User talk:Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive24

		The Original Barnstar
		For not backing down in the face of adversity

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VC's at the Australian War Memorial

Hi Rebecca, not sure if, like indicated below by Lenerd you are trying to censor other contributors views, but removing what is a genuine topic of discussion on the apparent aim of the AWM to gather all Australian VC's in Canberra rather then their being located out in the Towns and Regions of Australia for all to see is censorship by any fair test. This is a topic of discussion for many Australian Military Historians as we would rather see these brave men's stories available locally to the people who live in the same areas as the men who where awarded this rare honour. Hiding 61 of the 97 VCs awarded to Australians (including TPR Donaldson) in Canberra is not the solution, nor is it best for Australia. Gl359 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral district of Ridley

Hey Rebecca, I am creating an article on the former South Australian Electoral district of Ridley, which my sources tell me was a Riverland based seat existing from 1938 to 1970. I noticed however in Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1993-1997, Ridley is given as the name for a seat held by Peter Lewis in a different part of the state. The seat became Hammond in 1997 and in the 1989-93 members page, Lewis's seat is called Murray-Mallee. Do you know where the source was for Ridley being an electorate name 1993-97? Cheers, --Roisterer (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I guess I can add tghis section to the Ridley article. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from Sarah Palin. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Lenerd (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had added nothing! I was simply doing my duty and reverting the deletion of a substantial amount of sourced material that may have been POV but still should not be completely struck from the article. I will reword the section in question in an attempt to satisfy both her loyal devotees and others who wish to not see sourced material gratuitously deleted from an article. I would also like to congratulate you on your attainment of Admin despite your apparent taste for edit warring. (Lenerd (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah Palin

Rebecca;

I noticed that you informed Lenard of the BLP rules on Sarah Palin. While I welcome your zeal in this matter, I would like to respectfully bring the point to your attention that the reinsertions were done in good faith.

Respectfully;

Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, please disregard this section and only apply it towards my reinsertion. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice and question

I just clicked some links on your useful stuff page and noticed that the first 2 external links in the variables section do not work. I was also wondering if you could briefly explain your reasons for keeping drafts at your username pages, instead of just immediately creating a partly completed article with the content you already have? - Shiftchange (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

"There is an Ombudsman Commission at Meta-Wiki that is tasked with investigating complaints about violations of the privacy policy. It occurs to me that it might be worthwhile to ask them to investigate the three instances of "outing" that arose last week when I responded to Filll's Question #5 of his 8 Questions at RfC/ID." WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Hello, Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj. You have new messages at Dycedarg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:ANI discussion

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DyceBot about your block of User:DyceBot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca,

Based on Dycedarg's assurance that he would not resume edits in the area under dispute, and the fact that you are evidently not online and he says he has a limited window to do other tasks, I've been a little reckless and unblocked his bot without waiting for your comment. It seems pretty clear your objection was to this one task, and he's promised not to restart that task, so I assumed it would be OK with you. If I'm wrong, then (1) I apologize, and (2) feel free to tell me off on my talk page, and (3) Feel free to revert my unblock with no chance of me screaming "wheel war!" at you. --barneca (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard White

I have moved the NSW Supreme Court Judge Richard White to Richard Weeks White as there is a South Australia Supreme Court Judge of the same name (Richard Conway White) and (jurist) (judge) and (Australian judge) don't disambiguate. I have directed Richard White (jurist), Richard White (judge) and Richard White (Australian judge) to Richard White to avoid confusion. I trust this is workable. Castlemate (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail images

Image:Horsham1.jpg is another station image that needs undeleting, then uncommenting here. Wongm (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation @ fi-wiki

Would you by chance happen to have any idea why an account by the name of "Rebecca" was usurped on fi-wiki arbitrarily and against decided-by-consensus policy by en:User:Bastique?

If it was indeed you who made this happen, know this: I would infban you on fi-wiki, but that would do no good, because you probably won't ever even visit our wiki. Just curious — how many people do you have to know in order to get global special treatment that trumps local wiki policies?

We may be a little wiki, but we expect that all users — even those in power in larger wikis — abide by our policies in our wiki. The usurpation could have been done in accordance with our policy, but now it's impossible to do it right.

Best regards, MikkoM, admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter and quite pissed off if our finally finished usurpation policy only applies to little people (21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have been advised that you were totally unaware this usurpation was taking place. Please disregard my message above. MikkoM (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Shrine of Remembrance has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Murdoch

I most definitely do not want a move war over this - we are both *way* above that sort of conduct. But I can point to two others which are not in that format, and I'm sure if I was to go looking I'd find more. It isn't a case of correct vs incorrect, it's a case of consensus and what works for us as a project and what works for readers as well - I feel "state" is far clearer (as well as allowing far more wiggle room in the case of overlap between state and federal electorate names, which is quite common), you don't, I think we've been aware of each other's opinions for a while, we're very unlikely to agree. Orderinchaos 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the politics project in its current state (hiatus for the most part) it'd be getting the opinions of about three other people and would not represent a project consensus. I had talked to a number of people informally and, apart from my conversation with you at around the same time, got the general idea that people were in favour of the change but didn't care much either way. Orderinchaos 07:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Oz template

The point of it is so that readers can navigate between the latest state and territory elections on one template. If it's linked on the template, what is the harm in it being on the election page? Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite the Oz politics one stop shop as far as templates go. I don't see why you'd object to it, as it's quite useful. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Obviously it isn't area-specific except Politics in general. Perhaps there is an argument for removing the courts. Timeshift (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

I respect you too much to template, but seriously, you've hit your third revert on this. Orderinchaos 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it a little disturbing that you knew exactly when I'd added the link to the article within a couple of hours of me doing so. Are you hunting my contribs for "state by-election" just so you can pounce on it and revert? If so, we have a LOT more serious problem here than just an edit war. Also note that I had not reverted or altered any of yours in any way - you seem to be trying to take the battle to me. Orderinchaos 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I'm not, and have never been, much of a traditionalist. My view is that unwritten conventions tell us very well what has been done before but are certainly not the status of unbreakable policy. If the past was dictat, we would never have reform. Your strong views on the matter have been the main reason I haven't tried to change it anywhere else, as I do respect you as an editor and colleague. The other reason is, honestly, I doubt it's something that much more than the two of us care about - I believe "state" makes it more readable and less ambiguous, and I come from the angle of doing a lot of category work and mechanical sorting and project rating and the like where such disambiguations are incredibly useful. People I've talked to about it privately are either mildly supportive, or don't care/don't have an opinion, but I doubt if I was to raise a proposal more than two or three people would bother commenting, and if I was to change them all across Australia, I doubt there'd be a blast of contentiousness from the hordes across the Nullarbor. It's *certainly* not worth going to 3RR to protect and defend the ways of the past. Orderinchaos 09:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTF

Hello! Just wanted to say Welcome to the Feminism Task Force! Glad you found out about it. Happy editing! --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia & Tamie

Sonia & Tamie are now done, after your comment about their omission. Still stubs, though, as it's too risky to do much more, because the crowds will come yelling "Delete!, they are non-notable!!!" --Lester 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpations

The SUL tool shows these as not currently linked to your global account. Kylu (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp

English Wikibooks is ready for you. BTW, I'm Canadian :D — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More railway images

Image:Ararat8.jpg and Image:Ararat2.jpg require undeletion for Ararat railway station, Victoria. Wongm (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Little River6.jpg and Image:Colac1.jpg are some more. I have restored the links to the images in the articles. Wongm (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons versions are here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Colac1.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Little River6.jpg Wongm (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca at nlwiki

Hi, on request of m:User:Kylu the existing account Rebecca has been renamed, so you can now use your global account on nlwiki. --Erwin85 (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Rebecca, you placed the following comment on my talk page, 'Please stop removing red links to notable topics. There is no reason for this, and there's no excuse.' I'd just like to remind you that Wikipedia encourages civility. Your comment was not civil, and uncivil oomments are unlikely to convice people. Links to non-existent articles, aside from being annoying and confusing, are likely to encourage people who do not know enough to create articles. Skoojal (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Lionel Ovesey article is threatened with speedy deletion

Rebecca, on my talk page recently you wrote, 'Let's look at the example you used of conversion therapy: all of the people you delinked were very clearly notable by Wikipedia's notability policies, generally having in excess of 15,000 Google hits, including a whole bunch of good sources should someone want to write an article.' In this spirit, I've just created an article on Lionel Ovesey, who is a notable figure for the same reasons as the people you mention. The article is now threatened with speedy deletion. I was wondering if you could help me convince the person who tagged it that it will be possible to slowly turn it into a worthwhile article? Skoojal (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leake

Ah, thanks for that ... for some reason I'd typed "ref name" instead of "ref label". Orderinchaos 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello Ambi, It has been a long time since I've had the pleasure of interacting with you. Since you have experience with the deletion process in Wikipedia, I was wondering if you nominate four "lists" for deletion. You see, if I did it, I'm afraid that I would mess things up as I have done before.

Here is the situation. The following four "lists", List of Puerto Rican comedians, List of Puerto Rican artists, List of Puerto Rican architects and List of Puerto Rican writers are spin-offs from the List of Puerto Ricans.

The four "lists" are not necessary, not managed, occupy Wikipedia space, plus as I stated before, were "taken" from a list that covers them all. The "List of Puerto Ricans" has a management team that has set up a requirement criteria and that requires that all additions be cited with reliable verifiable sources as policy.

