User talk:Eyedubya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Paranoia or lack of experience?[edit]

It is fine to have previous admonishments and issues of help left on your talk page. They show an editor who is learning and who can be more easily trusted, so just to let you know that blanking your user talk page is also not good form Eyedubya - (everything can be found again anyway) - unless you are leaving Wikipedia?

I hadn't expected it to end up there in the first place. This is a bizarre new world to me. Yes, I wanted to see if anything could be erased, about onesself, by onesself that is, and clearly it can't, not that I mind. However, this does conjour up some new avenues of thought that hadn't occurred to me before about this virtual space and ideas about contemporary identities being supposedly so fluid - it seems that actually, this is a place where its harder to be anonymous than RL, the reverse of what most theorists seem to be saying. No matter what one does, the past is always there in one way or another to haunt you, and it can be rendered as clear as the day it was written. Everchanging, but also, more permanent than anything ever before, and far more social than I'd ever have imagined. Hmm. edited here byEyedubya 26 April 2007 (UTC)--VS talk 07:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I note your comments at my talk page regarding the issue below - and I provide the following record of my response to your edit as copied from my talk page ...


Crico at best Eyedubya is being cheeky - he has enough work to do in his own articles. At worst he is being rude using my talk page as his soapbox - I am going to assume that his edits are the former under WP:AGF but my discussions with you are private on this page and if he wants to discuss with your your edits then he should do so your talk page. (PS Keep up the good work on raising the standard of the Ashfield page.--VS talk 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No need to be sorry unless you do it again. If you want to discuss these things then it is correct to move away from private discussions between two editors and move your question to the article's talk page - sometimes that won't help but in many cases an editor interested in the topic (and hopefully the one that did the editing in the first place will respond). In terms of watching who and what - heck I can't answer that otherwise I will be exterminated .... (no seriously you can watch anything you want by adding it to your watchlist but be warned that's a great way of going absolutely insane) best to watch your own area of interest, build up some decent editing and learn the 'rules' as you go.--VS talk 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you're very generous, and patient. Eyedubya 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A little further help on references[edit]

Because I think you will probably turn out to be a great editor in the future - I provide you with little further help on reference which I hope you will also appreciate.
At the moment you are providing references in the following format: <ref>[HTML page]<ref/>, however if you use this format:
<ref name="WEBSITE NAME">{{cite web | url = XXX.html | title = WEBPAGE NAME | publisher = PUBLISHER NAME | accessdate = YYYY-MM-DD }}</ref> you will have a much more ideal reference and better yet on the next occassion you use it you can put this down (note the /) <ref name="WEBSITE NAME"/> and it will re-reference for you automatically. Try it I think you'll like it.--VS talk 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Information.png Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Sarah 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. No worries.Eyedubya 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Camberwell railway station[edit]

I have gone to some effort to explain to you what the problem is with making unsourced claims, refusing to cites sources when requested and injected point of view into articles. If you want to continue to add uncited material that is unacceptable and bury it in the middle of what you claim are valid edits, then you run the risk of losing "the baby with the bathwater." I've explained it to you. I've pointed you to the fundamental, cornerstone polices which support removing uncourced material and I'm not going to waste anymore time on this. So either cite your sources as required by policy or run the risk of losing the baby. Sarah 08:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I reverted some of your edits earlier today because you inserted a whole lot of internal wikilinks which were not valid. Most links for Australian suburbs, streets, etc require disambiguating, otherwise they go to the article on a foreign street/subusrb/etc of the same name, usually in England or the US. You may like to be careful of this and ensure that the links are pointing where you intend them to because this is a problem which is only going to confuse readers. The relevant help page is Help:Contents/Links. And biography links are titled [[First name Last name]] as in John Smith. If there is already an article for someone else of the same name at that location, we add a qualifier such as (artist) at the end of the name: [[First name Last name (qualifier)]] and in the article you would format it as follows: [[First name Last name (qualifier)|First name Last name]]. Putting the qualifier at the start of the name is not an appropriate way to link to articles or format article titles. Thanks, Sarah 08:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple comments, but I just learned of your replies to me earlier today. I just want to respond to a couple of your comments.

A: I will provide sources when I have time (see your comment above about life in RL) --Eyedubya
That's absolutely fine. And when you find a reliable source that states there is local prejudice against any particular minority group, and that this is what Mr Humphries was referring to in his poem, then, you can add it to the article. Sarah 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Time. Its buried in a file in my office somewhere. Hardcopy only.
Hardcopy is fine, as long as it is verifiable and meets standards for reliable sources, and that is a high standard for the claim that people in that suburb are prejudiced against a particular minority group. A vanity publication or a MA thesis will not cut it for that claim. Sarah 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm talking about coverage of the rally by The Age. There are papers presented at academic conferences in Australia about this kind of thing - do they count, or does it have to be something from the popular press? After all academic standards for MA theses are pretty much the same as for conference papers. I don't know what a vanity publication is - please explain. Thanks sorting out the publication details on Sydney Road, I was thinking the same myself about that one, but you got there first. Cheers.Eyedubya 10:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
PS Are you referring to WP:V#SELF? wrt 'vanity publications'? I note under certain circumstances such material is acceptable - yes?Eyedubya 10:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
PPS 2 references now added to the CRS entry, one from two well-known Australian academics writing about the broader cultural issues related to Melbourne 2030 that references CRS (though they get their facts wrong, never mind) and another from an internationally-known Austalian academic (who has been listed on WP for quite some time now) writing about the local specifics of the Camberwell case. The first is an OpEd piece from the Age, the latter from the proceedings of a national conference on Australian cities, reporting on research funded by the Australian Research Council. Neither of these are the hardcopy I was intending to put up, but they are available on the web. Please let me know if you are still not satisfied and I will see what I can do. (Yes, I know, I could cite the actual pages I got the quote from ... time, time, time, I'm still finding it hard to remember all the tricks for doing that stuff).Eyedubya 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A very wise policy indeed. However, the discretion is therefore with those wishing to remove content, which is my question again: why have you chosen to exercise your considerable discretion on this occasion, but not previously when the errors were more egregious, potnetially vilifying even --Eyedubya

