Jump to content

User talk:Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alison (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 10 May 2007 (→Port Arthur article: indeed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

Port Arthur article

Rebecca. Please read people's arguments before calling them "bizarre". Get off your throne and step back into reality. I have never even conversed with you. Yet my additions are "bizarre". I am not worthy of editing WP? Get over yourself.--Grinning Idiot 17:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain civil here. - Alison ☺ 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Rebecca.--Grinning Idiot 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, my point still stands. Keep a civil tongue - Alison ☺ 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:GUNDAM's talk, where I have been doing just that. The latest lot were PROD-nominated with consensus to nominate. I fully appreciate the significance of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I think the unencyclopedic - I mean, one sentence, no references, and weapon specifications - stuff that I did PROD has for the large part been moved to Wikia. At any rate I have no plans to nominate any more for quite a while and will try to get some more of these Gundam/Manga articles up to either GA or FA status. Moreschi Deletion! 09:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Please keep it civil. If you can't, then consider waiting until you can or else not commenting at all. Specifically, I object to "seem hell-bent on reigniting it" and "some new intolerant jerk decides that his way *must* be imposed on everyone else". I hope you will understand why I find this language unacceptable. Best wishes --Guinnog 12:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you behave in a manner more deserving of respect, you'll get it. We discussed this utterly thoroughly last year and resolved it to most people's satisfaction, and you've just ignored all of this, written up your own opinions, and then proceeded assuming some sort of mass consensus to implement your own preferences. I'm fed up with having to deal with this sort of arrogance. As for "not commenting at all", I would dearly like to never have to comment on this issue again, but since you've insisted on reopening it again, I have little choice. Rebecca 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you seem to misunderstand WP:CIVIL here (again). Civility is not something I have to earn, it is something you have to give. I assumed no mass consensus for anything; indeed the whole point of what I am doing is to try to build consensus, something which you have acknowledged does not currently exist. You seem to have some issues with civility and I would encourage you to address them as your current demeanour is doing nobody any favours, nor is it progressing the discussion. Your choice of whether and how to contribute is free and absolute; please therefore make better choices in your language in future as I will not tolerate being spoken to the way you just spoke to me. Hope that is clear to you. --Guinnog 12:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to dance around the point with you. You are not trying to build consensus; you've ignored the *months* of the discussion, and the consensus outcome fo that discussion, asserted your own personal opinion, and insisted that that be the basis for an amendment that you assert must occur. We already have something that respects all preferences but those of the absolutists; yours would force your particular absolute into the guideline. This is the umpteeth time I've had someone noisily assert "I want my way regardless of everyone else! Now!"; why on earth would you expect me to be sympathetic when you're trying to run roughshod over my preferences? Rebecca 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry too, as I certainly didn't do this with a view to upsetting you. However, I think that we can disagree without being uncivil. It seems you have misunderstood my policy proposal; I propose placing no absolutes into the guideline, nor do I assert that I want my way regardless. Nor do I even expect "sympathy", merely the baseline level of civility and collegiality that is a condition for anyone who takes part in the project. I have every right to raise my proposal in the discussion area, and you must restrain your obviously strong feelings on this subject for the sake of making progress. If you disagree with the proposal I have made, you are free to say so, but you must comment on the proposal and not on the person making it. Do you honestly think "some new intolerant jerk" is encyclopedic or in any way acceptable? It isn't either. Please don't do this again. --Guinnog 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use semantics. You're taking a guideline which quite specifically neither advises delinking or linking, for the precise reason that there is no consensus to do either, and changing it to delinking in nearly all cases, which happens to be your personal preference. Your every post on that page belies an attitude of "my preference is better, and we must use this as a basis for an amendment which must occur". As to your final words, I have commented on the proposal, but I have also commented on the proposer insofar as his attitude affects this, and I do not apologise for that. Rebecca 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think calling someone a "jerk" is acceptable. And for what -- making a proposal on a talk page? Not necessary, even without WP:NPA. — Matt Crypto 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I am not using semantics, I am very clearly stating that I find your language unacceptable. I am sorry that you do not feel able to apologise for your behaviour at the moment. I'm going to walk away (the recommended second step in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes) for a while to see if that helps. Maybe after you have cooled down a little we will be able to discuss improving the policy, but I see no point in continuing this discussion at the moment. --Guinnog 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Quiksilver