I would really arreciate it if you do this. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal tag

Hi Rebecca. Thanks for your reply regarding the use of the criminal tag. Your advice taken. --Lester 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Was it an unfortunate placement beneath my post, or was bollocks drama intentional? The political overtones to some editors' decisions by no means carries over to everyone. For the last eleven months I have mentored an Israeli editor through the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, and he has become a featured content contributor. During that time I have also contributed featured content (separately) related to both Palestinian culture and Zionism. With respect, Durova^Charge! 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, thanks for the message. If you have no objections, I'll move it up into the Opposed section? --El on ka 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the message,[3] and tweaked the preposition phrase a bit so it would make sense in its new location, I hope that's alright. Also, thanks again for your support. It means alot to me, especially considering our earlier conflicts. It means more to have the support of someone who used to be deadset against me, but who now realizes that I'm not such a bad person after all! :) --El on ka 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"bollocks"

"bollocks" was the editing comment you left whe you removed that citation needed from the article women who have sex with women. "bollocks" is not was not and never will be a good justification for that. The statement that tag is on requiers some backing up in light of the related discussion on men who have sex with men. In particular after heated debate and an intensive search for a definitive and authoratative source all we could find is that the term MSM is sometimes used to blanket transwomen and sometimes it isn't. I suspect the same is true of WSW. Let us find out.

Please find some sources to back up what you think is so obvious.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one making the claim so why should I have to look for the references? You say "bollocks" I say prove it's bollocks that you need to have sources in a WP article. You can't you know this so you call me "wierd". Have fun being a lemming or a sheep and belonging to a particular "interest camp" or whatever the heck you called it. I revel in being a true individual as unique as a fallen flake of snow.

Now find some sources to back up your claim. No hurry I am busy. Just find me one source that includes all transwomen (including those who have sex with men since that qualification isn't even in there) as being WSW. :-/ Try and find such a reference. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Bagapsh

Hey, I noticed that you wrote the original version of the Sergei Bagapsh article. Most of the information in the original version is still in the current one, but there are several statements with {{fact}} tag attached to them. In particular, see the "Prime minister" section. Do you think you could provide sources for those four uncited statements? Khoi khoi 02:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those were the days. You could even write a FA without having to have citations. Anyways please let me know if you ever remember the name of this database. I've found a source for the other two. By the way, I've done some editing on the South Ossetia page in the past few days, what do you think of my idea of moving part of the intro into the "Political status" section? (specifically, the part about the provisional government, which is probably in exile right now due to the war). Khoi khoi 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll try to find a password for it. As for South Ossetia, the website of the provisional government has some recent information, but it's in Georgian. I couldn't find any sources stating where Sanakoyev is, but what I do know is that the Dmitry Sanakoyev article lists his residence in Kurta, and you can see here that there was clearly in fighting in the town, and I'm guessing that the South Ossetian separatist troops currently control it. BTW, I found another page: Amtsakhara. What do you think about the fact tags in that article? Khoi khoi 04:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks again. I'll try to fix it when I have the time. Khoi khoi 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview request

Hello! There's an election on. Can I ask you a couple of brief questions about your steadfast maintenance of Alannah MacTiernan's entry? I'm writing a story on MPs' entries for The Sunday Times in Perth. Davidcohen (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Just doing your job. I've also asked other Wikipedians about their reverts (see Alan Carpenter and Matt Birney, for example). The main question is why you do it - you don't get paid. Also, I guess these MPs or their staffers can't do it - that sort of thing is frowned upon? Davidcohen (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not many questions. Why do you do it? Should politicians' staffers edit their employers' entries? Why do you think people vandalise entries? How does the Alannah vandalism - talk about Botox and her personal appearance - rank with the vandalism you've seen? Do you think there's an increase in vandalism because of the looming election? Any other thoughts you have would be most welcome. Thanks Rebecca! Davidcohen (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of shopping malls in the United States

I have nominated List of shopping malls in the United States, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (4th nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Railway History

Yes, that is phase 2, hopefully with some assistance from my friends! --Commissioner Geoff (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2004 railway station edits

Looking though the Melbourne station articles, you were the one who created them back in March 2004. What source did you use for the opening and closing dates? Wongm (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White City is one. Wongm (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick one re capitalisation

In Category:Lists of legislators in Australia, we have some category names with upper case P Parliament, some with lower case p parliament. Which one would be most correct? I think we should make them all one or the other, but have no personal opinion as to which - MOS would suggest lower case, but if Parliament is regarded to be a title, then it would have to be capped. Thoughts? Orderinchaos 06:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion query

Please see thread at the help desk here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

[4] I don't honestly know where Bruce came from. For some reason I can't help thinking of Dr. Alban (the photo in the article does not capture his famously weird hairstyle). Sleep deprivation is not a good thing. Orderinchaos 06:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this edit "N Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, 2008-2012 ‎ (work around this absurdity)" - it is incredible to me personally that we have an MOS that requires endashes in titles (which I agree with) yet lead to a funny URL which, interestingly, looks even funnier on pre-XP3 operating systems. If I knew how to use the bug system thingy I'd propose a software change to MediaWiki as a serious suggestion, so that the URLs are always hyphens but the titles display correctly, and links to endash articles automatically go to hyphen urls. Orderinchaos 14:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costa bipolar

Hi Rebecca, As odd as it seems, Costa is on the public record as being bipolar. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I wouldn't want to cite it without a discussion of it, and I'm not the best person to do that. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railway templates

Hello Rebecca. I notice that you recently edited a railway route diagram for the long-disused Captains Flat line to include a red link to each railway station on the line (I had included a blue link to the town of Captains Flat).

I know that WP:ROUTE#Hints recommends that links on route diagrams be directed to articles for the station in question. However, this seems to me not particularly desirable for rural Australia - especially a line on which no train has run for 40 years and where tangible evidence of the station has, in many cases, long since been removed. WP:ROUTE#Hints also says that "if a station has a WP article, link to that, not to the town."

For instance, I created Template:Tumut & Kunama Lines. By linking to the town, a Wikipedia user could click a link to an article for the towns/villages of Brawlin, Muttama, Coolac, Gundagai, Tumblong, Tumut and Batlow. I have just redirected each link to articles for the station as per WP:ROUTE, and now every single link at every station is a red link.

It is unlikely that articles will appear for each station - they aren't notable enough.

I am wondering if you will agree that it is better in this case for links to go to the towns in question, and not to the stations for which there is not (and probably never will be) an article? --TripleThree (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I'm cool with linking to the actual stations in the templates if it will lead (eventually) to articles being created for each station. I reckon putting links to the town/village in question in the article's main body is a good idea, so readers still have the opportunity of reading about the town. --TripleThree (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Barnawartha2.jpg

Hi, when I checked my deletion log (to check if any copyvio's were again uploaded) I noticed you undeleted Image:Barnawartha2.jpg. On checking the logs that is the second you did so. On June 9 2008 you stated that the license is still being cleared up. Almost 4 months later, any progress on that? Otherwise the image will be, rightfully so, again deleted because of no license tag and other concerns. Garion96 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw this image after it being listed it wp:pui. You encountered this image a while ago, undeleted it twice and stated that the license is being cleared up. How about you, for a change, get in contact with the owner and get the information so that we can end this bullshit stone dead. Garion96 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to get permissions often enough plus I occasionally help out at otrs where this image also would not have been accepted. Since you want to keep the image and know about it for months, why on earth haven't you contacted the owner instead of complaining to me? If you're not interested in doing the groundwork, please refrain from undeleting this image, plus don't state that the license issue is being cleared up, since that does not seem to be true. I will send the copyright owner an e-mail. If I don't get a response in a reasonable time, the image goes bye bye. Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a response from the OTRS email submission - Ticket #2008100610016331. Wongm (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Colac1.jpg needs undeletion as well. Wongm (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morayfield Shopping Centre

With respects, you have removed tags I placed from an article that does not source any assertion of notability through WP:RS and which reads ike an advertisement. Could explain on the article's talk page your reasons for doing so? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Registered historic places

Hi Rebecca, are you still interested in the Wikiproject for Australian historic places? Somno (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian historic places, but as you can imagine there are lots of gaps! I think the first steps are categorising articles and getting a parameter added to Template:WP Australia, what do you think? Somno (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's worth asking for help on the noticeboard at this early stage? Somno (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Cabinet of Australia; Ruth Webber; David Smith (Australian public servant); Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988; Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council; Division of Isaacs; Michael Jeffery; Red Deer North; Steve Georganas; Flag of the Australian Capital Territory; Bonny Barry; Macclesfield, South Australia; Division of Solomon; Ursula Stephens; North Dakota Legislative Assembly; John Monash; Sharon Grierson; Helen Polley; Gunns

Cleanup: John Kerr; Plympton, South Australia; Cape Breton Labour Party
Merge: Mike Farnworth; South Eastern Freeway; List of Northwest Territories speakers
Add Sources: Division of Lang; Carol Brown; Citizens Electoral Council
Wikify: Linda Kirk; Coniston massacre; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Expand: Empire Times; Wik Peoples v Queensland; Prince Alfred College

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson Bridge

I suggest that you think through your actions a little more.

The image that you have now twice tagged is very clearly from the era noted in image notes (i.e. approximately 1910), forty-odd years clear of the limit on public domain images. Wouldn't it be more helpful to go find the source for this image rather than deleting it for jollies when you and I both know that it is definitely public domain?

This is on the same day that I've seen you a) try to delete an image of a dead person by claiming that he was in fact, alive, and b) claim that one of the most significant feminist book publishers in history was a self-published vanity press. Perhaps you should be a little more careful with your editing, because that's three times in the one day where your carelessness has negatively impacted upon the encyclopedia. Rebecca (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believing he was alive was a mistake. But we have a free image anyway, and that picture must be deleted.

