Talk:Gundagai

Earlier discussions have been archived at Archive 1 --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have invoked semiprotection for this article. Any comments about the semiprotection should be directed to the relevant Request for Comment.

I will similarly semi-protect any related articles if I notice any abusive edits being carried out from the same IP range - abusive edits refers to the tone of the edit summary as well as the actual edit itself.

All editors should be aware of Wikipedia policies, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.

Recommencing editing in less than the block period is a breach of the Blocking policy.

All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed. Unsigned comments may be reverted.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your semi-protection stance to reduce vandalism to this article. Rather than block in the first instance from now on, I'll semi-protect wherever necessary. Blocking will of course be used if the problem moves on to other articles. -- Longhair 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of edits and blocking

I have reverted the unsigned and abusive edit of 203.54.9.97 (talk · contribs · block log) and blocked for three hours. Avoidance of the block by this editor would be a breach of wikipedia policy.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Another revert and block of 203.54.186.172 (talk · contribs · block log) - again for 3 hours for deliberate and provocative breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Bruce Elder

• In an unsigned edit from IP 203.54.9.195 at 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC), a suggestion was made that this article included plagiarism: 'Gundagai in Literature' has not been cited. Its a blatant plagarism off Bruce Elder. Wake up to your self whoever put this here and stop plagarising (well known Australian) authors.

Plagiarism is a serious allegation.

I assume the anon editor is referring to the unattributed columns published by the Sydney Morning Herald or Fairfax which I htink are in fact written by Elder. In the case of Gundagai, the two relevant publications are Walkabout and SMH Travel. The Wikipedia text is largely from the creation of the article in September 2004.[1]

Easiest comparison to my mind is probably by table:

Wikipedia

Walkabout and SMH Travel - identical

The gold mining made the town prosperous, a centre for bushrangers, and gave the town a romantic bush appeal that resulted in Gundagai becoming a byword for outback town in Australia. Evidence of this can be seen via the number of stories, songs and poems that reference Gundagai. These include the Jack O'Hagan composed songs Where the Dog Sits on the Tuckerbox (five miles from Gundagai), Along the Road to Gundagai and When a Boy from Alabama Meets a Girl from Gundagai, as well as Banjo Patterson's The Road to Gundagai and the traditional ballad Flash Jack from Gundagai. Additionally, the town is mentioned in Henry Lawson's Scots of the Riverina and C.J. Dennis' The Traveller.

Perhaps more than any other Australian town, Gundagai has proved an irresistible subject with writers of popular verse. This perhaps relates to the fact that Five Mile Creek, to the north of town, was a popular meeting place with teamsters, drovers, shearers and bush travellers. The famous story of the Dog on the Tuckerbox is discussed in Things to See. 'Lazy Harry', 'On the Road to Gundagai' and 'Flash Jack from Gundagai' are three anonymous poems relating to the town. The latter two were first published in 'Banjo' Paterson's Old Bush Songs (1905). Paterson himself also wrote a ballad called 'The Road to Gundagai'. Capitalising on this tradition, Jack O'Hagan, who had never been to Gundagai, wrote the nostalgic and highly sentimental song 'Along the Road to Gundagai' which, in 1922, became an international success and the signature tune for the popular radio show 'Dad and Dave'. Knowing a good thing when he felt it in his wallet, O'Hagan later wrote 'Where the Dog Sits on the Tuckerbox' and 'When a Boy from Alabama Meets a Girl from Gundagai'. The hero of Henry Lawson's 'Scots of the Riverina' also has a farm 'by Gundagai' wile C.J. Dennis mentions the town in 'The Traveller'.

Do others think this is plagiarism? I don't. It certainly covers similar ground - that is the nature of the topic, however, from the article on plagiarism: It is not plagiarism to use well-known 'common sense' facts. Accusations of plagiarism that are false are quite reprehensible.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't see any plagiarism there. There are similarities, in that the same poems and songs are mentioned in roughly the same order but, as you mentioned, the nature of the topic is to mention the literature surrounding Gundagai. Next we will be accused of plagiarism because our article also mentions the Dog on the Tuckerbox. I am presuming the anon user is trying to find ways to discredit the article after failing to insert his/her POV in the article. --Roisterer 10:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite visiting us twice yesterday,[2] [3] she didn't seem inclined to respond to this discussion point, despite making the allegation in the first place.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Two additions of 12 August (reverted as reproducing material on plagiarism from other websites as well as being unsigned), did not deal with the actual lack of congruence of the text. Anon editor was warned twice with {{Nothanks-drm}}--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I did respond to the content above re plagarism, but 'they' deleted it too or reverted it. I think they deleted it like they did what I put on Rfc. I forget now. Its all been too bizarre.

What I put re plagarism was put there a couple of days ago, and disappeared again as they do to all I post.

The comment I put here previously that was deleted in part, dealt witht he fact that till about 3 years ago, Bruce Elder also noted Middleton Drive on his Gundagai Walkabout site, assigning Middleton as another literati he knew of from when he was at Uni. Bruce erroneously thought this Middleton Drive a name assigned when the town was originally surveyed in around 1840.

However, Middleton Drive is named for the Pres of the then local Apex Club because he arranged those large poplars to be planted along there where they are, in the 1960s.

I think it a pity now Bruce Elder corrected that Middleton Drive reference he had on his Gundagai Walkabout site as I am betting if he hadnt, it also would have been noted on the wik site as one of the early named streets.

Heaps of Other Literary Streets

Gundagai has a heap of literary named streets. The ones named here that are the same as the ones named on the Walkabout site, leave all the others out. Because of this, most of Gundagai's story as told through the streets and noted for its "remarkable nomenclature" by GA Robinson, isnt noted. Thus, noting just a few of the streets as is done here, is like telling the story of Red Riding Hood but starting and finishing at the title.

