User talk:James4750

Archive1

RfD nomination of List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in Australia

I have nominated List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratings on animal attack articles

Heya, I really think your ratings on these articles are over-high. You might want to look at some pre-existing articles to get a feel for ratings - and it might be a good idea to get somebody with less involvement to rate them. --GenericBob (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I think that Animal attacks in Australia meets the six B-Class criteria. James4750 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You should *never* rate your own articles above C-class, and it's bad manners to rate them above Start-class. Even when contributors write articles which end up being ranked good or featured articles, they always rate them as Start then ask the project to rerate them to C/B and do a review before it goes to GA/FA. The entire reason for the rating system is to be an independent guide, and self-rating risks the credibility of the system. Orderinchaos 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay but other editors had added to it. James4750 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, an article that has citation problems in the first sentence that haven't been fixed in weeks is not at B-class. As it stands, it reads more like a scrap-book than an encyclopaedia entry; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I've held off on nominating it for deletion so far because I think there could be a worthwhile article on this topic, but it's not showing much sign of moving in that direction. If these issues aren't addressed soon, these articles are likely to be nominated for deletion en masse, either by me or by others. --GenericBob (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See what you mean. Have got rid of tables, galleries from the main article to make it look more encyclopedic. James4750 (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kangaroo attacks in Australia

Kangaroo attacks in Australia was speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article is a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate at articles for deletion, and subsequently endorsed by a deletion review. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Further instances of this behaviour may be regarded as disruptive and may result in a block. Thank you. Orderinchaos 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

the article was much larger than when it was originally nominated and when it was deleted. G4 says "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" which is not the case - it was twice as large as the one deleted. James4750 (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted at AfD which means the grounds were not solely article quality - i.e. a consensus of Wikipedia editors identified that the article should not exist. Deletion review, the avenue of appeal for this, has already been exhausted with the same outcome from a different bunch of people. Orderinchaos 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people vote to delete an early version of the article. Then people endorse their vote on an old version. I request you renominate the improved version for deletion, if that gets voted for deletion then fair enough, but give the improved version a chance. It includes references to the Supreme Court case I only found after it was deleted. James4750 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that at this point you're riding quite close to the patience line for a lot of people (creating a heap of articles based largely on WP:SYN then fighting to the death to keep them, even to the point of breaking policy to reinstate deleted ones, and meanwhile rating the articles as high importance and B- or C- class standard to a national project suggesting that you think you are bigger or more important than the project) and you should probably consider taking another tack on this stuff before you find yourself blocked for disruption. Orderinchaos 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The articles are not synthesis; there are reliable sources saying there have been animal attacks in Australia. It is not breaking policy to rewrite an article which has been deleted which is vastly improved from when it was nominated - especially when there were some keep/merge votes. The articles are of national significance since most people know about them - who in Australia doesn't know about the risk from crocodiles/snakes/sharks/spiders? James4750 (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please drop the wikilawyering. It is entirely against policy to resurrect an article which has been deleted at AfD and endorsed at DRV, especially such a short time after both actions (not even 2 weeks). Reading the AfD, the major problem was actually notability of the subject, not article quality concerns, and hence a redrafted article would be unlikely to meet the high bar required to override consensus actions of the community. I strongly suggest reading WP:NOT - this is an encyclopaedia, not a travel or how-to guide. Orderinchaos 12:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have recreated the redirect here, since the history needs to be preserved for attribution purposes (see WP:Merge and delete). However, the article was deleted after a valid deletion debate and endorsed at deletion review. I've full-protected the redirect accordingly. Chick Bowen 23:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Kangaroo attacks DYK

Thanks for contributing the article on kangaroo attacks. I nominated it to be featured at the Did you know (DYK) section of the Main Page; see T:TDYK#Kangaroo attacks. The hook I suggested was based on one of the few sentences in the article without references; could you add an inline cite to it to satisfy DYK requirements? Thanks, Ucucha 19:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S. I saw the above discussion and have no opinion on it; even if the article is featured at DYK, that will not protect it against possible deletion.)

