Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AWNB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Portal | Project | Board | Alerts | Deletions | To-Do | Category | Related | Help

WikiProjects edit | watch
In the news edit | watch
Read and edit Wikinews
Categories edit | watch
On this day in Australia edit | watch

Australia · Arts · Architecture · Cities · Communications · Culture · Economy · Education · Environment · Geography · Government · Healthcare · History · Law · Language · Lists · Media · Military · Music · Organisations · People · Politics · Religion · Science · Society · Sport · Subdivisions · Transport · Tourism

Australian states and territories · Australian Capital Territory · New South Wales · Northern Territory · Queensland · South Australia · Tasmania · Victoria · Western Australia

Capital cities · Adelaide · Brisbane · Canberra · Darwin · Hobart · Melbourne · Perth · Sydney

Australia stubs · AFL stubs · Geography stubs · Government stubs · Law stubs · People stubs · Paralympic medalists stubs · Television stubs

26 February:

Landsat image of Lake Mungo
To-Do edit | watch
Announcements edit | watch

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia:

Requests · ABSTUDY · Ariadne Australia · Awakenings disability arts festival · Drought Force · Electoral reform in Australia · Festival of the Dreaming · Fossils of Australia · Landforms of Australia · National Tidal Centre · OneAustralia · Property Council of Australia

Articles needing attention · Crime in Australia · Cycling Australia · Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon · Environment of Australia · Privacy in Australian law · Tourism in Australia

Images requested · Benjamin Benjamin · Cheryl Kernot · MV Pacific Adventurer · Poppy King · Rosemary Goldie · James Moore

Verification needed · Architecture of Australia · Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission · Australian performance poetry · FreeTV Australia · Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission · List of Australian political controversies · Outback · Paul Wild Observatory · Punk rock in Australia · Reg Ansett

Quality watch:

Fair Use recommendation for Australian law, could WP have a role in this?[edit]

Hi all,

The background:
As some of you may know, the Australian productivity commission recently handed down a report into Australian Intellectual Property law (Report), and one of its key recommendations was the introduction of the principle of Fair Use - to replace the current Australian system of Fair Dealing. This is not the first time a government inquiry has recommended this (e.g. the 2014 Australian Law Reform Commission's report Copyright and the Digital Economy).

As Australian Wikimedians, we have (arguably) some of the best practical experience in the country working with a Fair Use framework - as it is the method by which all the company logos, album covers, film posters etc. appear on English Wikipedia articles. Ironically, we have very limited experience in working with the Australian Fair Dealing system (that's the "Part VB of the copyright act" you might have seen on university handouts for example - it's a "statutory license" meaning that schools PAY for this, even for the use of free-access websites). This current system is deeply opposed by the Australian public education sector (see for example the "Fair Use And Why Australian Schools Need It" documents published by the Copyright Advisory Groups (Schools and TAFEs)) and the Libraries sector (see the Australian Libraries Copyright Council submission into this enquiry[1]). Given Wikimedia is all about free-access to the sum of human knowledge, by rights, the Australian schools and libraries sectors are those who we ought to be supporting as best as we can.

Now, unsurprisingly, the Collecting agencies of Australia are opposed to this change - See for example the counter-arguments from the CopyrightAgencyLtd[2] or Australian Copyright Council[3]. They are, as expected, talking about this in the context of preserving the rights (and revenues) of Australian content creators and using emotive arguments about struggling authors to push this point. This is notwithstanding that one of the Fair Use checks is whether the usage would undermine the commercial value of the work in question. On the flip side, there has been a fair bit of support for the idea - from obvious places e.g. EFF [4] but also from more general sources e.g. IP-Watch [5] and these two articles by Fairfax Economics columnist Peter Martin [6] & [7].