Yarri

I seen the post on AN/I and just wanted to understand the issue here. Is there a reason the kicking Yarri story the anon is trying to insert is being removed? is it fiction? a copy-vio issue or something else? Not taking sides just wondering, it seems sourced, so I was wondering what the reason was. --NuclearUmpf 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder why the anon was being reverted. If it is a copy-vio the content can be rewritten. Gimmetrow 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1879 I believe would be predating copyright law. Not 100% sure. --NuclearZer0 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw this reversion, it looked like the added content was very close to the phrasing of hte 2003 ABC.net.au article, which would be under copyright. If that is why it was reverted, it can be rewritten. Gimmetrow 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The text on ABC is in quotation marks meaning they are reciting it word for word as it appeared, that would mean the original story is posted in that form in the newspaper, making the copyright, if one existed from 1879. If ABC didnt create the story they cant own the copyright anyway. I believe stories written before 1939 or something close are too old to be copyrights anyway. Also I believe written stories coyprights expire after 100 years, we should ask the copyright peopel about that if its the last issue. --NuclearZer0 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I thought it had some of the non-quoted text too. Gimmetrow 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1879 the source is out dated and I can't even find it. -- Bidgee 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the ABC.net.au article, which I was able to find quite easily. It references the 1879 newspaper. Gimmetrow 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we know if the ABC has used parts of this story without checking it's sources? -- Bidgee 13:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is ABC a reliable source according to WP:RS? What basis do you have for doubting it? Gimmetrow 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no copyright on the 1879 Yarri story. Its still appropriate to note its origin though so it can be checked, plus also polite to do so re original author/publisher.

I put the 1879 article re Yarri here and its copied word for word from its source,a nd its two sources given. Bidgee can easily check as there is a copy of Butchers book in the town library of the town he lives in as he well knows. He can also come to Gundgaai and see the original source on microfische or get the library where he lives to get the copy sent over which would take maybe a week, and he can view it at his local library. Bidgee would know all this. If he checks the artcle also, he can see its fully cited.

Well the story itself doesn't have the source to the 1879 article and it's only one source (We can't see whats in the 1879 article since we don't know where to find it). -- Bidgee 13:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:RS works. Since ABC passes WP:RS we have to assume that they did their research. The ABC link says the story came from the newspaper and so its a legitamate source. We should list ABC however as the source and not the Gundagai Times, since we are really using ABC for our information. --NuclearZer0 13:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear, the above is NOT how u cite the article. U MUST cite the original source. Do it like this >>> Yarri article 1879 in ABC Online http://www.abc.net.au

I think ABC (it would have originated at ABC Riverina) got it out of Butchers book though, in which case, all three cites must be there as per above, with one added. The original cite goes in italics, then the next is underlined, then the next something else. All three must be noted though. If ABC got it straight from the original paper at Gundagai Library, then no need to cite Butchers book but MUST cite its original source.

I just wanted to point out that some of the information they were adding to Coolac seems to be true as well regarding the dog. [4] I found this same information repated elsewhere, not the poisoning scandal issue, but of the dog. It appears that the dog on the tuckerbox story is what put Gundagai on the world map apparently. This is why its usually best to selective edit instead of revert. I will clean up what they were trying to add later today if I get a chance. --NuclearZer0 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the links about the anon which states that I'm wrong [5] [6] [7]. Can someone have a look at it for me? Also I have recordings of the local news but the copyright act stops me from uploading it. -- Bidgee 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying the massacre happened as I pointed out. I cant find anything on it in relation to the dog. I was just stating that the dog and accompanying poem is what made Gundagai famous world wide (didnt know it was). As for the massacre I am not even sure how to verify that as I have yet to find sources stating it and feel analyzing poems for contextual meaning is not proper, and so should not be used for a source, that is just my opinion and you may want to ask the folks at WP:CITE for a firmer response. --NuclearZer0 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

Looking very briefly at the article and the edit summaries left by the anon editor two days ago, it seems to me that the real dispute is that the article says the 1853 flood was the beginning of reconciliation, while the anon wants to point out that racism and abuse of natives actually continued for many years. As usual, the answer to a dispute over information and sources is more information and more sources.

First, I have to point out that it is not vandalism to want to say such a thing, it is a content dispute, and editors need to work together rather than making assumptions and blind reverting. The anon editor was editing inartfully, but it wasn't vandalism.

You can not say in the article that the flood was the basis of reconciliation; that's opinion and original research. You can report that other people have said so if you have a source for it. Likewise you can not call this view a racist whitewash, but you can report if other people have said so. And the incident and controversy over it may need to be introduced in a better way. For example,

Gundagai was flooded in 1852 and many residents were saved by three natives in their canoe.(ref) Gundagai residents point to this incident as the beginning of the reconciliation process (ref). However, historian John Smith has noted that racist incidents and harassment of natives continued in Gundagai for nearly 50 years after the flood (ref). For example, in 1897, a visitor to the town saw several locals abusing a blackman, whom he acertained was Yarri, one of the heroes of the 1852 flood (ref).

Appropriate references vary. For the statement that locals consider their town the start of the reconciliation movement you could use the towns own web site or a published history of the town even if it is arguably biased. You can report what people say about themselves, expecting it to be biased in their favor; reporting that they say it about themselves is different from reporting that it is true. For statements that harrassment of natives continued until 1897 the 1897 newspaper is adequate; as a professional news network (not a blog or other advocacy site) we must take the ABC report of what the newspaper said at face value unless someone actually gets a copy of the 1897 article.

The point is you need sources and to report what other people have said and written in those sources, and not to include your own conclusions, opinions or interpretations. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ONE gundagai local (out of 3,000) claims the town is the cradle of reconcilitation. Its said to gain commercial kudos.

Thanks for your input, (above). I dont reg as it isnt compulsory - is it. No need to. Is that like not stepping forward to volunter, then all others step back?

Attacks on Indigenous people continue at Gundagai (recorded in nationwide media) up to Sept 2005.

The reconcilitation claim is uncited, incorrect and twaddle. Isnt wik after more correct content?

I am being deleted from my comments on Rfc by these same editors. Can Rfc be deleted by editors?

the anonymous editor

I would like to hear from the anonymous editor on my talk page before I unprotect the article. I would like to know why he/she hasn't or can't register for an account, and I would like to discuss editing techniques. However I do not want to leave aonymous editors locked out forever. Thatcher131 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Might want to ask why they never sign their posts either, leaving it for the likes of everyone else to clean up. Good luck. You'll need it. -- Longhair\^talk 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Longhair, go take a quick eze. Spread yr misery elsewhere.

I'm giving you one clear warning. Stop wish your personal attacks, or be blocked once again. -- Longhair\^talk 10:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bidgee imagines the Wagga paper is a credible source re Gundagai. So funny. No paper is regarded as a credible source of info. They are largely just words on paper, then when they are corrected, they use the correction as more news. Its also funny how the poor old platypus became politcal. No one does that to magpies. Some humans minds work so weird many times.

