User talk:Mattinbgn/Archive 18

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia

It is approximately 4:34 AM where this user lives.

Dumbalk, Victoria

Anyone who knows what a White Suffolk is should be encouraged! All the best for 2011. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)).

Possibly true! All the best to you too. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! --Canley (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for placing the notice at WP:DEATH - pity it is so quiet at the moment - maybe rigor mortis SatuSuro 22:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ben Roberts-Smith

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Asian Cup colour map

Actually, I was looking at the graphic just last week and thinking "That reaally needs to be changed to red/blue not red/green". So, I really got the barnstar for being lazy!! Jlsa (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Don River

I think I fixed the links correctly. You might want to double check it. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Vote in WP:CRIC

There has been a issue in WT:CRIC that needs your vote. Thanks --ashwinikalantri ^talk 06:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Mattinbgn. You have new messages at Bulldog123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Pro-life's talk page.

ADDING RELEVANT LOCAL LINKS TO TOWNS IN WIKIPEDIA

ADDING RELEVANT LOCAL LINKS TO TOWNS IN WIKIPEDIA

Mattinbgn

Adding relevant local links to towns in Wikipedia is to enhance that town and page.

It gives visitors an indication of surrounding areas and hence other places to visit and explore.

So what is wrong with that, it only improves the Wiki experience I would think.

(Savelephant (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)) SaveElephant 5.2.2011

Yasi

At that time, the article was already created and redirected to the previous page. So move function could not be performed. So i cut and paste the matter into the redirect page and redirected the previous page to the original page. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information i will do that next time. However, readers never find out that the pages were moving using cut and paste as i worked out all the redirects carefully.(except the double redirect at the Australian cyclone page) --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful edits to the new article I created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Linton

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that the photo of 'the old bank' taken in Linton Victoria (Australia) was actually the 'BARR Building' which housed a haberdasher/glovemaker and the doctor. Dr Vera Scantelbury Brown was born in the front room here. Cheers, Jean

Thanks for letting me know. I will fix it straight away. Just so you are aware, you can make any changes yourself if you like. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit! Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

NEVER let the facts get in the way of your point of view. (No matter how inconvenient.) NEVER.

Hi. Thank you of thinking of me - no need to apologise. I have responded here to your request. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Especially when provoked by a noun deleted ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You will have noticed that both Bilby and Worm have suggested I hold off. What's your preference? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal reply

Mattinbgn, I just want to get this clear, Yes I am young, sometimes I may say something that I don't mean, or obviosly does not make sense. I know that there is bit of an alliance going on between the both of you...(when I mean alliance--you 2 dont have any problems with eachother) which is totally fine. I am just going along with all of this, meaning I want this finished ASAP so I can get back to my normal editing. And Mattinbgn it is not like we are asking that this user serves severe consequences, We all just want him to go on editing like everyone else does without there being any disputes. I respect your opinion on this user. We are all entitled to our own opinion. My statement basicically states my opinion on this issue, and I am hoping you respect that too. Thank you :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It would make things a lot easier if discussion was kept in the one spot rather than scattered around various talk pages. Many thanks. Mattinbgn (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sad news

FYI. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bidgee, there is a proposal to close due to Bidgee's retirement. As an outside view, would you have any problem with this saga ending? I will close in about 12 hours if no objections raised. Worm^TT 21:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mattinbgn, Pdfpdf pointed out that you are actually on a wikibreak at the moment, and would not have got that in time. I have now closed the RfC, but if there are objections I'm sure it won't be difficult to re-open Worm^TT 11:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mattinbgn. I read shared blame as "all parties were at some level of fault". Not that it matters now, I closed the RfC not through the proposal, but due to Bidgee's retirement. Hopefully Bidgee will take a breather and come back when this all water under the bridge. I hate to see an editor leave due to drama. Worm^TT 09:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from MelbourneStar☆

How informal of you, Pdfpdf, to spread Bidgee's current status under a seperate issue, but since it is here, I respond with the following: Bidgee does not have to retire, if he does thats at his own discretion. He brought that upon himself. We did not force...infact not even suggest retirement. You may call it 'sick of being picked on etc.' I call it Guilt. Hopefully Bidgee comes to his senses, by returning as well as sticking to basic polocies. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear MelbourneStar☆