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for removing a citation needed tag from that article. I've been seeing a lot of unnecessary citations added lately and it's good to see someone else out there is cleaning these up. Thanks Rtcpenguin 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Mall

While ont he subject of malls, would you mind please taking a look at the Burlington Mall (Canada) article to see how it may be improved, as well as the related deletion discussion currently ongoing? RFerreira 10:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Đinđić

This article was not on my watchlist and only now I have returned to it since Christmas Day. Would you like to explain exactly why you interfered with my edit on that day? Evlekis 14:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template:cite Case AU

Do you make use of this template at all? I find the text it provides in the references section is not very meaningful. Just wondering... For now I will just keep using the ref statements without any template but I'm not too wonderful at putting everything in the right order (which is why I like the templates!) --Garrie 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for NSW Rail Line

Hi Rebecca, I was wondering if you could make any comments or suggestions on the article I have up for FAC, on the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Railway line in Sydney (see here); one editor in particular on the FAC has just been downright rude (I've been threatened and even accused of vandalism!), so I'd prefer some constructive comments from editors whose judgement I trust. Thanks for any help you can give. JROBBO 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now an FA. JROBBO 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey i did get permission (this is from wikieditor101)

but thank you for deleting it because they changed their minds want people not editing it correctly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikieditor101 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

IP check

Hello. I'd really appreciate it if you carried out this IP check:

The following users may or may not be sockpuppets of AdilBaguirov, but one thing is for certain, all these accounts have been started by one person, and if necessary, please do a seperate checkuser of these usernames to see if their IP's match or are relatively the same: Atabek, Elsanaturk, Roazir, and Elnurso have all made the exact same types of personal Attacks against me. Elsanaturks attack: [1] Atabek's attack (last sentence and header of section he started, putting my name in quotations): [2] Tengri's attack (puts my name in quotations): [3] Roazir's attack: [4] Elnurso's attack (see edit summary): [5]. Also, notice how their talking is relatively the same and that they all really appeared out of nowhere, many times after long absences, in January to help with reverts on certain articles: AdilBaguirov's contributions (see past 500, notice how he became active again in January after a period of absence): [6] Elnurso's contributions (see past 500, became active on December 31): [7] Atabek's contributions (past 500, became active on January 21): [8] Elsanaturk's contributions (past 500, became active on January 13): [9] Roazir's contributions (became active on January 15): [10] Tengri's contributions (became active on January 26): [11]. Notice how Elnurso stopped editing on January 11 and Elsanaturk started editing on January 13, just two days later (also notice the "El" infront of both of their names). Furthermore, notice how AdilBaguirov has been accused of having multiple accounts before (evidence is presented here), in this case regarding Dacy69: [12]. These users have appeared out of nowhere, in intervals, and have all engaged in edit wars in overlapping articles. Some make comments on talk pages supporting each other, and some help with reverts. Basically, here is a quick summary: a) same type of personal attacks, b) all came out of nowhere in late December or January, c) all involved in relatively the same topics, and d) all have the same tone and writing style. Also, as you can probably see from the diff's of the personal attacks, they all make the same claims against me, such as I vandalize and I have POV, etc... They sound exactly alike.

Please, my check IP was rejected due to a technicality, but this is very urgent, as one of these users (User Atabek) had a confirmed sock which was banned indefinetly (however, the sock puppeteer has not been blocked, I do not know why). Please, many of these users are socks or sock puppeteers.Azerbaijani 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Simmons

Hi - I was typing her in to google to see how far up the list wikipedia's page was, and noticed that after it being second, User:Rebecca/Drafts/Lindsay Simmons was third. There's some interesting points to add - do you mind if I pinch them? (Also I don't know if you realised that your draft came third in a google result for lindsay simmons... haha. Timeshift 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue III - February 1, 2007

Announcement: If someone requests help or feedback on an article, please try your hardest to help them out if you are able. Thank you.

