Jump to content

Talk:Gundagai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matilda (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 26 July 2006 (Reverted edits by 203.54.9.97 (talk) to last version by Longhair). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Massacres and the Dog on the Tuckerbox

Moved the following from history, where I will copy edit there. Additions from IPs 203.54.186.125 and 203.54.186.125 on 5, 6 and 17 June 2006.

Gundagai is known for an image of a dog on a box. This symbolism is more recently based on a poem about a bullock waggon stuck in the mud near Gundagai pre gazettal of Gundagai as a town in 1838. This bullock waggon carried a load of flour for the European settlers. The flour had to come from the mill at Goulburn. There was a severe drought happening. The flour on the bogged bullock wagon was rifled while the bullock driver was in the nearby hotel and subsequently, the remaining flour was laced with arsenic. More flour was taken from the waggon by Aboriginal people with the end result being there were many deaths. The massacre was heard about in Sydney and was investigated, but no one was able to be held to account. For many years the event was told and retold and a dog figure, representing an aspect of Australian Aboriginal lore, was placed on a stick at the Nine Mile near where the massacre happened. A photo exists of this earlier Dog monument. The story was passed down among long-time Gundagai residents and is still spoken about in Gundagai today but for many years when it was mentioned, people were told not to speak about it. The story was also retold in a popular Australian poem by Jack Moses but from a different, perhaps less challenging, perspective which explained the lingering tale that just would not go away. The known disparity between, and debate about, whether the event happened at the Five Mile or Nine Mile is to do with this. There are archival records documentating this iconic and significant Australian cultural heritage. The Gundagai incident is independent of the Benalla one. The Benalla massacre (if it is the 'Faithfull Massacre)was the one that led to Gundagai being gazetted. I have copies of the original documents of the line of communication being put through to Melbourne after the Faithfull Massacre. The Coolac Massacre story is still well known in Gundagai but not spoken about publically. There is no original research required for the Coolac Massacre as that it happened has never been forgotten in this town. The first poems about the massacre appeared in the 1850s. The monument to the massacre was built in 1932 and that monument is identical to a major Indigenous Ancestral feature. The Gundagai Independent in about October 2005 has some content. The Coolac massacre is currently part of not yet completed archaeological surveying in that area as reported online on ABC News. NSW National Parks have been notified of where the massacre remains were put. This burial area from the 1830s was previously known to National Parks. NSWNP do not release all information they hold. The massacre is spoken of in Gundagai's verse and song, the 'Dog' being 'first man' in Aboriginal culture. There are other supporting documents such as Tindale's letters and others. ({{fact}}<!--very interesting but need some sources please; note this reads very much like an incident near present day Benalla on 11 April 1838 - were there two or is there confusion?-->(citation requested and comment inserted by AYArktos) There were many many massacres of Indigenous people in Australia. I am not Indigenous. My family have lived at Gundagai since the 1840s which is not long after the massacre happened.

--A Y Arktos\talk 20:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note citations have been requested. Doesn't mean I don't believe it. It is Wikipedia policy though that things are Verifiable.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a search of verifiable sources through the ACT Public Library Service. The only reference I could find was an ABC news item on 15 September 2005 about claims of a massacre to defer the building of a bypass. The item reads in part:

"Gundagai resident Johneen Jones says there was a massacre in the area and the latest survey is needed under new heritage rules.

Councillor Tozer says he hopes work on the bypass can start.

"Hopefully there'll be no further sites discovered," he said.

"Certainly I haven't heard of the massacre before this particular time ... except from Johneen Jones on a previous occasion. So hopefully this matter can be put to rest and we can go on with the job and maybe save a few lives," he said."

Capitalistroadster 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Verifiability of massacre

  • So far I am not finding anything on the web about this massacre

I think the massacre happened before the web was invented.

    • http://www.cat.org.au/forgottenwar/narrandera.html mentions the Wiradjuri wars but not this incident.
    • http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview.pdf discusses a massacre near coolac but in the following terms: "A local resident provided information about the possibility of an Aboriginal massacre site occurring in the general area between Mingay and Pettit. The reliability and exact location of the massacre site has yet to be determined, however, one unconfirmed suggestion is that it is close to Muttama Creek, or in general proximity of the current highway alignment. As the reliability of the information and definite location of the site could not verified,..."
Given the recent RTA environmental review at Coolac has failed to turn anything up, I am inclined to remove the reference as not meeting WP:V.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response has been moved here to make sense The RTA content you note is 2004 content so out of date. This is 2006. There have been two new lots of archs since then.

Given the site of the massacre wasnt known till this year yet you put up stuff that talks about what was known in 2004.

THIS IS 2006, NOT 2004. What is an ongoing investigative process has progressed to 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

The RTA review has not failed to find anything to do with this massacre. You are quoting an out of date RTA publication.

remove the Coolac Massacre from here. Wik does not have the skills to have it. I have several citations but am not prteapred to put them here at this stage... or ever now. People can do their own research and I will relese the citations to those who I choose to have them, not you silly lot at it strikes me, here is too silly to deserve to have them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Response has been moved here to attempt to make sense of it and the dialogue

There are numerous poems that cite this massacre. Some will be online.
You should have seen that 2004 date on the RTA material you noted and have realised it was way out of date.
Use the poems about the massacre as citations but then .... that requires skill in textual analysis to recognise those poems are citations. If you have those skills you will cite them.
There is a lot of material but it mostly requires particular skills to be able to use so it may be wasted here.
Whatever, its best the Coolac Massacre is not noted here I now think. I didnt realise wik was so silly as its not a source researchers use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10hours)

Coolac bypass hold-up

From that i have head about this 'massacre' is that a Neville Williams who is a Wiradjuri Aboriginal clams that there was a 'massacre' there (I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass.

RobertM 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Robert Myers. You do not know much if you think a Museum is holding up the Coolac Bypass. The Coolac Bypass is not held up. It just is not ready to start yet. It will start when the funding is released by the Federal Government, (on 1 July) then after that the preferred tenderer needs to get its complex operations into place so they can start. This preferred tenderer hasnt even be awarded the contract yet so who in your mind is to build the bypass? Noddy? Contractors cant be hired and huge construction jobs cant start if the money to pay them has not been paid in by the governemnt. Those who claim all these other things re a fanciful holdup are having delusions.