If your comment "You may call it 'sick of being picked on etc.'" is addressed to me, I'm not aware of having expressed any opinion other than that I felt it was sad. Please do not attribute to me opinions that I don't hold and am not aware of ever having expressed. If forgetting to put in a h2 before my post caused you confusion, my apologies. I have remedied the matter. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Pdfpdf, the comment was not to you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar. Your transparently obvious vendetta against Bidgee is no longer necessary. He is gone, you won. Drop it and perhaps you should consider actually improving content rather than using Wikipedia as a social network. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Since you don't really want to mind your own buisness, I can tell you now that I havent spoken to anyone of you people about the topic since it ended, and My views were obviously not taken the right way. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bidgee has 'retired' on various occasions. It's his own choice, and given his past 'retirements', he'll more than likely be back after the dust has settled. It therefore has nothing to with 'winning', and the implied 'finality' is tenuous at best. If Bidgee wants to return, fine. If he doesn't, fine. There is no need to excessively commiserate or eulogise him. See also WP:DIVA.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I shall continue to do eulogise to my hearts content. If you don't like, feel free not to read it. As for all of this having nothing to do with winning, I suspect MelbourneStar at least feels differently. Your role as agent provocateur in much of what has occurred has been noted. No regards, Mattinbgn (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL @ "agent provocateur", in which the inherent assumption of bad faith in your 'noting' has been noted. Anyway, all that aside, it would be good if you could continue the discussion you began at Talk:Cairns, Queensland regarding the tone of the article. Regards.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your lack of good faith re:Bidgee is transparent and for me to assume otherwise would be denial of the bleeding obvious. The fact that even now you choose to visit my talk page uninvited to continue to cast aspersions on Bidgee (calling him a "diva") is further evidence of your motives in all this. As the person who, outside of all proper process, decided to elevate this minor dispute where all parties shared some blame (I have never said Bidgee was blameless) to the level of an RfC, "agent provocateur" seems quite apt. As for Cairns, now that I have returned to editing, I propose to head back there. I have not forgotten about it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My raising of the RfC at the suggestion of another uninvolved editor has been fully documented. Regardless of your opinion of me or my 'motives', I trust that you will be able to put aside your petty opinions when dealing with article content. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I commented here because the parties involved in the dispute are on my Watchlist. The reference to the WP:DIVA essay was in reference to Bidgee's frequent retirements; I did not call him a "diva", I simply referenced the article that described relevant behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Also, to clarify, my statement above that "there is no need to excessively commiserate or eulogise" was addressed as much to MelbourneStar1 (and by extension, all involved parties) as it was to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)One's own edits are one's own responsibility, regardless of any advice sought. The intent in referring to WP:DIVA combined with the inverted commas around 'retired' and 'finality' is quite clear and your backtracking now is unbecoming. As for putting my "petty" opinions aside, I will note that it is you coming to my talk page with gratuitous and somewhat provocative advice that has sparked this little exchange. I don't recall ever seeking out your talk page to comment in any way on this matter and I have absolutely no plans to do so in the future. It appears to me that it is you who have the opinions that need putting aside. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'backtracking'. Bidgee does have a history of non-permanent 'retirement' (which is in quotes because retirement is typically permanent). It is not my fault or responsibility that the relevant essay is called WP:DIVA. Additionally, I have not disclaimed any responsibility in raising an RfC beyond the statement that it was the recommendation (not "sought") of another editor. I don't have a lot of experience with RfCs, and whether it was warranted or not, it was not a breach of conduct of any kind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your backtracking relates to you choosing not to stand by your transparent dig at Bidgee and your little aside to me about "eulogising". If you cite an essay called "Don't feed the divas" I can only assume you are referring to someone as a diva. You raised an RfC entirely out of process despite a self-confessed lack of understanding about the system. It was a reckless and provocative act and despite your scepticism about Bidgee's future plans (I hope he does return, but I doubt it) has had serious consequences. It may not have been a breach of conduct—although your conduct during this matter, up to and including this conversation is worthy of further scrutiny—but it was a massive breach of process. The honourable thing to have done when so clearly in the wrong would have been to request an immediate close and deletion of the RfC, not continue to ratchet up the rhetoric - as you still continue to do. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere - I have my own opinion of your conduct in this matter that is unlikely to change and I doubt that anything I say is unlikely to change your mind. Let's move on. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I cited the essay because it is the essay that describes the behaviour of temporary retirement in the event of disputes. It is what it is. Raising the RFC may have demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the process, but that is not automatically "provocative", and while it may have been premature, it is not "a massive breach of process". It is inherently relevant that for years, Bidgee has frequently threatened to 'retire' and has done so on various occasions, so my action in this particular instance has not resulted in any especially 'serious' or unique 'consequence'. That said, I'm happy at this point to move on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this? A tea party?