Your comment is misleading. It wasn't just in the paper it was on both Prime and Win News. Wiki classes papers as credible sources. -- Bidgee 10:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What was in the Wagga paper and on Prime and Win News? Was it the recent update re Coolac? If so, that is because last week there was a media briefing as I have told u elsewhere. I have tried to get the media to report coolac better as there is some really interesting arch stuff happening but Doug Hogan for example told me that it was up to Indigenous people to invite them. As its all being run by the RTA, it was up to the RTA to issue invites. Seems they did but as there is not much known by the media, (to lead to asking questions etc etc), I guess not much was reported. The recent current issues such as platypus and when is it to start got discussed though. The media is only as good as it wants to and can be.

Re the yarri bashing the local 1879 newspaper source is OK as that was reporting an observation of a bashing which is pretty straightforward. Re Coolac the media reporting has been totally woeful, starting first as some sort of joint media campaign claiming that 'roads kill' to get the bypas started ignoring that the bypass cannot start till the EIS is completed properly under Oz Law no matter what the meeja think they can influence - as it eventuated the last 2 years in reality, totally contrary to the meeja campaign. Bet the meeja sold more papers etc because of their failed 'roads kill' campaign which meant that commercially, they were successful. Killer roads. I think DSM-V has a category for that sort of claim (aka delusional). Next we will hear about iceblock eating roads perhaps. Personified roads.

Re promoting Gundgaai as the cradle of reconcilitation - this idea sprang up around 2001 when it was decided to get funding to jazz up the Old Gundgaai Site (that the 1852 Flood washed away) and promote it as a tourist attraction. Small towns and topurism is a big deal post the 1993 LGA. Small towns are now expected to fund themselves as much as possible rather than expecting the State Gov to do so for stuff it should not have to. Multiple funding applications re the Old Gundgaai Site were made by the then Heritage Advisor. An amount of near $500,000 was sought I think to tizz the site up and to link it back into the local museum with a viewing platform etc. for tourists. They were going to curb and gutter the site and put in signs etc etc. so people could view - basically, nothing. When the applications were received in Sydney, they were rejected. Heritage specialists in Sydney think professionally and probably a bit different to the intentions and politics of small town locals, re some issues and other massively significant heritage. Promoting Gundagai as the cradle of reconcilitation a few years back fitted in with the propsed European image building for the town as an ethnocentric tourist drawcard. Bit like creating the Gallipoli legend for the nation.

Cradle of Reconcilation is a huge claim. It would need to be correct and given there were multiple massacres around this area and the reports of the Commissioners for Aboriginal people also tell a different story, Gundagai is probably one of the last places to be able to legitimately make that claim.

You know, post the 1852 Flood, the NSW Government would not send food supplies or any other assisatnce as they were still very unimpreseed with Gundagai re the Coolac Massacre and its cover up, some 20 years previously. It wasnt only that Aboriginal people saved many non Aboriginal from the flood in 1852, they also then assisted them to find bush food and helped the community get back on its feet. The 'deaths'of Aboriginal people continued after that though. In the 1860s the professional people arrived in town and took major offence at Indigenous peopel being here, so they hunted them. Peter Read records that but its also noted in the old newspapers.

If Gundagai wants to reconcile, it should admit what has happened previously, officially apologise and go on from there rather than acting like a dog with a bone re surveys of Aboriginal heritage. Gundagai may want to 'reconcile' but its a non Indigenous concept to wash away the past, with probably no relevance to Indigenous people. An offical 'sorry' and admissions re past massacres might be more effective with every support given to put plaques on the massacre sites. Maybe if the town did 20 years of stuff such as this, it might then have the basis of a credible claim re Reconcilitation but it can never claim to be where reconcilation started. Indigenous peopel had always welcomed non Indigenous people untill the land grabs and murders became a feature of it as well.

The Old Gundagai Site is now back under the care and control of the herd of cattle who live there and no curbing or guttering of the area happened, and the Public Money that would have been wasted doing this, wasnt wasted. Other damage to significant heritage also didnt happen.

Australia : NSW : Riverina and Wagga Wagga Tuesday, 6 September 2005. 13:43 (AEST) Crop-duster's spray hits group of Aborigines Emergency services are on stand-by in the village of Coolac in south-west New South Wales to treat a group of 19 people who were sprayed by a crop-duster this morning.

The chemical is yet to be identified.

A group of Aboriginal people and Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) staff had been walking the route of the proposed Hume Highway bypass of Coolac looking for sites of Aboriginal significance.

Police spokeswoman Sarah Vickery says no-one is showing signs of ill health and it is unclear if it was deliberate.

"We don't know whether they knew the people were there or not so we're appealing for anyone for anyone who might have witnessed the incident or knows anything about a low-flying crop-duster in the area to contact police," she said.

Well this appears to be a prank, it got both indigenous peoples and highways staff.

Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) September 10, 2005 Saturday SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 16 LENGTH: 276 words HEADLINE: Cropdusting joker could be grounded SOURCE: MATP BODY: A CROPDUSTER pilot who sprayed a group of 19 people with oil in the state's south as a practical joke could be banned from the skies, says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Decontamination units were called to the scene after the pilot dumped an unknown chemical -- later identified as paraffin oil -- on a group of Aborigines and Roads and Traffic Authority staff earlier this week. The group were looking for sites of indigenous significance in a paddock in Coolac, north of Gundagai, which could form part of the proposed Hume Highway by-pass. The fire brigade's hazardous materials unit was called in to assess the scene and the group underwent emergency decontamination. None have shown ill effects. A spokesman for CASA, which is investigating the pilot's conduct, said he told police he only dumped the oil as a practical joke.

Thatcher131 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Source of the 'Gundagai as Cradle of Reconcilation' Claim

I just read the Yarri story by Bodie Asimus.

It is not a credible source.

It was written by a school child as part of a competition Lateline/ABC ran.

There are no references re any of the content though there are many available.

Bodie Asimus does not live in Gundgaai. They are Sydney people I think. His Mum used to do the PR/promotion for Maccas or something similiar.

The story is not listed in the ABC Lateline archives for that date which further notes it isnt offical Lateline content, reported and published by adult ABC journalists, who would be members of the journalists union and subject to ABC editorial and publication rules etc. As such, it wouldnt qualify as acceptable under wik guidelines re its veracity as its content would not have been checked as being within guidelines.