Project News
  • The LGBT Portal has once again been revamped and a work rota started. Efforts towards Featured Portal status are slowly coming together.
  • The assessment system has been a great success, we have tagged over 4000 articles! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system.
  • The Translation department has changed its focus, to LGBT articles about non-English topics and people on which there may be more information on the relevant foreign Wikipedia. Please add your name if you are fluent in any language other than English.
  • Jumpaclass is picking up slowly, with nine people having entered. With over 2000 stubs we need to improve our article quality. Please sign up and get it going! Challenge another user to see how far you can jump a stub!
  • There is an ongoing discussion about the current LGBT categorisation system here, here, and a little bit here. A special page has now been set up here to deal with this.
  • A Watchlist has been set up to monitor controversial and/or highly vandalised articles. It can also be used for article disputes, just add a note explaining the nature of the dispute.
  • With the influx of so many active members, there is now enough support for a LGBT studies peer review, which may be found here. It's in the beta phase at the moment, so bear with us if we make any mistakes. Feel free to peer review any articles you have been working on.
  • It was agreed this month to start reducing the uses of the Notice board, as many members felt that it was not effective. An open tasks template has been created, bringing together important announcements, FAC/FARs, Peer reviews, XfDs, the COTM, and requested articles. You may desire to watchlist it. A Deletion sorting subpage is also now working to bring together XfDs - this should be bot-driven, but we have not currently tagged enough articles to make this fully automated, so please update the list with any LGBT-related XfDs you come across.
Article news
Member News

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

You might want to update your name at our membership list - you're still listed as Ambi. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies

In December I revived the discussion about merging the notability guidelines for Companies & Corporations into Organizations, with simplified text reducing the confusion of all of the special circumstances, which now reads like the US Tax Code. In mid-January I proposed that we make a decision by the end of January, and move to developing the text. The vote is now open at Talk Companies and Corporations.

--Kevin Murray 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chuk

Hi Rebecca I thought you might like to voice your opinion about | this discussion. Walid khalil 05:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NUS Office Bearers

The office bearers of NUS page is up for deletion for the third time, with no apparent explanation why now is any more important to have it deleted than last time. You might like to comment. JROBBO 12:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bannon

I believe it was the predecessor organisation, so I've changed it.

Regarding Wikipedia, what are you tiring of? This thing has lots of potential but there are too many fools and no appropriate forums for discussion on how to improve the system itself. Every day I get that little bit more disenchanted, and I pray that the curse that had enveloped American articles does not spread to Australian ones. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about it all. Best wishes and sincere thanks, michael talk 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit a nail on the head and I agree with you completely. Too few people here actually have an intellectual interest in what they are doing. I would have the bureaucrats eradicated, or lessened, or something—but the fact that good writers and good thinkers are being destroyed by the naive and foolish masses appalls me. I look at the process for becoming an Administrator and see that it is not based on writing skills, or organisational skills, or even diplomatic skills; but how much useless bureaucratic bullshit a user can do. More respect needs to be shown to good, competent, experienced editors; but thanks to the hopelessly egalitarian (this is not always a good thing) nature of this place, I don't see it happening.
Personally, I just enjoy reading, researching and writing like you, and Wikipedia gives me an oppourtunity to hone my skills in this respect. If the oppourtunity arose, I'd quickly take my "skills" elsewhere if there was a nicer environment to do so in. michael talk 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back Beck. This place was going backwards without your input.--cj | talk 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral undeletions

