User talk:The Drover's Wife/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Manual archive
- I notice you doing this and guessed you probably had the same problem I had when I set up archiving (the instructions appear insufficient). So I edited your User Talk to make the archiving settings match mine (which seems to work). I moved the archive you manually created so it appears as the first of the automated archives. So I think it should all work now (famous last words). Kerry (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
why did you edit my page? did you write the false things?82.26.100.71 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
____________ -Culleton was found to have never been eligible to stand which means he was technically never a Senator; -Culleton has made outrageous claims about Australia's sovereignty and the courts; -Many have claimed Culleton owes them money; this is an important fact which also needs to be included.
I will contact Wikipedia as you're obviously a vexatious liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroutyouaregood1 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Shroma
Hi The Drover's Wife, could you explain to me why you've reverted my changes? --g. balaxaZe★ 09:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Ministerialists
I seemed to have had either a browser or page loading issue with Ministerialists_and_Oppositionists_(Western_Australia) - as it stands a mess - any thoughts from your perspective ? Do you have any thoughts on the matter, as I am not 100% about it being 'both' or the best way to explain the groupings - so any comment would be appreciated JarrahTree 10:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your response - it is encouraging. Problem with 1901 - 1911 and almost 1921 - the allegiances are so damned slippery. Tricky as ministerialists as a term slips in federal and various states with possible variations of meaning and dependent upon context. There was one ref that I have missed somewhere suggesting after the impossibility of west australian pollies to form long standing allegiances it was actually forrest in 1911 trying to organise them... sheesh - not sure where to do on that. JarrahTree 11:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
gone
pity to see gone (armies that is), I know more gone eds than active eds for years now. As for the teachers college - Nedlands, Churchlands - any help would dowhen get around to start em thanks fore the offer JarrahTree 23:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lauta Atoi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Buka and Bougainville. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
PNG pollies
Fascinating work you're doing here! This is a topic about which I know precisely nothing, but it's great to see more articles on a clearly underexposed topic. Frickeg (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was surprised to see that seat decided that way today as well! It's been decidedly odd to have the late counting be so pro-Labor so far, although I'm assuming the incoming tide of postals will see at least one of the current doubtfuls slip back to the Libs. (It's probably ridiculously cautious to still have Baldivis listed as in doubt, but given that we've been burned in the past ... I think the primary's probably too high for it to be realistically close at this stage, but I'd rather see an actual count before we lock it down.) Frickeg (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Jim Bivoltsis
Thank you, that was it! I remembered as soon as I saw the name! --Canley (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boka Kondra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Papua. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for your edits on the pages for women in Australia and Pakistan.
Keep up the good work! Doyen786 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) |
From Quetta Memorial Precinct via the QHR
Given your interest in PNG, can you offer an opinion on this:
"The new Bishop had a formidable task ahead, and little funding. Fearing that it would be difficult to attract clergy to the Diocese, he proposed to establish a Diocesan theological training college on Thursday Island. This was made possible following an undertaking by Lord Beauchamp, Bishop of New Guinea, [my emphasis] to support three students at the Theological Training College for three years, from 1 January 1901."
Now my reading of this was that Lord Beauchamp was the Bishop of New Guinea, but when I went to wikilink the text, it all went pair-shaped. At that time 1900-1901, Montagu Stone-Wigg was the first Bishop of New Guinea and there is nothing in his rather longer ABD entry that suggests he's a Lord. Digging through the many generations of Lord Beauchamps, I find that at that time, Lord Beauchamp was William Lygon, 7th Earl Beauchamp who just happens to be the Governor of New South Wales at that same time. Clearly Lord Beauchamp is not the Bishop of New Guinea, but both were around in the right timeframe and the kind of folks I guess you might hit on for some cash for theology students. Do you think they meant Lord Beauchamp AND the Bishop of New Guinea? Kerry (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good find! With Lord Beauchamp funding 3 students, I think we can strike out the Bishop of New Guinea (maybe he helped find the students or had some other part to play in the storry). Kerry (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Mald
Hi. The convention, I believe, is to consider that an MP's term ends on the date of the election. In this case, logically, the date that the election ended. And that his term as minister ended on the date a new minister was appointed in his place. We happen to know what day that was; so he served as interim minister between the election and the appointment of the new Cabinet. Having the infobox makes the article clearer for readers. Aridd (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
huh?