Jessica does publics through vanity press company Seal Press. --Damiens.rf 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gobsmacked. You've just reverted me on Jessica Valenti - by still claiming that Seal Press is a vanity press? This is a major press that has published many of the most significant feminist books and feminist authors of the last fifty years. Did you even bother to Google them before attacking the article? Rebecca (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what possible basis are you still making that claim? Not only is there utterly no evidence for it if you'd so much as Googled them, but it's arguably libelous as well. And you'd have noticed that he was alive if you'd actually looked at his article. Can you see what I'm getting at here? Rebecca (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, at the time, the article didn't included the death date at the introduction (just the birth date) as usual, so I got confused. What's the big deal? The image needs to be deleted anyway. --Damiens.rf 14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you've still not answered why you're randomly smearing a major publishing company, or why you're hellbent on trying to delete an image which you know for a fact is public domain. Rebecca (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a verifiable source to make sure the image is PD. This is how WP works. I've read somewhere at the seal press's website at the time that they work with a print-on-demand basis. I'm trying to find it right now. --Damiens.rf 14:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've again reverted the page, again on the basis of this bizarre claim. I'm at a loss - what the heck are you doing? Rebecca (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not acting based on bizarre claims. I'm just against the removal of a valid concern tag with no justification. Do you realized I wasn't the one to add the tag to begin with? Even if Seal Press is the best press in the word, are you arguing that having a book published by them makes you automatically notable? --Damiens.rf 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Damiens.rf

Would you support a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on him/her? Paul Austin (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - you start an RfC and il support it. Paul Austin (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will fully support you guys. That user is completely obnoxious and has made plenty of WP:POINT violations. He should be banned from launching AfDs or IfDs or participating in any deletin discussion. JRG (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he's violated Wikipedia:No legal threats off-wiki. Paul Austin (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove that immediately or stop these accusations! --Damiens.rf 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully support such a request as well. I believe he epitomizes what a wikipedia editor should NOT be. Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Hi, Rebeca. Could you please help me with my grammar on Jessica Valenti? I welcome your input. --Damiens.rf 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While reverting my grammar, you also accidentally reverted the information about her books (like isbn link and publication date). --Damiens.rf 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your history with the article before, it might well be better for you to pick an article to work on that you don't have quite such an erratic history with - especially since the article is a BLP, and that you have had ongoing negative engagement with its subject. Rebecca (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I haven't (at leat not yet) been reprieved from my privilege to edit Wikipedia. In the case I act nasty, just report me. But please don't ask me not to edit the articles you care about.

So, we will work together? --Damiens.rf 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is negatively affecting the project, and in this case, the article on a BLP. I'm asking you to do the right thing and find another article to direct your interest in light of your past history there. It isn't about acting nasty; it's about careless and erratic behaviour negatively impacting upon the project. And if you can't police your own behaviour, I'd have to say that by the reaction your block received, you're probably heading very quickly towards Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Rebecca (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But would you still work collaboratively with me today, or do you believe your concerns are irremediable? Do you see your dislike for some of my previous behaviors as a good reason to revert any edit I do (rhetoric question, I'm sure you don't)? --Damiens.rf 23:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think with your history with both the article and its subject that your presence on Jessica Valenti is probably unhelpful. Rebecca (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, have you seen my edit history on Jessica's article? I've helped a lot that article. It used to read like a self-provided mini-curriculum. I have searched and added sources, removed pov, unsourced statements and even BLP attacks. I was the one to format each of the references in the article. Also, again, I wasn't the one to add the notability tag. You seem to be emotionally attached to the subject and are being unfair on your qualification of my work on the article. --Damiens.rf 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I'm actually a critic of Valenti; that book which you initially claimed was self-published was very controversial in parts of the feminist movement. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to complain when an editor starts doing the editing version of driving drunk and stoned through her article. It's not just your random attempts at disparaging the women (evidently driven by your past clashes with her in the article history); it's your cluelessness about the entire subject (i.e. repeatedly claiming that her publisher was a vanity press, and claiming that some Salon interview said something particularly illuminating when it's the subject of her entire book, and basically her attitude to feminism). Rebecca (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to collaborate with you has been a depressive experience. You seem incapable of assuming good faith, or of avoiding harsh words in every comment. I'll be open to discuss my edits with you whenever you want, but I can't say I'm looking forward for these opportunities. I wish you happiness. --Damiens.rf 23:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca. please. Help me with the article instead of just reverting it. Your about to violate 3RR. If you dislike my grammar (something that I have tried to address), why don't you help me to fix it, instead of reverting the bunch of my edits, that included grammatic-free improvements, like formating external links and references? --Damiens.rf 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, how about stopping making or reverting back in the problematic edits to begin with? Rebecca (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively to helping me to improve the article? As I've made clear before, I believe the Wikipedia way of doing things is collaborative work, that would include you fixing the mistakes I've made during my improvements (like the "bad grammar" you mentioned), instead of reverting the whole improvement just for disagreeing with part of it. --Damiens.rf 23:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Sorry, TW does the unlinking, not me. I wasn't aware of the ramifications that it would have. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there Rebecca

Damiens, will try your patience, sanity, and is a "pro" when it comes to crushing ones editing spirit. Making matters worse, he will pretend to be the "innocent victim" or the "happy naive neighbor" who pretends to be amazed that the person he just harassed for an hour, is not ready to assume good faith and gladly collaborate with him. Do your best to remain calm, as I know how hard it can be. ;o) Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully he was just blocked again for a week this time. Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help remembering back to a certain past Australian editor with very similar editing behaviour. Orderinchaos 02:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder...please remember that the only valid excuse to go over 3RR is vandalism. When you were reverting Damiens, you actually did pass the 3RR yourself...you could have been blocked for this, but you were not - probably because you were reverting edits that appeared to have been made in bad faith. However, while his edits were not necessarily made in good faith, they were not vandalism. Please just be a little more careful if the situation presents itself again. If it happens again, go to the 3RR noticeboard - or to ANI if the situation seems extreme enough - and stop reverting until the problem is solved. Thanks! --Smashville^talk 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mount_Murray_railway_station,_New_South_Wales#Mount_Murray_railway_station.2C_New_South_Wales - cheers Satu Suro 00:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Hotels Australia

Hi Rebecca. With this edit were you reverting what you saw as my vandalism or simply declining my speedy deletion nomination. I don't want to appear over-sensitive but using an edit summary of "rvt" makes it appear as if it was the former. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged for rescue

The Story of Maths has been tagged for rescue. -- IRP ☎ 22:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moriac and railway lines

I have flipped it back - for the average person it ,ight be better to keep the 'Port Fairy line' links for Koroit and the stations down that way! Wongm (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Holtage.jpg

Are you able to restore this image? I believe our friend Damiens.rf tried to remove it from the page after the AfD came up with a keep outcome. It's from the NLA collection - I'm quite sure of that. JRG (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This got deleted again - you might want to undo it and add a FUR - it's off a page on The Age newspaper if you want a source. JRG (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I have also placed a similar message on nrswanson's talk page. Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi, I'm not here to whine about an edit conflict or anything, I'm sure that can be solved with consensus - however on the Amanda Milan article you are one edit away from breaking the 3RR - consider this a reminder so that you don't get blocked, rather than a complaint/threat Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rebecca. Please add your own comment at the existing 3RR case that complains about your editing of the Helen Westwood article. You appear to have reverted the work of others four times on November 3. If you are hoping to rely on some kind of an exemption from 3RR for your reverts, please explain there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Helen Westwood. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Smashville^talk 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look - our friend Damiens.rf has me reported for deleting offensive comments made to you! see here. I give up. I'm going to retire from Wiki from the moment although I may come back at some stage but under a different username to concentrate on smoe rail-related stuff. I've had enough of being abused when I try to help other people. Hopefully my going away will allow someone to do something once and for all about Damiens.rf. JRG (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did to Talk:Murder of Gwen Araujo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your support and encouragement and great work on Wikipedia. I'm taking a lengthy break from Wiki (and am retiring under this username) but I may be back in the future. Please keep Damiens.rf watchlisted and report him if he takes advantage of anyone else - he does not deserve to edit on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned and I can't stay on here while he is let loose. Good luck. JRG (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Araujo

Hi...

I know we are not seeing eye to eye on the above article, but that is purely a wikipedia thing - I see no reason as to why this should not remain friendly.

Anyway, I don't agree with your edit (guess you realised that already)

I would hope we can come to agreement without getting close to an edit-war, as that is good for neither of us.

I agree, Gwen was murdered - on a legal and moral viewpoint. But as far as the encyclopedia is concerned I don't think it is necessary to state that. The fact that some involved were convicted of crimes other than murder makes for a BLP issue. More than anything else, there is a suitable alternative in "died" that term is factual, the person is dead, therefore they died. It has used the term died for about 2 years, so without being too rude - the burden is yours to obtain consensus before changing it - you have changed it enough times and had it changed back to make you understand that there has not been a change of consensus, but feel free to show me why it is better to use the term "murdered" and I will change undo my own revert, as it stands I see no reason why it shouldn't use "died" - I don't care about any emotional bullshit related to this article, if it was my blog I would state "Gwen was brutally murdered by some homophobic morons" but it isn't my blog, so emotion has nothing to do with it.

Anyway for the sake of peace and of neither of us getting blocked for edit-waring, please get back to me with either a reason I am likely to consider to change to murdered, an attempt at gaining consensus, or a pledge to leave the article alone for a while with the term died, rather than murdered.

laters

Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)[reply]

Paterson Bridge

Please don't remove a provided source for an image. That you'd remove it when provided after nominating it for deletion smells of bad faith, and is not a good look. Rebecca (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "provided source" was a broken link. That it was provided by a single purpose account smells suspect to me. --Damiens.rf 10:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your encouragement! I think I'll be completely over writing even stub biographies by the time I get through the Senators - for a while, at least. Frickeg (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual problems at Amanda Milan

I have some concerns about the factual accuracy of some of the recent additions by User:Benjiboi. For example, this sentence "Because of Milan's murder Rivera reformed a transgender activist group, Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries (STAR)." STAR was around for three decades prior to the murder so how can that be true? This one inaccuaracy makes we wonder about the accuracy of everything else he has added. Do you have any thoughts?Nrswanson (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree he has done a good job overall. That's why I am giving him some time to explain/clarify rather than reverting anything. I think the article is improving significantly and once any unclear issues are clarified the notability should no longer be in question.Nrswanson (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points and it would be nice to have some cross referencing between the two articles.Nrswanson (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Gwen Araujo

shall we both leave the article alone for a while and cool down? you have made 3 reverts within 24hours, I would rather leave it as it currently stands, than see your name in a 3RR report.