I am very concerned by your decision to unilaterally undelete several articles which were speedily deleted under criterion A7, an article on a corporation which makes no assertion of notability. Specifically, you undeleted Westfield Figtree [13], Westfield North Rocks [14], Westfield Warrawong [15], Westfield Downtown [16], andSettlement City Shopping Plaza [17]. These deletions were made by several different administrators. It also appears that in many cases, you have utilized the rollback tool against non-vandalism edits: [18], [19], [20], though this was some time ago. In many of these cases, it is not the first time you have unilaterally undeleted the article. Several different administrators made the deletion decisions on this article, providing implicit agreement that the deletions were indeed not "deleted against policy". However, it seems to be an example of wheel warring to simply undelete these articles, rather than take them through the deletion review procedures, which is the normal process when one feels a deletion has occurred against policy. Also, if you felt that the tagging and deletions were out of process, it would have been best to contact me, as I placed the tags, and the deleting administrators to express your concerns, so that this can be resolved in the future. It does not appear this has been done. I would strongly encourage you to reverse these actions and to submit the articles for deletion review with specific concerns as to why the deletions were "against policy". I fail to see how myself-the A7 speedy criterion asserts that articles about corporations or companies may be speedily deleted if no assertion why the company is notable is provided. This seems to be the case with the articles you've undeleted, I would like to know why you disagree? Seraphimblade 13:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject, the first four stubs you mention are all about shopping centres owned and operated by, as is apparent from their names, The Westfield Group, the largest retail property group in the world. Thus, whatever your opinion on their notability, it would be quite wrong to say that there is no claim of notability at all. If you had checked the "what links here" (as any page patroller worth their salt would do) you would have found List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia, which should give you some indication of where these stubs fit in the scheme of things. --bainer (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm glad you commented, I must disagree. (And I do check these things.) The fact that a parent company is notable does not mean that each subsidiary or location is notable. For example, McDonald's is undoubtedly a notable subject, but that doesn't mean McDonald's Restaurant 12345 is, nor would such an article even have a claim to notability. "Associated with a notable subject" is not a notability criterion, and God forbid it ever be-everything and everyone would be notable if we did things this way, six degrees of separation and such! In the same vein here, while I would agree that The Westfield Group is unquestionably a notable subject (and that's well-supported with sources in its article), that is largely irrelevant to the articles being discussed here. Deletion of that article was not requested, nor do I have any intent of doing so, and any such attempt would result in an overwhelming "keep" consensus, as it should. What was requested (and granted, by several different administrators!) was the deletion of several articles whose specific subjects, regardless of associations, made no assertion of that particular subject's notability. Finally, I fail to see how the list you cite is relevant here? Wherever they may fit in the "scheme of things", subjects should be individually, not "by category", notable. An alternative solution to prevent redlinks, if that were important to the list maintainers, would be to simply create a redirect back to The Westfield Group for those malls which are not notable enough for separate articles. Seraphimblade 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Rebecca's reply copied here from my talk for clear discussion flow) I would never dare to unilaterally overturn an AfD consensus by undeleting those articles - those articles stay deleted. When one user - having tried and failed to have the article unilaterally deleted five times under a patent abuse of the speedy deletion criteria (spam does not equal stuff that's commercial that you don't think is notable) - tries again and quickly finds a rare sympathetic admin, no, they don't have the same protection. If you want the articles deleted, you get a consensus to do so. (And in future, please stop abusing your admin powers to try and circumvent getting an actual consensus.) Rebecca 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite a bit more concerned now-it appears you didn't take even a cursory look at what was going on before you took these actions. I most certainly did not delete those articles, and I wouldn't worry about me "abusing admin powers" now or in the future-I can't abuse powers I don't even have! I did tag the articles for speedy deletion, but not under spam (for what it's worth, I agree these don't fall under the spam criteria). What they do appear to fall under is A7, articles about a commercial entity with no indication of why that entity is notable. Similarly, "sympathetic administrators" (plural) were not apparently "rare". Jimfbleak deleted Westfield Figtree, Vegaswikian deleted Westfield North Rocks and Westfield Warrawong, Fang Aili deleted Westfield Downtown, and Royalguard11 deleted Settlement City Shopping Plaza. That is not a "rare sympathetic administrator"-these were four administrators, plus myself and Elonka, who felt that these articles should be deleted. That most certainly is sounding like a consensus to me. At minimum, one would expect that you would have checked who actually did the deleting, so that you could notify them that you had reversed their actions and why? I won't retag them, and will take them to AfD, but I still certainly disagree with how you chose to do this. If you felt the deletions were improper, why not take it to deletion review instead of just undeleting? In addition to being the correct procedure and preventing the appearance of wheel warring, that would allow others to clearly weigh in on whether these actions were correct or appropriate. (And for what it's worth, you'll note that the articles were tagged over a period of time, I did look for anything that might possibly make these things notable before tagging.) Seraphimblade 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Good to see you back editing again after your break! --bainer (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article :)--cj | talk 12:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Thanks for the welcome back, bainer - hope your holiday went well. Had any more thoughts about those native title articles you were talking about in December? Rebecca 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this when I saw it. I haven't really finished any articles that I've started since I got back, except for this one, which I only finished yesterday. I should really get working on that, there aren't many weeks left until I'll be busy with uni again. In terms of the native title articles, I'm still struggling with dividing up and organising all of the material, so if you have any ideas I'd appreciate them :) --bainer (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powers

