User talk:Longhair/Archive11

Jackp socks

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I have no means of reporting Jackp as he's leaving no IP address, just the proxy address. If the Wikipedia servers could identify IP's properly, I'd be able to report him to the ISP, and he'd be able to be permanently blocked from Wikipedia too. michael ^talk 09:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'd rather minor disruption to my editing than major disruption to the encylopedia. michael ^talk 09:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Swan Island

Thanks! Any further info you have on this place would also be appreciated. Cheers --Commking 13:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A friend who works in defence is usually happy to chat with me about various defence sites and related issues. Point Wilson, Point Cook, Laverton, no problem. When Swan Island came up, he announced rather bluntly he could not discuss the place. Discussion terminated. Mysterious. I think we need a category for Australian defence sites - we seem to have only for "Royal Australian Air Force bases" and "Australian Army bases". Neither of these categories covers places like Swan Island. I don't know how to do that - If you could be so kind as to create the category, and put Swan Island into it, I'd be happy to create some more articles for it? What do you think?--Commking 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Perhaps Australian Defence Force Sites? Using the word bases is too specific. Maybe Australian Military Sites is another option - that would also cover foreign or joint sites, and also Asutralian offshore military sites also.. --Commking 23:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I as not aware of this project. I've left a note on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_ADF page, basically saying we need a new category as not all sites are bases, neither are all sites Army, Navy or RAAF. We shall see.. --Commking 02:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dante Arthurs

Yo yo yo, why did you revert? I flipped the image so he is facing the article instead of the edge of everyones monitor. Meh, whatever , I'm not too bothered JayKeaton 10:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I must be tripping. I was sure I also flipped the image, in fact I was sure I also saw it unflip when I fresh loaded it too. I must be trippin'! JayKeaton 10:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, my confusion at flipping an image but then not finding it flipped was not an attempt for you to stop, um, "revert misleading edits". But like I said, whatever, I am actually not really that bothered. JayKeaton 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

refs

thanks for the tip. I tried that at Prospect Creek (New South Wales) then tried to get smart at the Cahill Expressway article. But I think I have gotten it right now... I am just wondering if my online references look correct or not. I will look at the article you mentioned on my talk page. Garrie 11:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee I wish I'd known who that article was about before I went looking at it for how to do referencing... I would have picked a different article.

Except for one reference from Royal Botanic Gardens website I think I have them tidied up. Working from home I have a pretty bad connection once I use up my broadband download limit so it was quite a few minor edits section by section but the end result looks a lot better than it did.

Hopefully I will be able to keep using this until it sinks into my head how to do it. The whole thing seems very pedantic about spaces around the ''['' and '']'' where website addresses and descriptions are inserted. I had been trying to put the whole reference like this <ref>[http://somesite.com/somearticle ''article on somesite.com'', date]</ref> but I have worked out where the final "]" goes now...

thanks again for your pointer. I guessed someone would point me to the right way of doing it.Garrie 12:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As much as anything else, based on my work (which I stay as far away from as possible here), I would rather not go too near an article about that person, or where he is currently living. I will be removing the article name from my talk page. In terms of referencing it was a good one to point me to, but there is a better template-based method for referencing of online sources which I saw a bit earlier today but can't remember when... :( Garrie 03:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on the "Dante Arthurs" page

Your threat to protect this page is not the best idea. It is currently extremely biased and really needs a good clean-up, I'm half tempted to slap a NPOV sticker on the thing, except I've already put this article up for deletion twice (both defeated, first no consensus, second strong consensus to keep) and so I'm not the most objective person to edit it.

Also, could you please recheck your statement regarding so-called "edit warring", it is quite clear that only one person is adding the controversial and unverified stuff. This so-called warring comes from the fact that other users are simply trying to revert the edits, and avoid a potential case of libel. Lastly can I say I'm really happy that you've shown an interest in this article, and I implore you to counsel the some of the editors in this so-called "war" who's history of edits are only to this article, and therefore lack genuine Wikipedia experience.I elliot 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 assessment basics

Hi Longhair,

I just started setting up some of the infrastructure to do the Version 1.0 WikiProject Color assessments and noticed your name on some table edits. I've done a lot of monkey-see-monkey-do things, but I still don't know how to add assessment comments the bot can find or how the tables at the Color listing and the assesment page should get updated. Can you point me in the right direction for some "basic" tips? Thanks, Rfrisbie^talk 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, one question for now is how do we add comments the bot can find for the grading tables? Rfrisbie^talk 13:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

AHD

Curious, found this after seeing a change on Mount Wellington, not sure what cat it should have - any idea? SatuSuro 10:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem

No problem. I always look at the talk pages for Vandalism or any problem users. :) -- Robertmyers 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Louie The Fly.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louie The Fly.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian wine