Obviously, I was not aware of those prior problems. There are over one million articles on the English Wikipedia, asking me why I haven't fixed prior problems in any one of them is quite ridiculous. I've already explained repeatedly why I removed your edits. They were unsourced and contained policy problems (policies already pointed to: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR). Sarah 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you and other 'specialists' only have a responsibility for a small segment of those million plus articles, right? And Melbourne stuff is your thing - and its mine too, only I'm not up to joining the specialist team yet, I can see that.
No, I'm not a "specialist" and I'm not designated responsibility for a small segment of articles. I currently have 8,351 articles on my watchlist but any article on Wikipedia is the responsibility of any and all admins. We aren't assigned particular areas to monitor or whatever. As far as these particular articles go, some I had not read before, had not edited before or had only reverted vandalism to them. For example, have a look at the history of the Camberwell railway station article: [1] and you will see that my first edit ever to that article was reverting you. I don't think it's fair to try to hold me responsible for false or incorrect information in an articles unless I was the one who added it, and certainly not on articles I have never even touched before. If you want to know why the incorrect information regarding Barry Humphries was added to the C'well station article, you'll have to ask the person who added it and it appears to have been added by User:Rebecca on 14 August 2004. [2]. That was a year before I was even a registered user here. After more than two years, though, she most likely won't be able to remember where she got the information from, which is one of the reasons why sourcing and verifying information is so important. Sarah 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, I agree. I did notice that there was quite a time lag between the events of 2003 and that stuff finding itself onto WP in the first place. Perhaps that's why the errors happened. no matter, lets all move on. Eyedubya 10:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"...The only kind of person who would argue that Government policy is 'POV' and irrelevant is someone who deeply engaged in the local resistance with a specific perspective related to a vested interest, however genuine and heartfelt that is. Eyedubya 07:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"

If you are suggesting I am involved in some sort of "local resistance" group or something, LOL, I am simply trying to do my job and ensure that your edits conform to policy and get you to cite sources for your material. And I might add that one might also wonder if a person so intent on injecting POV claims and opinions into articles has a vested interest. Thanks, Sarah 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No suggestion of the kind - I was just saying how it might look to others, that's all. :) It says as much in WP on edit war. No harm done. I'll admit to a vested interest - quality articles.Eyedubya 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't think many people would seriously believe that I have a vested interest in pushing some sort of local resistance group POV. I think that, after a quick look at my work here, they would very quickly realise that I am simply concerned with sourcing NPOV, encyclopedic material. Sarah 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not - I get the impression the WP community is like any other group of people, a few good buds, maybe a few enemies, seems just like RL really, so you never know, do you?. Eyedubya 10:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Eyedubya, I think you had a point on Talk:Camberwell railway station, Melbourne (well, before it was erased...) that Sarah's perhaps could've handled this situation differently. Often Wikipedia editors (this includes you) will use a {{fact}} tag after a sentence or paragraph of text that they believe requires a citation. For Sarah, this may have been an option, rather than reverting back to the original text - which sounds like it also required citation(s). Either way, I think you understand that no harm was intended by her.

You may have already read Wikipedia:Citing sources by now, but Template:Fact might also be worth a look.

I tend to think that the number of articles lacking citations for important things is one of Wikipedia's bigger problems, and probably the hardest to fix. And even when sources are cited, they can often be difficult to track down at a later stage, eg. a newspaper's web page disappears. --ozzmosis 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No material from the talk page was "erased". The discussion was transplanted here, as was made plain in the edit summary, because it was a discussion regarding policy between a new person (who I might add was, at that point, identifying themselves as a "regular user of Wikipedia" who understood our sourcing policies and therefore received a little less patience that they would have as a new person) and an admin. Sarah 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Eyedubya, thanks for adding references and links today to those various articles. That's great. Sarah 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, its been fun. Eyedubya 10:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Barricade Books[edit]