The suggestion:
Australian Wikimedians, through the vehicle of the English Wikipedia, have a massively visible platform for awareness-raising about the role of Fair Use - because so many Australians are benefiting from Fair Use every day when they read our articles, without knowing it!
Wikipedia is neutral as a matter of core policy, but we are also deeply activist as a matter of supporting free-access to knowledge.
So, I'm wondering if the Australian Wikimedia community would be interested in "getting involved" in this area of public policy advocacy??

Specifically - here's the idea I thought might be practical, and powerful. I'm asking your thoughts about whether you think it's a good idea in the general sense. Please don't pre-emptively shoot it down on technical minutiae, I'm aware that some software (as well as communications) work would be needed to make it happen.

For all the media files on English Wikipedia that are a) are in the category Category:All non-free media, b) when they are viewed from an Australian IP address, c) by a non-logged in user,
we overlay them with a graphic that says something to the effect of:

This image is illegal to view in Australia under copyright law
Click here learn why and how you can change that. Show me anyway.
Clicking the 'learn why' would take you to a page (on meta?) describing Fair Use etc, and linking off to the lobbying campaigns of our allies (petitions, contact your MP etc.). The 'show me anyway' would dismiss the graphic and show the original Fair Use image.

The idea here is to make Australians aware that they are already benefiting from Fair Use. Furthermore, unlike the SOPA blackout this can be targeted to only people who are affected (Australians viewing Fair Use content), be dismissible, and run for any period that allied organisations are making lobbying efforts (rather than a fixed 24 hours). Clearly, this idea (specifically the start/stop times, and the wording) would need to be coordinated carefully with organisations who could do the 'heavy lifting' of communicating with the press such as the ALCC - they are the lawyers, not us. Also, it would require the support of WMF-Legal as I imagine filtering a banner/graphic on the basis of IP-range has privacy policy concerns, not to mention the act of political advocacy in general.

Obviously it would be importantly also to have the support of Wikimedia Australia (i'd say actually that it would be mandatory) but this would first-and-foremost be an on-Wikipedia action and therefore would require the consensus of Australian Wikipedian editors.

If this is a super-dumb idea, please don't shoot me. But if it's a good one that needs some tweaks, please say so. I just think we're in an excellent position to lobby for some improvements to Australian copyright law because we already have the platform and already have a massive category of Fair Use content that Australians are accessing every day.

Sincerely, Wittylama 15:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Witty lama for your well thought out response to the issue. I do hope others respond as well. I do think that it is well worth considering. One small problem is at this time of the year many Australian editors disappear from here into shopping hysteria like the rest of the country.... there might be a delay of responses... JarrahTree 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an editor, but an academic working on copyright reform, and work for civil society organisations that are active on the issue (Creative Commons Australia and Digital Rights Watch). We would welcome the support of WP & Wikimedia in advocating for the public interest in upcoming copyright debates. Bringing the importance of fair use to the attention of Australian users is an excellent idea. There are some legal issues - i.e. that some uses of the non-free media may already be permitted under Australian fair dealing law, but it's still an important point. The other really useful point that the WP community can make here is to show that fair use is not uncertain: that with a few guidelines, it's actually relatively easy to apply the legal rules to different situations. Nicsuzor (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
While I support introducing fair use in Australia, I don't think that Wikipedia should get involved in national politics in this way. This is a contested issue (this article on The Conversation does a good job of discussing the debate), with some content owners raising legitimate concerns about the Productivity Commission's recommendations - see this op-ed, for instance. As such, we cannot assume that Australian Wikipedia editors as a group support what the Productivity Commission has proposed. Wikimedia Australia and individual editors should advocate for this change, but Wikipedia shouldn't. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
hi Nick-D, thanks for taking the time to comment. I'm not assuming that all Australian editors as a group already support the introduction of Fair Use to Australian law - that's why I'm asking what people think (of both the general principle and of this specific suggestion) here. This thread is to seek some form of [initial] consensus in that regard. I do assume that because we're already practitioners and beneficiaries of a Fair Use system, that we would be more informed about its benefits/risks that the general Australian population: if any group of non-lawyer Australians can speak about how fair use works in practice, it's us!
I know that political lobbying has been done (eg for Freedom of Panorama legislation) on various language editions of WP, but I don't know if there's ever been any geo (IP) targeted advocacy before.
I should also note that the Producivity Commission report recommends a whole range of things to do with IP, not just Fair Use, (including things like confirming that 'circumventing geoblocking is not a copyright infringement' - see page 28 of the report for a summary table of all recommendations). However this suggestion here that Australian WP editors might like to get involved is specifically and only related to Fair Use - given that it is the thing that we already promote by default in Australia through our use of it on en.wp. Wittylama —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I see this as raising two question, one is how the Wikipedia community reacts to the potential changes and how Wikimedia Australia reacts to the potential changes. In an ideal world they should be the same but WMAU is bound by the requirement of representing its members the larger the members base the stronger the voice WMAU can speak with, everyone is welcome to join WMAU. I'll watch this discussion with a keen interest to see what evolves as a WP contributor, as a member of the community, an outreach project leader and as President of WMAU. As yet WMAU has no agreed position and any members of the chapter or committee are speaking as individuals. Gnangarra 11:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