Its simply, an uncited STORY written by a child as part of a competition - not official ABC reporting. Stories can have any or no level of fact in them. One or two in Gundagai might try and push a claim re reconcilation as a public relations/town image building exercise, but it is not anything to do with even minority town thought. Post the collapse of the Old Gundagai Heritage Tourism Plan a few years back, Gundagai doesnt push that line these days preferring to be the opposite on many occassions. These days, Gundagai is trying to establish that it is Iirsh as a tourism thing hence the first Turning Wave Festival a few weeks back. This festival was very short on an audience going on its online reviews so I am not sure the town sees itself as Irish either. Maybe in 2010 Gundagai will be claiming its really a lost planet from outer space that landed as a meteorite 50 years ago, as a tourist incentive?

Indeed, Gundagai Shire Council on its Social Plan that is online, in regard to Indigenous people, notes Gundgaai as a tolerant community??? Tolerant? of what and whom? 'Tolerant' doesnt really tally with 'reconcilation'.

It would be better to note here that Gundagai Shire Council on behalf of the community, sees the community as tolerant rather than making a claim as being the cradle of reconcilation.

Tolerant?

Gundagai has a massively significant and unique identity but as its an Indigneous one we need to hide that. Dont tell anyone - OK.

We were trying to help by finding a page that cites the content you wanted to include. If the ABC page is not a WP:RS, then it can't be cited for anything. Moved to external links for now, likely to be deleted. Gimmetrow 14:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good as that 'reconcilation' artcle written by Bodie Asimus, was written by a child as part of a competition that ABC Lateline ran. The article is not one written by ABC Journalists.

The 'Yarri getting kicked' article is credible and fully cited and those cites are very easily able to be checked by bidgee in his home town. The cites have also been published wider than that too with a copy of Butchers book (that the yarri article is in) in numerous places, including in the National Library of Australia. Copies of the orignal article in the old newspaper are also available at the National Library, as well as in Gundagai Library.

OK, I read Bob Carr's blurb. Note he mentions Marie Lindley's claim that the 1852 Flood was Australia's worst natural disaster. It wasnt. So, it can be safely assumed that Bob Carr is reading info someone else has written for him using dubious sources re some stuff.

Bob Carr would not have known the the 1830s Coolac Massacre. He should have known of the Wiradjuri Wars but maybe not specifically to Gundagai.

What is reconcilitation? It seems to be a concept that non Indigenous people sprout a lot, but that many Indigenous people have stated that it isnt their thing, noting they have not conciled to reconcile.

Brody Asimus' story is just that. Bob Carrs sprout might have some merit given he was Premier, but whether the content of what he went on with or not is right, is open to debate.

Remember Carrs sprout was in the context of the centenary of the 1852 Flood, in 2002, that was also about promoting funding for The Old Gundgaai site. The Flood commoration was very linked to making the old site of European Gundagai a tourist attraction and getting the gov funding to do that.

I sort of kyboshed that, via going to the NSW Heritage Office and NSW National Parks and Indigneous leaders. Gundagai doesnt try to establish the Old Gundgaai Site as a tourist attraction these days and 4 years after Bob Carrs speech, we hear next to nil in Gundagai re the 1852 Flood as the whole idea has been dropped and we are now remaking the place as an Irish town rather than an 1852 flood town it seems. Gundagai relabels each 5 years.

Put Carrs blurb in but note it in context, that it is out of date, why Carr was carrying on in parliament re it, etc etc. It all failed despite Bob Carrs input, courtesy of my effort and the resulting assistance from heritage professionals throughout Oz for very very good reasons that are to do with objecting to stuff planned by Gundagai, that was the opposite of reconcilitation and respect for Indigenous culture.

Is reconcilation with Indigenous people to do with wrecking some of their stuff as Gundagai town intended?

It isnt u know so Carrs sprout was inappropriate, but he would not have known.

What is reconcilitation? A political thing? Do non Indigenous people invite Indigenous people to give a Welcome to Country, call that reconcilation, then the week after, bulldoze sacred sites?

Right.

Note Carrs blurb re Gundagai as being connected to promotion of the proposed Old Gundagai Site as a tourist attraction by the ones who were here then with PR skills, and their cohorts, (the committee was run by Marie Lindleys b-i-l who is boss of nsw rural racing these days and a past mayor whose gggrandfather owned a pub here on the Old Gundgaai Site that fed booze to Indigenous people as all the pubs here then did, - recorded in Returns by the Aboriginal Commissioners-, getting them addicted and ill and totally exploitable), so claiming the 1852 flood as a reconcilitation thing gave that project some trumped up credit, but the project was ultimately unfeasible because of other considerations that were way more significant than the 1852 flood or any manufacted to fit, highly outrageous 'Gundagai' reconcilation claims, even if made by the then NSW Premier.

There was numerous close interactions between Indigenous people and Europeans in Australia for many many years pre the 1852 Gundagai Flood and in locations other than Gundgaai, some being true friendships rather than exploitation. Australia was officially invaded in 1788 so that was 64 years pre the flood.

Gundagai like other places, uses its links to State and Federal pollies to get stuff done. Also its links to other state and national entities that have people who are friends of the town or run by former Gundagai people. This is the world. Whether some of it has much to do with truth though sometimes is debateable. Whatever, there are people who look out for heritage around Oz also that even Bob Carr cant over ride that other people also have links to.

Words are cheap. People can stand up in Parliament or anywhere else for that matter, and sprout anyhting. Whether what is sprouted is correct or not is another issue. Three-quarter truths mixed in with a couple of huge inaccurcies work well also I hear.

Pollies and the meeja dont have a lot of credibility and this topic is pollies and the meeja.

Cradle of Reconcilitation is a huge claim for the town probably least deserving of it, to make.

See below, from 'Review' Sept 2006 Turning Wave Festival,Gundagai. http://www.turningwave.org.au/Reviews.htm. This review was written by John Dengates wife so has credibility.

"The launching of the long awaited CD of John Warner’s ‘Yarri’ did not attract the crowds it deserved in Gundagai ..."

The town wasnt interested. They tried a concert here of it not that long back too, and next to no one went.

Gundagai people DO NOT believe Gundagai was the birthplace of reconcilitation. However a couple of PR people used to believe in pushing that line as part of a town promotion/rebadging campaign.