Hi. Didn't you live in Geelong? Anyway, Australian wine has been selected as the current Australian collaboration, so as you voted for it, any contributions would be welcome. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm slow catching up on the news :-) And thanks for updating the ACOTF template last night, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually remember to update the template on the successful nominations, but I think I often don't look at the talk page for pruned nominations. Since {{WP Australia}} puts them in a category, it should be easier to monitor, if the habit can be established. The related issue is in actually tagging the current candidates. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Abusive anon

65.43.44.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) protested a little too much about one ickle edit resulting in a block - the one ickle edit was certainly not quite random enough. My sensitive eyes were certainly offended by just the edit summary but I guess I will survive, as will we all. I note from Whois that "addresses from within this block are non-portable". Cheers me up immensely when a block actually works as opposed to merely costing the user another telephone call :-) --Arktos ^talk 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Jakarta Post

In the history of the talk is an ad which I reverted - seeing it sits there - is there any point in notifying an admin when something is so damn blatant? SatuSuro 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, will do so if I find something like that again.SatuSuro 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A Couple

Just in case you're on - Perth Convn Centre has a persistent one who might need some help SatuSuro

Apologies, I assume lurking vandals Perth Convention Exhibition Centre It might not be so urgent as I thought, it looked as if it would continue. Sorry if Im a nuisance SatuSuro 05:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The other one was the Franklin River recent one - I was wondering whether that needed an admin eye as well? SatuSuro 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminder.

Any chance you can make it to the GHC this week? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's urgent; I would just prefer that erroneous information be removed sooner rather than later... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Your Opinion

Dear Longhair,

I am writing you because you are the only administrator I have "met" online. There is an article "Waldorf Education" that is in the middle of two groups of people who just keep fighting back & forth. Because of their incessant edits and additions - each pushing their "side" - the article is now huge and incedibly confusing to anyone who wants to just learn about the basic ideas of Waldorf Education.

The page represents every negative stereotype people have of Wikipedia and is over 100 kb long (as of yesterday morning)

So yesterday I wrote first and proposed that we do a major edit and then I proposed submitting it for clean-up. Yesterday alone there were 17 edits and five already today.

I just feel that any attempt to edit the article - separating parts into other pages maybe - or reducing the huge number of references and links, will simply result in their reverting it back. Some sites as of yesterday morning had multiple links - even 5 - on the page.

Since I'm not really involved in their battle and really don't want to be, I feel uncomfortable trying to mediate them.

Is this something that you feel the clean-up crew should take on or am I just giving them more work? Do you think we would have a better result if I offered to take on another thing on the clean-up list or is that just for administrators?

Thanks for your opinion,

Wonderactivist 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Lucie (Wonderactivist)

Hi Longhair, I am still very interested in your opinion, but I'm attempting to make the page a Wiki project. Thanks Wonderactivist 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments and advice. I hope the Project approach will quell this and if not I will usethe comments that you recommend. 68.97.192.23 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Longhair, I appreciate your moving the page and your willingness to help advise through this project - I hope to build a peaceful consensus and a better Wiki page. Wonderactivist 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Edits

Longhair, you suggested I have made legal threats toward an individual. I'm not sure if I should respond to you here or on my own talk page (fairly new here, sorry) but I don't recall making any legal threats. I have invited TheBee to make good on his own legal threats if he feels he as a basis for them. I find that it is difficult not to respond to unfounded challenges to my integrity and regret that this type of discussion has taken place here at Wikipedia. If I might suggest, it is very likely his intention to have me removed from this arena - he has tried this tactic elsewhere with me. In any case, I'm very interested in giving the Waldorf Education page a fair edit so I'll tone it down to a more level-headed roar and try to ignore his comments as much as possible. Thank you for your involvement in the project. --Pete K 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you contact me?

Hi Longhair,

Can you contact me at the email address found here? I have a question for you. Thanks, --Thebee 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam?

Just wondering what you think about this members userpage? -- Robertmyers 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Skafbilal.jpg copyright violation

Hi Longhair. The above photo seems to have been taken from a newspaper, not a press kit. As such it doesn't qualify for fair use. It really should be deleted or replaced with an image under a free license. John Dalton 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it in the US all (federal?) government documents are public domain. Hence mug shots, NASA data and so on are public domain and can be used in wikipedia. In Australia all government output is covered by crown copyright. This means they are "all rights reserved" and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. There is also a difference in that the US has fair use. This is a set of conditions which trump copyright law, allowing copyrighted material to be used. Australia has a much narrower set of exemptions to copyright (eg. a limited number of pages for education). I guess it might be possible (under US law) that if it is a police mug shot released to the press it is part of a press kit and qualifies (in the US only) for fair use. My only interest in the picture is to try and keep Wikipedia "pure" and free of copyright problems.John Dalton 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Report