I care about this article, but I see no reason as to why people should get blocked due to a difference of opinion.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you have made four reverts. Care to undo your last edit? Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you have made broken 3RR not only on the Gwen Araujo article, but also the Amanda Milan article. Do your opinions outweigh 3RR ? Undo your reverts and get back to the talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of... and BLP

First off, let me say I agree with you. Gwen Araujo was clearly murdered, and the fact that Amanda Milan was pre-op has no place in the lead. However, I'm confused as to how Sennen goroshi's edit are in violation of WP:BLP. I think they violate NPOV, but it's hard to argue BLP when both subjects have been murdered. If there's a rationale that I haven't caught, I'm quite curious to hear it. A ni Mate 04:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What case was that? I think it's great, with some reservations. Was there a timeline for when someone who has died stops being protected by BLP? If not, that could make editing difficult for certain articles. Anyway, that sounds good in theory, but is it really possible that the ArbCom did something right? A ni Mate 04:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in members tables

I reverted your recent change in Division of Brisbane (you changed "1903-1903" to "1903" in the members table). In general in other articles these have been kept like this, and I think that aesthetically they balance the table nicely. I know that it seems a little unnecessary, but I personally just find the single date quite odd-looking. If this is changed we should change it in all the articles. Frickeg (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring -warning

You're edit warring at Murder of Gwen Araujo and Murder of Amanda Milan. Edit warring isn't allowed because it is always harmful to the project. Please stop. Rather, use the talk page to try and build a consensus for your edits. Thanks for understanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You carried on with reverts at both articles after I left the above warning, so I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|Please undo this block. WP:DTTR is there for a reason. I'm aware of the revert-warring rules, having been here four years, and I know what they're there for. I have not violated the three revert rule (in fact, I believe I was blocked for one revert here), and have been making frustrating attempts towards compromise despite the efforts of a homophobic troll. The article is not under any sort of special arrangements, and there is no grounds for "you're pissing me off" in the blocking policy.}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

No clear violation can be seen here, as the edits in contention seem to helping rather than bring the article into disrepute. I will let you know, however, that you've been around long enough to know the 3RR rule doesn't mean you GET three reverts, or two or what have you. Please continue to bring up discussion and dispute resolution to solve this problem. I'll also leave a note to Gwen Gale to not template users who have been on this project for nearly five years.

Request handled by: Mike H. Fierce! 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your comments and request

I've replied to your comments and request at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#lifting_protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

If you do not retract your accusation, I'm going to have to take this to AN/I. A sysop who is not going to follow policy is cause for worry.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 10:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pearce

Quick one, finally got around to writing this one. It's very incomplete and functional in some ways, I'll do more when I have time (i.e. hawk through political chronicles to figure out *why* he was controversial in his Education portfolio), but can you see if there's any obvious grammatical quirks or errors in need of fixing? I've been a bit out of it for a few days owing to humidity so my wording standard hasn't been its usual. If you know anything re post-parliamentary beyond what I was able to find, feel free to add - I have absolutely nothing beyond his exit from the Cabinet in 1992. Orderinchaos 13:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988; Michael Jeffery; Bordertown, South Australia; Flag of the Australian Capital Territory; City of Mitcham; Seat of Government Act 1904; Division of Solomon; Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council; List of hospitals in Australia; Bonny Barry; John Monash; Division of Lang; Burnside Village; Stephen Hatton; Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915; Red Deer North; Steve Georganas; City of Marion; Cabinet of Australia

Cleanup: Plympton, South Australia; Cape Breton Labour Party; Socialist Alliance (Australia)
Merge: Kosciuszko National Park; National capital territory; Geography of Australia
Add Sources: Australia Day; Citizens Electoral Council; Curtin University of Technology
Wikify: Coniston massacre; Linda Kirk; Woodlands, Western Australia
Expand: Wik Peoples v Queensland; Eastern Suburbs railway line, Sydney; St Leonards, Victoria

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keegan

I only changed it because there is actually a page at Ernest Keegan. Which I see has now been moved to George Keegan. Sorry - I was just getting rid of a red link. Frickeg (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Bourkestreetmall.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bourkestreetmall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Good luck

Another good editor gone. :( It's been a privilege to have worked with you on the Australian politics stuff, and I hope we'll continue to see you pop in every now and then. Good luck with everything. Orderinchaos 09:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he said Rebecca. What are you going to do with all this free time? –Moondyne 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, it may sound cliché, but you were an inspiration to us all. The fact that you probably you don't even recognise me is testament to that. Good luck in life. Best regards, Caulde 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only just saw your goodbye, and I just wanted to say that I for one will miss having you around, both for your quality editing and your help when people like me make mistakes. Good luck. Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

Saw your goodbye message. I just wanted to say that I'll miss you, and that if you change your mind you'll always be welcome here. Raul654 (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive24's Day!

User:Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive24 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive24's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive24!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia. Feel free to come back whenever you want, as long as you avoid attacking me in every single edit summary. Your history of great contributions spanning over more than 5 years prove you can do better. Cheers, --Damiens.rf 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor form Damiens.rf. Timeshift (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Valenti

Hi there. I know you're retired, but I noticed that you worked on and discussed Jessica Valenti. Her article has been proposed for deletion. Please weigh in! Thanks. RMJ (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homo floresiensis

I have nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you back?

Timeshift (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a shame. I didn't know till recently that you created Member lists for SA politicians going back to the 1930s. It's a pity you didn't go further, it would have been good to add them to the SA election pages I created. I'm currently in the process of doing SA by-elections, some rather interesting things i've come across, and i've only gone back to 1980 so far. Timeshift (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could always just skip 1930-33. I ventured in to the state library today for the first time since it's renovation, it's quite nice! The book I used is referenced in the by-election pages (see List of South Australian state by-elections), it's pretty much just a book of election results. I only collected the ones 1970 onward, and John McPherson's for obvious reasons. I'm still figuring out whether its easier just to order the CD version from SEO for $6.50. And silly me didn't grab the previous turnout/informal tallies so the swing is NA for all of them! But yeah, it's all a work in progress. As for wikipedia drama, that's partly the reason why i've turned to SA politics lately, because nobody gives a damn about them. Even the good editors - Michael is gone, you're basically gone, which just leaves Peter Ballard. I never see anyone else editting SA pages anymore. Timeshift (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! Where are you these days? Timeshift (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2003 candidates

Ah, thanks. Those supplementary elections can really be a headache. I've fixed the Anderson/Shearan problem, but I haven't been able to find anything on the originally endorsed Liberal candidate or any of the others, so I haven't been able to make any changes there. Good to know you're still around to correct these things! Frickeg (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks! Frickeg (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Ruth Webber; Daramalan College; Division of Lang; Cabinet of Australia; Helen Polley; List of political parties in Wallis and Futuna; Linda Kirk; Claire Moore; Red Deer North; Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988; Trish Crossin; History of Queensland; Flag of the Australian Capital Territory; Division of Leichhardt; Division of Solomon; Ursula Stephens; Jan McLucas; Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council; Steve Georganas

Cleanup: John Kerr; Socialist Alliance (Australia); Severe storms in Australia
Merge: Mike Farnworth; Transitioning (transgender); North Coast, New South Wales
Add Sources: Australian court hierarchy; Australia Day; Carmel Tebbutt
Wikify: Coniston massacre; South Australian Certificate of Education; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Expand: Australian Soft Drinks Association; Powell River-Sunshine Coast; Cowichan-Ladysmith

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samhita Mukhopadhyay

Hi there! Thanks for your help in the discussion on Jessica Valenti's deletion. If you get a chance, I could use your perspective over at the current debate on Samhita Mukhopadhyay's article for deletion debate. Thanks!! RMJ (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NT updates

No problem - the frustrating thing was that the NT parliamentary site doesn't give dates of birth. The same problems exist with Victoria and WA, but I think I'll just have to bite the bullet and do it soon - all those red links make it look so unorganised! Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp! You're right about Victoria - I'll have to get on to that lot next. And as for WA - well, we can only hope they update their website, I suppose. Frickeg (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! And of course Qld is only not done because the election was a few weeks ago. WA Parliament has virtually nothing on their MPs, but I suppose stubs would be OK. Frickeg (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Football as the Australian collaboration

Hi -- I recently nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/To-do for the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight.

This WikiProject has been inactive for a long time and with the World Cup coming up, it would be good for football (soccer) articles to be in depth and comprehensive in Australia.

If you would like to support it, click here for the project page to cast your vote

Thanks! Australian Matt (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWNB

My sincere appologies still getting use to my laptop I accidentally pressed rollback on your edit, i immediately self reverted. Gnan garra 09:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I've replied on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping in Australia

Hi Rebecca,

Thank you for notifying me of the reversion. The reason I had performed the move was because the lede stated that "This list refers does not refer to shopping centres per se but covered indoor shopping malls". I felt that the title should reflect the content of the list, so I went ahead with the move and removed the sentence contradicting the original title. I'm missing something; is the sentence I removed incorrect, or does the current title not reflect the content of the list?

Neelix (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the?!