How dare all of you say this stuff? it is not only rude and downgrading, but not necceasary. I Have done nothing wrong, and if you all think I have, that Is under your discretion. Let me assure you, Mark My words: I did NOT want Bidgee to retire, etc. Thats his perogative. The only thing I wanted was for him to follow by the rules. <-- Don't get any simple than that. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You're getting a bit excited. I've simply stated that there is no 'need' (though doing so isn't necessarily 'wrong') to be especially apologetic or mournful about an editor who decides to leave. That's all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar This is not a social network and I have no interest in further contact with you other than to discuss the improvement of encyclopedia articles. Please stay away from my talk page in future unless you wish to request assistance in improving an article. You have been asked nicely. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jeffro Can you and MelbourneStar take this elsewhere please. I am sick of the edit conflicts on this page-- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jeffro Look, I understand what you mean. In a way, I just though things could have been handled a little better. Anyway It is Over. Why all of a sudden are we stressing or discussing this, when it is over. Not the best outcome, (hopefully it will change), but its over.

@Everyone: I am sorry to everyone that I may have made upset, and if you want to discuss anything with me, your all welcome to discuss on my talk page. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

lga/melbourne maps

Hello, Mattinbgn. You have new messages at Cassowary's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heidelberg School

Hello Mattinbgn, I'd like to improve the Heidelberg School article, but can't find good articles of similar art movements that provide an ideal layout model to go by. Do you have any ideas? I think if we get a good layout of start quality (sub)sections, then it will be easier to expand and fill in the gaps. -- HappyWaldo (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi HW. Firstly, I should mention that I have no background in visual arts at all, not even an amateur one. My knowledge of the subject has been derived from what I could find on various web searches. My interest in the topic came from finding that some of Australia's most famous paintings—any of them by the Australian impressionists—did not have articles. I thought it was important to rectify that so I worked on a few articles, mainly but not solely on Tom Roberts paintings. I must admit that the research has inspired me to take more of an interest in Australian art.

I can't really give you an example of a good article on an arts school but perhaps the people at WikiProject Visual arts can help there. I would certainly give you one piece of advice - use the best possible sources to which you have access and not rely on websites and google searches. One or two good books by people knowledgeable on the subject will be of infinitely more benefit that skimming various gallery sites.

I would suggest that the best place to start is with a clean-up of the existing article. That would include a rewriting of the "Artist's Trail" section as prose, focusing less on the layout of the trail and more on the geographical setting for much of the work. The list in the "Associated Artists" section also needs improvement - the bare list on its own adds little in my opinion. I would shy away from generating sub-sections around individuals such as Conder, Streeton and Roberts and instead focus on more of a chronological structure.

I will certainly be available to help as you go along with advice and suggestions from a layperson's perspective and would be willing to copy-edit and format as required. Visual arts is one of the most neglected areas of the coverage of Australia in this encyclopedia (Sport, on the other hand ...) and it would be good to have a stand out article to hopefully encourage others to contribute. Good luck! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and offer of assistance. I'm also an art newbie, and I share your dismay at the state of Australian visual arts on Wikipedia (just look at the page for Sidney Nolan, "Australia's greatest artist"). I own the NGV's Australian Impressionism book, which is very comprehensive. I've also borrowed several Australian art books from the library, including biographies on Roberts and McCubbin. So source wise I'm set to get the Heidelberg School article off the ground.