" ... WMAU is bound by the requirement of representing its members ..."
@Gnangarra:Which "requirement" in particular? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Australia is an Incorporated member organisation and charity it represents the interests, and furthers aims of its members, this is the primary purpose of all incorporated associations. Gnangarra 13:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Further comments at User talk:Gnangarra#Wikimedia Australia's primary purpose, if anyone's interested, because it's off-topic here. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal attack noted and deleted, Merry Christmas Gnangarra 00:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
My refutation of this accusation of personal attack is at User talk:Mitch Ames § December 2016 Mitch Ames (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Gnanarra. You're quite right - there are two potential (and partially overlapping) communities who could "do" something in this regard - the Chapter and the Editing Community - each with its own tools and constraints. WM-AU has previously been involved in submissions to government enquiries (e.g. our Submission on Australian Digital Future Directions paper in 20009) - which does mention Fair Use in passing - but the time for official comment/submission to this current enquiry is now over. At this point it's a question of publicity and lobbying (both in the positive and negative senses of those words) by interested stakeholders to encourage the Federal parties to actually turn these recommendations into a Bill, and then to actually vote on it in parliament... The Copyright industry is most certainly already doing this (see for example their "free is not fair" campaign). So, yeah, aside from this on-wiki suggestion, it would be good if WM-AU as an Chapter could do something in supporting this - perhaps a press-release or letter of support that our aforementioned allies could help to bolster their own work? Wittylama 12:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is an excellent idea, and I'd love to see it carried out. Am not a very active Wikipedian, so I'll watch for feedback from others. --Sanglorian (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, not a regular editor here, but someone who has worked closely with Wikimedia over the years and now works on copyright reform. If Wikimedia Australia does agree to support this suggestion, the organisation I work for, the Australian Digital Alliance could provide support in terms of materials to link to. We already have a series of CC-licensed videos and have plans for fair use mythbusting documents. If you want a partner, we're interested. Damph (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm supportive of a change to our regulations. But if we do write a message, I don't think it should state that *viewing* an image hosted under US fair use on US-hosted Wikipedia is *illegal* for Australians unless we have a strong legal opinion that says so. I doubt it's true. --99of9 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the people who have commented here. It seems that, while there's certainly not an overwhelming or vociferous support for the idea, there is a general degree of positivity for the general concept across the comments (with the exception of Nick-D which I acknowledge). I agree with Nicsuzor and 99of9's points that the *wording* of any such notice (and landing-page) would need to be carefully constructed to be both 'good design' and 'legally accurate'. Perhaps an good text to overlay would be, simply, "FAIR USE" and people could click through to find out what that means (or click the 'x' to dismiss the overlay and see the image itself).