Neville Williams is a highly respected Aboriginal Elder who lobbies to have Aboriginal heritage saved or at least recorded. Yes he did lobby re Lake Cowal. Many Australians lobbied re the Snowy Sale because of its heritage aspects. Is there something wrong with saving haritage or is it just wrong if you do it to save Aboriginal heritage??? Please answer that here given you have had a go here re Neville Williams.

Its not going to cost anyone in Australia if a small plaque is erected somewhere near the Coolac Bypass is it, to note that massacre. After all we mark massacres such as Port Arthur etc so of course we can also note the Coolac one though there has already been a large monument built to it bragging about it going on its inscription.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10hours)

I don't know much? (ABC News 17/4/2006) No end to Coolac bypass delays. I never had a go at Neville Williams i just stated on what i know!

RobertM 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if u are quoting ABC News, cite it. You wrote it as if it was your own info rather than ABC content.

"(I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass."

If you think that re Neville Williams, what makes you think 'that'?

How do you know "nothing has been found at the site to prove this"? What is your authority there? I do have authority re that and again, you are talking twaddle.

How do you know "a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass"? What Museum and how do you know that???

I know you do not have a registered interest in the Coolac Bypass so know what you very obviusly do NOT know.

Its very sad that when Aboriginal massacres in Australia begin to be talked of, that some jump to disprove them and try to discredit anyone associated with bringing them out into public knowledge.

Robert you are not going to be hung because of the Coolac Massacre as you were not involved in it, (unless you are Rip Van Winkle perhaps), so why are you carrying on like this???

Why do we have to hide these massacres of Aboriginal people in Australia any more????? I know of 4 others around Gundagai but there are probably more. I have documentation for 3 of those and am very confident I will find documentation re the 4th.

Whatever, putting stuff here is very silly isnt it as I understand what happens here now. All the dont knows from all over dispute content and come out with silly unsubstantiated statements such as you have, and what could be a good site to record stuff, turns into a three ring circus full of ignoramus nonsense. As well, whoever checks stuff here references old, out of date info and announces his/her intention to disallow entries on the strength of Internet information that is way out of date. That more or less means here isnt worth the bother.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.212 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours) (Note this edit also innapropriately blanked part of the conversation) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.83 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)


More on Coolac bypass heritage investigations

The anon editor has suggested that 2004 references are "old, out of date info". There appears to be no later environmental review than 2004. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview_dl1.html There seems no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time and that any new information has come to light. This ABC news item from August 2005 suggests that the heritage study was over 10 years old. However, it is not clear if the RTA or the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation agreed and were prepared to act on the suggestion to redo the heritage study. This article does indicate that Neville Williams was involved in the discussions. A Google search does not turn up any later news items than August/September 2005 and no evidence that any more recent surveys have been done.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored response from anon - restored my own comment above--A Y Arktos\talk 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'There appears' I imagine who checked this did some really wide ranging investigation. If you just looked on the Internet that isnt looking far is it.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview_dl1.html There seems no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time and that any new information has come to light.

"There seems to be no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time ..."

Time is the operative word here.


This ABC news item from August 2005 suggests that the heritage study was over 10 years old. However, it is not clear if the RTA or the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation agreed and were prepared to act on the suggestion to redo the heritage study. This article does indicate that Neville Williams was involved in the discussions.

"A Google search does not turn up any later news items than August/September 2005 and no evidence that any more recent surveys have been done."

Arkos has used the Internet to do his research. The Internet is not regarded as a reliable research tool so Arktos is using an unreliable source.

This discussion is too ridiculous. I am sure I can find better to do. Cheerio.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.162 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Reminder of what wikipedia is not: translate "no original research"

Although the anon contributer has been referred to Wikipedia:No original research he or she has still suggested that "poems about the massacre as citations but then .... that requires skill in textual analysis to recognise those poems are citations". It is not a matter of skill. Analysing citations to draw conclusions is original research. Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Textual analysis published in a peer reviewed journal would be accepted. Unpublished textual analysis would not be acceptable as a source.

Wikipedia is not responsible or otherwise for the presence or absence of plaques on the Hume highway. Nor is it hiding massacres. Wikipedia will not include information that cannot be verified from Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant as a source for researchers; researchers need original material and they will not, or at least should not, find it here.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert comments in the middle of somebody else's comments and please "sign" using four tildes ~~~~. Order of converation restored.A Y Arktos\talk 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Textual analysis is not original research. Its a skill. Textual analysis is learned in media and literature courses. You cannot do it effectively though if you do not have some knowledge (SKILL) in it that you learn. When poems are read, the interpretation the reader takes from such poems is skill based. No doubt there are some poems listed somewhere on the wikipedia site. I think the 'Illiad' is. A study guide is cited on the Illad site. Guide means guide.

Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Textual analysis published in a peer reviewed journal would be accepted. Unpublished textual analysis would not be acceptable as a source.

Wikipedia is not responsible or otherwise for the presence or absence of plaques on the Hume highway.

WHO SAID WIK WAS RESPONSIBLE????? This is gross misrepresentation.

Nor is it hiding massacres.

WHO SAID WIK WAS HIDING MASSACRES???? There seems to be a serious problem of comprehension here. That comment was directed at 'Robert' who was inclined to put the worst possible interpretation on what is happening at Coolac in his uninformed carrying on about a museum holding works up, and no results found etc.

Wik is not the entire topic of conversation on the Internet. Sometimes other subjects and entities other than wik are being referred to in discussions.

As a result of this sort of nonsense, I cannot take wik seriously. I thought it was an OK resource (but I didnt know much about it) till I got involved in this discussion.