Sorry, didn't notice that you already nominated it. Ucucha 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kangaroo attacks

A tag has been placed on Kangaroo attacks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AussieLegend (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, after looking at the versions, deleted this article as it is substantially the same as this version of the previous article. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Kangaroos in Canberra

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Kangaroos in Canberra. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Kangaroo, Canberra. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Kangaroo, Canberra - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. iBen^discuss 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Canberra Kangaroos

A tag has been placed on Canberra Kangaroos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bidgee (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

As it appears that this disruption will only continue if you are permitted to edit, and as it's clear from your recreation of the article under different names, each time after waiting several weeks after the "dust blows over", that you know what you are doing, and that you are being blatantly disruptive and tendentious. Therefore I have blocked you indefinitely.

I would be open to another admin reconsidering this block if the user agrees to refrain from recreating poorly-sourced, synthesised articles about alleged attacks by animals. Orderinchaos 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

James4750 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Kangaroos in Canberra was about the broader topic than the article deleted and had many references including from the ACT government. All of the below was new and not in the article deleted. I agree not to use poor sources, but this article was quite well sourced:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[Kangaroos in Canberra]] was about the broader topic than the article deleted and had many references including from the ACT government. All of the below was new and not in the article deleted. I agree not to use poor sources, but this article was quite well sourced: |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[Kangaroos in Canberra]] was about the broader topic than the article deleted and had many references including from the ACT government. All of the below was new and not in the article deleted. I agree not to use poor sources, but this article was quite well sourced: |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[Kangaroos in Canberra]] was about the broader topic than the article deleted and had many references including from the ACT government. All of the below was new and not in the article deleted. I agree not to use poor sources, but this article was quite well sourced: |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

An Eastern Grey Kangaroo in front of Government House, Canberra, the official residence of the Governor-General of Australia.

There are a large population of Kangaroos in Canberra and the surrounding area. Canberra, Australia's capital city, has one of the densest populations of Eastern Grey Kangaroo in the country with many kangaroos near urban areas. There have been several culls to control the population of kangaroos which have drawn international protesters and reporters, causing a media circus each time. There have been several attacks by kangaroos, including one which entered a house in the suburb of Garran in 2009.

Description

There is some evidence including numbers of vehicle accidents that the Australian Capital Territory has a very high density of kangaroos, even higher than surrounding New South Wales. Don Fletcher, a kangaroo researcher said in 2009 that Canberra is unique with no other city having so many kangaroos and people living together. It was reported in 1994 that one in three traffic accidents in Canberra was caused by kangaroos. In mid-1995 an ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee was established following issues with kangaroos in the ACT which had come to light during summer 1994-5. It was estimated in November 1995 there were 233 kangaroos per km² on nature reserves and 50 per km² on rural leases. In a 2008 survey, 17% of respondents had been involved in a collision of a vehicle with a kangaroo. Crashes with kangaroos cost at least $2.5 million in insurance claims in the ACT each year. It was reported by TIME magazine in April 2009 that 76% of Canberrans supported culling to control kangaroo population.

Culling

Even though millions of kangaroos are culled in Australia each year, the comparatively small number of kangaroo culls in the capital receive a large amount of attention as it makes a convenient place for foreign media and protesters to visit, unlike remote outback areas where many of the culls take place.

Canberra Nature Park 2009

Up to 550 kangaroos were culled in July 2009 in nature reserves around Canberra, at five sites: West Jerrabomberra Nature Reserve, East Jerrabomberra grasslands, Callum Brae Nature Reserve, Crace Grasslands Nature reserve and Kama South nature reserve. The culling was to protect the grassland habitats of several endangered animals and plants including the Golden Sun Moth and Striped Legless Lizard. The culling was protested by animal rights groups. Following the cull an animal welfare group threatened to lead an international tourism boycott, which was described as misguided by tourism minister Andrew Barr.