SA State library has the CD as well as the book?! And there I was photocopying and scribbling by-election bits and pieces when I could have just brought my laptop and copied the CD!!! Thanks for the info, at some point i'll get around to doing it. How do I get it to you though? Timeshift (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy for you to send it my way, I already owe Rebecca a couple of CDs' worth of material and can give her all of it at the same time. :) (Plus it means I get a copy too) Orderinchaos 03:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Bindel

Rebecca, you're an old hand here. And Julie Bindel is someone I'd never heard of before today. Regardless of whether one agrees with her opinions or despises them, though, it really looks to my eye that there's a serious BLP problem at that article. Take, for example, citation 12. It leads neither to an actual recording nor to a transcript, yet the citation attempts to support a statement in quotation marks. That leaves no means of verifying whether or not Ms. Bindel actually did make that assertion word for word. A final version of the accompanying text for Citation 11 probably ought to be somewhere in between Banjeboi's proposal and the current article text, yet at least Banjeboi's proposal is unambiguously within BLP: the current version looks like cherry picking. The full context--while certainly controversial--is more nuanced than a simple act of name-calling, which is what the page currently implies. Have I missed something? If so, please enlighten. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I'm going to step back from the Bindel debate for 24 hours-48 hours or so - I'm getting wound up by it all and I've started getting abuse directed at me from elsewhere, including anonymous transphobic userpage vandalism and threats of off-wiki action. (I don't believe for one moment that any of the current editors involved are behind it, I think someone is just taking the opportunity to lay into me - I've got a pretty good idea who it is.) I've been painted as the protagonist here so I hope if I back off for a bit it'll demonstrate I'm not the one creating the issues but I suspect all that will happen is that once we've convinced the current round of editors/admins involved as to the futility of dealing with Benjiboi, they'll juet get another lot in. I'll still be about, I'll go back to new page and anti-vandalism work for a bit - so drop me a line on my talk page if you feel my support on an issue is wanted. Once all this is over, I think I might request an account rename or just retire this account and come back under a pseudonym. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rebecca. I have done as much as I can with the draft for now, and you can find it by going to my main page. I have tried to accommodate as many of your points as I can remember. Let me know if you have any comments - I know it is quite comprehensive and some of it may be too involved, but it gives us something to work back from. Mish (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fedsquare1.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fedsquare1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fedsquare2.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fedsquare2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images

I'm not sure why you're being so short. You wrote that the photos are by "Ambi", which doesn't sound a lot like "Rebecca". There is no indication anywhere that Rebecca and Ambi are the same person. There are many well-intentioned uploaders who click on tags without understanding them. Yes, PD-self says in the template that you are the copyright holder but many photos tagged this way are not uploaded by the copyright holder. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive/Country NSW

I noticed your recent work on Electoral district of Northern Tablelands (some of those NSW electorate articles are a bit dodgy), and your change with regards to the Progressive Party. I wonder if you have any information that gives the date when the Progressives in State Parliament became the Country Party? Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eesh. Another incomprehensible 1920s-30s party split. Thanks for that! (I'm guessing it was just after the 1925 election, because Antony Green still lists them as Progressives on his NSW parliament site.) Frickeg (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're a bit out of date; I've been having a go at getting the party colours into the members tables, and I've been discovering an awful lot of errors (Free Traders still around in 1910, members attributed to the Commonwealth Liberal Party, which never existed in NSW, etc.). It'll be a big job, though! Frickeg (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Nice work finding that. While it's on my mind I'll dash round and fix up those ones. Frickeg (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxner could've been leader in 1923, couldn't he? Frickeg (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Bother. (And McClelland was Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, so there's a valid excuse.) By the way, on the Lyn Allison in Division of Throsby, Adam Carr has a note saying "For Allison, see Senate 1996" underneath the results. Frickeg (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Allison, I too was most surprised to see her standing as a Green - perhaps one of us should email Adam Carr and ask him if he has any sources for it? Frickeg (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to Dr Carr concerning Allison; hopefully his response will clear this up. Frickeg (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's responded: "I would have done the page about ten years ago, and I now have no recollection of my source for that statement. I must have had some knowledge of it at the time, but I don't now remember where it came from." Frickeg (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cane toad

Can you expand on your rationale for opposing the splitting of the article at Talk:Cane toad? I am unsure why you consider the two resulting articles to be mediocre and why there is unclear demarcation. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Nice to see you here, Rebecca. I thought you left WP. I'm relatively a new editor, but I know you. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Australia

Hi,

I noticed you're a member of the Countries WikiProject. I also noticed you've been working on Australia-related articles.

For the past year, a small team of editors and I have been building the Geography branch of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, including an outline page for every country of the world.

Would you mind taking a look at Australia's branch of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge?

It needs some tender loving care.

If you feel like developing this outline and are not sure what to do, there's a set of instructions to get you started at user:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge#Country outline development.

And if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note.

The Transhumanist 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I thought it might be a good idea to run a contest or two through the Countries WikiProject to attract editors to improve country coverage on Wikipedia, especially the country outlines.

I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject, and was wondering if you could help.

I've posted a message at Countries WikiProject talk page to get discussion started on what the awards programs should be and how they should be run.

Your ideas and feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your favour request

I have added the article and talk page in question, and will watch any edits and discussion as they evolve. The subject concerns issues and location where I find discussion is often difficult because of the type of subjectivity involved. I tend to walk away from such discussions in that context, because I tend to find the personalisation of argument stressful. However, I will have to follow what happens, look at the edits, and state as I see things. I'd appreciate you looking at my draft article (linked on my user page) on the GLF 1971 action. I have had a couple of comments I need to attend to. Thanks for all your help with Bindel, once we got past the disputation, it was quite an interesting and rewarding process - I enjoy time on items where I learn more about the topic and how Wikipedia works the most. Mish (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood and wp:blp

Thank you for keeping such a close eye on the Michael Flood article. Because I'm in North America, I woke up this morning to find a whole night of activity on the article; if you and others had not been watching the article, we would probably have had the same host of wp:blp issues this morning that we had yesterday. I'm beginning to become concerned that there are some conflicts of interest out there that are going to make it difficult to keep the article from non-wp:npov and wp:undue territory, but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. In any event, thank you for the kind words on my talk, but more importantly, thank you for your work thus far in keeping the article in a sourced, neutral state. user:j (aka justen) 12:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

RE: "Keep and hope both sides stop being idiots on the talk page."

Well, I figure I probably fit into that category. I appreciate you wanting to keep regardless. As you probably saw, AMIB got booted for 9 days, but the fun continues.

Regardless of our differences, I still am forever grateful to you, and I hope that we can someday mend our minor differences.

A year ago Benjoibi and I were at odds with each other, now we are really close. So miracles happen :) Ikip (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~

Stephen Hagan page

Hello Rebecca, thanks so much for fixing the obscene racist slurs on the Stephen Hagan page. Please can you help me. Can you please put a semi-protection on that article page so there no new accounts or one off users will vandalise it. I have a feeling that there will be some more. I can't work it out myself how to put it on the semi protection. Thanks. (Electromechanic (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

NSW candidates

Thanks for picking up my typo! I'd be grateful if you'd check through that, actually, in case I missed any links. Thanks again! Frickeg (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Burley Griffin

Won't be going down! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A

Alright, I didn't know notable people who don't have articles could still have red links. Shouldn't notable people already have articles if they truly are notable? In any case, thanks for explaining the situation and I shall leave some of the more notable links active. Whats new? (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History sections on Yarralumla and LBG

Its a bit odd to say the least to have more than half the content of both pages devoted just to history. Both pages are overly long as it is. Try printing off the page or scrolling the pages on an iphone for example. History pages are a useful device device to avoid problems such as these. I would suggest the content of the main pages for both topics are updeveloped and that people are using history as a crutch. Chrisfromcanberra (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Lake Burley Griffin

I read your comments with interest but stand by my original remarks for what that's worth

When you get a moment you may be interested in checking the New York Harbour article. The first impression of the page is its very compact, succinct and includes some quality photos. Here my key point. If anything warrants having a long history section like LBG this would be it given it is about 350 years older than our lake. But in fact its half the length of the LBG article history section and all. How did they do it? What you'll also notice are the various links embedded within the article covering subtopic such as marine life, geography etc. Um where have I heard that before. The history of LBG warrants a separate page leaving the main page to be clean and focused and enticing. Chrisfromcanberra (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) You missing the point. I was talking about breaking up the article and BTW the history section takes a third of the article not half. Anyway its been interesting reading through your talk page so seeing how you operate Chrisfromcanberra (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exit (Australia)

Please check that the various links on WP are fixed to point to the new page. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Mexico relations

Do you have time to peek at Denmark–Mexico relations?

Naming guidelines

Hi, just wondering what you are citing in your removals of the birth names of transgendered people. This information is encyclopedic; it would be one thing if you were relocating it within the article, but you seem to be removing it altogether. What's with that? — TAnthony^Talk 15:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned by these edits, as the "guideline" in question has yet to be accepted as such and the discussion is still ongoing. PC78 (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Rebecca, it is merely a draft that is still under discussion and does not yet have concensus. It has not been advertised to the wider community. It has not been tagged with {{proposed}}. PC78 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HT

"There's nothing preventing anyone from getting to work on them."