About this, could you please explain? On one level: what's it to you? I don't see you in the edit history of that article or its Talk page, or in the Freopedia Talk page, either. Between you and me, I don't specifically recall past interactions, though I recognize your username, perhaps from long ago stuff about disambiguation pages maybe. --doncram 22:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
What is it to anyone ? - there happens to be a group of editors interested in Western Australian subjects and topics, and to query any one editor like this over common interests is trolling. The editor is interested in the subject as Toodyaypedia and Freopedia are 'live' on-going wikitown projects - I fail to see why someone needs to be queried as to their interest, or their involvement. JarrahTree 00:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- User:JarrahTree, I agree basically, but then why should The Drover's Wife be speaking to me that way? I have chosen to take a look at the Fremantle list of heritage places, and see some room for improvements, and it seems in their 3 edits they are suggesting someone with less than their knowledge should get lost. That's not how it should work. --doncram 01:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not what it seems... your user page tells it all JarrahTree 02:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bire Kimisopa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Generation Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Lera, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Buka, Bougainville and Arawa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
this all brought back memories
there are residual weirdnesses in many png subject areas - if I ever win lotto, youre my candidate to sit in the NLA in Canberra digging through all the resources that no one has brought out of the stack for the last 20 years .... good to have caught up in Melbourne JarrahTree 11:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- from memory, the petherick reading room card and the time spent in there made me realise there is so much that hasnt even been looked at let alone written up, it seems an elephant in the room, dark horse maybe - of australian scholarship JarrahTree 12:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This reverting is getting out of hand. Maybe request page protection? especially since he clearly isn't engaging with your talk page requests. Cheers.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Who would engage? TDW doesn't engage, she is right and doesn't care for your opinion. Dave Rave (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personals attacks on wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Gender dysphoria treatment for children
In good faith. The Drover's Wife, on 17 May, you reverted, without explanation, my contribution to Transgender rights in Australia: Gender dysphoria treatment for children. You asked that I take the matter to the TP. On 17 May, I did that, providing a detailed rationale. You have not responded - and no one else has responded. In good faith, considering the above, I would appreciate your response. B20097 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yanakie, Victoria
I deleted some advertising material inserted on this page referring to a business operating near the location called "Coastal View Cottages". Another editor has already deleted the Wikipedia article this business created for itself and I tidied up the red link and promotional language on the Yanakie page. Why did you revert this edit? MarekJG (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the message you left on my page. I thought that i could keep my talk page tidy...no harm there?
Can you please answer the question I have raised here. I think I am correctly removing the promotional content left by spammers. Also I have removed the red links to articles that have been previously been deleted by consensus of other editors where it seems logical that there is no realistic hope of these articles ever being re-created. Is that ok?MarekJG (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I am following the policy you said that I was breaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link
Specifically: "The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article."
I think I am following the policy exactly and with the effective result that is assisting other editors not creating work for other editors to clean up. Please provide a specific example of an edit that is unhelpful and why so that I can improve my skills! Thanks. MarekJG (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Your comment left on my Talk page is condescending:
"Unfortunately, your reading comprehension seems to be a bit poor: from the page you just claimed you had read (and I quote): "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic." Please desist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)"
Not only did I believe in good faith that the reference to "Coastal View Cottages" was blatant advertising but so did the editors who removed the page. There is clear consensus that the reference should be removed. Why are you simply not answering the question posed above. I am not asking for an apology or for you to say that you have made a mistake but you simply seem to be avoiding the question. And please don't tell me to " Feel free to remove business promotional material " - you don't own this place; I will continue to make legitimate edits that improve Wikipedia and keep it free from advertorial content.MarekJG (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Your comment on my talk page (yet again implying that you are superior and that I am stupid) still does not answer the question:
If you're not making edits against policy, your edits won't get reverted. This is not a complex challenge. If other editors have to clean up vast swathes of your edits, the rare useful edit may well get reverted in the process of cleaning up the damage. If, like most other editors, you...don't require other editors to clean up your messes, that's not a problem you'll have again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The short answer is nothing is wrong with the edits I am making. Nobody has had to clean up vast swathes of my edits. I hopefully won't have a problem again because you won't interfere with the valid edits being made by me and other editors. You have added nothing to the conversation nor have you reverted the edit you made to the Yanakie page. You are simply wasting the time of other editors with your opinions.MarekJG (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
North Queensland Party
I was surprised by this one too! I mean, how could you possibly get NQLP losing Mundingburra in 1956??? You're right about Plague on Both Their Houses - a lot of our minor party articles rely heavily on it because it's pretty much all there is in some cases without access to contemporary newspapers, but it really is a pretty shoddy piece of work. I've not looked at it in a while, but from memory the part with the most errors is the list of minor parties, which is full of really basic errors - I wonder if perhaps that part isn't by Jaensch at all but by his co-author, David Mathieson, who doesn't seem to have done much else. Frickeg (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- You could be right there - it's why I said "wrong move rationale" rather than "not known as ...", basically making sure the message got through that that wasn't a reason to move something before they move on to the rest of the Streets (I suspect they're related). Part of this goes to an issue that we haven't really dealt with, which is that the tendency in Australian political sources is often to list people by their initials as a general rule, which makes COMMONNAME a bit fuzzy (poor Stanley Bruce would be appalled to see himself at that name, but COMMONNAME compels it). I'm certainly not going to stand in the way if there is an actual reason to move these guys.