Hey! I was wondering..How can I file a complaint concerning a user who removes sourced information, because he/she wants to make all the pages stubs and eventually be deleted? Lil Flip246 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I'd weigh in here (I'm sure Lil Flip will give her own account but I'm somewhat involved so here's my pov)... User: Wikipediatrix seems to be going overboard with deleting information from America's Next Top Model Contestants, because the material is apparently unsourced. S/he hasn't taken lightly to my suggestion that they are going slightly over-the-top in remove large swathes of information commonly known or taken straight from the tv series. I appreciate WP's standards re verifiability but reckon that adding "facts" or "sources" tags in articles would have been far more appropriate than simply removing the material. The real problem here I think is what information from the TV series needs to be sourced and what doesn't. In my opinion Wikipediatrix has dealt with Lil Flip pretty hard handedly (making accusations of personal attacks which I do not believe are warranted) rather than making constructive suggestions... I've had the same treatment (what annoys me most is him implying I am in cahoots with Lil Flip which is completely false... I simply fell across the problem when an article on my watchlist got targeted, and have my own problems with it, which simply happens to coincide with Lil Flip's efforts to get Wikipediatrix to see sense). Anyway I've tried to be constructive and restore relevant information and correctly sourcing it but I think there is a limit as to how far this should go. I guess I just find it frustrating that, for example, a statement that "a girl was known for her big red afro" was deleted as not being "POV gossip".

• Examples:
  • Cassandra Whitehead - Wikipediatrix's deletions, my attempts at sourcing
  • Brandy Rusher - Wikipediatrix's deletions, my attempts at sourcing.
  • Jenascia Chakos - Wikipediatrix's deletions, my attempts at sourcing

Sorry to be so verbose but this whole situation has stressed me out which really bugs me because it is of no consequence whatsoever! All the articles narrowly missed being deleted and their status still isn't concrete. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And I meant to add... small world! I live in NZ but my brother's girlfriend spent a couple of months in Mildura last year (she was a med student... now graduated). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to User talk:Lil Flip246. S/he has been resistant to suggestion from the beginning and will on only rare occasion answer posts to his/her talk page. Many suggestions have been made about reading WP:Style etc. which all seems to fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, because of the issues, Lil Flip charges ahead with such energy, that it involves a lot of work for other editors reverting and correcting things, when these editors might prefer to working on their own writing. Agent 86 made the suggestion that Lil Flip enter a voluntary wikimentorship or wikicoaching, which from what I can see s/he has not as yet agreed to. While I too am troubled by heavy handed methods, there is a serious problem here that someone needs to address as most editors lose patience with Lil Flip in time. I hope that someone has an idea here and can get Lil Flip to listen. Doc ♬ talk 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Doc ♬ talk 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why User:PageantUpdater is still complaining, because she's finally giving proper references and verifiable sources to articles, something she wasn't doing before, and neither was User:Lil Flip246. Her own "Wikipediatrix's deletions" example links above demonstrate that I was removing unsourced gossip about living persons as well as copyright-violation images (which are scheduled to be purged from Wikipedia soon anyway). And I'm not the only one who's tried to set these two editors straight - check their talk pages for advice from admins that they ignored. Lastly, note that User:Lil Flip246 has here for the sixth time repeated her insulting accusation that I'm only cleaning up the articles in order to "make them stubs and be deleted". I actually increased their chances of being kept in the AfD by making them free of copyright violations, false sources, and unsourced gossip that reads like something off a fan blog. wikipediatrix 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the levelheaded message you left on my talk page. I share your sentiments... I fully accept that Lil Flip needs a bit of direction and have never taken the stance that her editing is quite as it should be... thus I pointed my referencing of Cassandra Whitehead out to her and suggested she use it as an example for the other articles. Some of her citing was less than accurate but some was spot on, although her referencing style needed work (hence providing an example). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lil Flip246 again

User:Lil Flip246 is still ignoring advice given by multiple editors and admins. Take a look at the Lisa D'Amato article, for example. Not only is it filled with unsourced gossip, her citation links still don't contain the information they're supposed to be sourcing, and she still uses "I saw on it TV myself" and "Someone said it on MySpace" as sources. I would hate to think that an editor could get by with such recklessness on a grand scale simply by being persistent. wikipediatrix 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your post to her talk page didn't work. Check this out. At what point will this be regarded willful vandalism? I think we're well past the point now. wikipediatrix 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you look at ...

Hi Longhair,

As you're now involved in the improvement project with regard to the article on Waldorf education, could you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#Question_to_Admins

Also, could you look at if you think the argumentation in an article published at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS#In_Support_of_PLANS is in line with Wiki policies and -style, and if the long quote found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS#Waldorf_Master_Teacher_talks_about_PLANS is in line with Wikipedia copyright policy? Thanks! --Thebee 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Yours_are_the_ravings_of_a_lunatic.22 Thanks, --Thebee 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi I noticed this and have warned the user making the comments about ravings. Regards --Arktos ^talk 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, how do you look at this ?

