User talk:The Drover's Wife

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


Manual archive[edit]

I notice you doing this and guessed you probably had the same problem I had when I set up archiving (the instructions appear insufficient). So I edited your User Talk to make the archiving settings match mine (which seems to work). I moved the archive you manually created so it appears as the first of the automated archives. So I think it should all work now (famous last words). Kerry (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

why did you edit my page? did you write the false things? (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

____________ -Culleton was found to have never been eligible to stand which means he was technically never a Senator; -Culleton has made outrageous claims about Australia's sovereignty and the courts; -Many have claimed Culleton owes them money; this is an important fact which also needs to be included.

I will contact Wikipedia as you're obviously a vexatious liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroutyouaregood1 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Melbourne Car Attack[edit]

Hi Drover's Wife. Please refrain from reverting my edit regarding the man wearing a blue jacket signalling to the driver of the red car as I have correctly used a citation to a news site. Thanks. I noticed you also appear to be using Twinkle from Miranda to quickly revert but this is illegal according to Wikipedia Policy unless you provide an Edit Summary so the community can see why you reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestwitness (talkcontribs) 04:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi The Drover's Wife, could you explain to me why you've reverted my changes? --g. balaxaZe 09:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


I seemed to have had either a browser or page loading issue with Ministerialists_and_Oppositionists_(Western_Australia) - as it stands a mess - any thoughts from your perspective ? Do you have any thoughts on the matter, as I am not 100% about it being 'both' or the best way to explain the groupings - so any comment would be appreciated JarrahTree 10:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response - it is encouraging. Problem with 1901 - 1911 and almost 1921 - the allegiances are so damned slippery. Tricky as ministerialists as a term slips in federal and various states with possible variations of meaning and dependent upon context. There was one ref that I have missed somewhere suggesting after the impossibility of west australian pollies to form long standing allegiances it was actually forrest in 1911 trying to organise them... sheesh - not sure where to do on that. JarrahTree 11:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


pity to see gone (armies that is), I know more gone eds than active eds for years now. As for the teachers college - Nedlands, Churchlands - any help would dowhen get around to start em thanks fore the offer JarrahTree 23:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lauta Atoi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Buka and Bougainville. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

PNG pollies[edit]

Fascinating work you're doing here! This is a topic about which I know precisely nothing, but it's great to see more articles on a clearly underexposed topic. Frickeg (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I was surprised to see that seat decided that way today as well! It's been decidedly odd to have the late counting be so pro-Labor so far, although I'm assuming the incoming tide of postals will see at least one of the current doubtfuls slip back to the Libs. (It's probably ridiculously cautious to still have Baldivis listed as in doubt, but given that we've been burned in the past ... I think the primary's probably too high for it to be realistically close at this stage, but I'd rather see an actual count before we lock it down.) Frickeg (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Bivoltsis[edit]

Thank you, that was it! I remembered as soon as I saw the name! --Canley (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boka Kondra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Papua. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your edits on the pages for women in Australia and Pakistan.

Keep up the good work! Doyen786 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

From Quetta Memorial Precinct via the QHR[edit]

Given your interest in PNG, can you offer an opinion on this:

"The new Bishop had a formidable task ahead, and little funding. Fearing that it would be difficult to attract clergy to the Diocese, he proposed to establish a Diocesan theological training college on Thursday Island. This was made possible following an undertaking by Lord Beauchamp, Bishop of New Guinea, [my emphasis] to support three students at the Theological Training College for three years, from 1 January 1901."

Now my reading of this was that Lord Beauchamp was the Bishop of New Guinea, but when I went to wikilink the text, it all went pair-shaped. At that time 1900-1901, Montagu Stone-Wigg was the first Bishop of New Guinea and there is nothing in his rather longer ABD entry that suggests he's a Lord. Digging through the many generations of Lord Beauchamps, I find that at that time, Lord Beauchamp was William Lygon, 7th Earl Beauchamp who just happens to be the Governor of New South Wales at that same time. Clearly Lord Beauchamp is not the Bishop of New Guinea, but both were around in the right timeframe and the kind of folks I guess you might hit on for some cash for theology students. Do you think they meant Lord Beauchamp AND the Bishop of New Guinea? Kerry (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Good find! With Lord Beauchamp funding 3 students, I think we can strike out the Bishop of New Guinea (maybe he helped find the students or had some other part to play in the storry). Kerry (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


About this, could you please explain? On one level: what's it to you? I don't see you in the edit history of that article or its Talk page, or in the Freopedia Talk page, either. Between you and me, I don't specifically recall past interactions, though I recognize your username, perhaps from long ago stuff about disambiguation pages maybe. --doncram 22:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What is it to anyone ? - there happens to be a group of editors interested in Western Australian subjects and topics, and to query any one editor like this over common interests is trolling. The editor is interested in the subject as Toodyaypedia and Freopedia are 'live' on-going wikitown projects - I fail to see why someone needs to be queried as to their interest, or their involvement. JarrahTree 00:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:JarrahTree, I agree basically, but then why should The Drover's Wife be speaking to me that way? I have chosen to take a look at the Fremantle list of heritage places, and see some room for improvements, and it seems in their 3 edits they are suggesting someone with less than their knowledge should get lost. That's not how it should work. --doncram 01:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not what it seems... your user page tells it all JarrahTree 02:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
TDW likes to patrol items she has never ever edited and be lord overseer of how said items are edited because templates are hard. Dave Rave (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Mald[edit]

Hi. The convention, I believe, is to consider that an MP's term ends on the date of the election. In this case, logically, the date that the election ended. And that his term as minister ended on the date a new minister was appointed in his place. We happen to know what day that was; so he served as interim minister between the election and the appointment of the new Cabinet. Having the infobox makes the article clearer for readers. Aridd (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bire Kimisopa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Generation Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Lera, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Buka, Bougainville and Arawa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

this all brought back memories[edit]

there are residual weirdnesses in many png subject areas - if I ever win lotto, youre my candidate to sit in the NLA in Canberra digging through all the resources that no one has brought out of the stack for the last 20 years .... good to have caught up in Melbourne JarrahTree 11:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

from memory, the petherick reading room card and the time spent in there made me realise there is so much that hasnt even been looked at let alone written up, it seems an elephant in the room, dark horse maybe - of australian scholarship JarrahTree 12:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Askin[edit]

This reverting is getting out of hand. Maybe request page protection? especially since he clearly isn't engaging with your talk page requests. Cheers.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Who would engage? TDW doesn't engage, she is right and doesn't care for your opinion. Dave Rave (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from personals attacks on wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria treatment for children[edit]

In good faith. The Drover's Wife, on 17 May, you reverted, without explanation, my contribution to Transgender rights in Australia: Gender dysphoria treatment for children. You asked that I take the matter to the TP. On 17 May, I did that, providing a detailed rationale. You have not responded - and no one else has responded. In good faith, considering the above, I would appreciate your response. B20097 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yanakie, Victoria[edit]

I deleted some advertising material inserted on this page referring to a business operating near the location called "Coastal View Cottages". Another editor has already deleted the Wikipedia article this business created for itself and I tidied up the red link and promotional language on the Yanakie page. Why did you revert this edit? MarekJG (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message you left on my page. I thought that i could keep my talk page harm there?

Can you please answer the question I have raised here. I think I am correctly removing the promotional content left by spammers. Also I have removed the red links to articles that have been previously been deleted by consensus of other editors where it seems logical that there is no realistic hope of these articles ever being re-created. Is that ok?MarekJG (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I am following the policy you said that I was breaking:

Specifically: "The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article."

I think I am following the policy exactly and with the effective result that is assisting other editors not creating work for other editors to clean up. Please provide a specific example of an edit that is unhelpful and why so that I can improve my skills! Thanks. MarekJG (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comment left on my Talk page is condescending:

"Unfortunately, your reading comprehension seems to be a bit poor: from the page you just claimed you had read (and I quote): "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic." Please desist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)"

Not only did I believe in good faith that the reference to "Coastal View Cottages" was blatant advertising but so did the editors who removed the page. There is clear consensus that the reference should be removed. Why are you simply not answering the question posed above. I am not asking for an apology or for you to say that you have made a mistake but you simply seem to be avoiding the question. And please don't tell me to " Feel free to remove business promotional material " - you don't own this place; I will continue to make legitimate edits that improve Wikipedia and keep it free from advertorial content.MarekJG (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page (yet again implying that you are superior and that I am stupid) still does not answer the question:

If you're not making edits against policy, your edits won't get reverted. This is not a complex challenge. If other editors have to clean up vast swathes of your edits, the rare useful edit may well get reverted in the process of cleaning up the damage. If, like most other editors, you...don't require other editors to clean up your messes, that's not a problem you'll have again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is nothing is wrong with the edits I am making. Nobody has had to clean up vast swathes of my edits. I hopefully won't have a problem again because you won't interfere with the valid edits being made by me and other editors. You have added nothing to the conversation nor have you reverted the edit you made to the Yanakie page. You are simply wasting the time of other editors with your opinions.MarekJG (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

North Queensland Party[edit]

I was surprised by this one too! I mean, how could you possibly get NQLP losing Mundingburra in 1956??? You're right about Plague on Both Their Houses - a lot of our minor party articles rely heavily on it because it's pretty much all there is in some cases without access to contemporary newspapers, but it really is a pretty shoddy piece of work. I've not looked at it in a while, but from memory the part with the most errors is the list of minor parties, which is full of really basic errors - I wonder if perhaps that part isn't by Jaensch at all but by his co-author, David Mathieson, who doesn't seem to have done much else. Frickeg (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You could be right there - it's why I said "wrong move rationale" rather than "not known as ...", basically making sure the message got through that that wasn't a reason to move something before they move on to the rest of the Streets (I suspect they're related). Part of this goes to an issue that we haven't really dealt with, which is that the tendency in Australian political sources is often to list people by their initials as a general rule, which makes COMMONNAME a bit fuzzy (poor Stanley Bruce would be appalled to see himself at that name, but COMMONNAME compels it). I'm certainly not going to stand in the way if there is an actual reason to move these guys.
(As an aside, I have always thought that if I could go back in time and change one Wikipedia policy back when it was early enough to do these things realistically, it would be COMMONNAME. Imagine how much simpler everything would be if we had a CORRECTNAME policy instead. Vastly fewer arguments over primary topic, none of the Burma/Myanmar or Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast drama, much less need for disambiguation. Imagine the possibilities! But sadly that ship has sailed and we have to work with what we have. The new user also moved another page to include "Sir" in the title, which is another thing I think is a good idea but is probably never going to get the support to implement.) Frickeg (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

