Jump to content

User talk:Matilda/Archive07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This page is an archive of messages from August 2006 – September 2006. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Hi AYArktos

Thank you for your message. Firstly, I must apologise, as I did not login to edit the pages that you have reverted; this was an oversight on my part and in future, I will pay more attention to logging in.

You have asked me to stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia because, as you say, it is considered spamming and that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising.

You acknowledge that the Royal Australian Navy is not a commercial enterprise but consider that what I have been doing is wholesale link addition. In particular, you requested me to stop adding the links to the year in Australia articles. You say that external links are not useful there and that internal links should be used. I would really appreciate you directing me to the Wikipedia policy statement that says external links are not useful and that internal links should be used, as I am unable to find one.

I do understand that Wikipedia is not a web directory. In addition, I do know that it is always preferred to use internal links over external links. However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers. This is what I was attempting to do by providing relevant links to an external and authoritative reference source. This authoritative reference being pages on the Royal Australian Navy's website that directly relate to the particular text within the Wikipedia article. For example, one of the links that you have removed is the external link to Royal Australian Navy assistance to earthquake relief:

http://www.navy.gov.au/publications/annual/05/sumatra_assist_i_ii.html

The article on the Navy's website at this link is directly related to the Wikipedia article's Humanitarian response section in which mention is made of the Australian ship HMAS Kanimbla that provided some of the first assistance to the devastated region.

Can you please explain for me how removing links to related articles results in an improvement to an article?

As I understand it, there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article. I know that excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. The links that you have removed constitute a couple of links in each article. They were content relevant and indeed provided reference materiel for anyone else who may have been interested in expanding the article.

In Wikipedia, many articles have a small section containing a few external links. Clearly, Wikipedia considers that there is a use for them. Otherwise, external links would not be allowed.

The guidance that I have used is the Wikipedia policy that articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one. In this case, the entities are ships in the Australian Navy and there is an official site; the Royal Australian navy website.

I have also used as guidance the Wikipedia policy that sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article may be linked to. Ideally, this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. In the work that I have been doing both cases apply. Additionally, none of the links that I have used can be categorised under the Wikipedia policy on links to be avoided.

I acknowledge your status as an administrator and am grateful to you for the opportunity to clear this issue up. I look forward to pointing me in the direction of the Wikipedia policy statement that (in the context of the work that I have been doing) says external links are not useful and that internal links should be used.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.178.105.8 (talk • contribs) . 

Responded at User talk:124.178.105.8--Arktos talk 08:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reprotect the Black people article. There's a technical problem with the mediation

There seems to be a misunderstanding. The U.S. census defines Black exclusively in terms of recent sub-Saharan lineage. It states quite clearly that Black refers to “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.” Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. So while I strongly agree with the mediator’s excellent conclusion that we need to be encyclopedic by relying on census definitions, the notion that non-African descended examples were included in the census is categorically false.

Further there’s nothing at all to indicate that the British census includes people of non-African ancestry. It’s sub-divided into Carribean, African, other Black background, and all Black groups but Caribeans are African-diasporas people and other Black groups is for Haitains, and Black immigrants from America who are also of African diasporas ancestry. The other Black groups most certainly does not refer to the extremely dark skinned South Asians of Britain because their classified as Asian in the British census. So if we’re going to be encyclopedic and if we’re going to accept the mediators conclusion that the census of two major countries on two separate continents is reliable, we must adheare to African heritage, and not color, when defining Black.--Editingoprah 22:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for being prompt with following up the complaint from another user regarding personal attacks. I've been spending my time today reading over the entire debarcle and it's slowly sinking in - there's a hell of a lot to absorb. This controversy appears to have begun offsite and has been raging for many years it seems. I'm keeping my eye on the article and related talk pages and reminding editors of breaches of policy as they occur. I appreciate your helping out :) Thanks again. -- Longhair 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Name change

Must be spring and it feels like it too. ;) I've had my name on here since September last year and sick of it so I thought I'll change it to Rob-M but thought Bidgee would be better. :) Love Wattles! Golden Wattle sounds nice. :) I have a Golden Wattle at the front full of flower buds but not in flower yet but has to be soon! -- Robertmyers 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Just wondering what you think about this members userpage? -- Robertmyers 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Wattle