Well, no, there isn't, at least, not if you don't count the long history of RfCs, a string of failed informal and formal mediation cases, and an ArbCom request -- and that's just in the last eight or nine months. I consider not having an active edit war at any of the related pages currently on my watchlist (four out of about a dozen) to be a major improvement. The longer it goes without anyone even fixing spelling errors, the longer a break I get between the edit wars and the nasty sniping on talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler

Lang Labor was on its last legs by then, certainly. In the 1950 election Fowler stood for the new seat of Newtown-Annandale and was defeated by the Labor candidate Arthur Greenup. Antony Green: "Lilian Fowler has been listed as Lang Labor, where Hughes and Graham (1975) list her as Independent Labor." I think we can safely say that whatever she was, she was not ALP. Antony identifies three candidates at the NSW 1950 election as Lang Labor; I guess it was a dying breed. The presence of two sitting MPs (Fowler and J.C. Lang) probably means the designation was kept alive while they were in parliament (the same note is on the page for Auburn), much like the DLP was sustained primarily for Kevin Harrold's benefit after 1973. Frickeg (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I've just found the other Lang Labor candidate in 1950: Horace Foley in King. There's a slightly different note here: "Hughes and Graham (1975) list H. J. Foley as an Independent Labor candidate. In line with his candidacy at other elections in this period, he has been listed here as a Lang Labor candidate." Frickeg (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there, actually. Perhaps we should split that article: leave Lang Labor as a small article describing the affiliation and the parties it applied to, and then separate articles for the ALP (NSW), the ALP (Non-Communist), and whatever the remnant post-Lang party was officially called (usually just Lang Labor, although I'm sure that's not what they called themselves). Frickeg (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all right. :) I'll add it to my to-do list. What should we call post-1941 Lang (post-Non-Communist)? In election results boxes I've called it Labor (NSW) again, but that's only because Psephos uses ALPN rather than ALPNC as the abbreviation. Do you have anything to clarify whether Lang Labor after 1941 was a continuation of the ALP (Non-Communist) or a reconstituted party? Frickeg (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's by 1950 though. It was definitely a party until at least 1949 - Lang was elected to the House of Reps for the party in 1946 and Fowler and James Lang were both elected as Lang Labor in 1946 ([5], [6] (search for Lang on that last one)). Bizarrely the parliamentary handbook has for Lang that he became Labor (NC) in 1948 ... my head's spinning. The way I understand the Lang divisions is this: firstly, in 1931, when the federal branch split from the state branch, with the state branch taking all the state members and many of the federal ones. The split was resolved in 1936. Then, in 1940, there was a second split, but less far-reaching; all the federal members involved rejoined the ALP in 1941. Lang was not readmitted at that point. Antony tells us at this point that Lang was Independent Labor in 1943 but Lang Labor again by 1944. In 1946 Lang won election to the House of Reps as a Lang Labor candidate, and his son James succeeded him as Lang Labor MP for Auburn. Meanwhile Fowler had been elected to the Assembly in 1944 as a Lang Labor candidate. Jack Lang was then defeated in 1949 (running for Blaxland, still as Lang Labor; there were other endorsed Lang Labor candidates at this election too), and James Lang and Fowler were defeated in 1950, after which Lang Labor does not appear. Now, I know that the 1931-36 party is referred to as the Australian Labor Party (NSW) and that the 1940-41 party is referred to as the Australian Labor Party (Non-Communist). I have no idea what the subsequent party was known as. I gather that it was active 1944-1950. Any ideas? Frickeg (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And fixed - she was not elected until 1944. That was a typo by me. Frickeg (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, then? We separate articles for the Australian Labor Party (NSW) and the Australian Labor Party (Non-Communist), and then leave Lang Labor to deal with 1944-1950. As in, first say how the term was used to describe the other two parties, and then detail the 1944-1950 group? Frickeg (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done a basic cut-and-paste split of information: Lang Labor, Australian Labor Party (NSW), Australian Labor Party (Non-Communist). When I get a chance I'll see if I can expand them a bit. Frickeg (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trainer

Hmm, not sure. My sources are Psephos and the SA Electoral Commission, the latter of which says that Trainer was "Independent Labor". I'd agree with you that it seems pretty likely. Frickeg (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-member

No, I don't think there is a way. And if you think Tamworth's messy, you should see five-member electorates! The reason I'm doing them, though, is that I've been going through putting succession boxes in members' articles and when we have the multimember electorates just in a straight line (as in Electoral district of East Sydney) it's virtually impossible to follow. The UK WikiProject uses this method, and they've been in place in Queensland for a while (which is where I got the code). Any suggestions to making them neater would be appreciated! Frickeg (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please

As an experienced editor, I would think you would know better. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's still a personal attack. are you going to continue? My nomination was made in good faith...do you call others a twit when you disagree with them? consider this your 2nd warning. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported here Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Persistent civility issues for User:Rebecca — LibStar (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

u can haz minnow. (Hi, Ambi). Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Day of Empowerment

Hi there. You proposed this article for deletion using the reason 'non-notable event, only sources are blogs'; I have removed the template, as the article includes this source [7] from the Gay and Lesbian Times, which seems to be reliable. If you wish to nominate the article for deletion, feel free to do so, but I think there is at least some evidence of notability there. Robofish (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Protectionist Party

Hi, Rebecca, I notice that you've proposed that this article be deleted. I added this article when I started hearing about them, and I think that the party will become more relevant in the next few months for several reasons:

They have started leafletting the inner-west of Sydney, and organizing rallies, which is how I heard about them. There is no citation for this, but it does indicate that they are getting more active, in Sydney at least
The Sydney Morning Herald has started quoting their spokesperson
The whole issue of anti-immigration and racism has sadly become more relevant to Australian politics

So, while I can't directly address the valid points you raise, I do think that this party will only gain in importance. I'm also not sure where to discuss this, sorry! cojoco (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

It's not too late! - Just get it together and when you submit the DYK provide a character count and a FYI[here's] the reliable source confirming hook. -- Banjeboi 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake BG FAR

I've done some more work on it, added stuff about Kingston, and accounted for all the statements. I guess strcture and polish are remaining. Please do comment/reply on the structure. Unfortunately, nobody else has YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall riots

I wrote the article. The terms transsexual and transgender are not used for any participants. Transvestite is used for those who were in full drag. To make the determination that the participants were transsexual or transgender is OR. I reverted your edit because it is inaccurate. Please use the talk page to discuss this issue further if you disagree. --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj. You have new messages at Trevor Marron's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trevor Marron (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj. You have new messages at Trevor Marron's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trevor Marron (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piping Hot (surfwear)

Hi - I hope this finds you well! I added the debate you were having on Trevor Marron to the articles talkpage. Glad you could find some references, could you please add them to the article? Thank You! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're still participating in discussions!

Hi! I saw that you've contributed many important views and ideas concerning the LGBT Template. I'm contacting you to find out if you are interested in discussing some edits on it and its related discussions. Please read my latest comment as of June 30 and you'll see what I mean. Thanks! I hope to hear from you soon. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Protectionist Party, again

Hi, Rebecca, I notice that this article has been deleted. I can't quibble with this decision, as it seemed warranted. However, I can't seem to find any link to the deletion discussion. Can you let me know how to find such information as remains on Wikipedia about this article? Thanks. cojoco (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William McAnaney

On Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1973–1975 it says he was Heysen 65-75... Heysen wasn't around in 65. According to Adam he was Stirling 65-70. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, would you know much about my query at Dunstan's page? Timeshift (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woollard

Ack, you are entirely correct. I guess I just assumed, since Psephos lists them as LFF for 2001, and I never checked the commission. I'll revert it. Frickeg (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest ...

User talk:Archaic d00d#July 2009. The user is blocked and seeking unblocking. Before I would consider unblocking I would like to seek your opinion as an affected party. If you and Bilby are satisfied I may consider an unblock ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1980 candidates

According to Psephos, someone called Kevin Wise did actually run for both Canberra and Fraser. Not sure if this is correct - perhaps we should email Dr Carr and find out. Also, with regards to Madgwick - I agree that it's rather likely, especially since as a narrowly unsuccessful Labor candidate he was subsequently appointed by Keating, but I don't have a source to confirm it. Frickeg (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Steamship Company

You are coordially invited to the launch of the Adelaide Steamship Company page. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse article deletion

Hello, Rebecca. You deleted Solar eclipse of November 13, 2012 saying that there was no claim of notability, but I think that it is a notable eclipse. It has received significant coverage from NASA and HM Nautical Almanac Office. Please restore the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edjon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Solar eclipse of November 13, 2012 shows 00:29, 7 December 2008 Rebecca (talk | contribs) deleted "Solar eclipse of November 13, 2012" ‎ (no claim of notability). Edjon (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia at the Winter Olympics FAR

I think some ideas on the structure are needed. It doesn't llok great YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Janine Shephered. Do you know if she won anything or what her best rankings are. I can only find her promo associates saying she is a"champion" but not specifying any particular competitive achievements YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj/Archive24,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Australia at the Winter Olympics/archive1

Hi, this article is in the FARC stage now. Can you check back to see if your concerns were resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose

Please note AfD.--Grahame (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Photios

Hi, I have been adding info to Liberal Party Articles and I came accross the former member for Ryde and Vice President of the NSW Liberal Party Michael Photios. Could you please re open the link as he is still active in the Liberal party and the general community, and is 'worthy' of an article. Thanks .Watchover (talk) 11.17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Richmond High School gang rape

So sorry, but I was wondering if I could talk you into refactoring your comment here? Given the subject, and the fact that it's already a long and emotional debate, asking for the male editors to be shot might not be that constructive. While I agree with your sentiment, I'm one of those male editors, and I'd rather not be shot at today. The rest of the week isn't looking good, either. Take it or leave it, just thought I'd ask. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the comment was spot on, succinctly pointing out the male bias in downplaying gang rape. Fences&Windows 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essential point may be valid (certainly I think the article should exist), but the manner of expressing it is clearly not. It's unacceptable to say that other editors should be killed, regardless of the circumstances. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be best to not take it literally that the editor wants to harm other editors, let's all grow up and move on as the comment was obviously said in the heat of the moment and wasting time crying over it helps no-one. Timeshift (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret it as a literal statement of intent, but we have policies about things like this. At the very least it's a severe violation of the civility/NPA policy, and it could be viewed as a death threat. Everyking (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let's move on rather than waste time on petty non-issues. Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Death threat"?? Puh-leeze :p - Alison ^❤ 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note: EveryKing has brought the issue to WP:WQA here - Alison ^❤ 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I AfD'd the article for the very reason that I believed we needed to protect the victim, whose name people later tried to insert into the article. For this, I get a comment considering I should be shot? Well, thanks for that, Rebecca. Black Kite 23:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Andrew Landeryou

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Andrew Landeryou. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Landeryou (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random Pages Test