Wik has been told already the information re the Coolac Massacre isnt suitable for posting on wik so what is 'Arktos' on about? Wik can't handle the Coolac Massacre information because wik has a limited capacity, so it misses out. Thats easy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.162 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Quote WHO SAID WIK WAS HIDING MASSACRES???? There seems to be a serious problem of comprehension here. That comment was directed at 'Robert' who was inclined to put the worst possible interpretation on what is happening at Coolac in his uninformed carrying on about a museum holding works up, and no results found etc. Well it's been in the media (IE: Local media) which i thought that should be in the talk. Well the Australian Museum specialist is looking into the Coolac bypass area (It's in the ABC story which i linked to). I'm not stopping you from posting about the Massacre and i'm not hiding it. I would like to see more Aboriginal history posted with verifiable sources on Wiki as it's something most Australians and the World don't know or know little about. RobertM 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolac bypass discussion revisited

I just read on the wik notice board a discussion re here. In particular a 'grahamc' post. This person claims he is involved with Coolac and with NSWNP but was retiring. I have no idea how a State government employee would be talking about stuff to do with work in this manner. I also have no idea how he would be claiming knowledge re Coolac as if he had any he'd not be saying he had, or be commenting on any of it here.

Is GrahamC of Indigenous heritage and/or initiated? If he isnt, he isnt qualified to comment on the symbolism. I'd say he isnt Indigneous and/or initiated as there is no one with that name on my radar. Is he a qualified archaeologist. No, I know he isnt. Is he an informed local. I would say he very certainly isnt so would have no useful local knowledge re any of it. He claims knowledge re this issue. He very obviously has no 'expert' knowledge of it so has put some scoffing remarks here re it all just to be negative about the whole topic claiming at the same time, some inner knowledge that gives him the right to make some sort of pseudo qualified statement.

Its annoying when people put rubbish here. The surveys arent completed so no report can be done till they are. Perhaps if you go put misinformation elsewhere, but not on this Aboriginal Massacre discussion site. If you don't know stuff, dont claim you do as the topic doesnt deserve that.

I know you have totally no registered interest in Coolac either as an RTA person or as a community member. The information you put on the Wik Notice board re here is mostly on the public record but with errors so you repeated it out of context and though you put some vaguely correct stuff here that has been in the papers and maybe was general talk at the RTA, you dont know the finer points and the restricted stuff you would never ever be privy to so wont ever know so cant comment on it. Yes, the massacre isnt in the way of the new road. You know how the RTA know that? I told them. I'd only be able to tell them (RodS) that if I knew other stuff and if they then checked I'd notifed new stuff to cover themselves. As a State gov employee you would not have put stuff here that wasnt on the general public record anyway, especially with this stuff.

If you are Aboriginal and/or initiated I will accept you are qualifed to make comment re the symbolism though you didnt learn your cultural story well and are wrong with your assertions. If you are not, you very certainly are not qualified to comment on that aspect re Coolac - so dont presume to as it just messes here up. Claiming you are qualified to comment on the symbolism of another culture by commenting, is similar to claiming you are a pilot then crashing the plane after it takes off. I am qualified to comment on the symbolism.

Likewise with other aspects re Coolac, you do not know for specific cultural but also professional reasons.

"Statutory authorities put cultural heritage values above scientific values."

Navin Officer, Coolac ICHRD Report for the RTA 2005.

Translated that means that in Australian archaeology (VIA which EIS Reports are made), what you 'think' re the symbolism has totally no weight as it is so out of touch its ridiculous. Statutory Authorities such as the RTA know that the symbolic stuff carries immense weight and go forward, paying respect to that so that heritage can be saved and construction jobs can be effectively completed with all interests being addressed. You need to have a chat to the RTA arch and get educated about how the RTA now handle this Indignenous Heritage stuff starting with the Sheahan Bridge after they learned re Coolac. Its scoffing attitudes about cultural heritage that holds stuff up and that doesnt assist anything.

THE TWO AMIGOS URBAN MYTHING

Imported From Wik Help Arktos page

Gundagai Hi - would somebody like to look at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales. Deep breath on my part. I wil attempt to reorganise the anon's contributions to the dialogue again despite the talk header - but I think I really need somebody else to review whether I and another editor are missing the point.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the anon has lost interest, but I think you were entirely reasonable in standing on 'cite sources' there. If it can be documented that there are widespread rumours of a massacre, that might be worth noting, but as it stands all we have is an anon editor's say-so that it's even alleged to have happened. --Calair 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I have done a search of verifiable evidence through the ACT Public Library Service. I have found one reference an ABC News story from September 2005 about claims of a massacre used as a possible reason to defer a bypass. I have left further information on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The ACT Public Library Serice are nil to do with Coolac. You guys do research in some places I never would. This is prehistory/contact anthropology stuff.

I am involved with the Coolac project (but I am retiring on Friday). Guardedly I can confirm that there is nothing verifiable on the public record about the alleged massacre.

What authority does this poster have to confirm that? Is he the boss of the RTA for the Southern Region or the head archaeologist? Of course there is nil on public record at this point as the Coolac surveys arent complete. Some content probably wont go on public record after they are complete either as some stuff isnt handed over to the RTA as firstly they dont need to know it, and also who wants retiring RTA people putting it on here when its restricted stuff.

The RTA is preparing a heritage report (under s87 and s90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974) to allow the Coolac bypass to go ahead, which no doubt will comment on this issue and which presumably it will put on the record (possibly at [7]) when it is finalised, but this is some time off.

The above is information on the public record and in the media.

You will be able to judge then whether any new and verifiable evidence has come to light. Tenders for the Coolac Bypass closed on 11/5/05 and the contract has not been awarded; you might note Hansard 24/5/06 pp50-51.--Grahamec 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, here wont be able to judge that as some of the information will be on restricted access and some not made available to the RTA as that is how it happens.