List of physically disabled politicians[edit]

Hi, bother to explain your revert in List of physically disabled politicians? — kashmiri TALK 22:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Drover's Wife. You have new messages at Kashmiri's talk page.
Message added 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

kashmiri TALK 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


You were at the meetup with Katherine Maher some weeks ago - about Strategy - and you may well have contributed responses in the appropriate areas - do you have any further thoughts you might like to add since then? I would be interested - either on-wiki or off wiki if you so choose - as to the strategy themes or strategy process - as I am in the final stages of compiling a report - any thoughts would be appreciated - or if you have already contributed and have no further comment - no problems! JarrahTree 04:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Term dates[edit]

Well, generally I've been led by what the parliament says, but I'm guessing the PNG parliament may not have quite the same detail online as ours do (although it seems to have current MPs and does give a "date of election"). The general pattern has been that they begin on the day of the election. If the election is over more than one day, then I guess it would be from when the polls close in that particular constituency, although I don't think we have any examples of that here so I can't be certain (some early colonial elections were held over a period of weeks, but with individual polling days for different electorates). For the end of terms, our parliaments all differentiate between retiring and defeated MPs - retiring MPs' terms end at the dissolution of parliament, but defeated ones end on the day of the election. Hope this is helpful! And the work you've been doing in this area continues to be very impressive. Frickeg (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Neil McInnes[edit]


Noticed you were quick to revert changes on the Neil McInnes article. I've moved the old page to Neil McInnes (politician), I know I'm not doing it properly by copying and pasting but frankly it makes no difference to the end product.

Don't worry, I will go through all the 'What links here' to redirect them to the Neil McInnes (politician).


Early political parties[edit]

Great news! Well done for finding them! Of course for our purposes the ALP has always been the most straightforward of the parties (... unless it isn't after all). I'm not likely to be doing a whole heap of work over the next few months either, but from memory the main issue we had was determining the formation of the early conservative parties in most states (Victoria in particular) so anything there would be very helpful. Frickeg (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

List of closed South Australian railway stations[edit]

Hi. I would like to clarify that I did not intend to cite WP:DEADREF in my edit summary for the article List of closed South Australian railway stations, I had mistakenly copy-pasted the link to the guidelines article that I had been reading recently when I had intended to cite WP:REDLINK.

I removed the red links for the individual railway stations as they have existed in their current state, without new article creation, since 06:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC). In my judgment, this appeared to break WP:REDNOT: "do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia". In keeping with the red link policy of "Do not remove red links unless [...] the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic", I removed the excessive red links as each railway station could easily be covered in a general article on its respective railway line; lack of information on the individual stations would either result in WP:STUBS or continued lack of article creation.

Due to these reasons, I decided to WP:BOLDLY set about "weeding the link farm" and clean up the excessive use of red links in the article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 12:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many, many articles on closed railway stations, including in Adelaide, with Adelaide being among the only places in Australia that doesn't have articles on all of them. Trying to mash them into line articles would go against current practice in this area in every other state and territory. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


I've said most of this on Kerry's page - I'm fine being overruled here, but I still think this is really a style issue more than anything. With Evatt I actually think there's a pretty strong case to move to Bert, and if I can be bothered may have a go at it one day, but through a proper RM there. I mean, if we were following COMMONNAME strictly, the vast majority of pre-50s politicians would be at their initials. I just think if we have Billy (not W.M.) Hughes and Stanley (not S.M.) Bruce, we have no excuse for H.V. Evatt (or really T.J. Ryan either). Probably in the minority there but that happens sometimes. Frickeg (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia page[edit]

Can you please advise me why you reverted the Jenny Aitchison Wikipedia page?

I was going in to fix up the templates on my desk top and noticed everything had gone?

I wouldn't have minded if you contacted me or changed formatting, but it is quite disconcerting?

Jones230 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
You messed up the template (so that the page didn't display properly) with a misleading edit summary of "fixed typo" when the edits were anything but. Had no clue what you were doing, but misleading edit summaries don't tend to lead to people getting the benefit of the doubt. Feel free to readd the edits without mangling the template. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hendon railway station, Adelaide[edit]

Hi. In response to your reversion of the page move that I requested for the Hendon railway line article to Hendon railway station, Adelaide, please allow me to explain why I made this recommendation.

Mainly, the station in question is the only station on this former branch line; it is common practice on Adelaide and SA railway stations (uncertain about interstate) to summarise information in an article concerning the station as opposed to the branch leading to it due to this. This can be seen on several other single-station branches and spurs, most notably Port Dock station, the GMH station and its spur, and the old Clapham spur/branch. If it was a line with multiple stations that have little individual information (Mount Gambier) then yes it would be easier to summarise in an article concerning the line, but this is not the case.

Also, I would disagree with your comment "larger subject, more sources"; the line is hardly a larger subject due to its status as a simple short branch to its single station terminus. Consequently, both would feature the same content but would focus primarily on the actual station over the short alignment to the station, hence my WP:BOLD move request.

Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 15:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

List of schools in Far North Queensland[edit]

Good catch re my section deletion! Given I spent most of yesterday trying to fix the many errors in that very section, the last thing I would have wanted was to delete it all! It seems that this school page wasn't updated when the deamalgamations occurred, so I am working my way through it looking for schools that are in the deamalgamated LGAs. In the process, I am turning up lots of other errors including schools that weren't anywhere near Far North Queensland (to be fair, I do have a lot of useful resources to track down old place names since I run a web page on that topic, which probably gives me an advantage). Kerry (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia page[edit]

Can you please advise me why you reverted the Robert Holmes à Court Wikipedia page? I have invested considerable time correcting mistakes about this notable Australian person and within a few minutes of posting you have reverted the content, Why? I find it concerning that you are not being acurate and my contributions including re-ording events in a chronological order are being reverted. Please explain. Regards - Oakpont 12:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest[edit]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Avenue Range Station massacre[edit]

G'day, I wondered if you would mind taking a look at this article, the latest in my work on the frontier wars in SA? I'd like to get a few opinions before nominating it for GA review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Supreme Court of Western Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph McGrath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Murray Bridge redirects[edit]

Hi Drover's Wife. A quick note to say these are all fixed now, finally. See User:Donama/Murray Bridge suburbs. Donama (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Marriage equality opponents call for broad right to discriminate content[edit]

"The Equality Campaign executive director, Tiernan Brady, said the comments showed the no campaign was engaged in “a blatant attempt to unravel existing anti-discrimination laws which serve everyone in Australia well, not just LGBTI people”" -- (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata lists of redlinks on Women in Red[edit]

Hi there. I have a feeling you did not get an answer to your question on the WiR talk page. These lists indicate the names of women who have biographies in a language other than English on Wikipedia. Wikidata creates antries on new Wikipedia articles and is particularly good at registering biographies, whatever the original language of the articles. We have found the lists useful in identifying women who also deserve articles in English. If you click on the Q number on the "Item" column, you can usually find at least one article in another language which you might understand or, if not, submit to Google translate to get a rough idea of the person's importance, etc. From the main WiR page, you can also access Wikipedia lists by occupation. Let me know if this helps or if I can be of further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacqueline Gleeson[edit]

Nice job on creating Jacqueline Gleeson - I had missed Category:Australian women judges so added it to the couple of judges I had created. Are you planning on writing articles for other Federal Court judges Sarah Gleeson, Berna Collier, Kathleen Farrell, Debra Mortimer, Bridgette Markovic and / or Natalie Charlesworth ? I think that is all that are in red. I am keen to help out the Women in Red project, but not to fussed about the contest, so if any are part of your plans I am happy to focus my efforts elsewhere. In the unlikely event you need assistance with sources, let me know - I have access to subscription journals as well as some very good law libraries. Cheers Find bruce (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Keith Wright[edit]

Hi. Just a brief invitation, if you want, to join discussion on the Talk Page for the Australian politician Keith Wright. Cheers, Research17 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, The Drover's Wife. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Population updates for the 2016 Census[edit]

I note that you've been reverting updates to census figures for localities in WA. I'm afraid it is you that is using the wrong figures. As an example you've reverted Geraldton from the 2016 Census figure for the Geraldton SUA (37,432) to the 2015 estimate for the Geraldton SUA (39,825). I see that you feel that SSC figures should be used - for Geraldton this would give you just the Geraldton CBD with a population of 3,148. The Geraldton article describes a place much larger that the CBD. I disagree with your statement that "Australian locality articles have always been done on the basis that any figures, etc, refer to the gazetted locality, rather than any larger urban area (since we have other articles on those places)". The articles are actually done on the basis of a logical or general understanding of the extent of the places that are described in the articles such as for Geraldton, Albany, Broome, Kalgoorlie etc. Are you suggesting that we not use a figure of 13,984 for the place described in the Broome, Western Australia article, but a figure of 4,042 (Broome SSC)? It's also not helping by reverting the latest 2016 Census SUA figures back to inaccurate 2015 estimates (which are all SUA). I see your point with the major metro areas, but not for country towns with a unitary identity. regards John beta (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

An exceptional barnstar for you[edit]

Women in the World Barnstar with laurels.png The World Contest Laurels
Thankyou for the hard work you put into the Women in Red World Contest!! -♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I make it $50 that you've won. Please double check. If you would like to donate any of your winnings into the Women in Red Book Fund to raise money to buy books for editors of women topics who need them on demand please add your name and the amount you'd like to donate in the sub section below the prize winners on the main contest page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Hi, As just noted at WP:AWNB I think that the repeated attacks on you warrant a block, but I'm not in a position to impose this. If a report is lodged please ping me and I'd be pleased to support it. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Warren Pearson[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you think the current incarnation of this bio passes muster? Castlemate (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Castlemate (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Your latest edit was an act of vandalism. I am undoing it until others have an opinion. You have removed many credible reference. Don't make this an edit war. Castlemate (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Contest Prize[edit]

Please email me and state your user name and how much I owe you in your preferred currency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to email me your email address as well :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Australian content![edit]

CK - Lamington.jpg

Now it's time to relax with a lamington!