Thanks for your comment. Nice to see the pic popping up all over the place like the wattle does itself :)Melburnian 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on Waldorf education article

Thank you for offering to take appropriate action against violators on that page. Some editors there seem determined to turn the process into some kind of a "gang fight", and those like myself who raise what I think are legitimate issues over content and sources are continually harassed there. I don't know what this person's problem is, but it would sure be helpful if somebody straightened her out somehow. diff I'm not sure what she thinks she's mad at me about this time, but she is again accusing me of a "biased agenda", of trying to "distract" people, and "playing dirty", dragging me into some fight she seems to have in other articles altogether which I've never even contributed to.

I'm also concerned about the stance taken in the argument here diff. The rather lengthy argument culminating in the paragraph beginning "the point I'm trying to make" is essentially some rough arm-twisting to force concessions and divvy up parts of the article into territory between Waldorf "supporters" and "critics", which is not at all the aim toward the NPOV we should be working for.

Her comments were interspersed inside of others instead of added under them at the end, which I will try to repair. It makes the text totally confusing, so I hope you can follow. Others have asked her to stop this, and I gave a general reminder on the talk page once myself. Ibyrnison 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for the advice, some of it already underway. It should help. Ibyrnison 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

135 malicious repeated cite requests by editor at Waldorf education page

Hi AYArktos,

One editor of the Waldorf education page - recently warned for making repeated personal attacks in the discussion of the article - suddenly repeatedly insists on adding 135 malicious cite requests ([verification needed]) to the article, many regarding points that probably mostly is common knowledge to Waldorf parents and teachers, and people read up on the literature on the subject.

See diff page.

He also warns another co-editor that he has all weekend to pursue his malicious 135 cite requests:

(reverting back - no reason given for removing these edits. I've got all weekend free, how about you?)

He also repeatedly insists on adding different "quotes", partly an erroneous translation (described at the sub page on RS' view of race and ethnicity) to short the short introduction section to the subject at the main Steiner page, that would belong in the sub article of the issue, where he does not want to put them, in accordance with earlier agreements in the discussion of the page.

Do you have any advice or suggestion on how to handle this?

Thanks,

--Thebee 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've handed PeteK a 24 block for a violation of the three revert rule at Waldorf education. -- Longhair 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding NPOV

Hi,

I wonder what you think of explicit argumentation by a user for one POV in one article from the neutral point of view perspective, and the following long quote from a Copyright perspective. Thanks, --Thebee 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chooks

Thanks for taking the time to share some kind words. I can live with foxes. Living in a rural area now, I kinda expected it to end that way, but it wasn't so. Sometimes it's those you trust the most who hurt you more (it wasn't our dogs, but a neighbours). It's a shame, but we'll live on, minus the eggs of course. I'm just wondering how to explain it to my partner, who loved them to death and went as far as naming them. We brought them up from the old house down south rather than give them away she was that close. I think I'll let her know about the real life people deaths first when she gets home from work, then break the personal news later. Thanks, and thanks at Waldorf today too, you saved me a few hours :) -- Longhair 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

Hi AYArktos. It's me again. I thought I'd ask a favour of my local, friendly, smiling Wikipedia administrator :).

User:Lirane1's spamming non-stop and I ask he be blocked. He's had several warnings on his talk page including a last warning so I ask that you block him to let him cool down a little. — JeremyTalk 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. -- Longhair 12:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Kelly armour image

You're as crazy as I with sleep patterns and early risings :) A question... What do you think about this listed copyvio, Image:NedKelly armour 1880.jpg? -- Longhair 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh

Apologies for that. I wasn't refering to your post, but I was reverting that section on the top. Happens much too often on high traffic pages. Again, sorry, and feel free to ring in. Yanksox 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Sorry about that, I did not read the talkpage. Also Why cant we place tags with without discussing on talk page & Cant ask for refs in lead paragraph. Can you please show me the policy on this so i can read up on it. Thanks DXRAW 06:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPD's RfA

Thanks, Arktos/Golden Wattle (I like the new name), for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!