Thanks for researching the Gundagai/Coolac issue. It is so hard when one finds nothing to cite the absence of sources. The Coolac bypass is relevant as I assume that is the area 9 miles from Gundagai. However, beyond the bypass issues, what does anyone think of the notion of symbolism and the Dog on the Tuckerbox? I couldn't find a picture of any earlier monument through Picture Australia or any reference to it via Google. Does anyone have the book 1932: A Hell Of A Year by Gerald Stone? It may mention if there was a previous monument to the present one opened in 1932. --A Y Arktos\talk 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Stone would have totally no idea if there was a previous monument. Why would he? He isnt from Gundagai. Why be wanting to use Gerald Stone as a possible source re this stuff? If he came to Gundagai to research any entry he had in his book, (which he probably didnt) and if he asked re this stuff here (which he wouldnt have as why would he) he would be met with blank stares. Arktos, what you need to do re the symbolism is to go to the primary source. What is that primary source? You are a qualifed historian arent you? OK, the primary source is culture. Being a historian wont necessarily gain you cultural knowledge though or Keith Windshuttle would have different research outcomes. No one finds out how to cook a cake by looking up how to knit socks. Symbolism is a cognitive thing. You have to know culture (not know it from whats on wik either but genuinely know it), then from that you recognise the symbols of that culture.

This image Arktos seeks is in the book 'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back by Cliff Butcher published in 2002 page 213. Available to buy in Gundagai but libaries in the area have a copy. I think the NLA have a copy also. The previous 'monument' photo was taken in 1926. The current monument built in 1932. The local wags kept putting the earlier 'monument' up, creating huge embarrassment and angst, so it was decided to build an actual monument to get rid of this sky larking in the area by those with no connection to the massacre, but directed at those who may have had. Though that photo shows a 1926 'monument' there had been other ones at that spot since 1840 that people would take down, then another would appear.

I can confrim that 9 miles north of Gundagai would be on the banks of Muttama creek, the alleged site of the massacre.

That isnt the alleged site of the massacre.

There is nothing in the wrtitten record to substantiate the claim (but then you could argue that this proves nothing). The trouble is that any archaeological escavation is unlikley to find anything, because (assuming there was a massacre) it did not occur in the proposed road corridor; bodies were buried elsewhere; or bodies were not buried and therefore decomposed quickly.

The story about the symbolism of the dog sounds like an urban myth to me. --Grahamec 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)"

  • blink*

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC+ 10 hours)

plus some editing from 203.54.9.141 (talk • contribs).Instructing me to go fishing was just a tad cryptic.

Was it? In what way?

However, I can now see it relates to User:Grahamec. I have an attitude about personal attacks.

So do I - especially ones re males attacking defenceless others such as re Indigenous Massacres. You know, they got the kids, buried them in sand, and played polo with them. You know the poem the Geebung Polo Club by Banjo? Lawson wrote another called 'The Three Greybeards' Read it. Its online. Specifically set at Coolac.

I also have an attitude about original research. Cite your sources we will get on well - I corrected the Gundagai pop figure for example, with a reference I found myself -

So you should have as it was very very wrong

... and the Tom Wills' birth date and place with the ref you provided. You just happen to be touching on areas that I have contributed to over time. I watch those pages and can see if anything new turns up. Watching is one of the advantages of having an account (see Help:Watching pages). My guess is it would outweight the disadvantages of signing in. Your prerogative but could you please sign!!!!! (Might have mentioned it once or twice). I hate adding unsigned tags, but it is even more annoying not to see who contributed when to a conversation much later.

Tom Wills is now accepted. His Dad and others were associated with the coolac massacre. That is why that they were here has been obscured. I suspect too, they were recognised when they got to Qld in 1860. (Most of the native police associated with the cullingaroo massacre were from Gundagai). Small world.

I dont need a wik account. I am on holidays right now but head back down in a week or so so no time to watch different articles here.

As for symbolism - the issue is that you have not cited a source - give us something to use and that would be great - otherwise we can't include it. I don't think Grahamec is attacking anything. The comment "symbolism of the dog sounds like an urban myth to me" doesn't read like an attack.

I do not have to cite a source for that. That is up to others to interpet. That is how its done. Its actually archaeology not history research. Archaeology makes informed decisions based on evidence, then on educated conjecture, forms hypothesis then reaches a conclusion. I cannot make wik Indigneous, or turn wik into an archaeologist.

Navigation on talk pages is normally by linking using signatures by the way. If somebody wanted to follow the conversation, and you had signed - they would come here very easily - they can't when you don't sign - have I mentioned signing before? Maybe you might if you could see the benefits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.152 (talk • contribs) . - the editor refuses to sign or use any conventions to make discussion easier to follow. Some comments above are those of others, he has copied from Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_21#Gundagai. Others are comments from User talk:203.54.9.141. I am not going to refactor or tidy--A Y Arktos\talk 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back by Cliff Butcher published in 2002 page 213

Thanks for the ref. As I live in Canberra, I use the ACT Library Service. They don't have a copy but I have ordered it through them - it will take a while. If I pass through Gundagai, I will look out for the book if I have a chance.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nla.gov.au/library/gettinghere.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.152 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC+ 10 hours)

Oh, OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.197 (talk • contribs) .

Lynn Scarff's book

1926 Dog monument from Scarff L, The Dog on the Tuckerbox: it's story

Lyn Scarff's book The Dog on the Tuckerbox: it's story has this unsourced photo, apparently taken in 1926.

The book quotes an article from the Wagga Daily Advertiser of 10 October 1938 'Nine Miles from Gundagai, Bullock Driver’s Romance' by Henry Lawson and Jack Moses:

Strolling along the moonlit banks of the Murrumbidgee River near Gundagai, 40 years ago, two visitors to the show carnival of that town came upon a bullock-driver’s outfit on the trek back from the railhead at Cootamundra. There they were entertained with singing and whip-cracking by the bullockies, and there these two famous men of Australian verse — Henry Lawson and Jack Moses — heard for the first time a detailed account by an Aborigine of the story of Gundagai’s dog on the tucker-box.
Ten years previously Jack Moses had penned the nationwide known poem centring around a wisp of a story about the dog sitting on the box, which had without authentication become a by-word in the district of Gundagai.
The black boy’s story was that years before he had come across a bullock driver’s team standing near the river nine miles from Gundagai, and his dog sitting on the tucker-box.
The driver was missing. So the black ran to the Gundagai trooper to gain assistance to move the outfit from a rising flood.
When a party arrived at the scene everything had been swept away by the flooding river. ‘Byemby a long time my countrymen find just bones of dog much down along river sitting up on tucker-box. Many feller my countrymen takem dog on box up and carry away along nine miles Gundagai that night. Big feller corroboree round dog on tucker-box. Never findem boss no time. Sweetheart makem very sad. She run away another white feller. White feller bullock team boss jump along river.’