- (As an aside, I have always thought that if I could go back in time and change one Wikipedia policy back when it was early enough to do these things realistically, it would be COMMONNAME. Imagine how much simpler everything would be if we had a CORRECTNAME policy instead. Vastly fewer arguments over primary topic, none of the Burma/Myanmar or Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast drama, much less need for disambiguation. Imagine the possibilities! But sadly that ship has sailed and we have to work with what we have. The new user also moved another page to include "Sir" in the title, which is another thing I think is a good idea but is probably never going to get the support to implement.) Frickeg (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
List of physically disabled politicians
Hi, bother to explain your revert in List of physically disabled politicians? — kashmiri TALK 22:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— kashmiri TALK 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi
You were at the meetup with Katherine Maher some weeks ago - about Strategy - and you may well have contributed responses in the appropriate areas - do you have any further thoughts you might like to add since then? I would be interested - either on-wiki or off wiki if you so choose - as to the strategy themes or strategy process - as I am in the final stages of compiling a report - any thoughts would be appreciated - or if you have already contributed and have no further comment - no problems! JarrahTree 04:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Term dates
Well, generally I've been led by what the parliament says, but I'm guessing the PNG parliament may not have quite the same detail online as ours do (although it seems to have current MPs and does give a "date of election"). The general pattern has been that they begin on the day of the election. If the election is over more than one day, then I guess it would be from when the polls close in that particular constituency, although I don't think we have any examples of that here so I can't be certain (some early colonial elections were held over a period of weeks, but with individual polling days for different electorates). For the end of terms, our parliaments all differentiate between retiring and defeated MPs - retiring MPs' terms end at the dissolution of parliament, but defeated ones end on the day of the election. Hope this is helpful! And the work you've been doing in this area continues to be very impressive. Frickeg (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Early political parties
Great news! Well done for finding them! Of course for our purposes the ALP has always been the most straightforward of the parties (... unless it isn't after all). I'm not likely to be doing a whole heap of work over the next few months either, but from memory the main issue we had was determining the formation of the early conservative parties in most states (Victoria in particular) so anything there would be very helpful. Frickeg (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
List of closed South Australian railway stations
Hi. I would like to clarify that I did not intend to cite WP:DEADREF in my edit summary for the article List of closed South Australian railway stations, I had mistakenly copy-pasted the link to the guidelines article that I had been reading recently when I had intended to cite WP:REDLINK.
I removed the red links for the individual railway stations as they have existed in their current state, without new article creation, since 06:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC). In my judgment, this appeared to break WP:REDNOT: "do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia". In keeping with the red link policy of "Do not remove red links unless [...] the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic", I removed the excessive red links as each railway station could easily be covered in a general article on its respective railway line; lack of information on the individual stations would either result in WP:STUBS or continued lack of article creation.
Due to these reasons, I decided to WP:BOLDLY set about "weeding the link farm" and clean up the excessive use of red links in the article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 12:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has many, many articles on closed railway stations, including in Adelaide, with Adelaide being among the only places in Australia that doesn't have articles on all of them. Trying to mash them into line articles would go against current practice in this area in every other state and territory. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ryan
I've said most of this on Kerry's page - I'm fine being overruled here, but I still think this is really a style issue more than anything. With Evatt I actually think there's a pretty strong case to move to Bert, and if I can be bothered may have a go at it one day, but through a proper RM there. I mean, if we were following COMMONNAME strictly, the vast majority of pre-50s politicians would be at their initials. I just think if we have Billy (not W.M.) Hughes and Stanley (not S.M.) Bruce, we have no excuse for H.V. Evatt (or really T.J. Ryan either). Probably in the minority there but that happens sometimes. Frickeg (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Changes to Wikipedia page
Can you please advise me why you reverted the Jenny Aitchison Wikipedia page?
I was going in to fix up the templates on my desk top and noticed everything had gone?
I wouldn't have minded if you contacted me or changed formatting, but it is quite disconcerting?
Jones230 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- You messed up the template (so that the page didn't display properly) with a misleading edit summary of "fixed typo" when the edits were anything but. Had no clue what you were doing, but misleading edit summaries don't tend to lead to people getting the benefit of the doubt. Feel free to readd the edits without mangling the template. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hendon railway station, Adelaide
Hi. In response to your reversion of the page move that I requested for the Hendon railway line article to Hendon railway station, Adelaide, please allow me to explain why I made this recommendation.