  • Eyedubya your ideas on notability are quaint but incorrect. Here's what Wikipedia is not and it certainly is not a soapbox - indeed this line you are running about everything being a conspiracy is getting to be silly especially when I and others have given you many links to the guidelines and if you chose to read them and do a search through wiki on controversial subjects then you would see there is no censorship. However you just have to follow the guidelines and be prepared for editors to come in and pick you up on errors that you make. If you can't stand that sort of dynamic environment then you are in the wrong place.--VS talk 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
SoleteRayosÑajo.gif Very amusing - thank you - and glad to hear that you are learning. Now you just need to learn as has already been pointed out to you, that just because a single set of inconsistencies (yours) are found and considered, whilst others are not (given the size of the jungle) that that does not mean that there are deliberate inconsistencies in application, or a need to chop the guidelines asunder based on wordy rhetoric. (Indeed if you agree with our interpretation of the rules but feel despondent because others are not so treated - then Wiki gladly extends to you the right to act similarly to the edits of others - because our goal is to create an on-line, verifiable, encyclopedia) So before you rise so verbosely to the reasonable chagrin of your fellow editors - Let me make this abundantlyclear I absolutely welcome you to the kitchen and invite you to stir the pot, but first read up on the guidelines of the kitchen, so that you do not burn your fingers so often, and so you assist us in adding some legitimate ingredients to this recipe (edits and articles) that to date contains 1.7 million different such items and which simmers delicately now for several years.--VS talk 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
PS My generosity towards you will absolutely continue unless you totally breach WP:Civility. Quite simply ask and I will assist in whatever way I can, even at times without you liking the answer. However please if you could make your questions less wordy that will allow both of us to get on with useful and correct editing. If on the other hand you feel the need to argue against the established order of things (and in many cases that may be needed) - then there are pages for each area of concern that you have expressed over the last couple of days. I will be happy to point you in the right direction. Keep editing!--VS talk 06:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems happy to help. Go to the talk pages at WP:NN, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV & WP:RS. I suggest you read through the archives because you will find links to the almost uncountable discussions by editors over the years as they hashed out policies and guidelines. You'll be able to see where your specific questions were answered and if not - then go to the bottom of the latest talk page and put your suggestion for changes up. I am sure you will get a response from fellow editors that either disagree or agree with your views. And in the event that one of your suggestions reaches critical mass you will discover that there is a strange sort of democracy here where those suggestions are put up for what is referred to as an !vote. Good luck.--VS talk 08:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again.Eyedubya 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think a reasonable case can be made out that Barricade Books was notable with secondary verifiable sources. I have attended the Brunswick Library and have references for 5 articles (Some photographed) in the Moreland Sentinel from July 1995 to February 1996 regarding the neo-nazi attack on Barricade Books and the subsequent campaign against the neo-nazis which people at Barricade Books were involved in. I am sure there are more articles re Barricade after Feb 96 but haven't been able to chase them up yet. To complete the sources it really needs the reference to the Age article from mid July 1995. This isn't online so will need a search at the State Library or other institution with access to the Age archive. Can you help?--Takver 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

At present I don't have a lot of time to do searches at SLV, nice though the (nowadays not so) new reading room is. However, there's another approach I'm working on. On the Sydney Road article I've started a section titled 'notable institutions' or words to that effect, and I'm thinking stuff on places like Barricades could there, along with something about the Radical Women/Freedom Socialist Party - I've put a one-liner about them into the page several times, and someone has edited it out quickly every time without explanation. My one-liner has been linked to the WP page on FSP and RW, which you'd think might be enough for some in notability terms - after all, how many other places have bases for such groups in their shopping strip? None in Melbourne as far as I know. As the 'unsourced' statement on Sydney Road says, its a place of radical politics. Such a statement needs elaborating - are we to assume the 'average' reader of WP knows what 'radical politics' means without some specific instances of it? To let it just hang there without expansion is less than informative, it merely reinforces mainstream views about bogeypeople and stuff. So, such elucidation is something that can be done, given that in addition to the 'institutions' so far listed, there are a number of other organisations of a radical nature along there yet to be listed, and many if not most of those have been the subject of media coverage.

The other thing was a section on multiculturalism in Sydney Road that I put up last week and was rv'd by user:Sarah (if I recall correctly) on policy grounds (see history). While its true it didn't contain any sources at the time, such sources are available. And this could be expanded into a longer piece dealing with the history of contestations in Sydeny Road, as covered in Laura Donati's history of the strip. This section would be a good place for the stuff about Barricade books being subjected to Nazi attacks, because there were other anti-Nazi rallies in Sydney Road at the same time that ought to be recorded on WP, and for which there is evidence from local newspapers - again, I don't have time right now, but the Brunswick Community History Group database at Brunswick Library has access to it, if you're able to get there. Cheers. Eyedubya 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

April 2007[edit]


Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Save Our Suburbs, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Coren 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another section break[edit]

I'm just moving this to a new section because it was starting to get messy.