Can you revert this and block this? Cheers, michael talk 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Property Trust

Just letting you know (as it's on one of your to-do lists) that I created an article to blat the redlink on this one. I have no idea where to proceed with it (I looked at the Centro article to get where I have) but have alerted another editor to its creation who may be able to help. On a side note - I did some work on some shopping centre articles up for AfD. Curious to know what the deal is with current AfD trends, if it's not railway stations, it's shopping centres. Orderinchaos78 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hanson-Young

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sarah Hanson-Young. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zzymurgy 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. --Zzymurgy 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Westfield Warrawong. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the template user above isn't perfect, but we aren't supposed to have speedy undeletions without prior discussion to review. Administrators are supposed to know enough not to discuss with the other administrator first, act second, when reversing administrative actions. Please come discuss it at deletion review, since this is now live there. GRBerry 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senate

Hi, I'm trying to get the day in Aus. feature ready for the portal; is this page you've been working on ready to go "live"?--Peta 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Recoome

Hi. Can you see if I did it right? Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD 2006 Victorian election campaign

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign. Grumpyyoungman01 04:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edit

Howdy! I have you on my watchlist from our last conversation, and I have a query about your latest edit. The editor put what appeared to be a reasonable tag requesting notability on the subject, and you removed it with an edit summary of 'rvt idiocy'. This seems to imply that you're calling the editor an idiot, which is why I imagine he or she asked you to be more polite. You then removed that edit, labeling it as trolling. This seems to violate the spirit of the Wikipedia civility guidelines, but there might be more to the matter that's not evident. What's up? Can I help with anything? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andjam has been blatantly trolling Rebecca for months. He only ever posts on her talk page to slap on canned warnings. Examples: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] He's been warned before by another admin ([27] ) but he just continues and seems to make a habit of reappearing and trying to stir things up every time someone else complains to Rebecca about something. From what I've seen, this has been happening periodically since he tried to meet her IRL, which makes it look like pretty clear personal harassment.[28] Also, I don't know if you noticed the dates, but that warning he put here today was for an edit summary she wrote in October last year! Seriously, Chairboy, it's a case of quack quack. Sarah 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with Sarah here. Rebecca isn't the nicest among all the users, but she is a lot better than most of us. With all the crap she has to put up with in real life as well as online, such users need to be community banned. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys! It seemed like there had to be more to the story, I appreciate the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to emphatically deny Sarah's claim that it is to do with failing to meet her in real life. I'm certain that we had disputes even before we tried to meet up. As to the nature of the meeting, I was hoping to meet up at the AIS open day, as we both work on sport in wikipedia, albeit different sports. Andjam 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that it was due to your failing to get her to meet you irl. I merely observed that I had been noticing your trollish and harassing behaviour towards her since then. I have no idea what motivates you, all I know is your behaviour here has been inappropriate for a long time. Sarah 15:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude toward's Rebecca's work on wikipedia is that she's a prolific contributor, but like several prolific contributors, sometimes is incivil towards other editors, and that it's better that she gets told about it as it happens rather than waiting for a RFC (though I did regrettably comment at a pseudo-RFC against her). There was one rather severe accusation she made against me, but she has since apologised for it. Andjam 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to some of the accusations, and noted some changes in my behaviour for the future, in this section of my talk page. I will be trying to avoid posting again on this user talk page for a while. Thanks, Andjam 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Union of Students

Please explain your reasoning in Talk:Australian Union of Students. Your edit summary "rv crackpottery", apart from being uncivilized, is not informative. Please keep in mind that some crackpottery may be notable enough to have a wikipedia article. In fact, we have quite a few of them, like, Time Cube. Mukadderat 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndrewBartlett

Rebecca, is there a protocol concerning user names not impersonating someone notable? I notice User:AndrewBartlett states they are an ardent supporter of the Liberal party, but they are obviously not Andrew Bartlett --Peter Campbell 10:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. You are welcome to open a request for community comment regarding usernames that concern you. Saw this post to your talk page Rebecca, hope you don't mind me answering it :) -- Longhair\talk 10:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