It documents, that the user in question as part of the discussion of the article has published statements, that, when investigated turn out to be demonstrable libel (demonstrated at the discussion page 14:49, 28 August 2006) and slander, also demonstrated in the section (07:57, 29 August and 16:06, 29 August)?

When I've asked him if he was aware of that (not as a threat, just as a matter of investigated and at the page demonstrated fact), he has answered that he was, and that he published the libel consciously:

I: "On "Nobody could mistake what I said as libelous, but you're welcome to try to make that charge stick." What you wrote was untruthful and defamatory." (23:53, 28 August)

The user: "Yep. It was intended to be." (05:48, 29 August 2006)

The conscious libel and (in spite of repeated request for substantiation) unverified slander is what has preceded the last personal attack.

The user also repeatedly insists on implementing guidelines differently for links he likes and links he does not like.

In response to a question regarding his latest personal attack: if he really wanted to violate the Wikipedia guidelines against such a statement as he makes in the attack, again, he has answered (06:27, 1 September) "I'm just going to sit back and be satisfied with the fact that you put it [the quote of the attack, my comment. Thebee] in very large type."

Where does Wikipedia draw the line for acceptable behaviour by editors?

Thanks, --Thebee 07:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Longhair,

You assume I've discussed with PK (and DW) before. That's right. In a posting from Nov. last year at his own mailing list, PK told about that discussion. He made maybe about 700 postings in about 6 weeks before he was blocked, (like DW) and a number of his sensational, critical/defamatory posting were deleted, partly probably because of fear of a lawsuit for libel against the forum provider from one or more WSchools. I made maybe 10% as many postings, trying to answer some of the defamation spread by the WCs involved and was busted too. Not for any defamation, but for just trying to answer the many defamatory allegations in the W-part of the M-forum. The primary goal of the Mothering forums is to build the M-community. Not having that as a primary goal, but just to answer defamatory allegations by some WCs in one forum was not accepted. Don't remember one of my postings were deleted for any violation. --Thebee 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have one further question to you at my Talks page. Thanks, --Thebee 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:Coverage maps

Sure. What do you want me to do? -- Froggydarb ^croak 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you want each region to have a border? -- Froggydarb ^croak 06:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like this? -- Froggydarb ^croak 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hows that. I needed to enlarge the image so you could actually see the key. -- Froggydarb ^croak 03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Project Strategy

Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.

I see two major issues:

1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?

2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for your work so far.

I will take yor advice. I have asked everyone to take a break for a couple of days to cool heads and get everything set up properly. Meanwhile, I'm taking a Wiki Project crash course! I hope it is OK to print out instruction pages. Wonderactivist 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Steve Irwin talk

I was serious, Steve Irwin made a lot of money in his life time, one of the richest tv personalities in Australia, and the amount they travel it is extremely unlikely that Ms Irwin was "too far" to be contacted before the worlds press found out. Thanks for messaging me in any case JayKeaton 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rape, I was just writing it as I saw it on the actual page itself which looking back said rape itself several minutes before I wrote it, I write several thousand words an hour, while I try my best to check them all, I obviously can't and will not make a fuss over a talk page. Did you delete my post? Please, just stay out of my way, thank you. JayKeaton 10:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I just assumed you deleted it because you were talking to me about a post I didn't give a second thought about, looking back through the many edits it was a different username that did it. I will fight any move to block me, the only accusation I've had about vandalism on a wiki slash page was just a case of mistaken identity, I just happen to make a typo fix edit inbetween two vandal posts. I believe my input to wikipedia is important and any move to block me WILL be fought. JayKeaton 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you block this user, please?

WolfStar3 (talk · contribs) -- man, is it a new thing to have vandals pretending to be bots, or is it just me? Getting this a few times on Commons: now too. Ta, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

I see your monitoring the events on that page, can I suggest that the talk page gets some archiving the page is already getting difficult to read. Gnangarra 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

could you help to frame the page please its the one thing I'm all that knowledgable on Gnangarra 10:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

just something simple aka AfD when discussions are closed, but if you think its not necssary then I wont argue. Gnangarra 10:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I think I got all sorted now, can you delete Talk:Steve Irwin/Archives its not needed now Gnangarra 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, re:admin I just enjoy poking around, besides there are helpful people like you and User:Snottygobble for more authorative tasks. :) Gnangarra 11:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Chooks

• I am sorry to hear about the chooks. We had chooks at one stage and the fox got them - horrible and wasteful.--Arktos ^talk 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFL template