Kerry (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Australian content![edit]

Coopers PaleAle.jpg

Cheers and beers!

Kerry (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Australian content![edit]

BoNM - Australia.png

For your outstanding efforts in Women in Red!

Kerry (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of WikiLove happening[edit]

It's happening for two reasons. 1) you deserve it. And 2) because I am experimenting with creating an Australian version of WikiLove which is sort-of working but clearly I have to figure out how to better control the size of the images. Kerry (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


On the ground that no one has told me that I can't, I've added you to the list of participants who can review articles. The reviewing tool should be working for you, although this seems like an oddly complicated process. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


I see you have noticed my new QHR articles. These are not from the July 2014 release of the QHR that the earlier articles were constructed from but are pure "from the web" generated articles with my fabulous new NextGen tool (the old one being called Gen short for "generator"). When I say fabulous, I mean it sort-of works as well as I can hope, given that it's essentially a process where I unscramble the omelette of the QHR web page and then remix it into the souffle of a Wikipedia article. The attraction of this new approach is because the NSW HR will have to come "from the web" so I am hoping that the amount of tweaking I will need to do to make it work with NextGen will be relatively small. The bigger piece of work is the automatic wikilinking. It has to be fed lists of articles from categories that might be relevant to the article as the basis for wikifying. I use the Category:Queensland for the history section and some architectural category for the Description section. Obviously the NSW HR will need to work with NSW places, people, etc,not Qld ones. (This is where the petscan tool will be of great assistance as it can gather up all the articles in the NSW category tree for me). Kerry (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Serpil Senelmis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

14:24:08, 21 December 2017 review of submission by Bengaloorugirl[edit]

HI, I started my first article on a company that I thought would qualify for a decent upload.

Can you be more specific on how I can make my article pass the review?

@Bengaloorugirl: To meet the general notability criteria, there needs to be source material in which other people (independent of Wardy IT) talk about Wardy IT because they genuinely wanted to say something about Wardy IT (and weren't paid to do so). Sources that just reproduce the organisations's media releases don't count for this purpose (this is not to say that they cannot be use as citation for certain information, but they don't count for notability asssessment). I have added a couple of additional pieces of information with citations that appear to meet that criteria (the Young Entrepreneur Award) and the A2 Milk example. Can you find a couple more? If you could find more stories like the A2 Milk example, that is good because it actually adds some information to the reader about what the company actually does. In that regard the lede para could be much improved by saying more down-to-earth things rather than "total solutions" and "data analytics" which are OK in the trade press but not really insightful to the average Wikipedia reader. As the lede para currently reads, it does not serve to differentiate Wardy from any other organisation that delivers Microsoft SQL Server etc solutions (these are tools, what is it that the company actually does?). Kerry (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Bunbury Terminal[edit]

Link to Google Streetview image, showing the name of the terminal no less than twice.,115.6577603,3a,36.5y,255.31h,89.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJy0XMUemUDQbBgTw7g0ctw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I have seen no evidence of it being named 'Bunbury railway station' (other than the one which closed a few decades ago 4kms to the northwest). Rund717 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

Thank you for reviewing the T2 page! And adding it the disambiguation page, too. Thanks so much!

SunnyBoi (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


Why are you destroying my page? John555566667777 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Recently declined articles[edit]

You recently declined my two articles, List of top 10 singles in 2018 (Australia) and List of top 10 albums in 2018 (Australia). You bring up some fair points but on your comment saying it was messy, both pages use nearly identical formats to the Billboard top 10 articles so why haven't those articles been declined for the same reasons? Bc654 1:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Independent (Papua New Guinea), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Bagshaw[edit]

In a very short space of time with very few contributions and one I consider to be questionable I'm wondering if this person really is non-notable.

Castlemate (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page. Others are responding there as well. To the best of my knowledge I wasn't informed of the AfD and so I'm not sure if I created the article or not and don't know exactly what content it had at the time of the deletion. At this time I'm not sure that I wish to become involved in having it reinstated but I will think about it. Castlemate (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

joint Corporation and District Council LGAs[edit]

Hi, sorry to do another undo. I probably shouldn't have. I'm having trouble with former LGAs like Clare and Kadina. Somehow we need to make them consistent. Sue Marsden lists the "Corporation and District Council of Kadina" as a single LGA in 1936, based on the civic record but on close reading of that, it states Kadina has "two civic organisations", so probably you are right that they must be kept separate and I can be reverted again. Would you mind having a look at Corporation and District Council of Clare to see if it is the same as Kadina? It looks like Kapunda followed a similar pattern with the town corporation being established in 1865 and the DC following year. But it's unclear in the latter case when they were merged to simply be the DC of Kapunda. I really need help with this. Donama (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sherry Sufi[edit]

Hi there, I've had a look at the article submitted by Bathurst87: Sherry Sufi that was declined.

Given that we have articles such Karina Okotel and Avi Yemini, who have similarities with Sufi in regards to being right-wing former or prospective candidates who have a public profile, hold political positions, and were featured in interviews and write opinion pieces. Due to this I believe the article is sufficiently notable, and have resubmitted it for review

Judeti (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Judeti: For what it's worth, it might be helpful to understand that Wikipedia generally does not accept the argument "something similar exists" (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists) in considering notability of new articles. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that there is no clear claim to notability here; it's a article with "a bit of this and a bit of that". This is demonstrated by the first sentence "Australian Political Commentator, Editor, Research Academic and Columnist." It is unclear whether we are to assess him as a commentator, editor, etc. What's he best known for? If you called out "who's Sherry Sufi?" in a crowded room (not the WA Liberal Party Policy committee room!), what would most people say "Oh, he's that guy who is/did SuchAndSuch". The SuchAndSuch is what's missing in the article. To pass Article for Creation, an article doesn't have to be very long (a common misbelief) but the claim to notability needs to be clearly stated in the first paragraph and supported by citations specific to that claim. You really only need that first paragraph to make the case for notability. I suspect that Sherry Sufi is someone with potential to become better known in the future, at which time he is likely to pass notability in relation to Wikipedia. It may just be a case of "a bit too soon" And, there is one other thing I should mention and that is Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. Specifically, if you happen to have any association with the Liberal Party, it's probably not appropriate to be lobbying for the acceptance of the Sherry Sufi draft. Kerry (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: The subject is notable. There are more than 30 references from mainstream news papers and websites including The Australian, The West Australian The Sydney Morning Herald, SBS, ABC News, Sky News Australia and The Guardian. These are not casual one line mentions, they are dedicated news stories entirely focussed on the subject. The subject was elevated to national spotlight at 2016 federal election after a string of controversies. I never brought up the "something similar exists" argument but I'm curious why isn't that an acceptable argument? Do we not care about consistency. Either way the article has been updated in line with your recommendation. Good to publish. ~~ BT
@Bathurst87: Wikipedia has a long history of deleting failed electoral candidates of all political persuasions, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. There will be a "national spotlight" on many candidates during any campaign, but that's held to be not notable enough for an article unless they are also notable for something else. This is, if anything, stronger where people are only known for controversies during that one failed candidacy, as per our policy on biographies of living persons. Sufi doesn't appear to get past that: he's a failed candidate who wrote a few opinion pieces, and has a few very tangential references in other stories due to being a minor party official. It is a shame because it's a well-written article - just on a subject who doesn't appear to be, at present, notable enough. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This subject is more than notable and should be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelMcManus (talkcontribs) 18:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I overwrote your Decline on Draft:National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities with mine[edit]

It looks like both of us thought "easy to deal with, too lazy to mark as under review". Fortunately we were both saying the same thing (but me being me had to say it at greater length). Kerry (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed it so both our declines appear on the draft. Or at least I think I have fixed it ... Kerry (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Yes, I was a bit line ball on removing the stuff on campuses. I did so as the general tone seems to be spruiking them, and the uni has experienced issues over the quality of its campuses in the past (eg, the treatment of international students in the mid 2000s). Thanks for reverting me, and I'll attempt a more sensitive clean up tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A small token for a big contribution[edit]

Invisible Barnstar.png The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you, The Drover's Wife, for getting involved at Articles for creation and helping whittle down the backlog. Your diligent reviewing is recognized and greatly appreciated! --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
+1 from me too! Kerry (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

reverting clementine ford edit[edit]

Hello, if you have any problems with the edit you had reverted, could you please state it in the talk page? --2001:8003:54DA:E600:4D63:99B:887:A5F2 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

17:41:33, 19 January 2018 review of submission by Hagtobel[edit]

Dear "The Drover's Wife"! I have noticed your decision to decline my draft, which I don't quite understand. I am the author of the entry on Hans Fässler, and I have created an entry about Hans Fässler in German before, with the help of an experienced Wikipedia contributor and without any problems (see my entry in German). I h a v e used footnotes to cite my sources, but I do not understand why I have not met the standards for inline citations. Can you help? Thank you and with best wishes, Hagtobel Hagtobel (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear "The Drover's Wife"! I have read your advice on my talk page. Thank you. I have tried to improve the Draft about Hans Fässler by adding more inline citations where possible, trying to use an international context. Also I have reduced the list of sources at the end. I think the problem with this article is that Hans Fässler is active in Swiss and international (English, French, Italian) contexts and that some of the sources (which can be accessed online), while being reliable in a Swiss context, may not mean much to an English or American reader. Thank you and with best wishes, Hagtobel Hagtobel (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