Wattle seemingly believes gundagai was the birthplace of reconcilitation given how that 'editor' will not present the ridiculous reconcilitation claim in a more balanced light. That then makes information on the wik gundagai page, silly and comic like given australias known story from the 1700s on. I guess if gundagai reconciled in 1852, (got on with Indigenous people) they didn't in 1851 or Sydney didn't in 1780 etc?

I'd like to know also, if Gundagai is supposedly the cradle of reconcilitation, and that process allegedly commenced in 1852, why the outcome in tangible terms in 1952 and 2002, was that one of their major major places, in Oz, (known of by non Indigenous people), was planned to be bulldozed.

If Gundagai was so appreciative of Indigenous people from 1852 wouldnt the community have said "OK, here are your special places back and we will assist you to maintain them." Instead, Gundagai did the opposite for the next 150 years recently planning to totally destory some and also, kicking up big time re the Coolac surveys for Indigenous heritage that are ongoing. To help that cultural wrecking, they also supported moving the surviving Indigenous people to places 100s miles away so they would hopefully forget, and bought in out of country people in their place. The Indigenous people walked back home though. They were sent away again. They came home again. In the end they were hunted out of town and put on the mission stations. Some married into non Indigenous families but they were not allowed to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage on the threat their children woudl be taken if they did. Even these days in Gundagai there are people with Indigneous heritage too scared to acknowledge it. That is sad. Its OK to be Irish but not Indigenous. Anyone who paints Australia's Indigenous story as other than it is, putting out silly cradle of reconcilitation claims, is whitewashing.

From memory, I wrote to Bob Carr re some of his silly reconcilitation Gundagai claim and told him what else was happening here. He didnt reply, but he would know. I think I suggested he talk to the Elgin Marbles expert in Sydney to get filled in, or his own NSW Heritage Dept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs)

• It seems to me that any claim of a place being the "cradle of reconciliation" requires outstanding sources. Surely there must be extensive documentation of the reconiliation movement in Australia, even government web sites, histories; etc. If they don't describe Gungadai as the cradle it would be better off not stating it. If there are no such histories you probably should wait until they are written. As I said in the RFC, the current fashion in U.S. history is to see received history as Euro-centrically biased and to reinterpret and reinvestigate the past from the native point of view (arguably this goes too far in the other direction but that's a problem for a different day). Until such history becomes available for Australia to balance or contrast with the previous history, sensitive claims probably should be treated carefully and with respect toward good sources. Thatcher131 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Coolac massacre

Regarding the alleged Coolac massacre I checked LexisNexis news service and found two articles, both relating to the highway delay due to claims that a massacre happened in the area. At this time there seem to be no reliable sources that a massacre did happen (I haven't even seen a firm date). An ABC radio report will not serve as a source for anything unless the transcript is made available, otherwise we would have to rely on the memories of the listeners. The point of having reliable sources is to have something that other people can double-check, even if (in the case of an 1879 newspaper article) the checking would be difficult.

The only place on Wikipedia that the Coolac massacre would currently be noteworthy is in the article Hume highway, where it can be noted that construction of the Coolac bypass has been delayed by claims of an Aboriginal leader that there is a massacre site nearby, and that archeological testing is underway, and the state has agreed to have an archeologist on site during the road work in case anything turns up. Thatcher131 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Erhm, they dont have a firm date as I have not given it to them.

OK. I posted here earlier but it got deleted, that the Coolac Massacre should at least also be on the Aboriginal Massacres List for Oz on wik. It should also be on the Gundagai and Dog on Tuckerbox pages. But, as I wont give the cites now, its best not put anywhere without them. OK.

To the anonymous editor (and the rest)

I'm going to make a note of this here because I don't know if you are likely to see it elsewhere.

I think the intent of your contributions to the article is generally good, in the sense of trying to balance out possible unconscious bias. Claims such as "Gudagai is the cradle of reconciliation" are so sweeping that they do require special attention to sources and if they are controversial, should probably be removed until better sources can be found.

However, your behavior at times is wholly unacceptable. You will not adopt the simple courtesy of signing your posts, so people can know who said it and when; this makes it very hard to follow discussions. You have made repeated personal attacks on other editors (recent comments documented by me at your RFC. You rely on personal knowledge rather than reliable sources. You have inserted argument and personal comments into article text instead of the talk page. (In some cases, other users have copyedited your comments to include them in the text, which shows that they are willing to work with you when possible.) Your recent edits to your RFC were properly reverted because they were in the wrong place, the wrong format, and were headed with a personal attack. While it would have been nice for the other editors to fix them for you, they are under no obligation to do so. Fortunately you found someone else to fix them up for you. If you are willing to cooperate with other editors on sources (as seems to be happening on this talk page) I will unprotect the article. I probably should anyway, since there may be other editors around the world with good ideas or even typos to fix. I do believe I know enough about your IP history to block you specifically if you resume making personal attacks.

Wikipedia is about working together. It is very useful to have editors with different viewpoints working on an article cooperatively. I will no have no hesitation in blocking you at the first sign of renewed personal attacks. Thatcher131 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BIG BRAVE THATCHER Whoever or Whatever Thatcher Is

Thatcher, yourself like some others here seems to like to make personal attacks on other editors so I would suggest you also take a long hard look at yourself and have a think about why u do that. Dont threaten me. If people such as yourself want to be issuing threats to Internet users, you need to be having a think about that. There are some non aggressive people on wik but aggressive ones such as yourself and the others that are a blight on some pages wreck the place. You and some of the others seem to have no idea how to work in a cooperative manner with other people who post here wanting to use some idiotic power play because you can block and unblock sites. Big deal that you have 'tools' and can do that. Have u noticed some ignore that sort of nonsense. Some of you need to enrol in a charm school course as you are causing terrible disruption on wik with your unpleasant behaviour. My personal knowledge is more reliable than some of the nonsense some of you lot put here. If you are a fan of wik being full of lies, I'd be asking why? In my book its best stuff isnt put here if it is lies such as this nonsense reconciliation claim re Gundagai that are very obvious to the world at large and anyone with half a brain is incorrect.