Hardcopy is fine, as long as it is verifiable and meets standards for reliable sources, and that is a high standard for the claim that people in that suburb are prejudiced against a particular minority group. A vanity publication or a MA thesis will not cut it for that claim. Sarah 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking about coverage of the rally by The Age. There are papers presented at academic conferences in Australia about this kind of thing - do they count, or does it have to be something from the popular press? After all academic standards for MA theses are pretty much the same as for conference papers. I don't know what a vanity publication is - please explain. Thanks sorting out the publication details on Sydney Road, I was thinking the same myself about that one, but you got there first. Cheers.Eyedubya 10:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
PS Are you referring to WP:V#SELF? wrt 'vanity publications'? I note under certain circumstances such material is acceptable - yes?Eyedubya 10:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
PPS 2 references now added to the CRS entry, one from two well-known Australian academics writing about the broader cultural issues related to Melbourne 2030 that references CRS (though they get their facts wrong, never mind) and another from an internationally-known Austalian academic (who has been listed on WP for quite some time now) writing about the local specifics of the Camberwell case. The first is an OpEd piece from the Age, the latter from the proceedings of a national conference on Australian cities, reporting on research funded by the Australian Research Council. Neither of these are the hardcopy I was intending to put up, but they are available on the web. Please let me know if you are still not satisfied and I will see what I can do. (Yes, I know, I could cite the actual pages I got the quote from ... time, time, time, I'm still finding it hard to remember all the tricks for doing that stuff).Eyedubya 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Age is fine to use. I haven't looked at your recent edits to the CRS article or the op-ed piece you mentioned, so this a general comment and not specifically about the article you found, but you need to be careful with op-eds. Most editorials from the major newspapers are okay to use but it depends on who the writer is, how it has been written and how you intend to use it. We have to be careful that we maintain a neutral point of view and don't use op-eds to slant the article.

A vanity publication is a publication that the writer has paid to have published, usually through "vanity publishers" which are publishing companies that specialise in publishing anything as long as the writer coughs up. Of course, some vanity publications have valid material, but they generally aren't considered reliable sources. Yes, they come under WP:V#SELF and yes, under certain circumstances they are acceptable but usually not. No, reliable sources don't have to be from the popular press. Academic papers are really considered on a case-by-case basis, favouring papers that have been peer-reviewed or subject to some sort of editorial oversight and academics who are well known and writing in their area of expertise. Sarah 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I chose two references by people who are experts in their fields and that offer differing points of view for precisely those reasons - readers can make up their own minds if they bother to read them.Eyedubya 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neighbourhood character[edit]

Hey there. I wasn't looking for sources to specific statements, just sources for the general concept, which your references did a pretty good job of establishing. Happy editing! Coren 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

change the main heading[edit]

For changing the main heading you must move the article. The former name will be redirected to the target article, and you can nominate it for deletion deletion per WP:CSD#R3 by adding {{db-redirtypo}} in the former article. Rjgodoy 02:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing an article's title[edit]

I noticed that you created Autombile dependency, saw your typo, couldn't figure out how to change the title, blanked that page, and created a new page with the right article title at Automobile dependency. To change an article's title, click on "Move" at the top of the page, and then you can type the new title. You can read more about it at Help:Moving a page. Thanks! Mysdaao 02:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mees[edit]

Good job. Notability is established, and I've removed the tags. I also did a little Wikification and cleanup, and then added some categories. Realkyhick 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Goad[edit]

Hiya. My question is whether Mr. Goad satisfies the primary wiki criterion: "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." or other criteria of WP:NN. I want to make it clear to you that I'm not saying Mr. Goad is not notable, just that there may be a question. His position at the University of Melbourne probably doesn't qualify. I'm less sure of his position at the Royal Institute. Anyway, I'm have no intention of nominating this article for deletion. Hopefully the issue will be resolved one way or the other by someone else. If you can find any news articles about the individual, it would clarify the issue greatly. Thanks. CitiCat 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear I may be being obtuse, and if so, I apologize. The MUP article seems to be a piece written by Mr. Goad, not about him. And the ABC page seems to be a TV show he hosted. Of course, if he has been a TV host, that could be something notable worth putting in the article. Again, the reason for the tag is to have the subject's notability more clearly stated in the article. If you want, I'll take the tag down, but the article as written may not satisfy notability, and someone else may list it at wp:afd. All I'm suggesting is that you might want to clarify the subject's accomplishments in the article. Then again, you may not. CitiCat 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for dealing with anon vandals[edit]

Howdy - few days no speak - you seem to be enjoying things around here. I note that you reverted a silly vandalism edit by User talk: and I thought I'd tell you that one way of dealing with these anon editors (partly because it shows we are watching, partly because they might turn, partly because you might be dealing with a shared school or other IP, and partly so that there is a record of action) is to put the following directly on their talk page {{subst:Welcome-anon-vandal}}. This template opens up and signs your name as well as welcoming and warning at the same time. Have a look and you will see that I have done so on the vandal you reverted. Cheers!--VS talk 11:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Eyedubya 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

racism talk[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up. But for future reference, most people who comment on talk pages have it on their watchlist so they are automatically notified of updates. But it's still generous of you, and thank you for letting me know you're new around Wikipedia as well. VanTucky 00:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter Corrigan[edit]

It's better now. It had no references before, so there was nothing preventing it from being nominated for deletion.--Grahamec 03:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

A somewhat belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eyedubya. I hope you are having an enjoyable time in writing and editing articles. I realise that it takes a while to get your mind around all the conventions and guidelines on Wikipedia so I thought I would bring to your attention a couple of points regarding comments on Talk Pages. One is the convention to Start new topics at the bottom of the page and the other is the use of CAPITAL LETTERS which is considered as SHOUTING. You might want to check out those Talk Page Guidelines. Regards, - Cuddy Wifter 07:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the tips, mate! I'll do my best to oblige.Eyedubya 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


I'd rather email you this then to type it here. If I can. - Jeeny Talk 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC) You don't accept emails, so I'll put back what I wrote:

Hi, got your message and understand. I guess I was using my own personal experience, as the first sentence read to me; "any form of bigotry, prejudice, etc, etc, is racist". I was going to write a whole essay on why I feel the "any" in that sentence sends the wrong message, but I'll try to be brief. Although that is very hard for me to do, with subjects as complicated as this. I do, though, agree with the definition of the term later in the article cited by Oxford's. I'll try to explain as briefly as possible. Ugh.