Isn't most of the information on my article verifiable on the "Radio Locator" & "FCC" databases? Aren't those databases independent of the station? I've looked extensively and have not found other references. I know that "similar" articles (which have been accepted) is not a valid argument, but if those other articles have been accepted in error, shouldn't they be deleted? talk

Suicide of Amy Everett[edit]

"Dolly" Everett now has an article - Suicide of Amy Everett. Want to work with me on it? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


So you have misrepresented me twice now in the discussion about NCORP. Please stop. Diffs:

  • here you wrote and the attempt to put it again after 24 hours with comparatively very minor amendments (picking off two of the issues raised, but ignoring the others - most notably the non-US issue) suggests the same disinterest in engaging with editors who are critical for various reasons that doomed this attempt
which is not at all accurate, as what I wrote was I am going to leave this going for another day or two but am going to pull it before it ends, to refine and relaunch. I never said i was going to relaunch it right away. That would be indeed be stupid.
  • You also repeated there the same misrepresentation you wrote back on the 7th here where you wrote, I think the refusal to engage with these objections is unhelpful. Numerous people have listed numerous problems with this proposal as it is currently framed, and rather than try to address any of those things, a response of "you will have your chance later to oppose it" is disappointing.
The actual proposal was amended several times in the discussion as is clearly visible here in the markup. The original proposal posted there was the result of along discussion back in July, which is linked in the OP.
What I actually said had to you before you wrote that was:
1) diff as noted in the OP, you will have the ability to oppose in the RfC. If you have any ideas about improving the proposal, please provide them. (And what the OP says, is For folks replying here, if you are opposed to any effort to raise NCORP standards for companies please just say so -- I understand very well that some people will take that position; there is no point arguing about that. There are a bunch of people who want to try, and you can oppose at the RfC. (I had written that in response to your initial comment, here, which i read as opposing any effort to raise NCORP standards)
In any case in response to your misrepresenting remark, I wrote: I noted in the OP that there are people who will oppose from the get go and you will have your chance to oppose at the RfC. Again if you have any kind of criteria that would not rule out the kind of companies you think should be in WP please propose them. A general "no" is just a waste of bytes at this point in the process.
So there are two requests, from me to you, for concrete proposals in that exchange.
Another editor then also asked you for concrete proposals to meet your concerns.
How did you reply to those three requests? With nothing. That is fine, you have no obligation to, but you had lots of opportunity to provide concrete input and you chose not to. (Per your contribs, your next comment was your oppose !vote.) Other people did give concrete feedback, and ideas that got consensus from people other than me, were enacted.

We are going through that process of refinement again now.

I get it that you are very concerned about what we might exclude. That is what it is, and could actually be helpful if you would provide concrete criteria that help would prevent that exclusion. On the other hand if you are just generally opposed, that is what it is. Others are concerned about the ongoing torrent of spam articles from companies looking to abuse WP for promotion, so this effort is going to continue.

Again it would be very very helpful to get concrete criteria from you that would ensure that articles about which you are worried would be retained.

But the discussion is hard enough without this kind of personalized, misrepresenting stuff. Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

copied response left at my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet you've again highlighted the problem: you keep requesting "concrete proposals" with the determination of proceeding with your precious five criteria, amended however slightly, as this is apparently (in your book) the only possible means of proceeding with necessary changes to NCORP.
I'm sympathetic to the problem: I review articles at AfC, and I see tons of the startup-spam dreck being submitted, and plenty that I can't be bothered delving through thirty crap sources in order to reject it. I am also very, very frustrated with our actual legitimate business coverage being thrown out with the bathwater - something which this proposal (in either format) is going to make much worse in very specific ways (of which I and the majority of respondents to the RfC highlighted). I am also very frustrated with the repeated assumption that being unimpressed with those specific five criteria means I'm opposed to altering NCORP standards to fix the same problem you're concerned about.
Now, there might be a way of proceeding with an amended version of your five criteria (and doing so in a way that could actually gain consensus) - but you've had plenty of editors raise wide-ranging concerns about how you're doing it - not that you're doing it. So many people responded with various takes on "I'm sympathetic to the idea, but this is not the right solution" that there's obviously a way to a consensus outcome there. But it needs collectively brainstorming a solution that is good: not insisting on "concrete proposals" mildly altering the same five criteria so you can immediately put it up again with minor amendments just after it tanked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
First, they are not "my criteria". If you go back and read the July discussion (and the discussion from Jimbo's page that is linked there, which links back to lots of other discussion), all that is happening here is gathering up specific criteria that have gained some consensus in those discussions. I am shepherding, for sure.
People have written several times that what we need are higher quality deletion discussions, where the existing guidelines are applied better. I actually agree with that and try to participate as much as I can but, that doesn't help much.
I think the sourcing guidelines are already pretty good with CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Unfortunately people who are writing about that don't seem to be dealing with what they actually say. But if folks want to start discussions about improving those bits, I would be totally behind that. Perhaps I will open that discussion so folks who are focused on that have a place to concentrate.
If consensus develops that some other guideline-level approach would be better, I am completely open to that.
But I am in no hurry, whatsoever. None. You continue, even here, with that misrepresentation. Please stop. These discussions have been ongoing since last summer; keeping them moving along, is not "rushing" or "hurrying".
Again, if you have any ideas about how to improve NCORP to improve our ability to exclude spam, please propose it. What can I do, other than ask you to say what you do want? I am asking the same thing of everyone who is participating.
If you propose something better - completely outside the five or so things that have been gathered up so far -- that gets consensus, i would not complain at all. I would be very happy. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I still think there's a really important conversation to have around the NCORP standards, as with the several people who preferred an approach based on sourcing to one rather than on worthiness. I've been thinking that these are quite vague in ways that are unhelpful across the board: there's a real need to clarify what business coverage we would accept, what we consider to be a good source. Quite a few of the NCORP criteria take out most reasons mainstream media report business news (because something happened), and the most extreme end, "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people", interpreted strictly, could rule out all mainstream media coverage except where the company refuses comment.

I think our inability to set down what we would define as good coverage (and creating a situation where everything is arguable) is allowing a lot of PR people to play in the grey area. Very few of the crap articles I see at AfC are notable enough to have gotten more than (at best) one or two mainstream media articles, but they inevitably try to boost this with low-quality trade/industry journals/websites/magazines that NCORP don't address well. I'm left to dismiss this stuff by stretching the NCORP criteria and applying the one I mentioned above harshly, but it's not as easy to dismiss as it should be: the guidelines don't really differentiate NYT-standard business coverage from "Bob's low quality trade website". Do you get where I'm going with this? I don't really have a clear solution yet, I'm just trying to find ways to address this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks this is helpful. I agree with your description of the way that our sourcing criteria get played. Someone who used to be very active at [[WP:COIN] formerly had the job as a PR person placing pieces in trade rags and could spot them a mile away.
In and case I've opened a section at WT:NCORP to discuss what the guideline says about sourcing and I will think about how to improve that too...
I do most of my work in stuff already in mainspace (the kind of stuff that Carrite talked about here), but i have spent time doing NPP and AfC work to understand what that is like. The number of articles about pop culture cruft is staggering - the line there between people on the company side pushing the stuff, and on the fan side is almost impossible to determine (paid/conflicted vs advocacy/fans) and the sourcing quality is horrible... almost no line between WP and the blogosphere. That is another whole ball of wax that will be very hard to tackle due to the editors who are "fans". Business articles are a little different because there is less of the "fan" problem, which is why i have started here... anyway thanks for that last reply! Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

17:33:16, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Carlymita[edit]

I'm struggling a bit knowing what "notability" and "trusted sources" refer to, since the article has references to The Wall Street Post, Healthcare IT News and some Business Journals. Can you provide any more direct feedback as to why the draft lacks notability? Carlymita (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)carlymita

Carlymita (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thank you.Carlymita (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)carlymita

22:02:44, 23 January 2018 review of submission by Kathieserrano[edit]

Hello, I would like to understand what changes we need to do in order to get published this content. As a note I can tell you that the first review was approved by the reviewer "Bradv" but earlier by mistake, I have submitted my content in the draft, and brand asked to submit the content again.

I would appreciate your feedback in order for us make the right changes to help us get this content approve.


Kathieserrano (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kathieserrano: I think you may have misinterpreted Bradv's comment; nothing was said about approval, simply that you should be developing the article in the Draft: space and not in your User Talk. Kerry (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 08:58:16, 24 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Pt1979[edit]

Thanks for your input on my first-ever article. I've amended the sources as you suggested, with one exception where the text specifically mentions a report published by RER so it makes sense to link to it.

I would dispute the need to include criticism of the project. The criticism you reference is of one of the multiple parties behind the project, not the project itself, and the criticism is already documented on the company's own wikipedia page, which is linked to in the article.

Pt1979 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 02:24:48, 25 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Pt1979[edit]

Thanks for the guidance. I've added the section as requested.

Pt1979 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Erika Heynatz death[edit]

I have noticed you keep having to revert information by an unregistered user several times over last few days about her death. I have looked online and I cannot find any reliable sources to say she has died, so this must be vandalism. I was wondering whether this page ought to have a block on it so only registered users can edit it. Are you aware she has died, I mean she is quite a famous person in Australia so I am sure there would be news courage.(Amy foster (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

Updated Article's references Pericent Technologies[edit]


I appreciate your time to review the article Pericent Technologies and allowed me to improve it notability. I have updated the article as covered in the independent references. I hereby request you again to please review the updated article of Pericent Technologies.

It would be great, if you please allow me to know if I missed anything, or kindly approve.