Hi there Rebecca. Sorry to see that you are retiring. I was hoping you can clear something up before you become inactive: On the page Wikipedia:Random Pages Test it is stated that the idea for a Random Pages Test was originally conceived by User:Ambi; "Ambi" redirects to your username.. If it is referring to you, can you verify if this is true? I just want to have the correct information there, because I found an old Signpost article: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-14/Article evaluations#Random quality checks, that states that in fact User:Kosebamse started these tests, so I'm a little confused.. did you conceive the idea while Kosebamse did the first one based on your idea? It was from way back in 2005 so if you can't remember that's quite alright. :) I've also left a message at Kosebamse's talk page to join this discussion so hopefully I can get this sorted out and attribute proper credit where it's due. Thanks. -- œ ^™ 09:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for the interest. I honestly don't remember whose idea it was. It may have been discussed as a concept somewhere and I may have then picked it up. The quality of articles was much discussed then and I seem to remember discussing them myself on some mailing list. I certainly don't claim any credit for the original idea. May I ask why the question has come up? Kosebamse (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh because of the contradictory information between the Signpost article and what's stated at the WP:Random Pages Test page. For historical purposes I just wanted to clear this issue up so the page can have the correct information on it as to who gets credit for starting the idea, otherwise I intend to remove the bit about who started it altogether. Rebecca (User:Ambi) responded on my talk page saying she does not know who started it either, so I will just remove the "...idea was originally conceived by..." line and repost this thread on the talk page as an explanation. Thanks for the reply, regards œ ^™ 20:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross River Meatworks

Regarding this edit, in which you removed the copyvio tag with the edit summary "The image is indisputably public domain", the copyvio tag wasn't placed for the image, it was placed because the copyright disclaimer didn't seem to provide for use of the text here. The disclaimer states "The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or electronically provided it is for your personal, non-commercial use, or use within your organisation; this material remains unaltered; and the State of Queensland is recognised as the owner." The content of Wikipedia articles can be used for commercial use and the state of Queensland isn't recognised as the owner so it seems that the copyright does not cover use here. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Stone GA

Thank you for your work in reviewing and passing the Lucy Stone article for GA. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Queensland suggestions

Other than expanding the Tourism and 1900s history sections could you provide any more suggestions on what else should be covered and the general direction that the article should head now towards to reach a solid B class? Thanks in advance. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rebecca! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 35 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 13 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Zurab Chiaberashvili - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sergei Shamba - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Gueorgui Otyrba - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Tsebin Tchen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
John Cherry (Australian politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
David Davis (Australian politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Kaye Darveniza - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Philip Davis (Australian politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
John Eren - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bill Forwood - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

More...

11. Geoff Hilton 12. Dianne Hadden 13. Monica Gould 14. Richard Dalla-Riva 15. Andrea Coote 16. Bruce Atkinson 17. Lucy Horodny 18. Peter Toyne 19. John Elferink 20. Loraine Braham 21. Sue Carter 22. Jane Aagaard 23. Peter Wong (Australian politician) 24. Rob Knight (politician) 25. Glenn Sterle 26. Carmel Maher 27. Tanya Gadiel 28. Garth Kydd 29. Kristy Doyle 30. Jacqui Delaney 31. Greg Donnelly (politician) 32. Nicola Lewis 33. Terry Mulder 34. Annastacia Palaszczuk 35. Shayne Murphy

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on following up on any of these? NW (Talk) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ravitch

Re your GA review of Richard Ravitch, I'm still intending to address those issues. It's been a couple of weeks already and I will need another week or so. If you can hold off on closing that one, I'd appreciate it! Thanks. Frank | talk 13:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for a second look, I'd say. Thanks! Frank | talk 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carmel Maher

The article Carmel Maher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP of little apparent importance. Fix it or delete it.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Viridae ^Talk 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bec, i've removed the silly prod. Honestly, some people. Only in January on wikipedia hey... Timeshift (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Carmel Maher

I have nominated Carmel Maher, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Maher. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Viridae ^Talk 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deptford

Hi Rebecca. Would you cast your eye over the work that has been done on Deptford to see if it now meets the GA criteria. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin bit restored

Just wanted to notify you that your admin bit has been restored. Please remember to use it wisely. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

Loxton FAC

Thanks for the review, I've replied YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And expanded as well YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revisit? —Aaroncrick (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back rebecca

Nice to see you again. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 23:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baden Teague

Thanks for the restoring of Teague. I wrote the article about five or six years ago when referencing wasn't in vogue and while it has always been on my to-do list to go back and reference this and other articles in the same boat, I never quite got around to it. Also, Wikipedia is for the better upon your return. Cheers, --Roisterer (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hi, I guess this is what happens when there is a general "call to arms" issued, as The-Pope has done. Casual editors such as myself rush into the fray, see a perceived crisis, and formulate their own methods of dealing with it. It might be prudent of me to knock myself back a DefCon or two... :-)Johnmc (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

RE: [8]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The Barnstar of Good Humor may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be. I think the caption says it all, once again, a very warm welcome back. Ikip 16:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice: You are being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people

RE: Extended discussion on Balloonman's opposition to NuclearWarfare's comment

"I completely oppose the proposal because the proposal, as envisioned by NW, would have applied to Rebecca... I don't know Rebecca. But she would have retroactively become responsible for editing and maintaining articles that she hadn't edited in up to six years! Her request and NW's desire to tie her to those articles provides the perfect reasoning as to why this is a flawed proposal."

Whether you like it or not, you are now part of the biggest dramafest since User:!! and the "secret mailing list" scandal.

Looking forward to your insight at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people. Ikip 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

Hello Rebecca,

While trying to add sources to articles I found that you have or had drafts of some politician articles that are far more detailed than the main space article, eg [9] which has found its way to [10]. Hopefully you are happy enough for me to work on the mainspace fork, but it means merging your material may be more difficult! It would have been nice if I could use your draft as a source, as you seem pretty knowledgeable on the politicians. PS are you going to change your user page? And are you interested in a local meetup again? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts to specific BLP articles

Hi Rebecca. I wanted to leave you a note personally to inform you that I have reverted some of your edits, citing WP:BLP policy. Examples include [11] [12] [13] although there may be more. There is currently a "high database server lag" on Wikipedia so I am unable to retrieve my recent contributions. They should show up soon in the next few minutes though.

In any case, I understand there is a project working on sourcing some of these articles. Please do not revert the removal of the unsourced content until such content is actually sourced. You can cite diffs to the project you are affiliated with if they wish to see the content that has been removed due to failing to comply with BLP policy. JBsupreme (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect JBSupreme, the time you spent mildly edit-warring on Kristy Doyle would have been better spent adding references to it. Sources were easy to find, and have been added to the page.

I support the removal of negative unsourced material from any article, including BLP's, but this content was both harmless and able to be sourced in less time than it took you to delete it (twice). Without wanting to belabour the point, can I also draw your attention to a yeserday's reminder on your talk page about the benefits of "curing problems through editing" rather than jumping straight to deletion. Euryalus (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another option either of you (JBsupreme or Rebecca) could use instead of edit-warring is to use the template {{BLP unverified}}, which links to an archive of the removed content on the talk page. This makes it easier to source the material at a later date while still getting it off the article page until then.--Father Goose (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Perron

Thanks for the comment on Marshall Perron. I was just going to reference the micro-stub but there was so much material I got a bit carried away! --Canley (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring and referencing the list of Perron's ministerial positions after the recent BLP drive-by! I had the reference but must have omitted it by mistake. --Canley (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dodd at FAC

Hello. Please celebrate Australia Day by checking out this article about an intriguing yet obscure Indigenous Australian, and contributing to its feature article candidate discussion, before it fails owing to a lack of reviews! Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking that out. Let me know if you ever need something reviewed. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

politicians

Hi Rebecca I am working through the politicians any way on the list, but JBsupreme's behaviour was annoying so I gave him a vandalism level 2 warning. We have procedures here for dealing with disruptive editors! There is plenty of information around, but we would have trouble for people famous for what they did before the 1990s with the state the web is in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where did you get all your information from? Was it based on one important source? such as Australian Journal of Politics & History? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deptford/GA1

Hi again Rebecca. The edits you requested have been completed over two weeks ago, a note left on the review page, and a reminder left on your talk page a week ago. I'm aware that other matters sometimes take precedence, and that this GA Review is not an urgent issue; however I thought it was worth pinging you again to see if you were either able to cast your eye over the article to see if it now passes GA criteria, or discuss other options. If you feel that you can get back to the review in a few days, that would be fine; if you feel that you would now be too busy, that would also be fine, and I'll look into asking someone else to complete the review. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator Hatchlings

Could I get you to move Adam Harvey and Adrian Griffin out into the real world again. Thx Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dittmer

Isn't it government-owned? And therefore, being more than 50 years old, in the public domain? That's how I understood it, but I'm by no means expert on this so if I'm wrong please set me straight. Frickeg (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Botheration. Does that mean that the Template:PD-Australia tag is wrong, or that I'm misreading it? Frickeg (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll start it. As an aside, I think the only ones from today that would be affected are the images from Dittmer, Ian Wood and Condon Byrne, but there may be a couple from Victoria or NSW that went through, or MHRs. I'll leave them for the moment then. Frickeg (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently images like this are in the public domain after all. Hooray! Frickeg (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family Team

I deduced. Too OR, you think? Considering Cains was still in the House for the Family Team and ran in the 1987 election for the AFM, it seemed a reasonable connection to make (the Jaensch book has lots of parties listed separately that weren't really). The AFM ran in both ACT seats in that election, but despite the fact that the Family Team was still represented at territory level it didn't run at all. You might be right, though; it's just so darn hard to find things on these minor parties ... Frickeg (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might leave it in for the moment until we find something more. There's next to nothing on the House online (I've been looking everywhere for a list of members), but as I'll be much closer to major libraries from now on I may be able to find something there. Frickeg (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How frustrating! Well, don't worry too much - I'll be in Canberra for most of this year, so I can always go and find it. Frickeg (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Nuttall