It's a third-hand story quoted a long time after the event and, as the book says, Lawson had been dead for 16 years by 1938, but there are some similarities with the massacre story. - Gimboid13 02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good tale, written to cover up what actually happened and though there are parallels that sort of jell, its not correct. The first poems that are still available about the Dog on the Tuckerbox appeared in 1858 (Butcher, C. 2002 Gundagai: A Track Winding Back, p.23). Its convenient having an unnamed Indigneous person saying what happened, isnt it as that sort of legitimizes it to all and sundry. Henry Lawson knew Coolac well as he went there to dry out in 1920.
There would have been no bones left up on a tuckerbox (the bogged dray) as that suggests the corpse decomposed in situ. As there were Europeans living in the immediate proximity of where those were allegedly found, they'd not have left a decomposing body there because of the smell that resulted after some time, in bones. The river (that is really a small creek) that flooded isnt in that large an area and it winds back on itself and floods out over its previously boggy floodplain when full. When I was a kid that area was wetland but these days because of cattle its packed down so no bog. The area in question isnt in the middle of some vast uninhabited plain but a very small area hemmed in by nearby hills that held a European settlement comprising a store, a pub and some houses. The creek is never up for that long when it floods so its not like when huge deep real rivers flood in really remote areas and its months before they go back down. If there was any truth in the dray being swept away by a flood it didnt get swept far as its a small area. These days that area is called 'Pettits' as they even moved the location of Coolac to try and disguise where was where. (Plan of the Village of Coolac, County of Harden, 1862, c.1819a, The Archives Authority of NSW)
The photo from Lynn Scarff's book is the same one as that in Cliff Butcher's book on p.213. On p.212 in Butcher's book is also a very early cartoon of the dog on a tuckerbox at the Nine Mile, howling his head off. Up on the Nine Mile sign sits what seems to be a laughing jackass. Looking at this scene is a swaggie.
Its handy to read (in context of when it is referring to and when it was inscribed) the inscription on the DonT Monument, viz:
"Earths self upholds this monument to conquerors who won her when the wooing was dangerous, and are now gathered unto her again."
http://www.gundagaishire.nsw.gov.au/dog%20on%20the%20tuckerbox.htm
You know, the bullock team boss is always nobby as he is the lead bullock. What are these bullocks all about? Just what is being referred to in this account of the "Aborigine"? Is it the Indigenous version of the story of this location? Not what one lot of humans did to another lot, but the story of the location which in that area is 600,000,000 years old geologically, (Its Jindalee volcanics so almost pre cambrian). Why a "moonlit night"? Missing boss, so the woman (what woman???) found another. Shows how easily replaced all is no matter how profound it may appear to be. This is a very classical tale about the Great Flood and how one lover (who became just bones the same as we all end up) was soon replaced by another. This story exists across all continents so Moses and Lawson just composed another version. Moses and Lawson were specialists. Any story they tell isnt going to be about the mundane. Byembye is B-----or B-----, the Indigneous high god of much of Australia. The first boss jumped the river (or crossed over) as per the fisher king which is what the being carried away is about. Charles Sturt also referred to this crossing over (to the wastelands or lands behind the limits of 'civilisation', entering into a world where other traditions are lore/law), in his account of that same area. (Two Expeditions Journal, Book 2. Pondebadgery, 1829-30.) Gundagai in Moses' and Lawson story is a place that runs on its own rules. Its those pioneers and bullockies noted in the above story that the Dog on Tuckerbox is about- check the entry on that monument re 'Gundagai Independent'. The 'sweetheart' is Minerva. Read 'The Road to Gudnagai' poem. That poem is about something that exists for far longer than any human woman. The 'white ladies' are the warragongs or Aussie Alps that in earlir times extended further north west. There is still snow settles to the west of Gundagai though. These white ladies are also the very old Cambrian hills before what came out of the sea collided with the plate margin at Gundagai (back arc volcanism). There is also an ophiolite sequence just to the north of Coolac. (The sea bed turned over 180 degrees.)These Aussie stories and poems arent about non Indigenous people a lot of the time (unless they are Celtic or similar epics) as our lot die after not many years, so we are of little importance in the long run so why would Lawson write all his poems and stories about us. However, because Indigenous culture is linked to these Ancestors, any mention of the Ancestors, (the hills etc) in poems are about Indigenous people too.
I have put two interpretations of the story posted earlier from Lyn Scarfs book. Is one more correct than the other. Will wik accept the first interpretation but not the second, claiming the second is original research?? Both interpretations come from the cognitive process of the reader. Any interpretation of any media text can be different to the next interpretation. Which interpretation did Moses and Lawson want any future reader to take from their work? Will wik decide only the mundane interpretation is the correct one? if so, wik will probably pay two of Australia's renowned poets a huge diservice. Can one interpretation be posted in the main article without accompanying notes as its thought all readers will read it at a level that doesnt require notes, or will it be posted with a note to say the story by Moses and Lawson can be read at various levels - or does it just sit there till someone comes along who is aware of the literary skills of Moses and Lawson and read it as it deserves to be read. Maybe a link from that story from the Lyn Scarf book to a page each on Moses and Lawson that notes their works contained various layers of meaning and should not be read at a banal level or most of the message in their works is missed. Have to put this. I'm qualified in Oz Lit and its interpretation for the express purpose of being able to interpret Australian history media (meaning poetry, novels, historical accounts, art, etc) texts. Am very interested to see what wik does with this. The cultural cringe where Homer's skills get recognised but not our Australian Bards, is sad. Those who dont believe in flying saucers are those who have never been for a ride in one. (I havent yet.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.75 (talk • contribs)
When Major Mitchell came through the (now named) Gundagai area on his returning north leg of his Australian Felix expedition, he recorded William Buckley being just south of Gundagai adjacent to the Wantabadgery area. William Buckley was making bread and Mitchell noted his huge size. This Wantabadgery/Hills Creek area is where Major Mitchell got 'lost'. I am not sure who conjured up this 'got lost' tale as Mitchell went up Nacki Nacki Creek and must have called on Hannibal Hawkins McCarthur the slaver who lived up there at 'Ellerslie'. Perhaps Mitchell was trying to get Hannibal Mcarthur lost rather than being lost himself. Mitchell then went back to the Murrumbidgee and crossed it where William Buckly was cooking at/near present day Wantabadgery/Hillis Creek where these days, the heritage listed Yabtree Station is near Mundarlo Bridge. Recorded in Mitchell's 'Three Expeditions' Journals online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.106 (talk • contribs)