Regards, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndesuza74 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert C. Seacord for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert C. Seacord 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/Robert_C._Seacord 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. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

09:15:09, 29 January 2018 review of submission by John Birchall[edit]

After spending several hours with the German version of the article, it became clear to me that although the sources are not identified line by line, the article is is surely drawn from the two biographical dictionaries listed under 'Literatur,' and simply provides access to the material there for those who do not have those reference works to hand. I have added a little by way specified sources, so the English version of the article is slightly better sourced than the German, and it seems a pity to abandon it. Going back to those two German biographical dictionaries and adding footnotes line by line is within reach for German contributors with regular access to a German university library, and for me would involve a day travelling ot the British Library calling up those two sources for no greater reward than to confirm what is already reasonably clear: that they are indeed the real sources used by the German language contributor. The article would have been better had the original contributor specified rather than merely implied that two German biographical dicationaries are the sources. I am inclined to think that where two biographical dicationaries are listed under 'Literatur' that is sufficient attribution for thise brief notice on Herr Liepmann to be admitted to Wikipedia, though the sourcing is not ideal; I also think that if my view on this point is rejected, it is worth leaving the translation, which was performed with considerable care, in draft until such time as you consider that the German original has met Wikipedia's standards.

John Birchall (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The 'Literatur' section in German seems to be the equivalent of 'sources' in English. If it had been better formatted I could have used the German version as such without change, with a substitution template: I incorrectly called it 'Literature.' I have now improved the formatting of the sources and updated the References to make this clearer. The first source has a Wikipedia entry for the editor, and the second source has a Wikipedia entry for the work, which I have not attempted to link to. John Birchall (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Following your last message, I have moved the sources list under References, and placed References after Notes (the order seems to suggest). John Birchall (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Resubmitted. John Birchall (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

15:21:52, 29 January 2018 review of submission by Rachirimim[edit]

Hi, Drover's Wife. Thank you for your recent edits. I am having a hard time understanding what constitutes "notability." There are not many articles written about systems engineering tools, so notability in the field is established in ways other than write-ups in famous newspapers. I was instead proving notability through facts like:

  1.	Vitech's founder was the president of the International Council on Systems Engineering, or INCOSE, the world's largest professional network of systems engineers (according to the Wikipedia page on INCOSE)
  2.	Universities' use of our product in engineering courses at colleges across the nation, including top-ranking universities like MIT
  3.	Usage of Vitech software in significant projects (for example, those run by the U.S. Department of Energy)

I am further confused by a page for another similar engineer tool in the same space, MagicDraw, which has as references: its own website, a comment on a blog, an unsecure website, and the website of an open membership association of systems engineering companies.

This has left me confused and I would really appreciate your help in further understanding what Wikipedia is looking for in order to establish "notability." Can you tell me specifically what we need to do to prove this?

Rachirimim (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 09:28:12, 30 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ahadzhiyska1[edit]

Good morning The Drover's Wife,

I hope you're well.

Thank you for taking the time to review my Articles for Creation submission on PayU. As I've worked hard on ensuring that I provide 40 independent, trustworthy references that support the notability of PayU, I was wondering whether you could elaborate on your decision to decline the submission. Thank you very much in advance!

Ahadzhiyska1 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

06:37:51, 31 January 2018 review of submission by Keanugeanu[edit]

Hi The Drover's Wife - thanks for taking the time to review my submission. As far as notability goes, from 2013-2016 Aneros won more XBIZ product awards than any other company except for a company called Fleshlight. In my mind that alone would qualify as being notable. The XBIZ awards are one of the two most prestigious awards in the industry. There is more information including a newly published medical papers that I can reference but shouldn't the awards be sufficient for notability? Compared to many other companies in the industry who have approved wikipedia pages this submission has much more information. Please let me know your thoughts, thank you. Keanugeanu (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

14:20:23, 31 January 2018 review of submission by Rachirimim[edit]

Thank you so so much for your helpful and timely response! I have reached out to multiple reviewers and you are the first to respond so just know you're awesome! I really appreciate your comments, they gave me a lot of insight. Rachirimim (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

XJDF - review[edit]

Hi and thanks for your update. I am not quite sure, why you see a German University or an international trade organization in the print industry (CIP4) as unreliable sources for a standard that is more or less a major update (thing XML vs. SGML) of an existing standard (see page: Job Definition Format). There are not many vendor publications yet, since it is a new standard that will be published next month. There will be press release, but again that will be published by

I am a bit at loss how to continue. Wait 2 months until the press release is out?

Thanks again for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainer.prosi (talkcontribs) 20:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sea World Culture and Arts Center[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my draft SeaWorld Culture and Arts Center. I have since written other articles including Gaston Lenôtre. I understand your saying it needs more references of which i have found a number [1][2][3] So I am wondering now since I am able to publish articles and have the references to substantiate the notability is it alright with you to just go and publish it in regular article space?Williamsdoritios (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again I resubmitted Sea World with the links added. i hope you can have a look at it, ThanksWilliamsdoritios (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Request on 21:59:43, 2 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nimbo.lo[edit]

Why was my submission declined?

Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sudhakar Tomar[edit]

Hi There,

Thanks for the honest review of my draft .I really appreciate your efforts but I think all the sources used in the article have related the subject and it also reflects subject's notability. I could be wrong please tell me how I can improve my article.

In case you missed, I am sharing few links used in the article (including Forbes Rank, Leading Indian Newspaper article, Dubai Government website etc.): http://http//

Kindly have a look and let me how I can add more quality content as required by Wikipedia guidelines.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal.srivastava.rti (talkcontribs) 08:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

05:24:04, 4 February 2018 review of submission by Laura bachrach[edit]

Laura bachrach (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Hi. Thank you for your feedback. I have some questions that I hope you will answer so that I may improve the article. Might you be able to let me know why the cited publications such as Forbes, CNBC, TechCrunch, Venture Beat are not considered reliable sources when they are leading media outlets? As well, I have added a feature article from Fast Company. Each article used as a reference is reported by a journalist in detail and solely about the company which is one of the first subscription services for toothbrushes. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Laura

Laura bachrach (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

16:49:05, 4 February 2018 review of submission by Garyt84[edit]

We now have more data and references to Harmon cooper than other authors on wikipedia what else can you suggest?

Garyt84 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Magdalene Catholic High School / Notable alumni[edit]

Any reason for removing the Notable alumni section along with Daniel Assetta from Magdalene Catholic High School? ---MarkehMe (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Topface article declined[edit]

Hi. The first version of the article was declined (, so I went to Teahouse to get some wisdom. I was said that if my article is a translation, I should properly attribute it and re-submit. I did that.

Here is our discussion about the notability of the article.

Could you comment it? Antonzaitsev (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvios - multiple URLs[edit]

I noticed an error when you posted this {{db-copyvio}} [1]. If there are multiple URLs that are copyvios (to a maximum of 3), each needs its own parameter, like this:


Using <br> tags doesn't separate the URLs. It just confuses the copyvio detector link into thinking it's one long, unbroken URL. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your rollbacks made the papers.[edit]

Apparently you are also an "accredited" Wikipedia editor! Congrats on earning that mysterious title :) Manning (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Erika Heynatz[edit]

Hi I have found some interesting information on Erika heynatz I am not sure but there is something fishy going on about her death. I have found a website called find a grave the memorial has been removed today , I went on it yesterday and it said Erika Heynatz Birth 25 Mar 1975 Port Moresby, National Capital, Papua New Guinea Death 14 Jan 2018 Adelaide City, South Australia, Australia Burial Yallourn Cemetery Newborough, Latrobe City, Victoria, Australia and then it gave a summary of her career, then it said On 14 January 2018, at the age of 42, while in Adelaide City Australia for a recording session, Heynatz died unexpectedly at the Adelaide Hilton hotel . The cause of death was not suspicious. The coroner's office said the results of its inquiry would not be released until April at the earliest. On a YouTube video link here Erika Heynatz tribute, I know things kept getting added about her dying, is she alive or dead could it be another person with the same name. ?  Amy foster (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)    

her website, agent, assures me nothing is happening. Alive. as for the youtube video ... maybe not for long. Dave Rave (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurito ole Kisio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maasai and Kikuyu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 11:15:08, 9 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Abmnn[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my article on Nimble Commander! You rejected it for notability reasons. I respectfully disagree and here is my argumentation that I hope you find reasonable:

Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that "a computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field [...]".

Of the five sources I used, the first two (Softpedia and MacTech) are well-known websites/journals in the Mac software domain that both have their own Wikipedia articles. The third and fourth are a large Computer News website (CNET) and well-known tech blog ( The fifth is a recommendation by the author of the golden standard file manager of the last two decades (Total Commander).

Objectively, the quality of these sources is at least equivalent to the ones used in the acticles of Nimble Commander's direct competitors, all dual-pane file managers for macOS:

Please take 2 minutes and see for yourself. Take Fman for example: It cites three sources. The first is Softpedia, like in my article. The only difference is that Fman was rated 3/5 and Nimble Commander received a 5/5 rating. The second source is a journal, comparable to MacTech which I cited. The third is ProductHunt, a product launch website where everybody can post their product without any peer-review.

Please help me understand in detail why you rejected the article. Help me add a good article for a popular piece of software - thanks! :)

Abmnn (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 18:34:01, 10 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Shengsheng555[edit]

Please look at the list of publications. They are published on well-regarded academic journals and are widely cited. I think they are sufficient to establish the notability.

Shengsheng555 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Thank you very much for your work on my Rondo Neighborhood article! It was my first in the AfC process, so was very much holding my breath. Much appreciated!

ClarityKTMpls (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 21:58:28, 11 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Shengsheng555[edit]

Thank you for your prompt and kind reply. Could you please look at the modified page Draft:Joan Bagaria and give some advice? I added more media coverage and independent sources.