Mainly, the station in question is the only station on this former branch line; it is common practice on Adelaide and SA railway stations (uncertain about interstate) to summarise information in an article concerning the station as opposed to the branch leading to it due to this. This can be seen on several other single-station branches and spurs, most notably Port Dock station, the GMH station and its spur, and the old Clapham spur/branch. If it was a line with multiple stations that have little individual information (Mount Gambier) then yes it would be easier to summarise in an article concerning the line, but this is not the case.
Also, I would disagree with your comment "larger subject, more sources"; the line is hardly a larger subject due to its status as a simple short branch to its single station terminus. Consequently, both would feature the same content but would focus primarily on the actual station over the short alignment to the station, hence my WP:BOLD move request.
Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 15:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Good catch re my section deletion! Given I spent most of yesterday trying to fix the many errors in that very section, the last thing I would have wanted was to delete it all! It seems that this school page wasn't updated when the deamalgamations occurred, so I am working my way through it looking for schools that are in the deamalgamated LGAs. In the process, I am turning up lots of other errors including schools that weren't anywhere near Far North Queensland (to be fair, I do have a lot of useful resources to track down old place names since I run a web page on that topic, which probably gives me an advantage). Kerry (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Changes to Wikipedia page
Can you please advise me why you reverted the Robert Holmes à Court Wikipedia page? I have invested considerable time correcting mistakes about this notable Australian person and within a few minutes of posting you have reverted the content, Why? I find it concerning that you are not being acurate and my contributions including re-ording events in a chronological order are being reverted. Please explain. Regards - Oakpont 12:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
G'day, I wondered if you would mind taking a look at this article, the latest in my work on the frontier wars in SA? I'd like to get a few opinions before nominating it for GA review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Supreme Court of Western Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph McGrath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Murray Bridge redirects
Hi Drover's Wife. A quick note to say these are all fixed now, finally. See User:Donama/Murray Bridge suburbs. Donama (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Marriage equality opponents call for broad right to discriminate content
"The Equality Campaign executive director, Tiernan Brady, said the comments showed the no campaign was engaged in “a blatant attempt to unravel existing anti-discrimination laws which serve everyone in Australia well, not just LGBTI people”" --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata lists of redlinks on Women in Red
Hi there. I have a feeling you did not get an answer to your question on the WiR talk page. These lists indicate the names of women who have biographies in a language other than English on Wikipedia. Wikidata creates antries on new Wikipedia articles and is particularly good at registering biographies, whatever the original language of the articles. We have found the lists useful in identifying women who also deserve articles in English. If you click on the Q number on the "Item" column, you can usually find at least one article in another language which you might understand or, if not, submit to Google translate to get a rough idea of the person's importance, etc. From the main WiR page, you can also access Wikipedia lists by occupation. Let me know if this helps or if I can be of further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Jacqueline Gleeson
Nice job on creating Jacqueline Gleeson - I had missed Category:Australian women judges so added it to the couple of judges I had created. Are you planning on writing articles for other Federal Court judges Sarah Gleeson, Berna Collier, Kathleen Farrell, Debra Mortimer, Bridgette Markovic and / or Natalie Charlesworth ? I think that is all that are in red. I am keen to help out the Women in Red project, but not to fussed about the contest, so if any are part of your plans I am happy to focus my efforts elsewhere. In the unlikely event you need assistance with sources, let me know - I have access to subscription journals as well as some very good law libraries. Cheers Find bruce (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Keith Wright
Hi. Just a brief invitation, if you want, to join discussion on the Talk Page for the Australian politician Keith Wright. Cheers, Research17 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, The Drover's Wife. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Population updates for the 2016 Census
I note that you've been reverting updates to census figures for localities in WA. I'm afraid it is you that is using the wrong figures. As an example you've reverted Geraldton from the 2016 Census figure for the Geraldton SUA (37,432) to the 2015 estimate for the Geraldton SUA (39,825). I see that you feel that SSC figures should be used - for Geraldton this would give you just the Geraldton CBD with a population of 3,148. The Geraldton article describes a place much larger that the CBD. I disagree with your statement that "Australian locality articles have always been done on the basis that any figures, etc, refer to the gazetted locality, rather than any larger urban area (since we have other articles on those places)". The articles are actually done on the basis of a logical or general understanding of the extent of the places that are described in the articles such as for Geraldton, Albany, Broome, Kalgoorlie etc. Are you suggesting that we not use a figure of 13,984 for the place described in the Broome, Western Australia article, but a figure of 4,042 (Broome SSC)? It's also not helping by reverting the latest 2016 Census SUA figures back to inaccurate 2015 estimates (which are all SUA). I see your point with the major metro areas, but not for country towns with a unitary identity. regards John beta (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
An exceptional barnstar for you
|
The World Contest Laurels |
| Thankyou for the hard work you put into the Women in Red World Contest!! -♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
I make it $50 that you've won. Please double check. If you would like to donate any of your winnings into the Women in Red Book Fund to raise money to buy books for editors of women topics who need them on demand please add your name and the amount you'd like to donate in the sub section below the prize winners on the main contest page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Hi, As just noted at WP:AWNB I think that the repeated attacks on you warrant a block, but I'm not in a position to impose this. If a report is lodged please ping me and I'd be pleased to support it. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if you think the current incarnation of this bio passes muster? Castlemate (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Castlemate (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Your latest edit was an act of vandalism. I am undoing it until others have an opinion. You have removed many credible reference. Don't make this an edit war. Castlemate (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Contest Prize
Please email me and state your user name and how much I owe you in your preferred currency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
You'll need to email me your email address as well :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on Australian content!