Interesting, thanks for the info mate. Looking at the history of the template there seems to be quite a few edits...I was following the example of the {{welcome}} template to invite potential Australian rules football editors to the project. Do you know of any way to fix this? Rogerthat ^Talk 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so there's the problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention mate, much appreciated - I'll start working on an alternative way to make it stylised. How about those Cats hey? ;) Rogerthat ^Talk 10:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha :) BTW, I've made a change to the template if you're interested - I think it looks at least slightly better now - I thank you for alerting me to the necessary change. Have a good one, Rogerthat ^Talk 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was only a 1 year old back in '89, but I've seen the game on DVD, one of the greats. Footy's like that and can be very painful, but when you win, you understand what makes it so great. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could say I never saw many of the greats - Hird, Buckley, Voss, Carey, Harvey are the greatest I've seen (as well as Ablett towards the end of his career). Many past players are out of touch with the game as well, Harmes is one who hasn't gone to a game in years and never will again. It's still the best sport in the world to play and watch, but it looks like we'll see less chipping around and more contested footy in the coming years - it doesn't work unless you're Sydney. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a small image of that mark in The Age a few weeks back, he also talked about it retrospectively. Looked like a ripper, amazing that you were there to see it. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another small favour...

Would you mind indulging me and letting me know if there were any edits to Image:Irwinzoo getty.jpg after my last edit and before its deletion? If so, could you email them to me? I'm curious.... thanks. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:NedKelly armour 1880.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:NedKelly armour 1880.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Dgies 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the picture was taken and published earlier than 1955 judging from the way it was displayed although the SLV doesn't say when the image was produced. I suspect it is a copyvio :-( --Arktos ^talk 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for acting on Jeremy's request.--Arktos ^talk 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Are you going to give him the same warning? You should note that he got catty with me in such a fashion some two minutes before I posted that reply on his talk page. Amazing that a PUBLIC talk page can have him telling me that wikipedia would be better without me but a PRIVATE talk page in reply can't have a punch thrown back. It's nice to see cronyism (and I use it in its political sense of partiality before you fly off the cuff on me again) is alive and well. You know, I might respect your warnings if they were applied with a bit of consistency. As it stands, you revert my edits to his private discussion page to hide what would be potentially embarassing to him, yet leave his little indictment of good riddance to bad rubbish on the public discussion page with a) no warning towards him and b) no reversion either. Thank God for diffs. Professor Ninja 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no need for the diffs. Yeesh, gone are the days where you could spar a man without any policing. I don't want to "rat him out"... I'd just like a little fair consistency when applying the rules. I take umbrage at being hit with the first punch and then getting chastised for throwing the second one. I realise Mr. Irwin's death is a shock, but frankly the way Kingboyk was attempting to throw his weight around until he got his way in some childish tantrum was severely grating on my nerves. I've been trying to keep another set of sturdy hands on the article, all the while attempting to make meaningful contributions that, about 99% of the time, result in edit conflicts, while having to wade through either sentimental tributes on the talk page of Mr. Irwin's article, or yet another reposting of media coverage of the vandalism of the article (which only serves to attract more vandals). Doing that on top of having to put up with a person who's taking a superior position for "contributing more than me" and telling me that if I left wikipedia it would be "good riddance" in a fit is about all I can take. Then chuck your warnings on top of it and try to understand how close to a stroke I am. I don't mean to be snarky, but for us peons, editing wikipedia is a thankless bitch goddess. Professor Ninja 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I don't even know what edit we're talking about anymore. I don't make a habit of personally attacking people though -- yeah I get riled up, but I calm down quick. There's no sense getting worked up when in the end other than the trolls and vandals we're all trying to do our best. Professor Ninja 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: armour

I would have to agree, unfortunately. Although the armour was made in 1880, the photo very much was not. As it's a [2D] photo of a 3D object, it can take on new copyrights (unlike a [2D] photo of a 2D object). But isn't it still on display? Should be easy to replace. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Canckoi

I don't think that backslashing business is deliberate vandalism. As I understand it, inserting random backslashes through pages means the user is using an open proxy and should be blocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin posted something about it earlier in the year. I can't find it atm, but there's some discussion of backslashing: here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It's still a work in progress. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dracula is not pleased with you

Dracula thinks you are a bad man, and do not deserve to be on Wikipedia, you shall find out your fate within the next 7 days. King Dracula 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice teamwork :)

Dont ya think? [1] - Glen 13:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mrpoon

Has just requested unblock - you blocked him as a vandal only acc. but I can only see the one edit? - Glen 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA

Thanks, Longhair, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me with worthwhile activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OneSteel

Thanks for the correction; first attempt at a stub article - any help was grateful, and will be gratefully, received MojoTas 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Education protection

Hi Longhair

This is about the Waldorf education article.

I am a neutral user, and for the most part a bystander, in what is going on on the Waldorf education article.

I hesitate to point the finger, since I would like to be neutral, but it is clear that there are 2 editors whos constant insertion of POV prochure language, links to their own personal web sites, and general lack of civility is severely undermining the clean-up project which is underway.

In my opinion, since we are now protecting the page, an admin really needs to 'get tough' with the editors in question so that the rest of the contributers can move forward.