I agree with you about the sub-sections. The history section could be split into several chronologically ordered sections covering key sites and events of the Heidelberg School, including the artists' camps and exhibitions. A seperate section with possible sub-sections could explore themes, subjects and techniques explored by the artists. And mention of the Heidelberg Artists Trail (with the list of works removed(?)) could be included in a broader section on the school's effect/infleunce on Australian art and culture. Regarding the list of associated artists, do you think this model could be adopted? -- HappyWaldo (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a pretty good concept of what you want to do and it sounds reasonable to me. The Hudson River model would be a big improvement on the bare list. There should be enough on each artist to make an adequate list. If you have no objections, it may be an idea to cut and paste this discussion to the article so others can see it. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. The HS's talkpage seemed dead (pasting the above discussion there should enliven it!). BTW I'm gradually building a list of HS artists in my sandbox. -- HappyWaldo (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hacked

Ooops - looks like you were given them the warning speech at the same time I was hitting the blocking screen. Feel free to undo if I was hasty.  7  04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubbo Edit

Why did you remove the information regarding Damien Shortis?

Read Wikipedia:Write the article first. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Orange/Wyangala anon editor

Why do they keep pushing their point of view? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wyangala_Dam&curid=9209806&diff=418940173&oldid=418938162 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyangala_Dam&curid=1642482&diff=418939831&oldid=418937455 not even notable. Burrinjuck has had a few quakes and the typical media hype but nothing on its article. 124.183.163.127 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AWNB

Hi there mate, with this edit, you seem to have edit conflicted with Aussie Legend and removed his post, which was a minute before yours. Just wondering if you could add his comment back, or do whatever is considered appropriate in this situation. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it is. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

2014 World Cup qualification colour map

Rather than wait until the situation gets too developed, I wanted to run a suggested colour scheme for this tournament by you (as you seem to be knowledgeable about these things).

Suggested scheme:

	Team qualified for the World Cup.
	Team may qualify for World Cup.
	Team cannot qualify for the World Cup but has matches to play.
	Team eliminated from World Cup qualifying.
	Team did not enter qualification.
	Country is not part of FIFA.

Feel free to edit. Basically the idea is blues for teams that can qualify and reds for teams that can't, but with the distinctions noted above within the categories. I want to avoid the red/green thing obviously (the initial map has, of course, gone straight to green for qualified with the implied used of red to follow once teams are eliminated).

Cheers, Jlsa (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jlsa. That looks pretty good actually. I really appreciate you making the effort to check the colours. Blues and reds are generally pretty distinct. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing my typo. I guess it'll teach me not to add cats to CFDS right before I go to bed :) Jenks24 (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wyangala Dam

Could you protect the Wyangala Dam as it is been edit warred by a ANU IP. I agree with what has been said by the other IP about the earthquake is that it isn't notable. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both you and the other IP but the activity in the last week make it hard for me to justify protection under the policy. However, I have watch-listed the article and will act on continued reversion. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The ANU IP is back, seems to be twisting the policies yet what they are adding is totally wrong and not supported by the cited source and fails Wiki's policies. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are exactly right, of course. I see it has been removed. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Finnegan

His arrest was also confirmed in todays daily telegraph?

No, an unnamed South Australian Labor MP was arrested. No name was mentioned in the Telegraph article or in any other reliable source. Attempts to link Finnegan's resignation to the unnamed Labor MP are either a) speculation or b) original research. Either way, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for including anything in Finnegan's article other than his resignation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies (he was named in the hardcopy Daily Telegraph in sydney), i didn't realize it also has to be in the online version? 122.108.150.119 (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC) JM