Shengsheng555 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 22:20:29, 11 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Stevevil13[edit]


WHY DID REFUSE MY ARTICLE???  First of all, I would think TIME MAGAZINE counts as a reliable source for backing up an article.  Also, I've had a previous article- The Houdini Museum Of New York- published using THE SAME SOURCES and no one groused about that!  I've read all of the "user talk" questions on your page and it seems like many article writers have issues with you and how you choose what "deserves" to get published.  As Fantasma Magic and The Houdini Museum of New York are both intertwined, it seems to me that the error is on YOUR part, not mine.  Please rectify this situation and publish this article.  Fantasma Magic is a multi-million dollar toy and magic manufacturer who supplies magic and toys worldwide and has been in business for over ten years.  They are not some fly-by-night little company.  Thank you. Stevevil13 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Stevevil13 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Reversion on Barry Jones entry[edit]

Thanks for taking an interest in my edit on the Barry Jones page. I was attempting to rephrase my own sentence as another editor had interpreted it as meaning Jones didn't have an opinion on euthanasia when in fact his opinion as a leading progressive thinker is highly contentious and well known. I wonder if you have time to consider whether or not simply stating that his position is 'inconclusive' is adequate to explain his intensely mixed feelings on the subject as expressed in the referenced documents. Gumsaint (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing drafts[edit]

My drafts Jamie Pitt, Ian Gillan, and Petter Bennet all meet the criteria (jamie pitt and peter bennett have played in the Singaporean S.League see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues while ian gillan has coached for a Philippines Football League team which also meets the criteria). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

11:42:56, 16 February 2018 review of submission by RC1996[edit]

Dear The Drover's Wife, Thank you for taking the time to review the page I am trying to publish. This is the second time that it has been rejected, and this time, I am not sure what more changes I should make? I have provided all of the references. Do you have any recommendations, as I have read all of the pages on wikipedia (and read blogs/watched youtube tutorials), so I am really lost at this point.. I thank you in advance for your help. Kindest regards, Rayan RC1996 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Altered lists[edit]

Could you provide a list of judge list formats I've altered? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Mouncey[edit]

If you want to remove her born name then a discussion needs to be started at the talk page. You also need to use better edit summaries. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

12:52:16, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Bartoszbielecki[edit]

Bartoszbielecki (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


A while ago you reviewed a page about the company called "Codewise", which you declined, and marked the lack of notability of this page as a reason. I'd really appreciate it if you could give me some tips on how to make it pass a review. I've studied the Wiki article about notability of organizations, but it wasn't helpful, because the page I created met all the rules mentioned in the article. It is the company from my city, and I saw it didn't have its Wiki page, even though it was named the second fastest growing company in whole Europe, and third in the entire EMEA region. It's one of the most recognizable companies in Poland, especially for IT people. I even stuck to citing large, globally known media outlets like Forbes and The Financial Times, which covered Codewise in deep and multiple times. So please, let me know what can be done to make it acceptable. I'm eager to contribute to Wikipedia, so any tips will be helpful.

Best Regards, BB

01:16:15, 23 February 2018 review of submission by Miaourach[edit]

Hi The Drover's Wife,

Andes Technology is one of the top 5 CPU IP providers in the world, so I believe it's worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

Also, I would like to know how can I improve the referencing. It says "Wikipedia requires significant coverage..." and Andes is actually featured in some prestigious technology media such as EE Times and Digitimes. I don't know what else I can do to improve it so it would be very helpful to hear suggestions from the reviewers. Thank you!

Update: Thank you very much for the tips. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaourach (talkcontribs) 05:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Miaourach (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

03:09:12, 23 February 2018 review of submission by Mark Abernethy[edit]

Not a re-review - clarification of why the Coates Hire submission was rejected. I included reliable, published sources such as Sydney Morning Herald articles, books with ISBNs and the announcements section of the ASX - which has a similar regulatory function to the US SEC (ie. by law it has to be true). I'm not sure which references were not good enough and I don't want to re-write it and remove all the references that were good enough, thereby prolonging the process. I understand the need for Notability: should I list, say, 20 articles from the SMH and Australian Financial Review that are about Coates Hire? Just need a few hints so I can complete this. regards, Mark Mark Abernethy (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Mark Abernethy (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Topface article translation declined[edit]

Hi. I answered to you on my talk page and re-post it here. You said: "I declined because articles must reference significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to demonstrate that they're notable topics for Wikipedia. Most of the sources either a) relate to one hacking incident, b) are to the company's social media, or c) are to trivial sources like "top so-and-so" lists. If it's a notable site, there will be people writing actual stories about it in newspapers, magazines, etc. - but if so, none of that has made it into the article."

That's not the whole truth. There are Russian sources that are notable sites with people writing actual stories. I have already had a conversation about this in the Teahouse, and I was recommended to re-submit the article as a translation. Antonzaitsev (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

23:27:35, 27 February 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Hi there,

I am new to Wikipedia. So i hope you can help. I'm writing this page about Peter Charleston, Australian Psychologist. I've updated some of the references in the hopes of them being a little more objective. Not sure if they re an improvement, so thought id ask.

Are you able to help me pin-point exactly how i can improve the referencing? I don't have scholarly articles regarding this topic, as the article is in reference to a person (not an object or historical topic etc), so i'm really not sure what type of references i can add other than links to the expert opinion/commentary he has offered etc.

Are you able to suggest if i should delete any of the information, if you feel that there is no particular suitable reference to go with it (e.g. i don't have a link online directly to the radio interviews he gave, but other people could easily call the radio station to verify etc).

Hoping you can offer some personalised/specific guidance so that i can make this article better. I have checked out a similar page (Australian Psychologist Jo Lamble, and her page has been approved but doesn't have as much content or references.

I'd be very grateful for any advice you have.

Cheers. (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

00:34:57, 28 February 2018 review of submission by Mdbachmusic[edit]

Can you please specify which lines of this article draft are causing an issue or need to be addressed? The article was rejected because of a lack of footnotes, but it currently cites multiple references so please advise on what needs to be changed in order for this draft to be approved. Thank you very much.

Mdbachmusic (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Greens Australia[edit]

Discuss the issue of Greens ideology and political positions with me on The Greens talk page rather than unjustifiably reverting my edits, which provide sources.

Thank you.

T3hfix3r (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samuel Dennison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Argus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


Bring on the sources and I will be happy to provide a rebuttal on a per-se basis. ~ Winged BladesGodric 11:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

14:29:44, 4 March 2018 review of submission by Aboutbeauty[edit]

Hello, I would love to know why Beini's wiki has been decline. She is very famous in China. I posted the related news which are all well known publishing here in China. What can I do to make this version accept? Thank you.

Aboutbeauty (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Das osmnezz[edit]

For a little background you might want to take a look at this. This is an undoubtedly well meaning editor who has managed to create a lot of low grade but acceptable articles. But who has also manifested dreadful CIR issues to the point where he has been blocked repeatedly and I was very close to indeffing him. I feel badly dumping him on AfC but he just isn't ready to be let loose on the project. On the other hand a look at his stats shows he is a work horse who has actually produced hundreds of articles. He really needs a mentor but that program appears to be moribund. In any event if you feel he has become too much of a time sink for AfC let me know. Unfortunately this is probably the kid's last stop before being indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I had a talk with him on his talk page. We will see what comes of it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

question on rejection[edit]

Hello to The Drover's Wife. Thanks for all you do to keep Wiki accurate, For — This company page was rejected due to "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published." The company has been featured in AP, Reuters, USA Today, CNBC, Detroit Free Press and about a hundred trade magazines, as well as the U.S. Energy Department's Alternative Fuels Data Center. Many of these were referenced in the draft (not all due to space and trying to keep the entry concise). Any guidance on what to include in order to get an approved resubmission would be appreciated. Thanks. Julie CoconutJulie (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Mass Moves" - apology please[edit]

Hi The Drover's Wife. Regarding this comment, please show evidence of my "mass moves" or any move against consensus at all or withdraw and apologise. I don't see why I should have to tolerate bad faith accusations directed at me personally from you because you disagree with me (and consensus). As for taking all renaming discussions to RM, that actually would be disruptive and more than a little bit WP:POINTY. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Mattinbgn's page moves can be found here. The vast majority of them are controversial. He is being sneaky by moving quiet pages are a low but steady rate with the effect of altering the appearance of consistency of the status quo, a major point in discussions on WP:NCAUST. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup[edit]

A quick note: There is a meetup in Fed Square this Sunday at 6pm. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

3DB - The Minstrel Show.[edit]

Dear "Drover's Wife",

I start the section that you don't like by saying: "The majority of historians and historical commentators stress that when looking at the past, one must be careful to view the situation through the social mores, commonly accepted attitudes, and conventions of the particular era ...". In other words, from the beginning I am making it clear that this Wikipedia section speaks for many people. The section includes links to the following Wikipedia pages: minstrel show, Nigger and blackface. All of these pages certainly include the types of comments to which you appear to object, in some case with stronger language than I have used! For example, the introduction to the Nigger page uses expressions such as: racial slur, unambiguously pejorative, and racist insult. (There is also some criticism in the African Americans page, which is also linked to 3DB.)

If one were to leave the first paragraph of The Minstrel Show section without any qualification, it would look completely racist!

It is most important that the explanation of a general change of attitude over the past decades by the vast majority of people be made. Can you imagine the outrage if someone tried to produce a minstrel show today, in any media (including radio)?

Yours, Albert Isaacs (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear "Drover's Wife",

Thanks for the compromise suggestion, which has been followed up, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.

Yours, Albert Isaacs (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear "Drover's Wife",

I am about to make yet another compromise which, hopefully, will satisfy all.

It is intriguing to read some of the negative comments on your user page. There appear to be many people who are intimidated. However, I personally want to think positive, and hope I therefore that we have now resolved at least one of the 119 difficulties listed on your user page for just over 12 months.