Now it's time to relax with a lamington!
Kerry (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on Australian content!
Cheers and beers!
Kerry (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on Australian content!
For your outstanding efforts in Women in Red!
Kerry (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of WikiLove happening
It's happening for two reasons. 1) you deserve it. And 2) because I am experimenting with creating an Australian version of WikiLove which is sort-of working but clearly I have to figure out how to better control the size of the images. Kerry (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
AFC
On the ground that no one has told me that I can't, I've added you to the list of participants who can review articles. The reviewing tool should be working for you, although this seems like an oddly complicated process. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
NextGen
I see you have noticed my new QHR articles. These are not from the July 2014 release of the QHR that the earlier articles were constructed from but are pure "from the web" generated articles with my fabulous new NextGen tool (the old one being called Gen short for "generator"). When I say fabulous, I mean it sort-of works as well as I can hope, given that it's essentially a process where I unscramble the omelette of the QHR web page and then remix it into the souffle of a Wikipedia article. The attraction of this new approach is because the NSW HR will have to come "from the web" so I am hoping that the amount of tweaking I will need to do to make it work with NextGen will be relatively small. The bigger piece of work is the automatic wikilinking. It has to be fed lists of articles from categories that might be relevant to the article as the basis for wikifying. I use the Category:Queensland for the history section and some architectural category for the Description section. Obviously the NSW HR will need to work with NSW places, people, etc,not Qld ones. (This is where the petscan tool will be of great assistance as it can gather up all the articles in the NSW category tree for me). Kerry (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Serpil Senelmis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
14:24:08, 21 December 2017 review of submission by Bengaloorugirl
HI, I started my first article on a company that I thought would qualify for a decent upload.
Can you be more specific on how I can make my article pass the review?
- @Bengaloorugirl: To meet the general notability criteria, there needs to be source material in which other people (independent of Wardy IT) talk about Wardy IT because they genuinely wanted to say something about Wardy IT (and weren't paid to do so). Sources that just reproduce the organisations's media releases don't count for this purpose (this is not to say that they cannot be use as citation for certain information, but they don't count for notability asssessment). I have added a couple of additional pieces of information with citations that appear to meet that criteria (the Young Entrepreneur Award) and the A2 Milk example. Can you find a couple more? If you could find more stories like the A2 Milk example, that is good because it actually adds some information to the reader about what the company actually does. In that regard the lede para could be much improved by saying more down-to-earth things rather than "total solutions" and "data analytics" which are OK in the trade press but not really insightful to the average Wikipedia reader. As the lede para currently reads, it does not serve to differentiate Wardy from any other organisation that delivers Microsoft SQL Server etc solutions (these are tools, what is it that the company actually does?). Kerry (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Bunbury Terminal
Link to Google Streetview image, showing the name of the terminal no less than twice.
I have seen no evidence of it being named 'Bunbury railway station' (other than the one which closed a few decades ago 4kms to the northwest). Rund717 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for reviewing the T2 page! And adding it the disambiguation page, too. Thanks so much!
SunnyBoi (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Why
Why are you destroying my page? John555566667777 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Independent (Papua New Guinea), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
joint Corporation and District Council LGAs
Hi, sorry to do another undo. I probably shouldn't have. I'm having trouble with former LGAs like Clare and Kadina. Somehow we need to make them consistent. Sue Marsden lists the "Corporation and District Council of Kadina" as a single LGA in 1936, based on the civic record but on close reading of that, it states Kadina has "two civic organisations", so probably you are right that they must be kept separate and I can be reverted again. Would you mind having a look at Corporation and District Council of Clare to see if it is the same as Kadina? It looks like Kapunda followed a similar pattern with the town corporation being established in 1865 and the DC following year. But it's unclear in the latter case when they were merged to simply be the DC of Kapunda. I really need help with this. Donama (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
In a very short space of time with very few contributions and one I consider to be questionable I'm wondering if this person really is non-notable.