I haven't seen the hardcopy version. In general a print reference is fine. You would need to provide a formal reference per {{cite news}} so other people can check for themselves if you intend to use it as a source. However, I would be very, very cautious about including anything at this stage, for two reasons. First, Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living people requires caution, the use of high quality sources and regard for the subject's privacy. Secondly, there is a suppression order in place about revealing the MPs name and while Wikipedia as a project may be outside the reach of that order, you as an individual editor may not. Remember, as a non-registered editor your IP address is logged for each edit. I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice but I intend to be very, very cautious and conservative when considering edits to this article until the order is released. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the best advice I have seen given. Kudos.124.168.217.239 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Five reliable media sources, including the abovementioned Daily Telegraph article, have been added. This more than meets the verifiability requirements of BLP. ShipFan (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Douglas-Home infobox

Hi, Just noticed you questioned putting a cricket infobox on Alec Douglas-Home's article. Not sure what your position was. I think it is valid, but whether it would get opposition from the politics people here I don't know. It's a shame the main infobox is so long other wise it could fit in the cricket section. I've drawn up a trial version - our box is slightly bigger. We best decide here (or wider at WP:CRIC) before proposing it on his talkpage.

What do you think? (sandbox) —User:MDCollins (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern (although its only a minor concern) is that the use of the cricketer infobox lends undue weight to a subject's cricket career, where cricket is not the subject's primary claim to notability. I am not sure if adding a cricketer infobox to Arthur Conan Doyle or Samuel Beckett would actually enhance and improve those articles and I consider the same is the case with Douglas-Home. I am not sure that the box in Rod Eddington's article is very helpful. That said, I am not overly fussed about it and I certainly would not revert an addition of an infobox to any of the above articles. Your mock-up of the template added to Douglas-Hume's article doesn't look too bad - although I personally think it is still "undue weight". Perhaps a collapsible box? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue

I don't spose you would mind moving the talk from the talkpage of the article to his userpage, and reblanking the talkpage? All to often I get the suspicion that their sole purpose is to have it displayed on the talk page as they can't put it in to the article... Timeshift (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Australian art and the need for a stand out article

Hello again Mattinbgn. I have thought a lot about what you said regarding Australian art on Wikipedia, and the need for a high quality article to attract would be editors. Through a semi-random process I chose Peter Purves Smith. He's relatively obscure, so the article doesn't have to be long and exhaustive, but he's also important enough that he's deserving of a good/featured article. I have laid some foundations (rated C-class a couple months ago), but I don't think I'm capable of significantly improving the article on my own. The best source on Purve Smith is by far Mary Eagle's biography, which should be available at most public libraries. If you want to help collaborate on the article, that would be awesome. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a seriously good article already. Perhaps peer review would help. If you don't mind I might have a bit of an attempt at a brief copy-edit. Feel free to revert anything you don't like. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate, you can add, alter or remove anything you think would help improve the article. I have read approximately half of Mary Eagle's bio, and there are many more aspects of Purves Smith's life and work that need to be covered. The first two sections could easily grow to 3 or 4 solid paragraphs, might need another (sub-)section to accomodate more material. I'm willing to stick with the article until it reaches feature-quality, so any and all help is appreciated. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Voice of reason

Hello, thanks for your carefully phrased comments on my talk page. I was more inclined to treat ridiculous with ridicule and and do a bit of (referenced) editing which led to some of my (suppressed) edits turning grey with black lines through them, which I can't comment on here but which you can probably work out. While I am here, I did move your Toomelah move a while ago without telling you first thinking you would have no objection (it had been on my to-do list for a while); the outcome was no problem, trust silence among reasonable editors is a sign of approbation. When you are over on Commons I have created a category something like Photographs with aircraft added for the pictures where the aircraft has been pasted over the photograph (Photoshopping forerunner?)- loads of these produced during the building of the SHB, Southern Cross over the spans, under and between. The cat is a redlink because I can't decide what to do with it. Also earlier postcards of Gibraltar were produced with ships in the harbour with smoke blowing in opposite directions; none of those loaded yet but the Great White Fleet ones look rather dodgy! Cheers (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)).