Yours, Albert Isaacs (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Interested in becoming a new page patroller?[edit]

User:Amorymeltzer/sandbox/npp/note ~ Amory (utc) 15:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR granted[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello The Drover's Wife. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory (utc) 00:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

08:46:55, 11 April 2018 review of submission by Saeedsafari266[edit]

Saeedsafari266 (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello dear reviewer You have stated in your comment that the article does not have reliable independent sources. I made some changes and would like to know if are they enough and if not, what are your suggestions to make the article more encyclopedic. Because I have read the article and don't see more information than provided in the article. In fact I believe much more information is provided in the present draft. Thanks for taking the time to review the article and reply to this message. All the best

Did you ?[edit]

Hello The Drover's Wife, first of all: many thanks for your attention and your opinion. Please allow me a question: Did you read the complete section beginning from here or better beginning two steps above from there? Honestly it took me nearly one week of intense work in collecting, understanding and for evaluation of sources. Hm your comment about "foreign editors" made me made me feel a bit concerned - as I am editing from germany ;-) I agree with your opinion that the case was something like a "watershed" and that there are some editors from US which might have their own (local) motivations. Nevertheless, viewing at the article from the encyclopaedic side there are some deficits which need to be corrected. I would be happy to see you and more people from Australia to watch this. Any active help in the article would be even better. Best --Tom (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals[edit]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn Lee[edit]

First of all, I am so glad I'm not the only one that uses those lists! I'm actually about to do a run through and try to identify some more birth dates of current MPs, but I don't like my chances too much. One day the SA Parliament will get a halfway decent website, but who knows when that will be.

As for Lee (good catch!), I really don't think there's any chances that isn't him, but at the same time I'm not sure we can use it. The Parliamentary Handbook is still showing him as living and unless we can find a direct reference to the ex-MP dying it might be a bit of a stretch. You would think there must be something around, though - I'll certainly have a look and now we know that it's likely to be out there it might be easier to find. Frickeg (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've had a look at all the places I could think of (I'm sure you'd checked most of them already!) and there really doesn't seem to be anything online. I think the best thing to do is put a note on the talk page with what you've found. I suppose we could also write to the Parliamentary Library or even to Joanne Ryan and see if they know anything (presumably if they do they would at least fix the Handbook). Frickeg (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Street[edit]

Regarding your trimming of my recent edits of Justice Alexander "Sandy" Street's page: "hugely trimming down the genealogy-cruft - this isn't about Sandy and belongs in Street family if anywhere" - might I ask who exactly his page is supposed to be about?

In any case, I do concur that his mother's family history is perhaps better kept on the family's page, although I disagree with your removal of reference to his British heritage and direct descent from the various Earls. It is only out of good-Wiki-will that I refrain from correcting this omission.

Good day, madame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evabonnier1967 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason Party (Australia) categorisation[edit]

re: [2][3]

Reason Party (Australia) is in Category:Political parties in Victoria (Australia), which is an (implicitly) diffusing subcat of Category:Political parties of Australia by state or territory, which is a diffusing category of Category:Political parties in Australia. Could you be more specific about why the article should be directly in Category:Political parties in Australia? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Australia First Party[edit]

Hi, I see that the Australia First Party was re-registered as Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated. I didn't realise they were the same party, sorry for that. In regards to some of the unreferenced claims about factional infighting, I'm going to remove those as they are unsourced and seem to be excessive and unnecessary detail seeing as it's a tiny group of criminals and neo-Nazis who's claims about branches and membership numbers don't stack up. I hope you'll agree that they hardly warrant a detailed account of infighting between members. Bacondrum (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping fix this page up, much appreciated. Bacondrum (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Melbourne Wikimeetup (June/July)[edit]

Cartography of Australia.svg Melbourne Meetup

Wikimedia Australia.svg
See also: Australian events listed at (or on Facebook)

Hi, I've just made a doodle poll to vote on the best date for the next Wikimeetup in Melbourne (Beer Deluxe, Fed Square). Would be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Date of meetup decided:

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT


No worries! At this rate they'll both be disqualified later on anyway for, I don't know, owning a strip of grass with a postbox on it or something. Frickeg (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Saumarez Homestead[edit]

Cheers for your massive expansion of Saumarez Homestead. It was certainly a pleasant surprise. Have you been working on this expansion for a while? Many thanks in any case. I've got several images around the grounds of Saumarez Homestead that I took in 2014. I've uploaded one of Mary's Garden. I might get around to uploading more later as the article is now big enough to justify several images. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there The Drover's Wife, I've gone over your additions to Saumarez Homestead and made a start on a clean up, especially the use of ibid. in the references. It needs more work on cleaning up the refs and peters some tightening of phrasing. I've been using the {{convert}} on all measurements, too..... Cheers.
Freikorp, please let us know if you'd like to assist with rolling out articles for all NSW State Heritage Register places in New South Wales. Rangasyd (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ivan Marusic[edit]

Hi The Drover's Wife -- You declined this back in January but the subject is an extremely clear pass of WP:PROF per the two elected fellowships already in the article. Looking at the second reference it adds that he has a named chair, and his Google Scholar citation profile is very strong. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding quickly. Academics are a bit of an anomaly because AfD goes almost entirely off WP:PROF except in very borderline cases. The depth of sourcing isn't important, as long as material such as chairs, prizes and fellowships can be confirmed. Most of the big academic societies publish complete lists of their fellows online, so verification is usually easy. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

nothing to do with god[edit]

Mitch is always well intentioned in his subcat work - rather than an edit summary and getting into an edit war, why not state your case at the WA noticeboard, then it doesnt become personal - but a general discussion - it would be a good idea. JarrahTree 00:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If you keep reverting without going to the talk page, I think you are placing yourself in jeopardy. cheers JarrahTree 00:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, your WP:AGF response at my talk page is really appreciated. I have a particularly bad history with mitch and subcats, and made even the worse by the watching the now blocked machine head User:Wwikix almost single handedly re arrange the whole of wikipedia. I do think that the whole category policy/overview has had its time - and needs revisiting, but usually what happens is they get someone to do a project - and nothing eventuates.

To be honest I am at a bit of a walk away stage with subcats - due to the reverse - overcat here and on commons - where child parent and grandparent cats are included to promote something - the balance has not been found imho. JarrahTree 01:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And if you feel threatened - hey there is simply the requirement that from an outsiders point of view it looks like the beginning of an edit war - and there is a need to make sure those involved are aware that an outsider would see a WP:3RR issue arising - I have met you and mitch in real life - and I have respect for the work you both do - I am more concerned what an uninvolved outside might make of it all. JarrahTree 01:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have real life looming - this discussion is important and I appreciate your good faith response - hey, there could be a very very good idea to have further discussion down the line. G'day for the moment. JarrahTree 01:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife and JarrahTree: WP:SUBCAT is a well-established MOS guideline. If you disagree, with it, propose a change to it on the talk page.
If you want a category to be all-inclusive and/or a subcategory to be non-diffusing, then add the {{All included}} and/or {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} templates – that's what they are for, and that's why WP:DUPCAT says "Non-diffusing subcategories should be identified with a template".
The default method for categorisation is SUBCAT's "no duplication" rule. If you want to invoke one of the exceptions, that's fine, but I suggest that the onus is on the editor(s) wanting an exception to the general rule to clearly indicate that intent by using the templates provided for the purpose. I don't think it's reasonable to expect an editor to check hundreds of articles in dozens of categories to determine that "every suburb of Perth is in the parent". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raglan railway station, New South Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evening News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Helping the reader?[edit]

Hi there,

Re your edits to 443 Queen Street, Brisbane: could you please explain to me how you adding the citation in the edit summary –as opposed to adequately citing it within the article itself– allows the reader to know whether the content is reliable and verifiable? Thanks, —MelbourneStartalk 05:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Forum Alpbach Network[edit]

Dear Drover's Wife! The exists since the end of the second World War, but got most attention in the past 2 decades. It is a huge network of almost 20000 former scholarship holders from all over the world. The history is truthfully embedded and I added articles from 3rd parties, such as national and international newspapers reporting about it. There is still lots to do to finalize it and to get additional people on board to cover earlier stages of the network and keep it up to date. But it should be published in order to get the drive and motivate the correct people to research and tell the historic truth and facts of their period. Thank You for checking it and letting me know, what is missing and otherwise please take it online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giopur (talkcontribs) 08:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blayney railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gables (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Your recent edit changed a {{WikiProject Conservatism}} banner at Philip Ruddock. WikiProject banners are the sole responsibility of the project. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this banner has been reverted by a project member. Note that placement of the WikiProject Conservatism banner does not imply that the subject is conservative nor right-wing. For more information see the Assessment FAQ. Feel free to contact the member who placed the banner, or post a message at the project talk page. Thank you. He was both the Father of the House and the Father of the Parliament from 1998 to his retirement. He is the second longest-serving parliamentarian in the history of the Australian ParliamentLionel(talk) 11:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Victorian state election, 2018[edit]

I don't know much about Australian politics, but the edit I reverted listed a former leader of the Victoria Greens, not the current one. The anon has been "extending" the time in office of various politicians from both Australia and New Zealand.-gadfium 04:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

John Whitton Bridge and Meadowbank Rail Bridge over Parramatta River[edit]

These should be merged.--Grahame (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grahamec: I was surprised at the effort gone to to delete the useful infobox, but it's quite well done. Dave Rave (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The Spectator[edit]

I don't see anything to back up your view that the Spectstor is fringe and therefore unreliable. Could you provide proof of this in the clementine ford talk page? -- (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Kinchega Woolshed[edit]

Thanks for your correction of my disambiguation at Kinchega Woolshed but you have left a malformed link [[Cpp[er Creek|Cooper's Creek]].— Rod talk 12:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

But I didn't know whether it should be: Cooper Creek, Coopers Creek or Copper Creek so thanks for fixing it.— Rod talk 12:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim Hammond[edit]

Seems to be some confusion, he did indeed resign subsequent to the others. He only announced the resignation a week earlier. @Timeshift9: re. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Speaker accepted Perth resignation 10 May, and Mayo resignation 11 May. But why use incorrect superfluous words that don't add anything? Brevity is key. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Replied at Timeshift9's talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

NSW Heritage items[edit]

So the naming convention applied is that decided by a bureaucrat within the NSW Heritage Department. Am I right in thinking that these are just straight copy and pastes from their website? May explain the large amount of errors and outdated information. That is the problem when editors add articles on mass with little or no subject matter and thus cannot sense check. Oonoon00 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the book[edit]

Oooh, thank you for the link to the NT book! Always good to have another reference as I'm noticing a few gaps and errors in the sources, so it's great to have another to compare and check against. --Canley (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

David Lleyonhjelm edit[edit]

Hi there, looks like you might not be aware of how we edit wiki pages around here. Not to worry, I'll give you a run down!