--Fergie 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your post on my talk page (which is in turn an answer to the post above), I mean stuff like this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=74441276&oldid=74440628

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=74330310&oldid=74329015

-And many more identical or similar insertions. There are literally hundreds of such edits/reverts by these users to their self-authored websites.

--Fergie 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage!

Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage! That moronic anonymous vandal was getting on my nerves. Now I can finally have some peace and quiet. Please wait some time (at least a week) before lifting the semi-protection. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf

• Not sure whether I have the energy - it would be a shame if the article implodes but if they (both sides) don't cool it, that will happen. I can't get excited about the subject matter either - I don't feel I am learning anything. Some of the stuff is splitting hairs, or stating the obvious. There is a part of one of the local institutions her in Canberra that names itself The Centre for Excellence in XYZ - someone asked whether anybody would ever name themselves the Centre for Mediocrity in XYZ? Some of the stuff in the Waldorf sphere seems to be of the same mentality - you have children, you teach them - who is going to aim to teach the fragmented child? Anybody ever educate without taking into account the developmental stages of children? Anybody try to educate without PE and art to balance academic studies? It just seems waffle - I guess parents pay fees for the waffle - they want to believe but perhaps they are actually buying smaller class sizes, more patient teachers, or like-minded fellow parents rather than their child being treated as a whole child. No school is going to treat 1/2 a child but they may run out of patience.

My father once told me an anecdote about trying to instruct someone how to smoke a cigarette and they take every instruction literally and get it absolutely wrong. "Put the cigarette in the mouth" - they stuff the whole thing in - you say "no, no, put one end in the mouth", they put the non-filter end in, etc. I feel some of my suggestions about citations have been treated the same way, no common sense and almost a deliberate attempt to comply with the suggestion and get it wrong. Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes- it is waffle, brochure language and it desperately needs to be cleaned out. However, whenever anybody tries to make the article more concise, a couple of Waldorf 'salesmen' (for want of a better word) wade in and fluff it up again. These 'salesmen' also have a rather nasty habit of constantly putting in links to their own self-authored websites (which are of rather dubious quality), and treating neutral sources and edits as 'anti-waldorf'. The effect of the contributions of these prolific, single-issue editors, is that the article is now entirely based on biased, questionable sources, and a large part of the article seems to comprise of original research. I feel that I have been drawn into the 'debate' a little further than I would like to be, yet I find it hard to let such blatant and longstanding unwikipedianess pass unnoticed. Long story short: it would be good if some more agnostic editors could get involved--Fergie 13:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Travel

• Travel - I will give it some thought and get back to you. Any possible theme - bushrangers, adventurous activities, water, fishing, eating, architecture, explorers eg Burge and Wills, astonomy eg Parkes, films seen? Suggestions south coast eg Bermagui - the blue pool is superb plus Eden is interesting. Gundagai has lots of museusms and I think is fascinating. Cemetery has Captain Moonlight's grave and graves of policemen shot. Mount Tilga is the middle of NSW and near Condobolin. I mean to go to the Darling in pursuit of Charles Bean's pre WW1 work, On the Wool Track--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • From Mildura, I think the most different would be the South Coast, New South Wales and I would recommend Bermagui, Tathra, Narooma, Tilba and Eden - Batemans Bay is further north. You can visit Montague Island. I haven't spent much time at Merimbula but I suspect it is lovely too.

• 
  Bermagui
• 
  Tathra
• 
  Narooma
• 
  Tilba
• 
  Batemans Bay
• 
  Penguin on Montague Island
• 
  Court house at Forbes
• 
  Lands office at Forbes

• • Inland New South Wales - my favourite place is Forbes - great architecture. The Lachlan River is really pleasant at Forbes and also Cowra. Bushranger theme = Ben Hall (see Streets of Forbes) - they covered enormous tracts of country in a short time. I love the words to Clancy of the Overflow!

And the bush hath friends to meet him, and their kindly voices greet him

In the murmur of the breezes and the river on its bars,

And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,

And at night the wond'rous glory of the everlasting stars.

• • We really enjoyed stargazing at Gilgandra. The observatory there was incredibly child friendly but not patronising; we saw lots and it was explained brilliantly.
  • Temora has a great reputation :-) - It was nominated as the State's friendliest town in the Sydney Morning Herald. [2]
  • As before Gundagai has lots to see (except of signs about massacres :-) )and the Murrumbidgee River is nice to be. We also go up to Tumut quite often - the dam is good - the river beautifully clear (but cold).
  • The Snowy Mountains are really interesting - I would stay at Thredbo, take a chairlift, climb Mount Kosciuszko - it doesn't matter what time of year.
  • Happy planning and treavelling. Happy to go into more detail if you decide on a plan :-) We often just set off - no plans, no bookings! Swim in the rivers, stop at the municipal swimming pools - tried out heaps of water slides throughout NSW ... Take "wikipics" (accompanied by many groans from fellow travellers - and I am frequently rationed as to number od photo opportunities) of which hundreds remain to be uploaded--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BobbyDazzler cast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BobbyDazzler cast.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf

Dear Longhair,Cormaggio, and Fergie, I know there's already been so much controversy surrounding it, but plan to proceed with the Waldorf project. Thank you all so much for your help so far.