Edit summary

If people here edit stuff (editing being the main purpose of those who sit tying stuff in), why do some have to make a point about correcting a typo or spelling error. Its easier to just correct the error and that is it. Finito. If there were no spelling errors here though that would rob some of being able to complain so they actually feed off having errors to fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.110 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC +10 hours (AEST))

That is "Charles Sturt's Pondebadgery". I am not 100% sure it is an Indigneous word though I said the place was referred to by it. That remains correct. Multiple layer stuff. I suspect that 'ponde' is cheyanne or sioux as talking to those people its their word, but Sturt may very well have made that name up and I suspect he did. Some Sioux etc were very much in the Gundagai area but Sturt may have known the word before he went downriver. It seems he left a ponde downriver also. Another aussie word that is native american is 'creek'. We do not blink at its use, ever. Sturt did record the pondebadgery word. What pondebadgery refers to is appropriate and is in context and association, just the vowles etc do not sound to me that ponde is a Wiradjuri word. NOTE: I did not note that it was a wiradjuri word. I only note Wiradjuri words if they have a known ethnology. Sturt records Warby being at Pondebadgery. This is the g.g.granddad of Ken Warby who holds the world water speed record. Warby does not record 'pondebadgery' nor does anyone else in all of Australia's story that I am aware of and I have looked extensively. Just Sturt does though badgery or budgeri is previously recorded. "Charles Sturt's Pondebadgery" is more correct than what it has been edited to as that edit seperates Sturt from the word when no one knows that at all so its factually incorrect and should not be done as its making something that was correct as it stood, into fiction. The cod story is very correct. I can't vouch for the use of 'ponde' in it as being of Indigneous origin, though.

OK, I have just put another edit on the article page to clean up other stuff u dont have right plus added some re Charles Sturt in 1838. It didnt save. I wont edit this again or add more. I havent put the linking stuff up yet or even got to a third of it and no one will find it. You cooked your own goose with your immature nonsense so wik can go without. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.143 (talk • contribs) .

  • Please provide a cite for the ponde story. --A Y Arktos\talk 11:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturt recorded what he claimed the natives called the place - read Sturt's jounrnal - the ref is there with a link - he said "This plain, which the natives called Pondebadgery". Sturt did not name it after the birthplace of his mother-in-law or some other fond memory of the old country - he said it was what the native inhabitants called it.

Arktos refuses to read historical material in context. In 1830, 'native' meant born in the colony. It does not mean 'Indigenous'.

Hence the title name. I disagree with your suggestion of reversion - it was not Sturt's name, it was what Sturt recorded - there is a difference. It is your interpretation he made it up - you will need to cite a very reliable source for that. The article says "Sturt referred to the location now named Gundagai as being called 'Pondebadgery' by the indigenous inhabitants" - It doesn't say Sturt was 100% right, but it certainly more authorative than most else that is available. If you wish to note that nobody else apparently recorded the term, feel free to add the qualification, but the heading should stay in at the very least somewhat similar terms - could qualify it as "Pondebadgery": suggested 0riginal name but to add that qualification you must add a source who supports your view that Sturt was unreliable in his record.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is warped reasoning. You have totally no idea and do not seem prepared to attain it re the context sturt was writing from. Windshuttle will fix it. You can dream on.

EDIT by ADMIN PROBLEM: This article has had its meaning altered by Arktos and it now reads incorrectly. Arktos, who has no idea about any of the underlying content that validates the surface story, imagines he can edit the story and take no notice of advice re the mess he has made of it or of the fact when he does this that he is putting forward incorrect content that was previously correct.

Now just leave it. What orignal name. This area has been occupied since 60 kya and potentially many 1000s years pre that if the homo florenesis stuff keeps going. They didnt have words like pondebadgery then so no one can find the original name for a place I dont think. closest for here is "brrrrrrrr" (Seriously.) Nil to do with winter.

Recent edits by anon reverted

Wikipedia policies
Article standards
Neutral point of view
Include only verifiable information
No original research
Citing sources
What Wikipedia is not
Working with others
Assume good faith
Civility and etiquette
No personal attacks
Resolving disputes
  • I have reverted the renaming of the section to do with Pondebadgery. There is no need ot translate Sturt's context - it isn't sophisticated stuff. Hew went exploring and recorded his findings in a journal. When he got to what is now Gundagai, he recorded: "This plain, which the natives called Pondebadgery". No interpretation required. Source provided.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it says what it does. Where in that does it say its the original name. You have added that content. You are doing original research on something that isnt so sophisticated as to require it. (SO says u. Only the unsophisticated fail to recognise what IS sophisticated.)

  • I have also reverted the claim that Scott was "reinterred at Gundagai next to Nesbitt's grave in January 1995 as a tourist attraction." The source that I provided did not say the reinterrment has been as a tourist atraction. If motives are to be ascribed to those who did the exhumation and reinterring, please provide a source. <<Its online somwhere or in Butchers book.

Go to Gundagai tourism and see what is on offer as a tourist attraction. I was caring for where Moonlite got dumped as my gandad knew him. The only time the locals put a flower on his grave and tidied it up, was the day before the Press were to turn up, then it went back to not being cared for. How do you know it wasnt as a tourist attraction, as I do. I dont like graves being interferred with. The interesting thing was the main mover and shker had some family remains of theirs moved when they didnt want them moved, not long after that social activist, Moonlite, had his remains interferred with. (See Tumut paper of that era.) Wik can support grave tourist attractions then. I dont nor would anyone with a decent head. Its very disrespectful.