When normally sensible editors like Dweller support such nonsense, there is something else going on that I can't put my finger on ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cairns

Could you please have a look over the current version of the Cairns, Queensland article, per your comments/concerns at Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Article tone? Please comment at that Talk section regarding further possible improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro77. Sorry for not getting back to the Cairns article. I must admit my enthusiasm for Wikipedia is starting to wane and I don't drop by here much any more. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Overland

A request to discuss is NOT vandalism. Ignoring that request is much closer to it. Why such poor manners? My edits were meant in good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a mouse slip, see [1] for ny earlier apology. That said, your political bias is painfully transparent. Overland can claim that the two items are not linked and it is all some giant coincidence but there is no reason to not at least mention both items and thus remove any context. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I wish I knew what my bias was. If you think I'm Labor inclined, I haven't voted that way since Keating upset me in the 1990s. I don't know why Overland resigned. Do you? Really? My gut feel about all this is that there is a lot going on under the surface that we will all gradually learn about little bits of, but never all of it. And I have no expectations about what we will find out. The way I'd like to see things like this dealt with is to list the two facts, the report, and the resignation, as totally separate items, as you have now done. Then readers can draw their own conclusions as their biases or neutrality allow. Mentioning them together as you first did makes the direct implication that they ARE connected. They may well be, but nobody has actually said so. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL

I love Wikipedia sometimes. Looking at the Buderim article, I found this gem hidden in the code:

{{Citation needed|date=December 2010}} <!-- and it needs to be a better reference than the town's own puff-piece website -->

Orderinchaos 03:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Love it! By the way, great work on the Sunshine Coast clean-up. Long overdue. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries :) Planned it years ago, forgot about it, was reminded of it by the recent infobox cleanup where the Sunshine Coast infoboxes seemed to be in a worse state than most, and thought I'd bring them in using the DB generator. It's not without its flaws of course - and I have found myself somewhat "buried" in this urban centres (not a city, not a suburb) business which is entirely alien to myself as a Western Australian where the only "urban centre" we have is Perth :P - but at least it's coming together. Orderinchaos 08:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Grade Cricket

I have replied to your last post at WT:CRIC, but I wanted to leave you a message here, to reassure you that my intentions are not the gutting of any cricket articles, I do think however there has been some degree of (for want of a better word) laziness in creating articles on club cricket teams, on the assumptions that quantity is better than quality and that because of the guidelines as they stand there is no need to bother with references. To illustrate this I give you Tasmanian Grade Cricket - not a single article meets the basic standard of WP:V with anything approaching an third-party, independent, source (ignoring for the moment the question of reliability).

I do hope that you stay around at WP:CRIC, and I assure you that before I redirect any article that relates to Cricket here in Aus, I will post here to let you have your say. Mtking (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My participation in the discussion is over. You can do whatever you feel like. It is not even the outcome that concerns me how but rather the dismissive attitude to cricket outside England that appears to be held by the project. I will keep working on cricket articles where they interest me but it is clear the WikiProject and I have vastly different visions on where the project should go. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stonefield (band)

Please keep the hometown of the band off the page at this time. As 2 of them are still legally minors I think it inappropriate for that information to be listed here, regardless of it being published in some news articles.

Also the external links are all official, and therefore relevant.

Hi Mattinbgn.

I did read the External links article and under the 'Links normally to be avoided' section it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject..." The links I have added are the band's official pages and the best way for the band to communicate with their fans and vice versa. Therefore I do believe they are relevant. I would add that the Myspace link was already there when I added the others.

Secondly, about the town being listed, I am a personal friend of the band members and I asked Amy about her being comfortable with the home town being listed on such an easily searched website, regardless of it being published elsewhere. One of the members is only 13. It would generally be illegal to post information about the location of such a young individual. At some point I'm sure that the hometown location of the band may appear on wikipedia, it just shouldn't yet. cheers. Rowie235 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are still not convinced of my arguments can you please instruct me exactly how to contact one of the volunteers. Cheers. --Rowie235 (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry that we don't seem to be able to agree. I have asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stonefield (band). I hope I have put your side adequately but feel free to have your say there if you wish. With regard to the external links, perhaps I am being too restrictive - again, I have asked for advice at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#External links - Stonefield (band). If you would rather deal with this matter outside the Wikipedia process that can be viewed by anyone you can email the Volunteer Response Team by following the steps at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)#How to e-mail us. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As there are currently no links at all to the band's official pages, i would at least like to put the original myspace link back. It was there for some time.--Rowie235 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't remove it (or any of the other links) again, although I can't speak for other editors. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