OK... I use the term "racist" for a specific individual or group who judges solely based on their race as being better than another AND with malice towards the other AND will not allow a new thought about the other to enter their minds. My father is/was a bigot, he has since been educated, but was never a racist. I have experienced racism from both white and black "races". My heart is still broken because of racism. That is the evil of racism, and it's effect on others. Many have experienced much worse than I. I can deal with bigotry, although it pisses me off. I was once spit in the face by a person who did not know me or anything about me, except for the fact that my son was of mixed race. That, to me, is a racist -- and he lived next door to me and would never want to get to know me or let his child play with mine. (Nor did I want to know him, I knew enough! I was prejudiced toward him! (not his child) nor did I hate his race.). He is/was a racist, bringing up another potential racist. That is only one example.

I have friends of all "races" who do not like a certain group who happen to be of a certain race, but has no problem with others of the same race, and would say things like "why can't they be like, blah blah blah. That is bigotry, or prejudice, not racist -- to me, anyway. Fear is the basis, or the ignorance, for if they knew better, they would change their mind of that "group" to something more positive. There's a me. OK, not so brief, so I'll end here with -- I hate racism. :) - Jeeny Talk 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I've moved this here so interested observers can follow the thread. I'm not sure I agree that what you're calling non-racist bigotry is really as non-racist as you suggest. If someone doesn't like person A (who happens to have brown skin and jetblack hair), and says 'why can't person A be more like person B' (who also happens to have brown skin and jetblack hair), then the principle seems to be a racial one - i.e. person A and person B are only being compared because they share some superficial physical trait - i.e. a racial characteristic. The principle underlying your 'non-racist' bigot's comments is: if people share physical characteristics (i.e. if they are of the same 'race') then they should be the same. Furthermore, such a person assumes the right to make such judgments about how others should behave on the basis of racial characteristics - and promotes a rather assimilationist view - i.e. people from other 'races' are OK if they behave in accordance with their standards, and not OK if they don't. Eyedubya 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right, good point. But, I used the "why couldn't they be like, blah, blah" -- but that is not what they say, I couldn't think of anything specific so I wrote that. But that was not a good example of why I believe it is not racism. It was the behavior of the group, not the group's color.<sigh> I couldn't explain better without taking about another thousand words. Sorry. Bigotry does not always have to do with race, neither does prejudice. I won't give examples, because I can't keep it short. Cheers! - Jeeny Talk 15:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ps: do not move the conversation so "interested observers" can follow it to MY page. Use your own. I've moved it where it belongs.. - Jeeny Talk 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it is necessarily bigoted to dislike certain forms of behaviour - after all, there is a group of people who practice racist behaviour. Is it bigoted to dislike them? Eyedubya 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, perhaps - by their definition, but I don't care. lol. I am prejudiced against racists. Am I a bigot? I guess so, by my definition. :) I saw the "new message" sign a bit ago, clicked it, and saw no new headings. I had feelings of dread. I slowly scrolled down, and after reading your response -- partly out of relief, along with your comment, I laughed out loud and scared the cat. :) - Jeeny Talk 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hope your cat doesn't have prejudices against people who laugh at computer monitors. Eyedubya 06:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
lol, the one I startled is black and very old (19), and the other one does not like him. :( She is gray and is just grumpy, not racist or ageist. :/ They both love me though. - Jeeny Talk 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Brunswick South Primary School[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Brunswick South Primary School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - Tiswas(t) 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. It's possible to put forward your views (as to why the article ought not be deleted) here - Tiswas(t) 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Please stop vandalising the yoghurt talk page, this is the second time you have done so and once again you have been reverted.danielfolsom 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when has altering the title of something to more accurately reflect its content constituted vandalism? There's an irony in this of course.Eyedubya 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You're altering the title to a "joke" as you said - regardless of how famous, it's still vandalism.danielfolsom 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I said I was making a reference to a joke, not making the title a joke - a subtle but important difference. The title 'Name of article' does not reflect the content of the discussion. The discussion isn't about the spelling of the word yog(h)urt anymore. The discussion is about the actions and ethics of editors and such like.Eyedubya 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't care whether you were making a reference, the title change was A)Not what the original user posted, and B)Obviously vandalism as you were changing a heading to voice your opinion. Ask almost any other person and they will agree that changing the headings on Mainspace talk pages is vandalism. Of course if you don't believe me and you continue to change the title I could always head over to WP:AIV and you'd be blocked, but I don't want to do that, I think that you know that you vandalized the talk page and you're just to defensive to admit it.danielfolsom 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't regard altering the title of a section in a talk page to reflect its content as vandalism, no. The discussion is not about the name of the article, it is about the fact that someone closed down a discussion about the name of the article. I can see we're going to differ on this one, and since you have far more invested in this than I do, I'll abide by your request to not change the title of that section again. Eyedubya 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft ASWC[edit]

The Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre (ASWC) offers a safe and welcoming space for asylum seekers in Victoria, Australia, most of whom are ineligible to access the services of mainstream migrant services such as Migrant Resource Centres. The ASWC is located in the inner-city suburb of Brunswick, located behind the St Andrews Uniting Church, at the corner of Sydney Road and Merri Street. The ASWC was established in mid 2002 and is a not for profit organisation, run by volunteers. Its primary function is to provide information and referrals to asylum seekers, thus facilitating a range of linkages to community and other services related to all aspects of asylum seekers’ situation. The formation of the ASWC was an outcome of the Refugee Forum hosted by Moreland City Council on 27 September 2001 in partnership with Amnesty International[1].

The ASWC is one of a small number of services in Melbourne that provide a safe and welcoming place for asylum seekers in the metropolitan area, the others being Foundation House (also in Brunswick), the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (North Melbourne), Brigidine Asylum Seekers' Project (Albert Park) and The Asylum Seekers Centre (Dandenong). It also aims to raise public awareness of the needs and issues facing such people. The only service dedicated to asylum seekers' needs in Sydney is the Asylum Seekers Centre[2].

See also[edit]


External links[edit]

Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre[edit]

Hi, Eyedubya. I have clsed the AfD on Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre by moving it to your user sub-space, at User:Eyedubya\Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre. Because it looks like it has the potential to become a good general article, and some editors said so there.

As just another editor, I would suggest that you flip the text around - general concept first, particular cases, like this and the other, in another section(s) - move it back to article space, and turn the red links into redirects to it. Enjoy! - Nabla 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice and my clouded reason[edit]


Regarding the recent AfD that we recently both participated in, I just wanted to leave you a note that I did not appreciate the comments in the debate and on my talk page that "prejudiced against (that) kind of organisation". Given that my opinion on deleting the page was solely based on procedural grounds, I believe that it was inappropriate of you to make such a comment, which could be interpreted as insinuating that I'm a racist or that I have a bias against asylum seekers. Incidental as it might be to the matter at hand, I assure you that that is not the case.

I'm not fishing for an apology, and I have no intentions of taking this any further, but please try to keep a cool head when you're getting involved in AfD discussions. I know that the procedure can be stressful, particularly when the target is a cause that you're deeply involved in and care a lot about, but losing your cool rarely produces a good result for anyone.

Best wishes, Lankiveil 10:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the suggestion that others have made regarding making this an article on these centres in general, is an idea that you should consider, if good sources can be found. I'd be willing to assist you with doing this, if you like. Lankiveil 10:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC).
As stated in the AfD Discussion, I agree with the suggestion to create a more generic kind of article about these servcies. Its very generous of you to offer your help, and I'll be grateful for whatever you can do for the article. On the matter of my 'ownership' of this article, I'd like to clarify that I'm not at all as deeply involved as you suggest, in fact, I'm not involved with any of the orgs at all. But I do care about the issues and the work they do, but I'm no expert. I'll be taking a break for the next week and bit, so please feel free to make whatever edits you feel appropriate to move the article in the direction you feel it should go. And sorry for any offence. A cooler head would be a good idea, I'm sure! Cheers, Eyedubya 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup 6[edit]

Hi. This is just a reminder to Wikipedeans that the next Melbourne meetup has been arranged for 19 June. I would be pleased if you could indicate on the meetup page your likely attendence, or otherwise. Regards. - Cuddy Wifter 05:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Necropolis, Springvale[edit]

My thinking when I placed the template was that notability tends to require multiple sources. I'm not married to the template being there, though. If you really don't think it's appropriate, feel free to remove it. Erechtheus 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you would check out the article on White people and comment on this discussion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Whilst i appreciate your comments on this AfD it is slightly misleading to make comments, and with each comment bold the word Keep at the start, it gives the impression that it is another user who is giving the vote. You have done this on no less than four occassions in this AfD. Might i suggest that you de-bold three of them, and keep one bolded as to make sure that the user closing the debate does not get mislead. Thanks alot. Twenty Years 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the multiple keeps that you had posted. I have removed the notes the discussion closer, and i think you should too. Thanks for being so understanding. Twenty Years 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're after here, as the page looks pretty much the same as I left it. In any event, its to be hoped that discussion closers make their decisions based on the quality of the arguments posted, not just a simple subtracting of the deletes from the keeps. Eyedubya 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That is basically what happens, althought it is claimed differently, hence why i spoke up at the start. thanks for understanding. Twenty Years 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Twenty Years 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007[edit]

Please do not exercise bad faith, like you did with this edit. Accusations of canvassing are taken very seriously on wikipeda. Please exercise good faith at all times. Any further breaches of no personal attacks may result in you being blocked from wikipedia. Thank you Twenty Years 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that was bad faith at all, and certainly not a personal attack. Eyedubya 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Brunswick South Primary School[edit]