— xaosflux Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just notice you've got your talk page indef sprotected, are you having vandalism issues? As an admin how do you expect anons to reach you? — xaosflux Talk 05:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:civil

Please review it. An apology would be appreciated but is not necessary. Please conform the text to the sources you cite or find a source to support what you want to say. Thank you. Gwen Gale 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chuk

Hi Rebecca the Mathew Chuk article is up for deletion again! Considering this article was nominated less than four weeks ago and the result was an overwhelming keep, do we really need to go through this again? I'm thinking speedy keep. I'm relatively new at this caper so I could really use your input/advice. -Walid khalil 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Storm

Just heard about the storm. Hope you're well and not too inconvenienced. Hesperian 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Listed for deletion: Alan Carpenter

An article that you have edited significantly, Alan Carpenter, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Carpenter. Please look there to see why this is if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Auroranorth 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge stubs

Rebecca, I've just discovered the huge list of judge articles created by BenedictX (talk · contribs) and subsequently deleted by you about a week ago without any apparent discussion (maybe there was and I haven't found it). This seems to be a rather abrupt case of WP:BITE, as user talk:BenedictX suggests the user was still learning what our standards are, and was prepared to attempt to upgrade his articles if required. I'm inclined to agree with him that, even unreferenced and "cookie cutter", these articles were an improvement on the red links existing before and again now. They did contain a basis to build from. --Scott Davis Talk 09:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt

I presume that you didn't mean to format your comment the way you did. JoshuaZ 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Grove

No worries, as a former public servant, I'm fascinated by the bureaucratic process laid out in the ICAC report.--Grahamec 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ICAC and the CCC

Have you got any ongoing projects at the moment? I've been just looking around some of the law articles, and came across our decidedly sucky articles on the Independent Commission Against Corruption (NSW) and Corruption and Crime Commission (WA). ICAC has a pretty interesting history, and the CCC is very much in the news at the moment with the ongoing corruption hearings, so they might be interesting projects to undertake. I'd like to give them a go myself, but they're probably a bit difficult to try and cover on my own. Rebecca 11:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They both look like good topics. I'm a little busy at the moment both on- and off-wiki; uni obviously just started again and I'm very busy with that, and my current project is rewriting Commonwealth v Tasmania to featurable grade (which is a more manageable task than working on the native title subjects!). I can certainly help you out with research though. --bainer (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting in early

Many happy returns for next week —Moondyne 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday dear Rebecca, Happy birthday to you. (sorry if i'm early) —Moondyne 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Have a good 21st Beck,--cj | talk 10:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Enjoy :) michael talk 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LM

As usual you are very kind! Thanks for the suggestions, for without knowing the article's deficincies, I cannot improve it further. I'll see to getting it touched up soon enough, but Telstra have (for some reason) disconnected my ADSL from my provider—leaving me without home internet access for up to two weeks. michael talk 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Davies

A new user (possibly a sockpuppet) has re-created this article, which you deleted. I can't tell from the edit summary why it was deleted, and I'm not an admin so I can't check into it myself, but I thought you might want to know in case the article is inappropriate. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Honor

Ambi, How you been? It's been a long time. I just want you to know that I've inducted you into the "Wall of Honor{". Take care, Tony the Marine 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Honor

Ambi

Jackp and RaptorRobot...

User:RaptorRobot has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Jackp. This is now unfortunately being challenged. As the admin who initially blocked Jackp do you have anything to add? --Merbabu 21:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/RayTomes

Hi Rebecca. I am User:RayTomes Advocate. He is interested in creating a Category:Cycles which has been deleted twice previously. I advised him to set it up again and I would back him. He has now been blocked by User:Ruud Koot. I have requested that Ray be unblocked; however, Ruud is not cooperating. Your advice would be very welcome. I have also asked others for assistance. Regards SilkTork 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dems plagiarism

Fair enough. I didn't intend to claim it as my own work, I didn't mention the source as it would raise NPOV issues. I certainly didn't do the work for personal gain - anyone who may have been slightly impressed would have known the source. You yourself called the copying "blatant". I hoped edits by others in addition to the restructuring I did myself at the time, would blur the origin of the material before anyone who may object to their use noticed. I believe the parts I added didn't have NPOV issues, and that the party wouldn't object to their use in this context. Note that it was not a monolithic cut-and-paste, especially past the Don Chipp era. I thought the ends justified the means. I believe a better reaction would have been to rewrite the offending material rather than reverting everything. While the material may have been copied, it is more externally verifiable than most of the Dems history section, which is largely original research. Had I done the rewriting myself instead of hoping others would do it, assisted by my work, there would have been no problem. All this said, I apologise for my actions. matturn 13:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Dunstan