Thank you. I wasn't aware of what the anon was talking about. dposse 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Biography of Living Person? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 09:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Since your recent civility warning to User:Pete K, he has made a large number of edits to talk pages with personal comments. Requests by various editors to cease this have not had an effect. I wonder if you can suggest a next stage of action, or intervene in some constructive way. Hgilbert 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G Greer

Is there now mate. Just had problems with my internet connection. Hence the delay. AntonioBu 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and to make it clearer I only edited out someone else's paraphrasing of those statements. Not the actual quotes by Ms Bailey herself. The paraphrasing was a little too emotionally slanted to be neutral. AntonioBu 22:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I realised what I said was wrong. A bad reaction due to previous bad experiences with admins. No offence intended and none taken. AntonioBu 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply to welcome

Thanks for the advice :-) I don't edit very often, and the edits are usually of a minor nature, but I will strive to make sure I comply eith the standards from here on in

-)

Casey

Irwin.

Well, i think the small paragraph about the Sydney Morning Herald news article is misplaced. We can have two solutions, that i can see. Either we reword it, or we place it into the Controversy section because of it saying "was criticised for having an unsophisticated view of conservation in Australia that seemed more linked to tourism than the problems Australia faces as a continent." and "The Sydney Morning Herald concluded that his message was confusing and amounted to "eating roos and crocs is bad for tourism, and therefore more cruel than eating other animals""

By the way, thanks for answering me. I didn't think anyone would. After all, no one answered my question on Larry King. dposse 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

naive? Are you joking? It was his entire life. Besides, that whole article is someones negative opinion, not fact. dposse 00:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and your "shows he did not understand the Australian environment" statement shows how little you know of Steve Irwin. I'm sorry, but i can't work with you if you have such foolish views. dposse 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Canberra school edits

Thanks for blocking the anon. I suspect 203.10.76.38 is the same person, judging by some of his/her recent edits. --Calair 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germaine Greer talk page problem

I would be grateful if you could have a look at User:NSWelshman's comments at Talk:Germaine Greer. He is making an disruptive twit of himself there. I see from his talk page that he has been blocked in the past. Looks like it is time to block him again. The Greer page is contentious enough without him. Phaedrus86 12:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok?

ya ok i didn't make no changes aiight?

ya

ok stop messageing me i will do something top your account that will be harming —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lennonboi2121 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Light one candle

Thank you for the feedback. I've written WP:OWN into a new section (second from last). Does that address your concern adequately? Durova 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf protection

Thanks for helping out over at Waldorf. It was never expected, but you've been doing a great job all the same. I decided to activate article protection there today as the edit warring wasn't going to stop it seemed. You might want to check out a message left at my talk page from a "neutral editor". It might give you further insight into the problem and hopefully together we can move this article along the path away from destruction to actual construction, if you've got the energy that is. It's quite a task hey? ;) -- Longhair 11:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a laugh from your comment, are which few and far between at the moment in between animal / pet deaths at home and my all new 19.2k (unreliable) dialup connection. Long gone is ADSL, but that's due soon once some technical issues here are worked out. I feel much the same way, but I guess some need to know a place like Waldorf will excel at what they're them paying for. I call it mere marketing bullshit, but some buy it. I sure don't. I don't feel I'm learning much either, and it's exhausting to keep at it, but my stance of remaining 100% neutral and playing the 'administrator enforcing policy' role keeps me sane. To be honest, I've not even read the entire article. My head began to tell me to move on long before I got three quarters of the way. Anyway, topic change - you appear to travel a bit about New South Wales going by your photographic contributions. It's been 10 years or more since I've been up this way. Got any recommendations for interesting historical sites or places of interest I should check out when I get the chance? My son is keen to spend some time with me (we've been apart for some time, too long in fact, but that's another long winded boring story) and I think getting him out of town for a wander might be a good thing. -- Longhair 12:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocking

thanks for your advices —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lieutenant Dol Grenn (talk • contribs) .