Majura Training Area 2009

Kangaroos were planned to be culled at the Majura Training Area with a kangaroo management plan released by the ACT government in March 2009 mentioning the Majura Training Area as one of the most significant grassland areas where kangaroos needed to be controlled. At the time kangaroos in Canberra were described by John Stanhope, the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, as being more numerous than any time in the past hundred years. In a media release the Department of Defence said the kangaroo numbers were three times the carrying capacity of the site at Majura. As evidence for the need to reduce kangaroo numbers, the defence department referred to the ACT Lowland Native Grasslands report which was released on 12 March. The report claimed a sustainable kangaroo density was one kangaroo per hectare, and culling was needed to reduce kangaroo numbers to this density. The report advised that the number of kangaroos needed to be reduced at the Majura Training Area, along with other locations. This report also mentioned the ACT State of the Environment Report 2007/08 which noted a 38% increase in the number of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos in the ACT between 2005-06 (563) to 2006-07 (777), and said that several grasslands were under threat from the overgrazing of kangaroos. The kangaroo attack on the house in Garran also raised calls for the cull.

Kangaroo culling began by the Department of Defence at the Majura Training Area on 5 May 2009. It was protested that the culling began in secret 6 days before final comments on the kangaroo management plan were due. The public was notified that the kangaroo culling had begun on 8 May, three days after it began, which was also protested. It was planned to shoot up to 7,000 kangaroos, however a court injunction was granted on 14 May to stop the culling after around 3,800 had already been killed. Animal Liberation New South Wales had complained that there had not been a scientific evalutation of the environment and had brought an application to the Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal decided on 22 June that culling could continue up until 31 July under several conditions including the Australian Federal Police needing to be notified before each culling operation and the kangaroos should be treated in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Humane Destruction of Kangaroos in the ACT.

Lawson, Belconnen 2008

The Belconnen Naval Transmitting Station in Lawson was demolished in 2006 where the kangaroo cull took place two years later.

It was believed kangaroos were overgrazing the grassland in the area of Lawson in the region of Belconnen. Development of the land into a nature reserve and for housing required the numbers of kangaroos to be reduced. Culling at the defence land had been proposed in May 2007 because the kangaroos were causing erosion due to over grazing, and endangering the gold sun moth and a local lizard species. The RSPCA advised the ACT government that the kangaroos needed to be killed to prevent them dying of starvation. It was originally planned to cull the kangaroos early in the year, but then the Defence Department backed down and decided to translocate the kangaroos to a different site. Translocation was later considered too expensive with the Federal Government withdrawing support for funding when quotes were received that it would cost $3.5 million to move them.

Killing pens and security fences were in place at the site by 9 March. The culling began on May 19, with the kangaroos herded into pens where they would not be as visible from media cameras. There were protesters at the site including local Aborigines. Eight aboriginal protesters were arrested when they climbed the fence to protest the cull. There were protesters from more than 25 countries who protested the cull. Paul McCartney also condemned the cull. Australian actress Fiona Corke joined in the protests. The Japanese media covered the Canberra cull and protests, and used it to criticise Australia's policy against whaling by Japanese fishermen. The kangaroos were killed with an injection of sodium pentobarbitone after being shot by tranquiliser darts. This is because they were located close to suburban areas so it would be unsafe to use bullets.

Googong dam 2004

Googong Dam

About 800 kangaroos were culled in the Googong Dam area in 2004, which is part of Canberra's water supply. The culling was said to be to stop pollution of the water supply during the drought. Culling began on 11 July, a week after a kangaroo attack where a woman's pet dog was killed.Protesters claim they were refused access to the dam to see evidence of the erosion. The protesters threatened to put themselves in the firing line to save the kangaroos. Activists spent several nights at the dam to try to stop the culling. On July 14 the ACT government postponed the cull for two days due to pressure from animal rights activists. Following the culling about 40 activists staged a funeral where they wore black and laid flowers at a kangaroo shaped tribute in the centre of the city.