https://disabilityemployment.org.au/about-us/hall-of-fame/item/1327/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3x5IvpPs8
http://innov8group.com.au/linked/cv_summary.pdf
http://www.theablemovement.com.au/about-us/team/
http://pixel3.com.au/our-work/interview-dr-mark-bagshaw-disability-employment-australia/
http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2011/03/02/3153070.htm
https://capeyorkpartnership.org.au/news/gillards-disability-care/
https://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/uploads/attachment/391/raising-the-bar.pdf
Castlemate (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response on my talk page. Others are responding there as well. To the best of my knowledge I wasn't informed of the AfD and so I'm not sure if I created the article or not and don't know exactly what content it had at the time of the deletion. At this time I'm not sure that I wish to become involved in having it reinstated but I will think about it. Castlemate (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I overwrote your Decline on Draft:National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities with mine
It looks like both of us thought "easy to deal with, too lazy to mark as under review". Fortunately we were both saying the same thing (but me being me had to say it at greater length). Kerry (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have fixed it so both our declines appear on the draft. Or at least I think I have fixed it ... Kerry (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
CQU
Hi, Yes, I was a bit line ball on removing the stuff on campuses. I did so as the general tone seems to be spruiking them, and the uni has experienced issues over the quality of its campuses in the past (eg, the treatment of international students in the mid 2000s). Thanks for reverting me, and I'll attempt a more sensitive clean up tomorrow. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
A small token for a big contribution
|
The Invisible Barnstar | |
| Thank you, The Drover's Wife, for getting involved at Articles for creation and helping whittle down the backlog. Your diligent reviewing is recognized and greatly appreciated! --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC) |
reverting clementine ford edit
Hello, if you have any problems with the edit you had reverted, could you please state it in the talk page? --2001:8003:54DA:E600:4D63:99B:887:A5F2 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
"Dolly" Everett now has an article - Suicide of Amy Everett. Want to work with me on it? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
?
So you have misrepresented me twice now in the discussion about NCORP. Please stop. Diffs:
- here you wrote
and the attempt to put it again after 24 hours with comparatively very minor amendments (picking off two of the issues raised, but ignoring the others - most notably the non-US issue) suggests the same disinterest in engaging with editors who are critical for various reasons that doomed this attempt
- which is not at all accurate, as what I wrote was
I am going to leave this going for another day or two but am going to pull it before it ends, to refine and relaunch.
I never said i was going to relaunch it right away. That would be indeed be stupid.
- which is not at all accurate, as what I wrote was
- You also repeated there the same misrepresentation you wrote back on the 7th here where you wrote,
I think the refusal to engage with these objections is unhelpful. Numerous people have listed numerous problems with this proposal as it is currently framed, and rather than try to address any of those things, a response of "you will have your chance later to oppose it" is disappointing.
- The actual proposal was amended several times in the discussion as is clearly visible here in the markup. The original proposal posted there was the result of along discussion back in July, which is linked in the OP.
- What I actually said had to you before you wrote that was:
- 1) diff
as noted in the OP, you will have the ability to oppose in the RfC. If you have any ideas about improving the proposal, please provide them.
(And what the OP says, isFor folks replying here, if you are opposed to any effort to raise NCORP standards for companies please just say so -- I understand very well that some people will take that position; there is no point arguing about that. There are a bunch of people who want to try, and you can oppose at the RfC.
(I had written that in response to your initial comment, here, which i read as opposing any effort to raise NCORP standards) - In any case in response to your misrepresenting remark, I wrote:
I noted in the OP that there are people who will oppose from the get go and you will have your chance to oppose at the RfC. Again if you have any kind of criteria that would not rule out the kind of companies you think should be in WP please propose them. A general "no" is just a waste of bytes at this point in the process.
- So there are two requests, from me to you, for concrete proposals in that exchange.
- Another editor then also asked you for concrete proposals to meet your concerns.
- How did you reply to those three requests? With nothing. That is fine, you have no obligation to, but you had lots of opportunity to provide concrete input and you chose not to. (Per your contribs, your next comment was your oppose !vote.) Other people did give concrete feedback, and ideas that got consensus from people other than me, were enacted.
We are going through that process of refinement again now.
I get it that you are very concerned about what we might exclude. That is what it is, and could actually be helpful if you would provide concrete criteria that help would prevent that exclusion. On the other hand if you are just generally opposed, that is what it is. Others are concerned about the ongoing torrent of spam articles from companies looking to abuse WP for promotion, so this effort is going to continue.
Again it would be very very helpful to get concrete criteria from you that would ensure that articles about which you are worried would be retained.