Else leave it - the satement "as a tourist attraction" is point of view - violating yet one more of the very few policies - there are only five to do with articels and then three to do with behaviour - if you want to contribute, please read them.

  • In the course of reverting, I also reverted the revisions to the para about Wiradjuri homelands - collateral damage and can't see it makes substantial difference.

That is ok if u again vandalised content. The more u mess up the better so continue on.

Given the anon's rudeness over time, I am not interested in taking care of collateral damage, just as I am not interested, unless it suits me, to refactor or organise his discussion points and/or add tags as to when comments were made. If he wants to rant is some sort of stream of consciousness, that is OK up to a point, but it is approaching the point, where he is treating the place like a soap box and Wikipedia is not the place - the fifth policy applies to talk pages as well.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Collateral damage'? Very military term. Very american. It is what this 'editing' by you ends up doing. Like our aussie adf I dont mind being bossed by a boss who doesnt think collateral damage is such an insignificant thing to care about but refuse to work in the same team as any boss who thinks collateral damage to others in the team, or their effort, just bad luck and not worth trying to avoid by steering clear totally once they realise.

Your 'collateral damage' has also resulted in wik not having more highly significant content put here by me because of your ongoing deplorable behaviour.

Also, the 'potted history' reference you have used in the article totally contains information that has totally no reference.

Though that author is noted as being a "Librarian" she is actually a library assistant with no formal qualifications. I am not sure she even has her 1950s Intermediate Cert. Why is a wiki administrator using such a source for here? It does not add a thing to the veracity of information on wik.

That same information is in the Gundagai: A Track winding back book and it is referenced and was available to that author, but it wasnt used even once.

Best to use the source that is referenced as if anyone follows that Gundagai Librarian link they will see that info isnt referenced even once, and though a 'Librarian' title may suggest some professional standing (as 'Libarians have degrees') that one doesnt have a Library Degree (as in a BA), and is a library assistant (that is the grading/wage title for someone with no Library degree). Though Cliff Butcher, (now deceased) was an accountant, a close family member worked at one of the National Archive repositories hence maybe the awareness re sources, then access to the references but Cliff also found many sources himself to validate stuff. Cliff Butcher also had a since 1950s history of publishing historical works on Gundagai and deserves to be referenced for his effort (plus got an OA then a MOA for his heritage/history authorship) the same as Bruce Elder, whose dad used to work for Cliff, also does. Neither of these two preceeding people have any personal connection to me. I just do not like plagarism of people's work.

I got the ponde story off wik. Wik uses unsourced content as where I got it off wik isnt sourced either. That said, it is a well known story so it should be in a book of Aboriginal stories somewhere on a library shelf somewhere, but not in my town as its Indigenous Studies collection is pretty crook. Im not going to look out of town for a reference as I dont need to as I have other sources in another form, that arent on public access.

'They' are saying on ABC Radio this arvo that they are going to walgett to find the giant cod. They reckon its huge. Should I ring them and tell them to just log on to wik? Getting Dreaming and rational garbled?

Arktos continues to vandalise the content I have put up on article page.


'NATIVE" does NOT mean Indigenous, has never meant Indigenous and still does not mean Indigneous. Native is till used in this location (very regularly in our local paper when referring to someone born here but perhaps no longer living here as per " 'Gundagai native' Millicent Doe' ... " in a news item, and has been used continuously since invasion to mean a person born at this place. Native does not mean Indigenous in defined or common use in Austrlia but has very infrequently been used by some who arent that literate, to refer to Aboriginal people. No University anthropology/archaeology department recommends to students to use the term native when referring to Australia's Indigneous people and nor does wik.

Native

Charles Sturt was almost certainly not a graduate of a University anthropology/archaeology department ! I have put "native" in quotes in the Pondebadgery section. It is the word Sturt used and to mind is quote clear he was referring to indigenous people not settlers.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your mind.

Dream on.

Re the note re the big fish hunt above. This is apprently a post grad environmental science student doing that research. I have environmental science quals as well as the others. I did know when doing env. sci at uni that the Ancestral/cultural heritage big fish were not the larger versions of different species that evolved to what we see today. Science is totally fraudlent sometimes and when its mixed with some peoples very narrow and ethnocentric world view, stuff gets claimed that is outrageous. Its claimed that the British scientists invented geological sequencing in about 1810. Right. Howcome then I can demonstate 600,000,000 yeal old geology joined where it had fractured, (requiring a knowledge of the age of the associated strata), by humans 10000s and 10000s years before the Brits claimed they invented how to date rock sequences.

Scientists who have no idea much of other stuff and take stuff out of context etc alter the recording and presentation of history.

Charles Sturt not an arch grad? Right. You are aware the discipline hadnt really been invented in 1830 but Pitt Rivers etc followed not long after using Sturts and others accounts as well as using Bennetts, Ownes, Clarkes, Howitts, Lhotskys, Mueller, etc etc etc accounts (and the americans) for this area. You are apparently not aware that archs work access all evidence, not just one narrow world view. You are not aware that archs these days use Sturts Journal as a highly credible ethnography. Anyway, its not my role to teach you how to stop messing stuff up thats posted here because you do not have the skills to understand it or how to be a better editor. There are better aware heads for me to swap info with then here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.169 (talk • contribs)

Coolac bypass hold-up From that i have head about this 'massacre' is that a Neville Williams who is a Wiradjuri Aboriginal clams that there was a 'massacre' there (I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass. RobertM 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is a lie. Also, RM has not cited his source re the info he posted earlier (then continued to deny it) saying "I think he did the same etc ..." suggesting its his own informaiton. He later said he got this info from somewhere but still didnt cite it. He made no attempt to establish its veracity choosing instead to run with incorrect information. Its on the front page here what has held up the Coolac Byapss. Apart from that reason, there was also the matter of the funds to build the Bypass not having been allocated then released. Major road reconstructions cant begin till the Feds release the money. Why blame Neville Willams for anything. Everything in Oz has its set process and if some choose to access that, that is our democracy in action. If RM is against some in the Australian community (Neville Williams is a highly respected Aboriginal Elder) from being let participate in Austrlian Democratic process then that is totally woeful.