QLD photos

You mentioned that you required some QLD photos, but I have lost exactly what you require. I have some that may be of use, bearing in mind that I have added a photo, when I had one, to all of the articles which lacked photos.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember where now either! Let me have a think and I will get back to you. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Football in Australia

I'm not sure that you are aware but there exists several codes of football in Australia with association football least likely to be called 'football' out of all of them. Specification is required to accommodate this cultural difference. In Australia soccer is the general term to refer to the sport much like rugby, rugby league and aussie rules aren't always referred to as rugby union football, rugby league football and Australian Rules Football simply because of conveniance.I don't see why the sport can't be referred to as soccer when it is called exactly that by the vast majority of Australians.

I am quite aware of the situation regarding football codes in Australia and I am also quite aware that it is a topic that generates much disagreement here on Wikipedia. Going around unilaterally changing things does not help and is only likely to make things worse. If you are actually interested in finding some common ground and not merely a troll, you can contribute at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players. Oh, using four tildes (~~~~) signs comments on wikipedia talk pages, please use them. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What is to be done about the move of "Association football in Australia" to "Soccer in Australia"? The use of the term "soccer" is in my eyes quite insulting. I mean it's a bit like saying all articles about indigenous Australians should be moved to "B#*ngs" simply because that's how a lot of uneducated bigoted Australians refer to them. Silent Billy (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a lot we can do, unfortunately. I agree wholeheartedly with your position but others disagree. Wikipedia has a process to deal with types of disagreement and that is what has happened here. The decision to use the term "soccer" has been made in line with the proper process, everyone had the chance to have their say and we now need to deal with the result. Another WP:RM discussion so soon would be pointless and unnecessarily divisive and a unilateral move back to "association football" would be out of order. In my opinion it is a poor decision but we just need to live with it, at least for the moment, and try and mitigate the worst of the damage caused. Sorry. Mattinbgn (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that it was a fair process. The discussion certainly did not produce a consensus and the closer was the person who proposed it. The decision will affect many pages. Already the kick 'n' gligglers are changing gleefully changing category names. Are we to stand by idly by when they change the national team's page title to "Australian national soccer team"? There must be a further appeal process. Silent Billy (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

While I disagree with the closer, I am sure the close was made in good faith. To be honest, we have no choice. The discuasion at that article was a proxy for use of the term "soccer" across all Australian articles. The article on the national team will almost certainly be renamed shortly to "Australian national soccer team" and, yes, it will look ridiculous and make Wikipedia a laughing stock, but the decision has been made. If you think the closing administrator has acted in bad faith or blatantly against consensus you can take it to WP:AN/I if you wish, but as I said I don't think there is grounds for such a complaint. Otherwise, the only option is another WP:RM discussion to move it back, which you will lose. My opinion, FWIW: The decision has been made, we need to move on. We should work to mitigate the worst aspects of it (i.e. Australian players overseas, international players here, national teams, international tournaments held in Australia etc.) and wait for sanity to return. Nothing in a wiki is forever and and if and when this rename is the disaster I predict it will be, hopefully wiser heads will prevail and the article will be moved back. Finally, use of the term "kick 'n' giggle" is not helpful, it only drags discussion down to the same level as the AFL/RL lobby. BTW, Aussie Rules is my preferred football code, followed by rugby union - I oppose this move not out of a passion for association football but because use of the term "soccer" is an unnecessary and gratuitous insult to the sport and its fans in this country who have made it quite clear they dislike the term. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The changes to Song Jin-Hyung wrought by this ludicrous "decision" make it look as though he plays two sports. Silent Billy (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Woollongong Warriors