Question on limit to acceptible Edit warring

Hi Golden Wattle,

I have a question for you, Golden Wattle, at my Talks page. Can you look at it? Thanks, --Thebee 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the fond farewell on 22 August. I have addressed it at my user talk page and furtherly disclosed information there. Thank you, again. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` [discl.] 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Pete K

Hi, Could you give this guy another warning or something? Thanks. — goethean ॐ 14:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply. Your criticisms of the article have merit, but at the same time, I find User:Pete K's additions to be consistently unhelpful. Any help that you can provide in resolving the situation wuold be appreciated. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the Coroner's Report on Steve Irwin

With all due respect, I simply cannot accept that 2-6 years is a reasonable amount of time for completion of a coroner's report, though perhaps the specific legal requirements for such a report are substantially more stringent in Australia than in the United States. Regardless, I hardly think that Irwin's death, particularly given that it was captured on video, falls into the same category of complexity as either of the two instances you cited (the fire or the hospital death). I would also think that, given the amount of media attention this incident has garnered, the powers that be would want to see that the report be published in a timely manner. Grammaticus Repairo 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a distinction between an autopsy report that is ordered by the coroner and presented to the coroner by the examining doctor."

??? A distinction between an autopsy report...and what? A coroner's inquest? I made no mention of an inquest. Perhaps by using the phrase "coroner's report" rather than saying specifically "autopsy report" I have caused confusion. I can understand the coroner's final, legal report of findings taking substantially longer than a week (though 6 years still seems excessive). I used the term because the article on Steve contains the sentence "Until the coroner's report is released, however, the precise cause of Irwin's death remains conjecture." I don't feel it is reasonable to have to wait years, or even months, for the specific medical cause of death to be released. You made the statement "That has been completed.", which I am assuming is in reference to the "autopsy report...by the examining doctor". Can you provide a link referencing this? This is what I am really interested in.

Incidentally, you also stated "Although I am an Australian, I do not feel that it is beholden on me to justify the length of time it may take, I am neither a coroner nor an employee of the justice department." I never requested that you justify the length of time such inquests/reports take, and I certainly didn't think you were employed by the 'justice department'. I do not, however, think it is unreasonable for a private citizen/layperson to have an opinion on a matter such as this. It seems ridiculous, in my personal and unprofessional opinion, that a report from the coroner regarding a specific incident should ROUTINELY take years to be completed and released. I do not know if this is the case or not, but you certainly make it sound like a multi-year wait is nothing out of the ordinary. In the Irwin case, I cannot imagine that it would take anywhere close to that amount of time to gather and assess the facts of the case, consult with appropriate experts, make a determination, and prepare a report. But again, that's just my opinion. Grammaticus Repairo 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the responsibilities encompassed within the role/title of 'coroner' varies tremendously from country to country. In the US, it would certainly not fall within the responsibility of the coroner's office to determine such things as "whether Irwin was too close to the wildlife and whether that was appropriate". In almost all jurisdictions within the US, the role of the coroner is essentially that of an official post-mortem medical examiner, and the coroner's responsibility is generally limited to determination of the time, cause and manner of death. Determination of potential criminal or civil liability is purely the responsibility of the police department and district attorney's office.
Also, I do thank you for providing the link to the article regarding the autopsy findings.
This being said, however, I must take issue with the information presented in that article. Although the heading of the article is "Autopsy confirms Irwin died instantly", such information is NOT actually presented in the article's text. In fact, in the entire article, only the first two sentences contain any relevant information about the autopsy findings, and even that information is vague, at best:
"A post-mortem examination has confirmed Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin died after being speared in the chest by a stingray."
Absolutely no new information here...for all intents and purposes, we already knew this.
"It has been confirmed Irwin was killed when the poisonous barb on the ray's tail pierced his chest while filming for a television program at a reef off Port Douglas."
OK, a little bit more specific than the previous statement, but it certainly makes no mention of his death being instantaneous, let alone what the actual, specific cause was. Was the cause of his allegedly 'instant' death a result of being stabbed in the chest, a result of the venom in his system, or something else entirely? And if he did indeed pull the barb from his chest, which he apparently did, as I understand it (based on information about the video footage that was captured), then was his death truly 'instantaneous'? This article is pretty much worthless from the standpoint of usable facts. Where did the writer get his/her information from? Surely now that the autopsy has been completed and the video tape reviewed, enough information has been gathered to present a simple, official 'cause of death' (i.e. 'cardiac arrest due to injection of biotoxic venom directly into the heart' or something like that)! I just do not understand why this information seems so elusive. Grammaticus Repairo 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dabbawalas