I particularly thank Damph for offering that the Australian Digital Alliance could be the formal partner/supporter of this concept. And, I believe, if this idea would work it would be absolutely crucial for an external professional organisation that is *already* active in this lobbying-space would be the leader. This is not an area that Wikipedians or Wikimedia-Australia is capable of "owning" even if we wanted to, but it IS something Wikipedia can direct attention to the existing work of others like the ADA.

This leads me to three questions:

  1. Would WMF legal department (e.g. User:Slaporte_(WMF)) be able to say that the idea of geo-targeting an overlay on Fair-use tagged images, for the Australian IP-range, to logged-out readers, for a few weeks(?), is both technically possible and legally allowable within of the Wikipedia terms of use/privacy policy?
  2. Would Damph be able to say that the text of the landing page could be written by the ADA and public-facing communication be coordinated by them - and what is the timeframe for starting/finishing any such campaign?
  3. And if these first two questions were "yes", how would Australian-Wikipedians here recommend that a fair community-consensus for approval or rejection of the proposal be reached?

Sincerely, Wittylama 13:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC).

Hi all - in response to Wittylama I can confirm that I've talked to the ADA Board and we are very keen on the project if you are. I think launching in March would be best. Public consultation on the proposed PC changes closes next week, so that will be the period when the government is making a decision about any response. We can certainly provide a landing page, which we would edit in consultation with WM-AU. It would be on a fairly slim website, with the aforementioned fair use videos, a few fair use fact sheets ("what is fair use?" "mythbusting" etc) and probably a call to arms for people to write to or phone certain parliamentarians. Does that sound like what you had in mind? Damph (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Note from Wikimedia Legal[edit]

Hi all, I spoke with Wittylama, and want to confirm here that this is technically possible and legally feasible if there is community consensus in support. Following the Wikimedia Foundation's policy guidelines, we have a few steps to get approval for a potential action like this. The first step is to get the community's opinion on the proposal. As part of this discussion, it would be good to thoroughly consider the user experience of the proposal, so the campaign is designed to continue to empower people to get access to knowledge and information. Fair use can be a very important legal doctrine for free expression and the public interest. I'm glad to see a discussion about how to support a policy like this in Australia. Best, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

Thank you Damph and Slaporte (WMF) for this feedback. It is very good to have confirmation that the Australian Digital Alliance is willing and able to support such a campaign (with your staff and documentation resources) and that WMF-Legal department is able to confirm that this proposal is technically possible and legally feasible. The big things to confirm now are:

  1. agreeing a start and end time
  2. agreeing on the visual and technical design of any messages (banner/image-overlay etc)
  3. and most importantly that the Australian Wikipedian community has consensus support for doing a campaign in accordance with points 1 and 2.
Creationistas - Australian Copyright Is Broken

I've included here on the right an example of a video produced by the ADA in their 2013 Fair Use campaign "The Creationistas - Australian Copyright is Broken", which directed people to the dedicated campaign website (internet archive link) and their main site The ADA could potentially make something like this (or adjust this one) for a Wikipedia-hosted project page about this e.g. at [[Meta:Fair Use for Australia]] (or something like that) and the ADA, in collaboration with WMF-legal and WikimediaAustralia could handle any mainstream media enquiries (as/when appropriate).

So, what now? Would people like if I create a sub-page of the Australian WP noticeboard to specifically delineate the design options for a campaign, with a call for comments, and a straw poll - equivalent to the Commons FoP campaign discussion or the MetaWiki Free Bassel campaign discussion? Wittylama 13:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello! What do y'all think of having a bot go through and automatically assess all stubs? --SwiftyPeep (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