Though I see where you're coming from our IP friend does have a point. If the article reads, "In 1986 he met his future partner, Stephen Cheng, with whom he opened a restaurant called "Don's Table" in 1994. He lived with Cheng in their Norwood home until his death from cancer on February 6, 1999." it does belong in those categories... WjBscribe 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a discussion at Talk:Don Dunstan you may want to join in. But I think you misunderstand me- my point is (not knowing much about the subject) that the text needs to make it clear that this was not definitely a sexual relationship, or well meaning editors will categorise him as that IP editor did... I don't like us hinting about it in the way the article does. Either we say nothing or we neutrally present both sides of the issue using reliable sources. WjBscribe 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

Hi Rebecca. My recent RfA provided good feedback on the actions I took on your talk page back in November 2006. First and foremost, I am very sorry for soliciting other Wikipedians on their talk pages to repost their opinions about your behavior on your talk page. This was absolutely wrong, unjustified, and worst of all, not a nice thing to do. I way over-reacted with aggressive behavior towards you that resulted in disruption. After looking back at the results of my solicitations, I became shocked by what I had done to you and embarrassed for myself. I traced my problem to the fact that my perspectives of how things should be handled inside Wikipedia largely were from outside of Wikipedia. It was because of what I had done to you and the eventual realization of just how wrong it was that I resolved to change myself. Over the past four months, I have strived to act in a way that assumes that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. My RfA serves as a good indication of my progress and where I am today. Again, I am so sorry for what I did to you. I wish my apology could end here with the worst of my behavior, but I compounded this bad act with additional poor behavior. The dif for this diatribe demonstrates that my head and heart were far apart at that time and that my head seemed to be in another world. My characterizations such as "fall well below", "recklessly", "highly relevant", "was shocked", "extent of damage you have caused", etc. etc. etc. and other statements in that particular dif were outlandish and a very poor way to communicate. My post in that dif was wrong on many levels, most of which leave my head spinning in an attempt to figure out. That is not me today and hopefully you can accept my apology for this particular dif with my assurance that I do not respond like that any more. I believe that exchange also lead to a misunderstanding. I feel very sad that a stalker threatened you offline last July 2006. No one on Wikipedia should have to go through that. At the time of my November 2006 post, I had no idea that your 02:33, 19 July 2006 edit summary was a response to a stalker who was threatening you offline. I started with Wikipedia in October 2006, after that event. Also, the only post that shows up on your user page history just prior to your 02:33, 19 July 2006 is your own 07:13, 17 July 2006 edit.[29] The context for your 02:33, 19 July 2006 edit summary appears to have been completely removed from Wikipedia (or at least is not visible to me as an editor). I do feel bad that I unintentionally gave you reason to recall the event in your mind by reposting an edit summary having a context that was unknown to me at the time of my post. My inclusion of that edit summary was out of genuine ignorance of why it was written the way it was and had I know the context I would not have reposted it. I am sorry that the misunderstanding caused you to recall a horrible event. In general, I am sorry for the entire incident and regret every part of my contribution to it, from my initial post to you, through my responses to you and solicitation of others, and my subsequent talk page interactions with CJ on the matter. It was a complete and utter failure on my part to meet Wikipedia processes and well below the standard of behavior that you deserve. -- Jreferee 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:CleaRose.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CleaRose.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Melbourne meetup

The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.

Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.

Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring

Hi, i have noticed that you have had problems with Skyring too. It would seem to me that he has contributed nothing of any worth to the site and instead spends his time pointlessly changing date formats. Wikipedia is an American website and it would appear most people prefer the American format {personally i don't care, as long as it's accurate}. I wouldn't usually go to this trouble but i feel that Skyring is disruptive and rude, he doesn't appear to be contributing anything meaningful to the site and to prove my point he was blocked for 1 year just recently. I thought maybe it was something that an administrater could look into. I just wanted to see what other people who have had issues with him thought. CEP78 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rebecca! The bot thinks you're inactive in WP:LGBT because of your name change. If you're still active, could you visit the membership page and move yourself to active with your current username? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sockpupettry

Hi Beck, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Jennings (Australian politician)

This should really be moved to Patrick Jennings, but I can't move it because of the Patrick Jennings stub which I've converted to a redirect.--Grahamec 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Thought you might like to see this. I've posted about it on AN as well. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Amsterdam Mall

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amsterdam Mall, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam Mall. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs) 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AfD is not a vote

You've added "Keep" votes to two discussions on Articles for Deletion today. However, you haven't given a reason for either. AfDs are not pure votes: they are discussions where editors and users attempt to come to a consensus. A plain "Keep" or "Delete" vote that doesn't give a reason for the vote isn't of much use, and will likely be ignored by the closing admin. If you feel these articles should remain, I strongly suggest that you return to those discussions and give reasons (based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines) why they should be kept. Have a good day! --Charlene 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep

Hi, I noticed you voted Speedy keep over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory and just wanted to mention that speedy keeps are only supposed to be used in very distinct cases (as described in WP:SK). Have a good day/ Pax:Vobiscum 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Porteous

I note your reversion of the tag on the above. I am concerned that you may believe the tag was placed in bad faith, so please allow me a moment to explain my reasoning.

Please also note that I do not think the article should be deleted , nor did I intend any disrespect to Ms Porteous or to the Greens NSW.

I placed the tag after consideration of WP:BIO as follows:

  • Sources - An internet search revealed a small number of independent non-trivial secondary sources. Most internet mentions were either Greens NSW pages or incidental mentions, but there was one good profile piece in the SMH and a mention in the Brisbane Times. No doubt there are also other better secondary sources available elsewhere - I am not a political expert or party member, and people who are these things can no doubt provide these additional materials and improve the article beyond the short piece it is now. Hence the tag requesting that those familiar with the subject matter consider expanding the article.
  • Political activism - Ms Porteous is not a state or national officeholder, but neither are plenty of other activists who deserve a Wikipedia page. The article asserts she has been a leader in a number of important social campaigns but no sources are provided to support this, and an internet search reveals only incidental mentions of her involvement prior to the recent campaign. I am personally involved in one of the campaigns mentioned and was not aware of Ms Porteous' leadership, but as this constitutes original research I have not edited the article on this point. I am also willing to be proved wrong by others with equal or more involvement than I. Hence the tag, which might lead others to provide references for Ms Porteous activism.

I acknowledge your much greater Wikipedia experience and assume therefore that I have missed something important and the tag was wrongly placed. On that basis, thank you for removing it and I hope that even without it, those with familiarity with the subject matter will now add to the article and provide additional sources for Ms Porteous' record in delivering social change. Euryalus 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 FAR

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lewis (police commissioner)

I'd have thought as an administrator you would be familiar with our biographies of living people policy. The article contains negative information about a living person and has been tagged as unsourced for over a year, stubbing was quite correct, and I have stubbed it again. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 02:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised your flouting of Wikipedia policy on WP:ANI. One Night In Hackney303 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have now been reported here for breaching the three revert rule. One Night In Hackney303 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Hi Rebecca, there seems to be an issue with the copyright status of the D.A.B. WP:ADB. I saw from a much earlier comment of yours on the discussion page that you believe it is Public Domain in the U.S.A. (and therefore P.D. in Wikipedia). Do you a definitive reference for the P.D. status in the USA? — Diverman 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Lightfoot

Hi Rebecca, sorry I only just noticed you've been reverting me like crazy for the last couple of days re: Ross Lightfoot's "not-resignation"! I agree I have not worded it correctly, so my apologies for the hassle. I just started an article for Mathias Cormann, by the way, if I could trouble you to take a look at the Cormann/Lightfoot/Campbell bit and reword as necessary, it would be much appreciated! Take care, --Canley 10:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You All

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[30]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friends a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 00:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Finger

WikiProject Powderfinger You have been invited to join WikiProject Powderfinger, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Powderfinger-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in Powderfinger and/or your many edits to Powderfinger articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User Powderfinger}} to your userpage.

~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanished_user_5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive22&oldid=129821670"