I have organized the pages better, centering on the page Longhair set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project and have a proposal on the table for how to proceed in a very focused, organized fashion. I truly believe that this is the only way the project can progress. I would like to invite your ideas and comments on the organizational structure, and the proposals, and anything else! Wonderactivist 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

substing user talk templates

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks! BaseballBaby 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were, but believe it or not that's the second subst tag I've left on an editor's page in the last two hours - never used it before today! There must be a substphobia or something going on around here... ;-) See ya - BaseballBaby 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops on Waldorf

Oops! I stand thoroughly corrected. For the Waldorf project, I have actually sought out the opinions of one admin, one unbiased Wikipedian, and one involved, yet highly experienced and demonstrated-to-be-fair Wikipedian.

Cormaggio has made an excellent point: several of the ongoing editors of the Waldorf page have chosen not to take part in this project. It may be that mediation is a better choice. I am happy to spearhead a project, but just as happy to turn it over to mediators. Considering the conflict you have witnessed in the past month, which do you recommend? Personally, I would just like for the edit wars to stop and for the page to be just a bit more stable. Wonderactivist 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

I'm with you - vprotection is required - everyone nutcase jumped on my back on IRC however so I wimped out. Good call matey :) - Glen 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

good call. hopefully the underlying IP's aren't dynamic buggers. pschemp | talk 04:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

Some of the Steve Irwin vandalism seems to be the work of a single vandal using sleeper accounts - it would be better if we can get them identified and blocked, since they have more "value" to an abuser. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It definitely looks like sleeper accounts. Would it be much effort to go through a delete the revisions permanently so the edit summaries are not visible? Ansell 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Belissarius

Thank you for your warm welcome! I was frequent visitor of en-wiki, and I am participant of commons, where I uploaded some 30 unique World War II photos from my personal archive. Certainly, I would stay with Wikipedia because of greatness if its idea. Greetings--Belissarius 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Koikaze

Hi LongHair,

I hope this is how I am supposed to put something on your talk page if its not the right way I am sorry, I'm just replying to how you edited the Collendina artical. I am 90% sure that it is all correct, I have mainly gathered the infomation from people who have lived in Ocean Grove for longer than I have, It is basically only word or mouth and such i have no citations. The handshake probably was a good choice to remove. But I put all my knowlage down about collendina as there is nothing on the internet about it. If you need further proof that it exists, you may well have a melways living in mildura, it is in the melways, it is on the left side of ocean grove. thanks; Koikaze

Koikaze 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Date format, copied from User Talk:SuperJumbo

Just a note on your recent edit to Geelong, Victoria. Editing date formats has no real purpose, as editors have the option to select how they wish to view dates under their personal Preferences section (above). Check under the 'Dates and Times' heading in Preferences for more information. Cheers. -- Longhair 06:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of our readers don't have accounts, and hence see dates in their "raw" format. See WP:DATE for more information. --Jumbo 06:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Just thought it was worth noting as fiddling with dates can get up the noses of others around here - I myself don't mind, but I've seen it happen before :) Thanks for the speedy reply. -- Longhair 06:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tread carefully in future! --Jumbo 07:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent page protection

You recently performed a full protect of User talk:217.21.235.96, for obvious reasons, but could you please revert the page to restore the pevious warnings, as it is currently a cross-namespace redirect. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ignore me, I hit save just as you fixed it :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

GGS

Hi ive just noticed an edit youve done close in time. Guildford Grammar School has just been done again by what appears a guy on red link, originally he did from a number. He puts stuff on, then wipes it - but its still in history, and I think the perpetrator might or might now how that sits. Hope thats not a nuisance to ask you to look at it, if youre too busy I'll do what I can SatuSuro 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Guildford ones hes specifically naming a particular student,also he has gone from the number to a redlink name - an undesirable presistence SatuSuro 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies at focusing on your help - Convictism in Western Australia has a repetitive vandal that has just ignored reverts, perhaps you could have a look? None of my west oz admin friends appear to be on at the moment. SatuSuro 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind helping - especially when it comes to stamping on serial pests ;) -- Longhair 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre you're reversion inadvertantly is of rubbish, I'm about to delete it! Sorry to be nuisance, I think the convictism guy is the same (previous edits) its all happening so quick I havent had time to look at the whois details SatuSuro 13:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up ggs, I'm going for my coffee before I look closer at the diff numbered convictism guys!SatuSuro 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Havent got to boiling the water yet. I suspect a clever one. SatuSuro 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Turning in to a talk around the cuppa, discovered the admin whod been onto the convsm is a fellow west oz of cricket persuasion like I@n! SatuSuro 13:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x - I think amongst the west oz admins we have a really good bunch - I have only met one so far, plan to do a meet up with some others soon! SatuSuro