not unless it is a very smart bot - sub projects exist and are under-assessed - and it is likely your proposal will only do the main Australian part - I havent seen a bot assess sub projects as well to date anywhere JarrahTree 03:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Bots that we can use are at Category:Autoassessment bots (Excluding YoBot, who is currently blocked). You have a very good point on subprojects however, I don't see that as a reason to reject this proposal as it could still be helpful even if it's only to the main Australian one. Cheers! --SwiftyPeep (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there are plenty of reasons to use automation for assessment. While new articles trigger a quality assessment (usually that it's a stub/start class because new articles tend to be small initially, there's nothing else really that automatically triggers any kind of subsequent review as the article develops over time. If nothing else, bots could be initally used to create lists of articles whose current human-assessment is significantly different from the machine assessment (e.g. a stub that looks like a B class) which would then serve as a trigger for human reassessment. I think if projects and subprojects were to work with the bot developers, I can't see why the bots couldn't be customised for specific projects and subprojects. I am thinking here of the Australian Roads that have certain expected sections and their road junction list. I think a bot could spit out an assessment of an article and a report of things that prevented the article from achieving the next level, e.g. "for B-class needs history section". We don't have an infinite human resource to do these assessments so a tool that focuses human effort on articles that seem to have the greatest need for re-assessment would be making best use of the human resource in terms of achieving accurate quality assessments. If the tools can indicate the issues that prevent an article achieving a higher rating, then that gives contributors a more obvious task to do rather than the more nebulous "make it better" (like the difference between citation-needed and refimprove templates - the first tells you where the need it, the second lets you guess). I think the main thing would be for the bot to add its ratings under its own banner on the Talk page and not to mess with the human ratings. Kerry (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to see a trigger for re-assessment when the text of the current article is >50% (or some other arbitrary threshold) different to the text of the article at the time it was last assessed. As Kerry said, new articles tend to be Stub or Start, but not reassessed even if the author doubles the article a week later. --Scott Davis Talk 23:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, but the problem lies in identifying the "article at the time it was last assessed". The WikiProject Australia banner on the Talk page does not appear to link to the specific version of the article as assessed, nor include a date/time. So as a human, you have to look at the history of the Talk page for an edit summary that suggests it might be responsible for the present tagging, confirm that it was the edit that added the current assessment and then knowing the date/time of the assessment, go to the history of the article and find the version that most recently preceded the assessment. (Aside, if the article was being actively edited at the time of the assessment, it may be that the assessment took place on the not-most-recent version but one of the slightly earlier ones - we have no way of knowing what version was showing on the assessor's screen at the time). Now, to do that automatically is an interesting problem. The main problem lies in identifying the edit on the Talk page that created the last assessment. It's possible by just working through each successive version of the Talk page to find the one that first adds the WikiProject Australia tag (let's assume we are only interested in this project for the moment), but it is somewhat harder to work out if any subsequent version has modified it. Assuming you have identified the last edit to Talk in relation to that project's assessment, it should be easy enough to find the version of the article at that time (and not possible to know if that is the one that the assessor is reading if the article is being actively edited). Once you have that version of the article, it's relatively easy to run a check of certain metrics of that version versus the current version, such as number of bytes, number of citations, number of intermediate edits, as a big change in any of these suggests a need for re-assessment. So, I would say it's probably impossible to do this perfectly but I think the accuracy should be good enough for the practical purpose of triggering a human re-assessment. The main thing is to reduce false positives (articles that are declared as showing a lot of change since last assessment when it is not the case) as that wastes human reviewer time. It is less of a problem (I think) if an article doesn't get re-assessed when it should have (given we may not have enough human resource for the re-assessments in any case. This is why I would have the tool look for considerable change to the article in the first instance and dial it down over time as progress is made on the re-assessments. Kerry (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I admit I didn't think about the challenge of determining when the article was last assessed. It's pretty simple for the vast number of articles with exactly one edit to the talk page, and an adequate approximation would be the last edit to the talk page for any pages with only wikiproject banners on the current version. If a date was added to the wikiproject template, and filled in by bots, I'd expect most humans who re-review a page would update the date at the time they change the rating, so the set of more challenging pages to identify is smaller. --Scott Davis Talk 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Susan Kiefel[edit]

Raised the importance of Susan Kiefel to High in common with other Chief Justices of the High Court. (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


Further to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 48#1Lib1Ref - happening 3 weeks ...

