because I'm so used to doing it and someone else can revert my changes - not that I have any time to add anything to the encyclopedia nowadays; I'm too busy fighting idiots who delete images for spurious reasons and arguing with editors who won't change their minds (I'm not talking about you). JRG (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Section review on an Article

If you have time could you look at Licensing breach[3] on the 104.1 Territory FM article. I'm wondering what your thoughts are in terms whether it should go or stay? Bidgee (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

Hi, you may be interested in this development. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dog

When I saw this come up on my watch I thought for a second our old friend was coming back.--VS ^talk 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Chardonnay

Hello Matilda. I think "chardonnay set" was used more widely than "chardonnay socialist". Maybe that article needs a name change. Here are some Google searches of the Sydney Morning Herald, Murdoch papers, and the ABC. Cheers, --Lester 07:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe to enter the water...

Our dear friend from 203.54.x.x has returned to the Gundagai, New South Wales article. Their disruption only appears to be targetting the talk page for now, but I suspect it'll spread if past experience tells me anything. I'm blocking on sight. My patience ran thin a long time ago to bother with any other remedy. -- Longhair\^talk 08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Advert and Notability Tag

Why have you added the advertisement tag when it is part of the WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing? The people of the wikiproject are industry proffesionals and they can decide if the company is notable or not. People from the wikiproject hve reviewed and edited the article and they have found it to be credible and no longer written like an advertisement. I have also esablished a list of sources which support the information provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you take such hasteful action, I suggest that you RESEARCH the seafood journalism field, there are a huge amount of sites which you can look at: www.intrafish.no, www.seafoodsource.com, www.aqua.cl etc.

I never called you a vandal, I simply refered to the action taken by you as vandalism, although you may dissagree. Please don´t turn this into something personal. As with the "pay close attention to this" in referance to the fact that I forgot to sign the post, everyone forgets things, I´m sure you do aswel. Spindoctor69 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Vanda: 58.108.194.36

Based on the long history of repeated vandalism committed by this IP user to date (likely the same person according to tone of edits), how long must the community have to live with cleaning up with this shit again & again after each block? Till infinity & beyond? Clearly for all to see now, the high dosage of WP:AGF being exercised earlier wasn't being reciprocrated, but instead, it was being abused with even greater impunity, with no evident display of remorse or due respect shown to this project & our community so far. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to persistent vandalism seen after this posting, I've reported this case to ANI & the IP user was promptly blocked for 3 months next. Once his block (9th to date) ended , I can bet my last dollar with anyone that his nonsense will start all over again, just like a bad re-runs of B-grade movies which he is 'producing' for all to see his handiwork or to brag about again. Pse help to monitor for any mischief & to take swift decisive action on this user for the common good of Wikipedia next time. Thank you. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish Information and Services Deletion

Hello again, I think a consensus may have been reached to keep the article. Obviously it is your responsability as an administrator and the person you nominated the article for deletion to close the deletion page. Can you please check if it is appropriate to now close the page? I will add the "now closing" tag in the discussion. Spindoctor69 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)