Go deliver your nonsense to someone more inclined to be kowtowed by bullies thatcher as this person isnt. Try picking on a one year old or someone with a major disability as it may work there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.161 (talk • contribs)

Blocked for 24 hours for repeated incivility (and I am definitely including the "feral editors" remarks as well [8]. If you actually read my remarks, you would see that I agreed you had a point of view that should be represented, provided you could work cooperatively with other editors. I do not agree with simply reverting every comment you make, but there are some editors who have made such a nusciance of themselves that they are reverted immediately, and no one worries about it. You are entering that territory. If you wish to make contributions to wikipedia you should consider how to work with other editors rather than against them. Thatcher131 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

24 Hour Block Lifted So Was it Real??

Its now approx 11 hours since the 24 hour block was imposed so I am wondering why its been lifted? I am at the same ip link as I always am. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

What Is Reconciliation?

"There is no agreed definition of reconciliation. It is agreed, however, that reconciliation encompasses reparation, as recommended by the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families.14 In the report, Bringing them home, five components of reparation have been recommended. These have been taken from the van Boven Principles,15 drawn up by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as guidelines for reparation of victims of gross violation of human rights: Acknowledgement and apology

Guarantees against repetition

Measures of restitution

Measures of rehabilitation

Monetary compensation Reconciliation always begins with acknowledgement or, more colloquially, "truth telling". Alexander Boraine, Vice Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, has spoken of the capacity for forgiveness by those who suffered most under apartheid.16 In Australia, there is a need to acknowledge that the benefits now enjoyed by some have been at the expense of incalculable suffering to others. "Truth telling" is unresolved "sorry business" for our nation.

If contemporary Aboriginal health is accepted to be a manifestation of a population dying of despair, anger and disillusionment, then reconciliation is fundamental. It has been compellingly argued that "The diseases of anger and despair which wrack Aboriginal communities in Australia clearly have many of their roots in childhood."17 Acknowledgement of the causes of this anger and despair must occur as the first step in the process of reconciliation. Reconciliation is necessary but is not, in and of itself, sufficient to guarantee improved Aboriginal health.

Reconciliation becomes the foundation for health services development. The Australian Medical Association has stated that "The process of reconciliation would be incomplete without the provision of substantial additional resources for Indigenous health."18

As we await proper political processes to implement recommendations from the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in Custody19 and the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families,14 individuals and organisations can consider their own processes for reconciliation."

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/may3/jackson/jackson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.161 (talk • contribs)

Arbitration

I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by NuclearUmpf

I fell into this debate through a post that was made on AN/I that was reverted, which I felt was odd. I went to the page on Gundagai and left a question for those involved to answer, noone but the anon answered and did so on my talk page. The users in the dispute with him then reverted my talk page, before I even got to read the response. Before I jumped in I looked at the history of the article and noticed the anon tried to add a story about a aboriginee named Yarri that saved some people during a flood in which he was later assaulted. I hit google for the story and found only one source from ABC, one that seems to be debated.

My experience with everyone involved so far. I think the anon may be an expert in the field or have a greater knowledge then those he is arguing with over what happened or at least the claims of the Aboriginal people there, however he has not provided sufficient sources to back up those claims, these need to be provided or the information cannot be cited, I want to point out that he has provided 3 sources for the kicking yarri story, not all from ABC. He has made attempts to reach a middle ground as what he wanted to add before kicking yarri was different, kicknig yarri was the middle ground effort, also reverted.

My experience with some of the users he is disputing with is that they are not AGF in accusing him of cycling his IP, accusing him of vandalism and worst of all blanket reverting him when he attempts to file complaints on AN/I and other Wikipedia places for filing such complaints, also on talk pages such as mine. Blanket reverting should not be allowed and led to some information that was easily googled being removed from Coolac Pass, the information about it and Gundagai being known for the dog imagery, Dog on the Tuckerbox to be exact. This information was removed in the blanket revert to remove the Coolac Massacre claims that I was unable to find information of. I tried to reason with some of the disputee's however there seems to be a misguided understanding that its ok to revert everythnig this user attempts to contribute to Wikipedia through reverts instead of actually attempt to verify themselves or offer a middle ground.

In closing all parties should have been a little more understanding of eachother, I refuse to put the blame on the anon solely as its obvious that the continuous reverting of everything they do escalated the tension and situation. Including the filing of this RfC and reverting of the anon's attempts to defend themselves here. You cannot have dispute resolution by yourself and RfC is not a punishment.

Users who endorse this summary:

--NuclearZer0 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks nuclear

Its not so much for me I have been 'fighting' this 'fight'. I hate bullying and there is so much goes on here that I have concerns for anyone else who might be a target for it. The place runs like a cult in some areas with anyone who wont kowtow to the ruling dominants, totally zeroed in on. Its bad.

That the ones doing the stuff you have noted them doing, seem to get away with it, by reverting, deleting etc, is a real concern. I am currently blocked for 24 hrs due to some fresh antics from the Gundagai discussion page. I fell for it not wondering why the bait was put there, rather than it being discussed here or on the page of the 'good samaritan' who popped up to assist me. I am not here often and wont be at all soon so dont know the run of the place or the underlying antics so easy to set up. I also switch off when that sort of stuff begins so a prob there. For me to find this Rfc page I had to hunt a bit as its removed from the other link I had to it. I repeat, this isnt so much as about me but about that it is happening, is being done and got away with, and would be happening to others who dare post stuff on wik but decline being sucked in to the other stuff. TY again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

Disclosure of Personal Details of a contributor by Artkos/Thatcher

copied from Thatchers talk page, with details removed and replaced by 'X':

"" Blocking the anon from XXXXXXXX

• Not sure you are aware but you just took out part of the IP address range for south-east Australia (densly settled part of Australia) for the largest ISP provider in the country, XXXXXXX. [9] - the range is actually to XX.XX.#.# - the random allocation does give her access to, for example 203.54.186.36 (talk · contribs · block log) --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, XXXXX has the 203.54.0.0/16 range (65,000 addresses) but lately she has only used 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. My guess is that only certain ranges are available to certain telephone exchanges or neighborhoods. If she comes back tonight on the 186.0/24 range, I'll block it too. I'm using the anon only blocking feature so the only users to be affected should be people in her local area who want to edit as anon IPs. (I should have enabled account creation, too, since the only thing we want to block is her anonymous editing.) There aren't any current autoblocks, and there shouldn't be any using the anon only feature, but if you see any you should release them. At this point the only long term solution is an arbitration that would confirm your decision to revert on sight. Thatcher131 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)"

• • Are u guys now messing up southern Oz's access to the Internet as well as mine? Isnt that denial of service? Maybe you should have got a job on the Sydney Road Construction then you could have done some lane closures there if you like to block peopel off from access. I thought you must have lifted the block as I accessed it earlier not expecting it to be unblocked (but your behaviour has been so erratic that anything was possible), so if I should not have posted what I did till 6am tomorrow, dont fret too much as it would have been posted anyway.

Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.

If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.

Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic XXXXXXX are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

There is a link to the privacy policy at the bottom of every page. Every user's contribution must be identified somehow to comply with the GFDL copyright license. You can either be identified by a registered username which you choose (either your real name or a pseudonym) or by your IP address. Quoting from Privacy Policy

If you are logged in, you will be identified by your user name. This may be your real name if you so choose, or you may choose to publish under a pseudonym, whatever user name you selected when you created your account. If you have not logged in, you will be identified by your network IP address. This is a series of four numbers which identifies the Internet address from which you are contacting the wiki. Depending on your connection, this number may be traceable only to a large Internet service provider, or specifically to your school, place of business, or home. It may be possible that the origin of this IP address could be used in conjunction with any interests you express implicitly or explicitly by editing articles to identify you even by private individuals. It may be either difficult or easy for a motivated individual to connect your network IP address with your real-life identity. Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym.

Thatcher131 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont deny service to other XXXXXXX users just because you want to have a go at me as that is pretty crook.

ALSO, are you allowed to disclose personal details of people who contribute to wik such as their ISP and IP numbers as you have here. I dont post your IP numbers etc and I think that is contrary to wik policy, isnt it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

• Please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. -- Bidgee 08:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Suggest the anon reviews the privacy policy at privacy policy. Having edited, your IP address is not private. --Golden Wattle ^talk 09:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My provider is private as it is covered by Australias privacy laws that override any wik laws under Australias Internet laws ty. Furthermore, my account is further covered by privacy laws for reasons totally unconnected with the Internet. You left here artkos remember and my isp would probably want to know about the planned interference with my account a discussion was had about, see below. I find it highly irregular that an editor was voicing they were intending contacting a former colleague at my isp re my account with them which would be another total breach of privcy under Australia's privacy laws.

Logs have been kept of all logs here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) .

• Garbage - every time you anyone post you anyone publishes - suggest you anyone read the footer below the edit "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." - lost your right to privacy by publishing, if you anyone wants to stay private, don't publish!Golden Wattle ^talk 10:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not have much idea of australian specific internet law then which overrides any commons law. Anyway, the experts can sort it.

Dont direct your conversations to me again as it isnt appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) .

• Don't presume posts are directed at you, if there is a comment on a page, I will reply to it if I choose for the benefit of any interested reader. However, perhaps the anon could provide a link to the privacy laws which are breached when she published under the GFDL licence, what privacy does she think she has when publishing, what does she think the word publishing means other than the activity of making information available for public view.? Privacy law doesn't apply when you publish, or have I missed something? Perhaps she thinks posting on wikipedia is not public and therefor not publishing. --Golden Wattle ^talk 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • There is no point in arguing. The GFDL requires that all contributions be attributed to an author. The privacy policy states that authors will be identified by their IP address unless they reguster a user name. Both policies are linked on every single page. If you have every used the page history tab to see the record of past changes or to more easily revert back an edit, you will have seen that all contributions are identified in this way. Wikipedia, being based in Florida, is governed by U.S. privacy laws. Thatcher131 11:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From Artkos

I have removed comments I did not post here --Golden Wattle ^talk 10:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

This is appropriate. You do not have the right to speak for someone else. When you copy someone else's comments from another location, you should indent them (by prefacing the start of each paragraph with an asterisk or colon to creat an ident, like I have done here) and you must sign your own name using 4 tilde marks ~~~~ or the signature button on top of the edit window. If you do not, it create the false impression that the other person has commented where they haven't. Thatcher131 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From Longhair (who has not been invloved that person claimed remember)

...and to add to that, the anon has been made aware of the RfC at every opportunity, in block messages and at their many talk pages. We're just being played for fools whilst they sit back and joke at the disruption caused. -- Longhair\talk 11:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

From Longhair

"He's been told how to sign posts, and still refuses to do so. It's hardly rocket science. I'm going to block him on that behaviour alone if he persists in ignoring reasonable requests. Nobody needs to go along behind him and clean up - that's not why we're here. The rest of his anti-social behaviour only brings a block even closer. I used to work for his ISP. Contacting them isn't going to be easy, as most technical support staff are outsourced nowadays and any chance of reaching anyone able to do anything about this user are very remote. I think the best course of action if and when they return is simply to block the entire range. Affected customers can then determine if it's worth sticking with an ISP that doesn't act on disruptive users. Any help you need with this character, let me know. -- Longhair 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

• • Did you used to work for my ISP Longhair and just who there are u going to contact? Is that how my ISP works? I will let them know if you like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) .

Good to see you back - I hope your trip away went well. Now onto the anon :) I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. The anon is simply playing Wikipedia like a fiddle. They can't be forced to create an account, so in my view, they're using that to their ultimate advantage, and simply gaming the system to cause disruption. I've tried playing by the rules here, but the rules are powerless against liars and fools such as this anonymous editor. My stand now in regards to them is that they can edit, not sign their posts, and disrupt as many other well meaning editors as they like, then finally something may be done about them when others wake up to what we've been dealing with for many months now. As the old saying goes, give them enough rope, they may very well hang themselves with it. Any edits from them I notice, I'm pretending I simply don't see.

I don't think it's a clear cut case of the community preferring one editor over another. It's the assume good faith dream at work here I think. Whilst I'm a believer of assuming good faith towards all editors, I can tell you now, any good faith I began to assume from that editor disappeared months ago. Go kick the side of the shed or something - it might help :) -- Longhair\talk 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt aware I had run into this longhair above apart from his vandalising edits and other stuff noted by third parties here. He also claimed he wasnt involved two days ago. There was a Grahaemc who also seems to be on the longhair contribution page who claimed he was a retired rta worker (so knew all about the coolac byapss) who scoffed at any massacre there and went fishing till Nov???

Does Longhair have more than one ID here and uses different ones at different times?

Little wonder there is strife on wik. I might have differet ip numbers but that is how it is and not my doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) .