At approximately 10am today, the final day of the campaign, the State Library of Queensland passed their target of adding 1000 citations to Wikipedia articles as part of the Wikipedia Library’s #1Lib1Ref campaign which calls on every librarian to add one citation to an unsourced fact in Wikipedia. Many of the librarians at the library had not previously contributed to Wikipedia. In the case of the State Library of Queensland, I know at least 2 of their librarians who contributed over 100 citations each, one of whom made their first edit as part of this campaign.

Wikimedia Australia supported the SLQ initiative with Visual Editor training and several mentored group sessions over the 3 week campaign.

Great work, State Library of Queensland! Thank you to the Australian Wikipedians who sent welcome messages and thanks to these edits. Kerry (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The library got pretty excited about 1Lib1Ref with comments and photos here on Twitter. Kerry (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ask a librarian[edit]

Is the "Ask a librarian" still operating? I don't see the link anymore on talk pages. --Micha 11:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Should still be there for article talk pages – {{WikiProject Australia}} hasn't had any edits to that part of the code since June 2016‎. Is there a specific page or pages where the link doesn't show? - Evad37 [talk] 11:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I can see it. Was on the wrong page. - Do you know where I can get information about the success? For example how often the service was used? --Micha 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that we would be able to retrieve that sort of information - as the librarians could be at any of the participating institutions, and are not otherwise tied to the links JarrahTree 01:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
JarrahTree is correct. Micha, When I first proposed to the National Library reference desk staff (I was their social-media manager at the time) that answering wikipedia editors' reference enquiries would be a beneficial project, the idea was that the librarians would come ON to Wikipedia - the librarians of the National library of Israel do this with the Hebrew wikipedia (documentation). However that was not possible for a variety of reasons in Australia: one because the staff couldn't log the enquiries through their centralised system (not dissimilar to our OTRS) which is required as a publicly-funded organisation; but also because there is no 'australian specific' section of the wiki. Israel-Hebrew is a logical combination for their staff to be able to justify their time - but Australian library staff cannot justify time answering questions from any English speaker about all potential topics. So, as a result, we ended up with a system where the 'ask a librarian' external-link was placed on the talkpages of articles with the Wikiproject Australia tag. This is not particularly visible and, more importantly to your original question, simply sends the wikimedian to the Library's existing public enquiry website. It does NOT specifically track the origin of the enquiry as 'being from wikipedia' (although it is encouraged in the documentation that wikipedians state this fact, so it can be recorded un-officially) and furthermore the link to the relevant STATE library is provided as well as the National library for each time this template is shown (meaning the statistics of usage are potentially split across up to 8 libraries). From the library's perspective their work-activities have not changed, there's just now some links to the service on Wikipedia which hopefully encourage more use of it. I no longer work at the National Library but the results when I was there the actual usage wasn't very much. My assumption is that this is because a) the link is not very visible, b) requires the wikipedian to go to the mental effort to 'leave' wikipedia to a different website, and c) the interface of that website requires you to fill in a dozen fields (click 'enquire now' to see what I mean) which is normal for libraries to track abnormal for wikimedians to be asked these questions (like 'postcode'). Does that help answer the question? Wittylama 14:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia page:[edit]

The colour poster on this page "1920s poster for the Group Settlement Scheme" is totally incorrect in the context of this article. This poster is dated around 1913 for a different land settlement scheme - the Ready-made Farms scheme of the Midland Railway Company. It has nothing to do with the Group Settlement Scheme at all. The image is sourced from: The solution is to remove the image, then the article will be more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copeboox (talkcontribs) 11:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you take this up with the State Library of Western Australia, from which the image was sourced. --AussieLegend () 12:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
removed image - the Midland Railway Scheme was totally separate from what is known as the group settlement scheme - JarrahTree 12:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)