I would say that I went somewhat overboard with the Wollongong page editing, being in the Harry Potter spirit at this particular time, but if you were to check the external link I used, you would be able to see that Woollongong Warriors is the correct spelling in relation to the source book Qudditch Through The Ages. If you are to leave any part of my editing, it would be this spelling, as it is the correct spelling in relation to the source and the exact reason why 'sic' is attached to it. Kind regards, Josiers (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)josiers

"[sic]" now removed, although I am not convinced that a Wikia site is a reliable source! Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. The book, Qudditch Through The Ages is a real world book released by J.K. Rowling as a part of Comic Relief. It’s purchasable at most bookstores, I myself obtained it from Dymocks, and just last night I checked for myself that the spelling was ‘Woollongong’ not ‘Wollongong’ and it was.

Currently I believe a wikia site is more reliable than Wollongong’s own Wikipedia page, as you keep incorrectly editing it! If you must know, in chapter 8 The Spread of Quidditch Worldwide under the subheading of Australia and New Zealand on page 80 it says

The Thundelarra Thunderers and the Woollongong Warriors have dominated the Australian League for the best part of a century. Their enmity is legendary among the Australian magical community, so much so that a popular response to an unlikely claim or boast is 'Yeah, and I think I'll volunteer to ref the next Thunderer-Warrior game'.

Hopefully I have made myself clearer. Josiers (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)josiers

"... as you keep incorrectly editing it" I beg your pardon. What, exactly, have I incorrectly edited in that article? BTW, if you have a published source such as the book, you would be better to use that source directly—using {{cite book}}—rather than a Wikia site which by its nature as an editable Wiki does not meet WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a reliable source either, of course. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I merely meant that you removed ‘sic’ when it should remain there to indicate that neither you, nor myself, were making any spelling mistakes. Jovialness is not something that is easily picked up in text, my apologies for that. Josiers (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)josiers

List of centuries in women's Test cricket

I plan to take this to WP:FLC but I'm stumped for content to add to the lede? Can you think of something? I will be adding the image of the first Test (but can't do so until the lede gets larger as the image bleeds into the tables) as there isn't any other image available for Women's Test cricket. We also have an image for Myrtle Maclagan that we could use instead. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

QLD

In trying to figure out some of the tangles with QLD categories, I made the rather alarming discovery that almost half of the articles "in scope" (I'm looking at 5,357 pages!) are not tagged as being part of the project (either for WP QLD or WP Bris). I assume this may be the case for some other projects - WA had a pretty solid maintenance crew who looked after that kind of thing. Obviously taking care of the categories, templates etc is easy as they don't require assessment, but what should be done with the rest? Orderinchaos 02:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Shiftchange (talk · contribs) is probably the main assessor of Queensland content (mainly SE Qld, I think). He (?) may have some ideas. Otherwise perhaps a bot could automate tagging for articles in specific categories and generate a bit of an assesment to-do-list that could be followed up manually. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I managed to wiggle the list to below 3,200 (merging in the Brisbane project along the way) and came up with this list - if you see anything in the bottom list that is definitely within QLD's scope, could you either move it to the scope list or let me know? (I'd imagine that like me you'd recognise a lot of things "on sight" but our interests differ so we'd capture different groups of articles.) Orderinchaos 09:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, please don't threaten me because you don't have a sense of humour. Camm1987 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Majak Daw

I saw you undid my edit on Majak Daw. Even though he was born in Khartoum, he belongs to the Dinka people ethnic group and also escaped the Sudanese civil war. Is it not rather obvious that he would be from South Sudan? Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right but a claim of that nature needs a source. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ashleigh Connor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashleigh Connor 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/Ashleigh Connor 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fitzroy Doncaster Cricket Club

Hey there, You've flagged concern about the conflict of interest between me and the Fitzroy DOncaster Cricket Club, photos have also been deleted. We're a small club in the schemes of things, and I'm the only person managaing any forms of social media plus the website. Any content I have placed on the Wikipedia page without referencing has been my own work, including photos which I have taken and therefore own, so I'm a little confused as to why they were taken off the page when I went through the process of adding them correctly in the first place. Cheers, James