Articles are supposed to express fact, not an opinion of the author. The edit you made of the [PAGE ABOVE] seemed to imply an opinion, rather than stating fact.

A good rule to think of is 'Does this need to be changed, or am I just angry?' That, and count to 10 (my favourite!) and you should be able to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

--Hey there, you edited the article again, (GOOD FOR YOU!). You might want to read to wikipedia editor's entry, which says; you DON'T add your own commentary to ads. PLEASE remeber, just because you hate the person you are writing about, doesn't mean you are not gay .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope this helps you next time you try to edit wikipedia! We'll be in touch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi @The Drover's Wife: I made a change to your Courango?? homestead article, identifying the "Port Phillip Pines". However, my source was an email from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.... (Should I put the email into commons???) MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red[edit]

Hi, just curious about this revert. Is this a known troll? In situations like this, I find it's better just to rebuke the editor's arguments factually. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Strike that, it is. Good revert. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted content Greens[edit]

Hi I am happy to discuss with you the reasoning of placing the greens political spectrum as Left to hard left and why the evidence supports they are by no means center. Dr pragmatists (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

About article of Design Up[edit]

Greetings, Last time you have rejected the article, Is there any way I can get my draft reviewed before submitting. Please help me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindduc (talkcontribs) 16:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding you[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See LINK DCBarrow (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments at the beginning of articles you created.[edit]

I see you have put a comment at the top of several articles like this one: <!-- Article title: The Ben Hall Sites - Wandi SHRNo:1827 DatabaseNo:5055031 -->

What's this for? Can/should it be removed?

Aisteco (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I see. Thanks for the reply.
Aisteco (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Glad that you are doing a great work. Very much appreciated. Sujith Ilamurugu (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Emma Husar[edit]

I have opened a case at the Please comment there.Merphee (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to sincerely thank you for your reasonable and civil comments to me about my editing and interactions with other editors. When I have been wrong I have accepted it immediately and moved on. I think editing biographies of living persons is quite tricky and I appreciate your direction as I learn the ropes. I also appreciate how you have done it in a non hurtful way unlike a couple of other editors I have been dealing with who have constantly belittled me. You are a very good editor and an asset to Wikipedia.Merphee (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Obviously as an experienced editor here I am wondering what I should do regarding comments like this? [4]Merphee (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Narrandera railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gables (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible problem with the NSW State Heritage Register[edit]

Hi, Thanks for creating articles using the NSW State Heritage Register. Not sure if you noticed, but I spotted a problem [5] with the way the material on Braidwood used the word 'settlement' and 'settlers'. As I understand it, the entries are written by different people/companies/organisations, so this probably isn't a systematic issue, but it might be something to look out for. I keep meaning to do a day trip to Braidwood to improve Commons surprisingly poor coverage of the town BTW - maybe when the weather warms up a bit! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Richard Denniss[edit]

I'm too busy at the moment but the inclusion of that quote from the Saturday Paper is an obvious NPOV violation and the red-flagged editor reverting edits is flying very close to the three reverts rule. I'll contest that change when I have more time Gumsaint (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation[edit]

Hi, your article on the Miner's Federation looks to be a good start. I think it'd take a very long article to do the subject justice, given the union's long history and key role in Australian industrial and political history - but at least there's no shortage of published sources. Personally, I try to avoid using contemporaneous newspaper articles (it feels a bit too much like original research for my liking), but that's only a preference. I'll try to help out on the article when I can.Warrenjs1 (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The source/s[edit]

  • Forde, Francis Michael (Frank) (1890–1983) Following Curtin’s death in July 1945, Forde was prime minister from 6 to 13 July, but caucus soundly rejected him as a permanent leader in favour of the more charismatic Ben Chifley.
  • Frank Forde As Deputy Prime Minister, Forde took over as Prime Minister on Curtin’s death. He held the position for eight days, 6–13 July 1945, in a caretaker capacity, until the federal parliamentary Labor Party elected JB Chifley instead. As Deputy Leader of the party, Forde was bypassed twice for the leadership, in 1934 and 1945, when Curtin and Chifley respectively became the leaders.

To which the other editor, on my talk page, agreed that Forde was in fact interim. Mind you, this was correctly status quo in that article/list for years, and you've undone that. Regards, —MelbourneStartalk 10:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Further: I believe you may be unintentionally confusing the issue as indicated by your edit summary: my edit (nor the other editor's edit) disputes Forde as being PM; he was. But he certainly was not elected Labor leader. By being deputy, and with Curtin's death, Forde was temporarily elevated to the position — at which point a new leader was elected seven days later. —MelbourneStartalk 10:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So I see that you’ve been editing elsewhere and haven’t responded to the post above (not quite sure why you’d do that considering you undid my edit citing a reason, which surely, if you went to the effort of undoing the edit you’d be happy to elaborate further...). Anyway, I’ve gone and undone your edit but also added a citation too. Hope that suffices. Regards, —MelbourneStartalk 15:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from Vandalism PATH SLOPU (Talk) 07:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Regarding this edit summary, the linked discussion is talking about categories set by {{infobox former country}} that are no longer being set due to its merger with {{infobox country}}. I was merely re-adding the appropriate category based on previous usage. If the category shouldn't have been there in the first place, that's fine, but if the only reason you reverted me was because "the discussion doesn't say why it's added", then I would kindly ask that you re-add it until someone verifies its accuracy. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Copying from an incompatible license[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are importing text from the New South Wales State Heritage Register, e.g. in Ottery Mine. However, this source is CC 4.0 licensed, and according to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, the WMF legal team has stated that the 4.0 license is not compatible with the wikipeidia license, and therefor 4.0 text may not be imported, not even with an attribution. I'm afraid that we'll have to delete all the articles you imported in this way, which isn't a nice thing to do; but sadly a necessary thing. I'm not blaming you for not knowing that this license was not acceptable here, I only learned about it last week myself. Fram (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I went into more detail on your talk page, but tl;dr - please read the pages you link before threatening people based upon them. Your own page explicitly states that CC-BY is compatible - you're either confusing it with CC-BY-SA or you didn't read the page, or both. Either way, poor form. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Ah, I mixed up between CC-By 4.0 and CC-By-SA 4.0, these licenses are really too confusing. You are right, the things you imported seem to be perfectly acceptable, so please carry on. Fram (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St John's Cathedral, Parramatta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gables (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts on Laura Tingle Page[edit]

Why on earth are you deleting Tingle's revealing statement of her view of the "trouble with Turnbull" at his final press conference? Surely you are aware of alternative views? Why would you want to hide hers? She has repeated it in all her analysis of the downfall of Turnbull. Leave it please. Observoz (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The questions journalists ask in interviews and press conferences can't be assumed to reflect their own views. It is a standard journalistic technique to put provocative views/propositions to interviewees. The text here stated that she was presenting the views of voters anyway. As such, this isn't useful content. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hot 100[edit]

Hi, I was curious why you considered the 3 women I submitted to the Hot 100 for improvement to GA status to be inappropriate. Lucille Ball is the only "Hollywood American"; Olivia Newton-John is an Australian entertainer, and Virginia Woolf is an English writer. 2 of the 3 articles are considered Level 4 Vital articles on Wikipedia, and the other (ONJ) is considered Level 5. I specifically chose them because of this importance. I was trying to add more articles for people to take note of since we had some vacant spots in the Hot 100. I don't mind if you think other women should be in these spots, but I would argue that whoever they are should be from the Vital lists. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This month[edit]

Hi i saw that you have made a complaint about at least this time you notified me. Thought I would just make it clear I am not a member of the Liberal party. -- (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I hope that I'm sorting out the "spinifex" links correctly, so it was good to have some reassurance from someone who appears to know about the Australian flora. As far as I can see, most links from the text "spinifex" in articles relating to Australia relate to the genus Triodia, because they are concerned with the arid interior, not coastal sand dunes which are the habitat of true Spinifex. If you see any errors I've made, do correct them and let me know. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Dede Alpert[edit]

Hi there, many thanks for your work on Dede Alpert - that's great, looks so much better now. Thanks again, Tacyarg (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi there. Would you please tag me or send me a list of Bathurst articles needing photos. I will source pver the next few days. I have limited internet connectivity. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Thomas Elder 4.jpeg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Thomas Elder 4.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sydenham, New South Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sydenham railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you paying attention?[edit]

Why? Did you misclick, or have you never heard of Queen Victoria or Queen Adelaide? (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


I used to dine out on the fact the Sydney project per se was the under-developed project for Australian cities (when watched over the last ten years) - well yourself, Kerry and Rangasyd have transformed the project - well done!!!! JarrahTree 10:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The general increase of material about Sydney - even just the framework of articles and categories - is so important - you all need encouragement to keep at it! JarrahTree 11:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Thompson (Australian politician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Observer, The Advertiser and Recorder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted your edit on Robert Askin[edit]

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. I added a new source; I haven’t removed the other (a Crikey article). Given that this is a biography, we should be very careful about the weight we give to unproven allegations... even if the subject is dead. Mqst north (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Program for Australian television[edit]

Hello, in regards to your recent reverts of television shows where you left the edit summary "not Australian English, just awkward" when changing the term "program" to "series" in a large number of articles, you are actually not corrent. An RfC determined that "program should be used for Australian television series" and that "..program was the preferred usage for television series. The RfC looked at whether "program" or "programme" was the correct spelling for Australian television-related articles, and consensus was found that "program" is indeed Australian English for Wikipedia articles relating to Aussie television. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)