Thanks for your message. I would prefer to keep discussion to the one place - at the AfD and I have replied there. I don't think we are likely to find any common ground on this one but I am impressed by the work you have put in to preventing this article from being deleted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You said you had a copy of the Eckersall book. Now, I am hoping you arent lying, and could come good with some page references. I have tried to reference the article as best as possible with the limited number we have. The book is the key to getting this article up to a good standard. By simply providing a page reference for all claims made in the history section, this article could easily get to B-Class and possibly GA-class. Ive referenced the campus section. Thanks. Twenty Years 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm not lying! But I don't have a lot of time to do that kind of referencing work right now. If you contact the school, I'm sure they'll be only too happy to send you a copy and you can do it yourself if you feel the need to get it done so quickly. I don't quite have the ambition to go for these article status enhancements that some others do, at least not while I have other more pressing things to work on. But I appreciate the change in attitude on your part. Eyedubya 04:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that means my first assessment will have been correct, oh well. Twenty Years 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Your assessment of what? Eyedubya 13:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

headers in AfD's[edit]

Hey, just to let you know, we don't put headers in AfD's like that unless they are too long. In that case we use section one... two... three... so on and so forth, not one for every opinion. Just to let you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why's that? I noticed that after I put the headers in, the formatting was adjusted a bit by others, and one or two commented that they liked it. Anyway, one of the main reasons I put the headers in was to break up a threaded discussion that was getting long and convoluted and hard to follow - and even harder to edit. Eyedubya 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re AFD[edit]

That format was never followed, many people in IRC started to complain about that, and it's fairly annoying for people who goes to the main AFD page fot that day, with all those subheadings. When the debate is lomg, consensus is to add section breaks, not a million subheadings. Thanks This is a Secret account 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WIth respect, a million is a gross exaggeration. Other editors have said they prefer it the way it has been re-worked. Your argument is about a tradition, not a principle. Cheers. Eyedubya 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Sections are only used in AFD when discussion is extremely long, every 50 comments or so. Not 1 for each opinion, it makes the table of contents a mess and low level section headings look very similar to the bold text used to mark a comment. Also note that you don't have to write comment before every comment you make, especially if it is indented. Mr.Z-man 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Brunswick South Primary School[edit]

With the book, can you confirm that all information in the history section of the article is true, so it can be referenced accordingly? Twenty Years 13:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no good reason to doubt the veracity of the book. It looks like a well-researched piece of work, by a professional historian. However, as you well know, veracity isn't actually what WP is interested in, only verifiability - i.e that something on WP was written somewhere else first and can be verified as having been said by a third party and not the orginal research of a WP editor. That said, the way the book has been written suggests that, within the usual limits of historical epistemology, the book is 'true'. Eyedubya 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • So all events that are stated in the history are true? Twenty Years 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I believe they are. Don't you? Eyedubya 13:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Corey Delaney Worthington[edit]

The discussion at DRV brings up a lot of good points, and I couldn't care less if we had an article about this kid or not. I suppose that it could be written well, with proper references and so forth. There's some vestiges of notability. The problem is that for the time being, the article failed an AfD (technically two), and other people have been recreating the article (or versions of it). Until a decision comes out of DRV, it can stay a red link for a little while, and I think that extends to linking to it as well. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


As I posted in my edit summary, I checked the Global city article before reverting your edits. I specifically looked at General characteristics which provides a number of characteristics of a global city. Your conclusion, ie "This concentration of financial services and transportation links with the rest of the world makes Sydney Australia's primary Global City" concentrates on only two of the characteristics, implying that these are the sole, or at least the main, reasons for Sydney being a global city, which doesn't seem to be the case based on an examination of the global city article's references. The conclusion is also uncited. These together make the conclusion appear to be WP:OR.

It's probably also worth pointing out that the article's introduction should be a brief overview of the article so any reference to Sydney being a global city should also be brief and expanded on elsewhere in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this is why I suggested in my note to you a revised, brief form of wording for the intro para that acknowledges that while Sydney is a 'global city', it may not be the only or even the primary one in Australia depending on which indicator one uses, though I'd use the link to Global city rather than go into even that much detail. For mine, the reference to the term is sufficient - those with more interest in the topic for Sydney's sake may wish to elaborate within the Sydney article. Eyedubya (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfc Skyring[edit]

I am also unfamiliar with this level of dispute resolution on Wikipedia and so I only hope that it is the right thing to do in the circumstance. As a certifying editor, you might want to modify or add to in some way the statement of dispute. I think it is important to keep in mind that this is a dispute about behaviour i.e. process, rather than content. I will have limited time to pay too much attention to it for the moment but will try and do what I can. Wm (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eyedubya. I wanted to ask you about the comment you left on the Skyring RfC Talk Page. You said you were displeased with my comment because of information imported from elsewhere. Were you referring to the mention of a previous Arbcom dispute? Due to comments from yourself and user:Sarah, I have removed text about the previous Arbcom. Are there still parts of my comment that seem unreasonable? Regards, Lester 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Urban studies and planning[edit]

I notice that you are adding some articles to Category:Urban studies and planning after I recategorised them under Category:Urban planning in Australia. I am attempting to get Category:Urban studies and planning down to a manageable number of entries and also now the I have created Category:Urban planning in Australia it does not need to be in the higher level cat. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please explain! (and please replace)[edit]

User pages use a subpage structure (see Wikipedia:Subpages). The software only recognizes subpages as pages following a / in certain namespaces. (Which is why things like talk page archives are always /Archive_1, /Archive_2, etc.) Thus, your page wasn't in your user space, but was in fact floating in the user namespace. If you would like it restored, please let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


When I first began to notice you, when you first began to be personally obnoxious, the chimes of memory began. "I know this guy!" I said to myself. A phrase, a certain manner of posting, an attitude. Nothing you can put your finger on, like a fingerprint, but it all adds up.