From Durova

I have not called anyone names or endorsed any name calling. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are taking place on both sides here. I have read every one of the talk pages and block logs listed for this IP at the RfC and have not seen an invitation to the RfC at any of them. The IP did respond immediately at RfC when I recommended it and that response got reverted via popups. Popups were also used to delete this IP's posts to the article talk page and to the Village Pump. Another uninvolved editor who responded to the Village Pump appeal even complained that posts to their user talk page got deleted. Many of those popup deletions do meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. To my eyes that looks like a backdoor attempt at a community ban. I certainly would have preferred if the other editors had tried to open formal mediation. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen a Wikiquette alert, a third opinion request, or an article request for comment. If my reading is correct, an arbitration request was made instead and got turned down as premature. If the waters hadn't been muddied here I'd suggest a community topic ban through WP:DE, but this is the most aggressive overuse of popups I've ever seen. The standard solution to unsigned talk page comments is to flag the comments as unsigned, not to delete them. That gagging may well have provoked statements of frustration. This person has trouble expressing himself or herself perhaps because English is a second language or because of some disability, and I think those circumstances require me to assume good faith. A further reason I extend good faith to this editor is that ABC News certainly satisfies WP:RS while the arguments other editors have given for deleting that citation violate WP:V. Please lead by example when encouraging others to respect site policies: tone down the popups to standard levels so that they revert only obvious problems such as obscenities and breaching experiments and let the IP know on the article talk pages. Go ahead and open that request for mediation - the worst that could happen is that they refuse to join. Perhaps the community will decide to ban this user and if that happens then wholesale reversion would be appropriate, but not until then. Respectfully, Durova 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

From Me

This is how nuts some statements have been:

Artkos says I havent responded in over two months. Can I ask then was that because I was hardly here?

Durova seems to think english is a second language for me. Why Durova. That one is funny. I call a spade a spade so know that one pretty well. I will talk anindilyawka in future and there may be less confusion. What is your first language Durova? I am a totally dyslexic typist lately though as one arm I injured a few months ago now types out of kilter with the other.

That aside, thanks for taking a look at this Durova. It has been amazingly feral and has stunned even me and that takes a lot to do. Lets hope it stops and that the clowns think about not doing it next time they line someone up to do this to. Bullying is not nice and usually bullies flounce off if pulled up. Wik has the potential to have some good articles happen but not if this sort of stuff is let wreck stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

If you believe other editors have "bullied" you, you should make a comment at the request for arbitration I filed. If the arbitration case is accepted, you will have an opportunity to present evidence. The arbitration committee looks at the conduct of all editors, so if they accept the case they will not only look at (what I believe is) your aggressive pursuit of your own point of view, including numerous personal attacks against other editors, but also at whether Wattle's decision to revert your comments was justified.

I am concerned about simply reverting your edits to talk pages; talking is what they are for. I understand his frustration, since you responded to my good faith attempt to understand the situation with name calling. If you read above you will note that I said you have a point of view that is a useful counterweight, but that you must work cooperatively with other editors. Wikipedia is not designed to be an adversarial process, and editors who treat it as such end up being unwelcome. Thatcher131 11:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Gang in Action

Anon Thought I let you know that the Anon returned but only stayed for a short time User:203.54.186.203‎. -- Bidgee 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

...and posting to the Village Pump now - Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals or this diff [2] if it's deleted. -- Longhair\talk 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) They're making a lot of noise tonight, which is a good thing. More eyes on the problem. Might be worthy to list at Wikipedia:Long term abuse seeing as your RfC hasn't gotten much of a response :( -- Longhair\talk 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ...and welcome to the RfC, 203.54.x.x - they've finally replied [3] -- Longhair\talk 09:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Enjoy your holiday - it's high time I had one myself actually. Sorry for hitting your talk page whilst on break (from my dialup connection here in my new home). Enjoy life - don't let your Wikipedia experiences ruin it for you. Speak upon your return. I'll document the experience meanwhile for you ;) -- Longhair\talk 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I'm looking at quitting and having all my edits as well as images removed from Wikipedia since people are treating the anon as the victim. -- Bidgee 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Good to see you back - I hope your trip away went well. Now onto the anon :) I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. The anon is simply playing Wikipedia like a fiddle. They can't be forced to create an account, so in my view, they're using that to their ultimate advantage, and simply gaming the system to cause disruption. I've tried playing by the rules here, but the rules are powerless against liars and fools such as this anonymous editor. My stand now in regards to them is that they can edit, not sign their posts, and disrupt as many other well meaning editors as they like, then finally something may be done about them when others wake up to what we've been dealing with for many months now. As the old saying goes, give them enough rope, they may very well hang themselves with it. Any edits from them I notice, I'm pretending I simply don't see. Some people get their kicks in weird ways - and quite frankly Wikipedia does little to reward good editors like yourself who tolerate crap like this for so long. The more disruption they cause for others, the quicker there may be a resolve. Sad, but true. Now back to some real editing, something we've both been distracted from for far too long. -- Longhair\talk 10:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I don't think it's a clear cut case of the community preferring one editor over another. It's the assume good faith dream at work here I think. Whilst I'm a believer of assuming good faith towards all editors, I can tell you now, any good faith I began to assume from that editor disappeared months ago. Go kick the side of the shed or something - it might help :) -- Longhair\talk 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Oh, one more thing; here's how I'm coping - I dropped the relevant articles from my watchlist (for now), and don't intend to even take a peak at what's going on. The temptation is hard to resist, but try it. Perhaps choose a random topic of interest and plough into that effort on the other side of the encyclopedia. Who knows, when you come back to the articles you've dropped, the dust might have settled, and a few others might have lost their cool with the anon just like we have, forcing them to either disappear, or change. -- Longhair\talk 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC) The Waldorf fire is stil burning - I lost my cool there as well and sent them off to mediation :) One can only take so much. I'd advise you to steer clear of that mess if you're feeling down... -- Longhair\talk 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Longhair, I wrote this to you last August, when you first entered the Waldorf debate: Thank you Longhair. You are definitely in for a challenge here as both sides of this issue have been at it for decades. I didn't assume you were singling me out in this. I appreciate how hard it will be to keep tempers on simmer instead of full boil. I appreciate the tip about diffs. Hopefully we won't have too many future problems as some of us are trying to iron out our differences (sometimes heatedly) on the discussion pages and not in the article. That has been a good first step. I'm hoping level heads will prevail here. --Pete K 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, don't say I didn't warn you <G>... Just know that you both are very appreciated - even by the people you have to occasionally spank with a newspaper. Have a good evening (or is it morning where you are?). --Pete K 01:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have warned them for the last time. -- Bidgee 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)