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hi there, Longhair!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD notice on News by month categories

This is a courtesy notice that some categories that you have created have been placed up for deletion here. If you still have an interest in these categories, please come and give input, pro or con, to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Question for Longhair

1. Thank you for the welcome, I've been contibuting for over a year and your the first to thank me.
2. How / what do we do about items in Wiki which are basically advertising. I was reading these articals

[3] and [4] and noticed that they are basically advertising. I also noticed that all edits on them had been done by one person. How do we stamp them with a peer review or advertising note. Mark1800 07:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your swift and accurate response Mark1800 07:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok more questions (smiles)
  • I added the advert lable to the pages only to get in what appears to be an opinion struggle. I got accussed of personal attacks. Two users seem to be 'guarding' a patch of turf. It's not just those pages, it's a whole series basically centered around Werner_Erhard. After reading the first bit of the discussion pages of several of the articals, some are really long, I decided to back out. I don't want to go to 'abitration' I noticed these guys seem to do this alot. What is the best thing to do? I don't want an edit war, but some articals seem really bias. BTW: Most of my previous edits are really easy, like 'where something is' or 'what something is'. Should I just back up and go 'wow, not worth my time?'
  • Again thank you for your timely response. I've come to the thought, there is more to life than an argument. Mark1800 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: St Kilda

Aw, shucks... All I did was re-arrange it. I'll give it a copy-edit later on. And thanks for the well-wishes. --cj | talk 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One's just happened (though I missed it because I was ill). I'd be happy to agitate for another before mid-November (as I'll be moving overseas for a while thereafter). --cj | talk 08:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiheads? That's one to add to Wikipedians, Wikipedists, Wikimedians or Wikians. I think the Wikimeets can be useful (and I imagine they'll be more frequent if Wikimedia Australia ever gets on its legs). As for me, I'm moving to Europe, but'll be staying predominately as far as you can get from Adelaide – Stockholm. How long? That's up in the air, but a few months is in the ball park. When I get time, I'll float the idea by the Adelaide folk. Mildura's only 3.5 hours away (if you speed :P). --cj | talk 09:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Snotty

I would strongly suspect that the two attacks are the same...on user and talk - is it worth doing anything more than warnings? SatuSuro 11:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts. Don't stress about it; it's just another dirty sock of my old friend Factoid Killer / Jebus Christ / Jimididit / NSWelshman / J is me / Licinius / I could go on for hours like this. I've blocked already. Not that it will change anything. ;-)Snottygobble 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Harness racing

Hi, I am trying to improve the harness racing page, yet I'm not sure what needs to be cited and what would be assumed common knowledge, would you or some other suitably qualified person be able to go through and put where ever i need to find a cite. I hope to get this to a good article or a featured article. CheersKearney6 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

{{WP Australia}}

That's a bit of a turbocharged template, isn't it, like WPBio and MILHIST?! I was hoping it would be a class/importance/needs-infobox job and I'd get to supporting it tonight. As it is, it would probably take a few hours at least because of all those parameters :(.

In the meantime then, mate, please try version 0.4 of my plugin to which I've added support for reviewing/assessing articles. --kingboyk 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it packs a punch - I modelled it on the Militay history project, feeling we needed the extra parameters as the category space is so vast and expansive. It's a complex template, but I dare say we'd be able to manage just by tagging articles within the Australia category structure with the vanilla template for now. I'm happy to allow editors adjust with relevant parameters as they're needed, and just tag them all for time being.

Hold yer horses mate! I'm making a start now, with my plugin you can tag each category with the relevant parameters with just a couple of mouse clicks. I've just added 2 new params (and am in the process of documenting them) and then I'll get coding. --kingboyk 11:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you have a crime= param - isn't that a bit superflouous?! ;) hehehe --kingboyk 13:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

{{WP Lake Mac notice}} seems to be redundant to your turbocharged template, and is ugly to boot. I recommend speedy deleting it and removing it from the handful of talk pages it's on. Please note also that I've changed your "Lake Macquarie=" param to "Macquarie="; params with a space in the name don't seem like a great idea to me, and it might break my regular expression. Since, again, only a handful of pages are using that param it's easier to change the template than my regex :) --kingboyk 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it took all day but I've added support for WPAustralia and WPMILHIST. As a test run I've tagged the talk pages in Category:Royal Australian Navy admirals with WPAus, WPMILHIST and WPBIO templates and parameters all in the same go :) Seems too work but please check your edits carefully as basically you're the tester of the WPAus feature! ;) Will upload shortly - User:Kingbotk/Plugin. --kingboyk 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)