It would be appropriate if RM made an apology here for the slur he made against Neville Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.141 (talk • contribs)


Request for Arbitration

I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#A Y Arktos v. 203.54.*.*--A Y Arktos\talk 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good because Neville Williams did not make the original notification re the massacre. Nor did I. It came from a totally totally indpendent non Indigneous, long-time resident, local (Coolac) third party.

Why would a museum hold anything up? Museums are government funded as is the Coolac Byapss. Would that then be the go holdign up the government. That aside, no museum is holding anything up as nil is held up.

Neville Willaims tries to save Indigneous heritage and works within Australian law to do so. He is highly respected. Editors here should not be trying to denigrate his efforts (based on no factual evidence re what they claim) or be attributing things to him that are totally incorrect.

Also RM claims that "nothing has been found at the site .. etc" RM does not know this. He is making it up. He has no basis for making that claim.

Also, RM said earlier after being challenged, that the source of some of his info was ABC News. However, that ABC News is unsourced. I actually spoke to that news editor after that news item and got heaps gobbleygook. However the report remains unsourced and seems to have been part of some local area media campaign to try and hurry along the Coolac Bypass commencement as either a politcal (go at the NSW Gov/RTA) or just as a very uninformed and wonky local media campaign. The truth was though when that media campaign started in September 2005, the funding for the bypass hadnt been made and wasnt due to be made till 1 July 2006.

Neville Williams does not live at Coolac but has Coolac heritage many 100000s years long so has every right to be involved in the community consultation process under Australian law. RM didnt have a go re anyone else "holding up" the Coolac Bypass out of the 10 or so parties with a reg interest. He just had a go at one of us.

Also, this is about an Australian, I am Australian and Coolac is in Oz and RM is an Australian. Jurisdiction is Australia. The Arbitrators need to recognise that.

Because the Coolac Massacre is an integral point in Australian contact history (as its a massacre that those who instigated it got away with, plus it resulted in several, than one, significant and now iconic National monument being raised to it claiming some hero status by those who won this land off the Indigenous people when measures to do this included poisonings), then any Indigenous person who seeks to just have his culture's story put on the public record should not be denigrated.

If Charles Sturt called it Pondebadgery, why then does Artos think he can change it to Wantabadgery, then remove it, because Butchers book made a supposition? That ref to Wantabadgery in Butchers book is uncited and a person with just the old intermediate cert did some of the research for that book. The word pondebadgery is NOT wantbadgery. They are two totally different words. Artkos does his own research and puts it here. That is anti wik rules. Artkos stop vandalising wik. Apparently Artkos is such a deplorable researcher he thinks he can change source documents and replace them with content from a book written 175 years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.33 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your edits. You've been asked to do so countless times now. I've blocked this editor for 3 hours for disruption and further breaches of WP:NPA. -- Longhair 11:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pondebadgery is Wantabadgery! There is a map of Sturts Expedition, (1829-30) in Sherry Morris's book Wagga Wagga A History (1999) on page 15. -- RobertM 12:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sturt did not draw that map!!!! Sturt is NOT Sherris Morris either. What stands is Sturts record, not other peoples. Pondebadgery is also at Jugiong on another map. Ring Dianne Bell at Gawla re it all. Whatever, u editors here are hopeless and do your own research and think u can use it to change historical fact.
I also noted here re wik posting highly confidential Indigenous information. I have just sent that to NSWNP and CMA as well as Gundgaai Shire Council where it seems that leak came from. Wik and GSC should wake up to themselves. Its pathetic. As recent as a few weeks ago I was in a meeting where it was made very clear by the 30 or so Elders in the room, that info was NOT to be published. Now tonight, I find you lot have put it on here. Well done.
I dont care what nonsens eu put her eas it will just show up the ability of those who edit here. The rest of us who know the real stuff can sit and laugh at the nonsense u want to post if we are eve rbored enogh to log on. Here is pre pre school level methinks. Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.68 (talk • contribs)


Request for Comment

The RfA mentioned above was rejected by the ArbCom in favour of mediation being tried first. I have now lodged an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* in order to start dispute resolution from the beginning. An RfC is required to meet a two-person threshold, ie at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. ... The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 11.26 26/7 AEST), the page will be deleted.. --A Y Arktos\talk 02:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried and failed. I've certified your request. -- Longhair 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<'Gundagai in Literature' Plagarism>


'Gundagai in Literature' has not been cited. Its a blatant plagarism off Bruce Elder. Wake up to your self whoever put this here and stop plagarising (well known Australian) authors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.195 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This is your nth and final warning. Sign your edits, or face yet another block. -- Longhair 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sturt was never anywhere near current day Wantabadgery in 1830 which is why current day wantabadgery cannot be pondebadgery. Sturt tells readers this in his 1838 journal of his journey of exploration. I spoke to sherrie morris re this a few years ago. She worked at CSU then though and they like to put sturt at wagga as they named the uni for him. He was at wagga but in 1838, not 1830 no matter what sherrie morris or the admins who wreck here want to claim. The admins here though like to move hisotric fact and put there own spin on it then get very very nasty when told to stop vandalising wik pages in this manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.168 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You don’t get it do you. The hostile and threatening garbage here is so distasteful no one in their right mind would want to get any more up close and personal than they need to. The vandalising behavior of admins here does nil to present wik in any sort of admirable light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.147 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection

I have invoked semiprotection for this article. Any comments about the semiprotection should be directed to the relevant Request for Comment.

I will similarly semi-protect any related articles if I notice any abusive edits being carried out from the same IP range - abusive edits refers to the tone of the edit summary as well as the actual edit itself.

All editors should be aware of Wikipedia policies, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.

Recommencing editing in less than the block period is a breach of the Blocking policy.

All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed. Unsigned comments may be reverted.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your semi-protection stance to reduce vandalism to this article. Rather than block in the first instance from now on, I'll semi-protect wherever necessary. Blocking will of course be used if the problem moves on to other articles. -- Longhair 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gundagai&oldid=66051454"