Speaking as someone who's run a few socks in my time, it's difficult to keep it all straight. Eventually you make a mistake. Nobody might notice it at first, but it's there, and on Wikipedia, it remains there until some clever little bastard goes looking for it. It's easier when you have an eyedear of who is running the sock - all the clues become a bit more visible.

In your case, I thought of a person with a reason to hate me - believe it or not, but there's not that many - and I thought of a significant wikievent connected to that person and then, when I looked at your first posts, and the first entries on your talkpage, the dates gave it away and the scam became evident. Good work, but as with any artifice, a little tugging and things start pulling loose.

I'm intending to make a case against you for wikistalking, and inevitably your identity will be uncovered as I assemble the evidence and it is discussed, so I'd just like to ask if there's any other way we can work this out. A way that isn't disruptive, enables you to return to good solid work if you wish, and is for the good of all. --Pete (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


One of your recent edit summaries suggested that 'leads are not good places for citations' - (and that is how the guideline read when I first was directed there), however, consensus has changed so that the guidelines for lead sections follow the rest of Wikipedia content - comments should be sourced. WP:LEAD#Citations TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I missed that you had also commented on the talk page. Lets see what we can do to make the article clearer and stronger. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


I was looking down the list of include/exclude on the John Howard Talk page, and can't see your name there. Did you have an opinion on this? Lester 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eyedubya. The mediation on the JH Obama issue doesn't stop you from editing the John Howard article. I'm wondering if I have done the right thing by requesting mediation. My impression is that some other editors may be against it. We had a huge edit war, we had a talk page that was out of hand. Following standard Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, I asked for a Request for Comment. That seemed to fail, as nobody took any notice of the newcomers' comments. The talk page was still out of hand. It seemed like the right thing to ask for mediation, so that a mediator would keep the discussion civil and focused, and everyone gets a chance for their views to be heard. Then, after the RfM was submitted, some have suggested that it should be just between myself and Skyring(Pete). It doesn't make sense to me to reduce the RfM to two people, as everyone should have a say on this. BTW, I don't have a personal issue with Skyring. I only want to discuss the content and the methods people use to resolve content disputes (eg edit war Vs discussion), and content issues need to involve everyone. Isn't that the way to go? Best wishes, Lester 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Re that draft we were discussing on the talk page, I'll see if I can get that started on the weekend - I'm housesitting and two of my key sources are in book form at home. I may also need to hit the library for the 1997 Pru Goward book, and the journal database for some other stuff. The academic sources I have give a blow-by-blow political history and various summaries of the Howard decade both contemporaneously and in review. It'll probably be about two weeks before I have it in a state where I can reasonably call for any meaningful review. Orderinchaos 05:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: I'm in luck - between two regular libraries which I am a member of, I can get most of the standard books on Howard. I have reviewed two I own, "The Prime Ministers" edited by Michelle Grattan (2000) and "The Howard Factor" which is the News Ltd effort from 2005. The former will be quite useful, the latter not as much as hoped (too crowy and preachy, extends beyond its own scope and ability). Additionally "Exit Right", the Quarterly Essay by Judith Brett, and the Howard decade symposium in June 2007's AJPS, which I have in book form, are pretty solid. The Political Chronicles (AJPH) are good for individual events, particularly earlier ones, and I'm hoping his 1997 biography will be of use in this regard also as well once I get it for framing the picture to that point. All in all should be interesting. Will need to think of a good structure now - will have to find good (GA/FA preferably) Westminster prime minister articles and comparable leaders (Schroeder? Chirac?) to see what's been done elsewhere. Orderinchaos 10:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that, there are none. See my reviews of what's out there - while they do improve on Howard, they don't necessarily give us the ticket out I was hoping for. Why do we not have major former world leaders at FA or GA level on Wiki? Orderinchaos 10:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Jakubowicz[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Andrew Jakubowicz, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard drink[edit]

Article here, or formatted reference can be seen on this old edit, the very last sentence of the deleted yellow block. --Lester 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talk page threads at Talk:Racism[edit]

Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SOS edits[edit]

Point Taken. I thought there should at least be some reference to criticisms of the group as the article read like a SOS handbook for potential members. I do agree, I should have sourced references, however some information regarding criticisms should be left. Nick carson (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Low riding[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Low riding, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:


Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Beagel (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fred M. Levin[edit]

Hi, I noticed you once created a biographical page about a psychotherapist. Perhaps you would care to opine on Thanks, Mwalla (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Proposed deletion of Australian and New Zealand Communications Association[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Australian and New Zealand Communications Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Australian and New Zealand Communications Associationnews, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Australian and New Zealand Communications Association[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Australian and New Zealand Communications Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Organisation does not meet notability requirements at this time WP:ORG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Breno talk 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Activity centre[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Activity centre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet notability guidelines and appears to be a copy of government documentation. Does not belong on Wikipedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Activity centre for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Activity centre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Activity centre until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)