But the discussion is hard enough without this kind of personalized, misrepresenting stuff. Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- copied response left at my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yet you've again highlighted the problem: you keep requesting "concrete proposals" with the determination of proceeding with your precious five criteria, amended however slightly, as this is apparently (in your book) the only possible means of proceeding with necessary changes to NCORP.
- I'm sympathetic to the problem: I review articles at AfC, and I see tons of the startup-spam dreck being submitted, and plenty that I can't be bothered delving through thirty crap sources in order to reject it. I am also very, very frustrated with our actual legitimate business coverage being thrown out with the bathwater - something which this proposal (in either format) is going to make much worse in very specific ways (of which I and the majority of respondents to the RfC highlighted). I am also very frustrated with the repeated assumption that being unimpressed with those specific five criteria means I'm opposed to altering NCORP standards to fix the same problem you're concerned about.
- Now, there might be a way of proceeding with an amended version of your five criteria (and doing so in a way that could actually gain consensus) - but you've had plenty of editors raise wide-ranging concerns about how you're doing it - not that you're doing it. So many people responded with various takes on "I'm sympathetic to the idea, but this is not the right solution" that there's obviously a way to a consensus outcome there. But it needs collectively brainstorming a solution that is good: not insisting on "concrete proposals" mildly altering the same five criteria so you can immediately put it up again with minor amendments just after it tanked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply.
- First, they are not "my criteria". If you go back and read the July discussion (and the discussion from Jimbo's page that is linked there, which links back to lots of other discussion), all that is happening here is gathering up specific criteria that have gained some consensus in those discussions. I am shepherding, for sure.
- People have written several times that what we need are higher quality deletion discussions, where the existing guidelines are applied better. I actually agree with that and try to participate as much as I can but, that doesn't help much.
- I think the sourcing guidelines are already pretty good with CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Unfortunately people who are writing about that don't seem to be dealing with what they actually say. But if folks want to start discussions about improving those bits, I would be totally behind that. Perhaps I will open that discussion so folks who are focused on that have a place to concentrate.
- If consensus develops that some other guideline-level approach would be better, I am completely open to that.
- But I am in no hurry, whatsoever. None. You continue, even here, with that misrepresentation. Please stop. These discussions have been ongoing since last summer; keeping them moving along, is not "rushing" or "hurrying".
- Again, if you have any ideas about how to improve NCORP to improve our ability to exclude spam, please propose it. What can I do, other than ask you to say what you do want? I am asking the same thing of everyone who is participating.
- If you propose something better - completely outside the five or so things that have been gathered up so far -- that gets consensus, i would not complain at all. I would be very happy. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I still think there's a really important conversation to have around the NCORP standards, as with the several people who preferred an approach based on sourcing to one rather than on worthiness. I've been thinking that these are quite vague in ways that are unhelpful across the board: there's a real need to clarify what business coverage we would accept, what we consider to be a good source. Quite a few of the NCORP criteria take out most reasons mainstream media report business news (because something happened), and the most extreme end, "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people", interpreted strictly, could rule out all mainstream media coverage except where the company refuses comment.
I think our inability to set down what we would define as good coverage (and creating a situation where everything is arguable) is allowing a lot of PR people to play in the grey area. Very few of the crap articles I see at AfC are notable enough to have gotten more than (at best) one or two mainstream media articles, but they inevitably try to boost this with low-quality trade/industry journals/websites/magazines that NCORP don't address well. I'm left to dismiss this stuff by stretching the NCORP criteria and applying the one I mentioned above harshly, but it's not as easy to dismiss as it should be: the guidelines don't really differentiate NYT-standard business coverage from "Bob's low quality trade website". Do you get where I'm going with this? I don't really have a clear solution yet, I'm just trying to find ways to address this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks this is helpful. I agree with your description of the way that our sourcing criteria get played. Someone who used to be very active at [[WP:COIN] formerly had the job as a PR person placing pieces in trade rags and could spot them a mile away.
- In and case I've opened a section at WT:NCORP to discuss what the guideline says about sourcing and I will think about how to improve that too...
- I do most of my work in stuff already in mainspace (the kind of stuff that Carrite talked about here), but i have spent time doing NPP and AfC work to understand what that is like. The number of articles about pop culture cruft is staggering - the line there between people on the company side pushing the stuff, and on the fan side is almost impossible to determine (paid/conflicted vs advocacy/fans) and the sourcing quality is horrible... almost no line between WP and the blogosphere. That is another whole ball of wax that will be very hard to tackle due to the editors who are "fans". Business articles are a little different because there is less of the "fan" problem, which is why i have started here... anyway thanks for that last reply! Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
17:33:16, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Carlymita
I'm struggling a bit knowing what "notability" and "trusted sources" refer to, since the article has references to The Wall Street Post, Healthcare IT News and some Business Journals. Can you provide any more direct feedback as to why the draft lacks notability?