Enigmaticdawg

Ahh thanks, I wasnt sure wether or not the edit would appear on the internet, just an inside joke between me and my freinds, but it seems theres actually a page for that. Perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigmaticdawg (talk • contribs) .

Thanks

I added back a few links. -- DS1953 talk 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Guinea

Anon has returned.

The anon has returned and is still going on about the Coolac Massacre but they still fail to give any sources. 203.54.9.7.203 -- Bidgee 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a 3 hour block. -- Longhair 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding BOLD typeface in articles

What is the standard for using BOLD typeface in articles, for example with regard to stressing one point in a described article, that supports one's view, but that is not stressed in the original article described? Thanks, --Thebee 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

otherpeople|John Gilbert

Thanks for your note on my talk. Please could you hold off removing the dab headers from these articles while I write a longer reply? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply is on my talk: I hope that's OK, but I find it much easier to follow a conversation if it's all in one place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Warnings

Mate can you please have a look at CelebHeights talk page history. He is removing warnings. DXRAW 23:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. DXRAW 00:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

203.54.* anon

Not that I want to bother you with such time wasting activities, but your anon friend returned yesterday, editing Talk:List of massacres of indigenous Australians. I quickly reverted and blocked them for a 24 hour period. Letting you know just in case you wish to add to your already extensive notes. -- Longhair 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking that particular editor on sight now. It's so trival to create an account for editing, but some editors (including this one) are (ab)using the anon facility to create havoc and upset otherwise good contributors. Whilst it appears not much is going to be done with this pest, keeping an activity log of their unwanted behaviour will be useful to justify our blocks if they're ever questioned. I see you're busy - I'll let you get back to real life ;) -- Longhair 02:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hey Golden Wattle, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joining wikiproject australia ?

Hello, I was wondering if it would be okay if joined the Australia Wikiproject even though I'm Canadian. I was in Australia for one month just recently and am really interested in contributing to Australia articles, in information or just clean-up. I also might be interested as joining the assessment team. Thanks. Bobo is soft 01:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently added a gig guide link to the Port Macquarie NSW WIKI page, and you removed it. Could you please explain this as Im not sure why you removed it.

The link goes to http://www.justinsane.com.au/giguide/Whats-On-This-Month.php and details a list of activites that occure around the area for this month. I would like to place my link back on the page is this possible?

Thanks

Nathan

p.s. soprry my wiki talk id is franklintech thanks

Blocking

Hello. You really, really shouldn't block someone (AKMask (talk · contribs) in this case) with whom you are engaged in a dispute. I appreciate that you were not the only one disputing his edits, but there are many, many admins here, and if there is behaviour that is worth a block (and it is, so I'm not unblocking, but regardless), then surely one of them who is not currently engaged in a dispute with the user can do it. Thank you.--SB | T 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disamb

I have added the name of a Medical College here as this is widely known as RIMS. Is it Okay? Please advise. VMO 10:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification! Yes, only yesterday I happened to see the article and I also felt that it needed a thorough copyedit with latest info. In due course I plan to do the necessary corrections. VMO 01:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thanks for pointing out a silly mistake. Yes, I have turned off Mark all edits minor by default in my preferences and I am sure it will be different form now on. VMO 03:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FU

Someone could easily trace the relevant info (since all that it's being used to show is that PNG and Australia are on the same bit of shelf) from that image and make a free alternative, probably at better resolution. Your response to the tag, which encourages the production of free content, is completely irrational.--Peta 04:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matilda/Archive07&oldid=1143158099"