Carlymita (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)carlymita
Carlymita (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thank you.Carlymita (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)carlymita
22:02:44, 23 January 2018 review of submission by Kathieserrano
Hello, I would like to understand what changes we need to do in order to get published this content. As a note I can tell you that the first review was approved by the reviewer "Bradv" but earlier by mistake, I have submitted my content in the draft, and brand asked to submit the content again.
I would appreciate your feedback in order for us make the right changes to help us get this content approve.
Thanks.
Kathieserrano (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Kathieserrano: I think you may have misinterpreted Bradv's comment; nothing was said about approval, simply that you should be developing the article in the Draft: space and not in your User Talk. Kerry (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Request on 08:58:16, 24 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Pt1979
Thanks for your input on my first-ever article. I've amended the sources as you suggested, with one exception where the text specifically mentions a report published by RER so it makes sense to link to it.
I would dispute the need to include criticism of the project. The criticism you reference is of one of the multiple parties behind the project, not the project itself, and the criticism is already documented on the company's own wikipedia page, which is linked to in the article.
Pt1979 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Request on 02:24:48, 25 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Pt1979
Thanks for the guidance. I've added the section as requested.
Pt1979 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Erika Heynatz death
I have noticed you keep having to revert information by an unregistered user several times over last few days about her death. I have looked online and I cannot find any reliable sources to say she has died, so this must be vandalism. I was wondering whether this page ought to have a block on it so only registered users can edit it. Are you aware she has died, I mean she is quite a famous person in Australia so I am sure there would be news courage.(Amy foster (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC))
Updated Article's references Pericent Technologies
Hi,
I appreciate your time to review the article Pericent Technologies and allowed me to improve it notability. I have updated the article as covered in the independent references. I hereby request you again to please review the updated article of Pericent Technologies.
It would be great, if you please allow me to know if I missed anything, or kindly approve.
Regards, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndesuza74 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Robert C. Seacord for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert C. Seacord is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert_C._Seacord until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
17:41:33, 19 January 2018 review of submission by Hagtobel
Dear "The Drover's Wife"! I have noticed your decision to decline my draft, which I don't quite understand. I am the author of the entry on Hans Fässler, and I have created an entry about Hans Fässler in German before, with the help of an experienced Wikipedia contributor and without any problems (see my entry in German). I h a v e used footnotes to cite my sources, but I do not understand why I have not met the standards for inline citations. Can you help?
Thank you and with best wishes,
Hagtobel
Hagtobel (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear "The Drover's Wife"! I have read your advice on my talk page. Thank you. I have tried to improve the Draft about Hans Fässler by adding more inline citations where possible, trying to use an international context. Also I have reduced the list of sources at the end. I think the problem with this article is that Hans Fässler is active in Swiss and international (English, French, Italian) contexts and that some of the sources (which can be accessed online), while being reliable in a Swiss context, may not mean much to an English or American reader. Thank you and with best wishes, Hagtobel Hagtobel (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
09:15:09, 29 January 2018 review of submission by John Birchall
After spending several hours with the German version of the article, it became clear to me that although the sources are not identified line by line, the article is is surely drawn from the two biographical dictionaries listed under 'Literatur,' and simply provides access to the material there for those who do not have those reference works to hand. I have added a little by way specified sources, so the English version of the article is slightly better sourced than the German, and it seems a pity to abandon it. Going back to those two German biographical dictionaries and adding footnotes line by line is within reach for German contributors with regular access to a German university library, and for me would involve a day travelling ot the British Library calling up those two sources for no greater reward than to confirm what is already reasonably clear: that they are indeed the real sources used by the German language contributor. The article would have been better had the original contributor specified rather than merely implied that two German biographical dicationaries are the sources. I am inclined to think that where two biographical dicationaries are listed under 'Literatur' that is sufficient attribution for thise brief notice on Herr Liepmann to be admitted to Wikipedia, though the sourcing is not ideal; I also think that if my view on this point is rejected, it is worth leaving the translation, which was performed with considerable care, in draft until such time as you consider that the German original has met Wikipedia's standards.
John Birchall (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The 'Literatur' section in German seems to be the equivalent of 'sources' in English. If it had been better formatted I could have used the German version as such without change, with a substitution template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Literatur. I incorrectly called it 'Literature.' I have now improved the formatting of the sources and updated the References to make this clearer. The first source has a Wikipedia entry for the editor, and the second source has a Wikipedia entry for the work, which I have not attempted to link to. John Birchall (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Following your last message, I have moved the sources list under References, and placed References after Notes (the order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Notes_and_references seems to suggest). John Birchall (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Resubmitted. John Birchall (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)