Thanks for the protect on Gordon Nuttall, I saw the content and probably shot first and asked question later, but given the nature of it, I reckon that was probably the safest course of action to take. Unfortunately, I had that nagging feeling when I did it that it was not going to be a popular move in some quarters. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Review

Were you intending to re-review Richard Ravitch for GA, or perhaps leave it to someone else? Thanks. Frank | talk 13:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City of Darebin

Seems to be a lot getting added to that article of late - I don't know enough of the local scenery to know whether it's justified or not. Orderinchaos 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Harisu

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Harisu/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NT Ministries

Do you think all NT Ministries should have articles? None except the Chief Minister has at present. There is nothing special about Attorney General. Also, could you have a look at Shane Stone. He was the most hated Chief Minister, yet this article is now a snow job with no mention of the criticism regarding his misuse of a clients legal documents in a preselection, or his handing of the statehood referendum or his letter re Howard. I am trying to clean it up but I am busy on other stuff. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that editor responds on the talk page, it would be good if you could comment. Bduke (Discussion) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Cornwall (South Australian politician)

Thanks for reverting the large amount of recently added unsourced items on this article. Ozdaren (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High Court of Singapore

Hello, Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj. You have new messages at Talk:High Court of Singapore/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackp sock User:ThrillerFilmFan

I think it has become clear that ThrillerFilmFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just another Jackp sock. Really I don't know way he doesn't get sick of it! Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Indeed :D Gotta hate cut and paste randomness... Orderinchaos 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra places

Hello, missed that I had re-reverted one of your edits o/wise would have discussed with you. However Kippax and Jamison are not suburbs - they are shopping centres within suburbs differently-named; and are absent from http://www.ga.gov.au/map/names/ (so Kippax Centre, Jamison Centre) - Dickson is a suburb, but the article for the shopping centre is not about the suburb as it has its own article (so Dickson Centre); Manuka is a special case- not a suburb, but a feature and an area of Canberra which quite reasonably has an article, but requires minimum qualification because there is an article about the plant from which it derives its name, so Manuka, Canberra. For Garema Place see St Vincent Place, Macquarie Place, Salamanca Place etc. for the established convention. Regards, (Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Mulligan

Reporters/journos on major tv news should be notable, but can you find enough RSs on Leith to meet the GNG? I couldn't, hence the prod.The-Pope (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Brookfield

Many thanks. The ISLP (and all the other NSW Labor splinters in the 20s and 30s) make my head spin. I wrote the article on Brookfield in wp and an academic from New England emailed me and gave a very long explanation about how Brookfield wasn't REALLY in the ISLP at all - he was going to write the definitive book, which would be published in 2011. Antony Green says the following: "Jabez Wright was appointed following the murder of Percy Brookfield. The Speaker had received correspondence nominating two Independents from the 1920 election, J.J. O'Reilly and T.F.Haynes. However, the terms of the Parliamentary Elections (Casual Vacancies ) Act stated that a nomination to fill the vacancy had to come from a recognised Party Leader, and Labor Leader John Storey nominated Jabez Wright". I can add that as an end-note as I think it is probably the most succinct way of stating the mess. What do you think? The Casual vacancies act was certainly ill-considered and was legislation on the run -as when the Nationalists ran out of candidates in St George. It was certainly used by Storey and Lang in a very partisan fashion - no wonder PR only lasted for 3 elections. Porturology (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Parliament of Singapore/GA1

Hi, there doesn't seem to be any progress on this review. Do you need help? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=Re John XXIII College (ANU)

Thank you for your very reasonable partial revert at this article. Would you have any great objection if I placed your talk page on my watch list as (a) apparently a Canberra-based admin and (b) a way of keeping an eye out for ACT-related discussions that might be of interest? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sedgwick

The disputed note is now sourced[14]. Thank you for the expectation of rigour. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economy section

Hi! I found this edit with the summary, "not relevant to this article."

I am going to immediately restore my edit. Rebecca, Trans Australia was Australia's national domestic carrier. The fact that it was headquartered in the City of Melbourne is of a great significance to this community. Locations of major companies always, always need to be in the article.

I must also add that I am going to add Rio Tinto, a currently existing company, which has its Australian HQ in Melbourne. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, not all of Melbourne is within the City of Melbourne limits. The "City of Melbourne" article is about the city government, but it also is about the sum of the area within the city limits. So the article also has to describe the schools, the parks, the history behind the municipality, etc. etc. BTW at some point I'll have to add the section to Melbourne City Centre as that is the business district that happens to be within the City of Melbourne. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the boundaries of the CBD and the City of Melbourne exactly the same?

If so, then one would have to merge the two together
If not, then they should stay separate, but the City article cannot solely focus itself on the city politics. It has to cover all aspects of the area within its boundaries.

However one does have to craft the content so that the CBD focuses on just the CBD, while the city article focuses on the city limits. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your full-protection of Gordon Nuttall for 77 days (so far)

Just a reminder Rebecca.

Could you please remove your protection of this page. A number of important events have occurred since your protection. (One event is Gordon Nuttall's appeal has been heard by the Supreme Court Of Queensland and judged).

Thank you Cablehorn (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seventy-seven lost days of Australian Wiki History

Thank you Rebecca for re-opening the Gordon Nuttall article for editing.

It should be publicly noted that, while significant Australian political history unfolded, Lankiveil, while being aware of the situation, did not notify you, or update this article, for the past seventy-seven days.

Lankiveil censored a large section of this article seventy-seven days ago saying,

"I'm no fan of corrupt politicians, but pretty much every politician makes unpopular decisions and this laundry list was over the top"[15]

Didactik pointed out,

"Criminals generate laundry lists; that is a common feature of criminality ... [and] ... his local actions were not simply "unpopular decisions", they were typically autocratic and covert actions. By definition, covert actions are neither popular nor unpopular." [[16]]

Lankiveil began the "Gordon Nuttall" article in April 2005 by saying (without citation or verification of any sort ... i.e. a personally biased opinion),

Despite Nuttall's situation "... he is an enormously popular politician within his own electorate, and he is not expected to be voted out at the next election."[17] (My bold)

The important point, though, is that Lankiveil knowingly allowed the Gordon Nuttall article to remain redundant for more than 2 1/2 months while about 1500 visitors were left in-the-dark, with some probably left disillusioned with Wikipedia.

Regards

Cablehorn (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing pretzel logic, Rebecca. You have removed information about decisions by Justices of the Queensland Supreme Court on BLP grounds. Totally indefensible IMO. Why are you coddling an ex-polly but not other prisoners like Schapelle and the Bali Nine? Didactik (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didactik please WP:AGF. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. What a bizarre concept - is this a monastic order? Here we have a few editors happy to create the impression of a certain politician as hail fellow well met. As a result of recent court proceedings, a clearer picture of this man is beginning to emerge and IMO these same people find this picture unpalatable. I do not accept good faith in this case; this is a whitewash. Even more ludicrous is the idea we need to counterbalance his infamy with comments such as "DYK he played lawn bowls?" or whatever (BTW his only real hobby was the acquisition of riches). Didactik (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing bizarre and concerning behaviour

Rebecca

The corruption charges and convictions regarding Gordon Nuttall are a most important chapter in Australian legal history.

If he had been found not guilty in his first trial, it would have set a precedent allowing ministers of the Crown to solicit and receive cash payments from members of the public, and keep the transactions secret.

It would also have allowed any public servants (members of parliament, teachers, nurses, local government officers ... etc) to do the same.

If this was the case, we'd soon descend into a Mexico/Columbia style state of anarchy.

You now tell me I should concentrate less on the legal aspects of the article and concentrate more on "... good contributions ..." or "... or the article will be reprotected and you'll be blocked for good measure."

The article, "Gordon Nuttall", was blocked from editing from 4 Feb 2010 to 23 April 2010 by you.

During this time Nuttall's appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard and judged.

On 23 April 2010), I filled in the missing pieces; to wit,

"On 12 February 2010, his appeal against conviction & sentence was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland before Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, Justice Hugh Fraser and Justice Catherine Holmes. On 23 March 2010 his appeal against conviction was unanimously dismissed, and his application for leave to appeal against sentence was unanimously refused."

(Ref: http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCA10-064.pdf Supreme Court's written judgment)

and regarding his second trial for 'official corruption',

"On 9 April 2010, the matter was mentioned in the Brisbane District Court where the Crown's representatives said they would not be ready to go to trial until early 2011."

( Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/09/2868422.htm ABC Online 'Fresh Nuttall trial not until next year' - Kim Lyell - (9 April 2010)

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/nuttall-wont-face-trial-until-next-year-20100409-rygt.html Sydney Morning Herald Online 'Nuttall won't face trial until next year' - Kym Agius - (9 April 2010) )

The above paras were deleted by you.

You then left this message on my talk page;

"Ah, silly me. I'd forgotten that you were the person who added the BLP violations to the article in the first place. You've got one warning - knock it off, or the article will be reprotected and you'll be blocked for good measure. The article could really do with an update and some good contributions, but your additions to the article were totally beyond the pale. Moreover, the article is bad enough as it is - it covers the corruption charges against him in ten times more detail as the entire rest of his career. As such, if you want to contribute to this article productively, please stop, thoroughly read and acquaint yourself with WP:BLP, and start trying to create a neutral, verifiable, and comprehensive article about Nuttall. If you can't do that, please find somewhere else to direct your energy - rest assured that re-adding that material will see you instantly blocked. Rebecca (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)"

So, we are left with Nuttal's appeal & judgement missing on Wiki. I find your attitude bizarre and concerning.

Cablehorn (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing others attitudes and behaviours of being bizarre and concerning does not assist arguments you put forth. Please stick to issues at hand rather than going off on personal tangents. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian place name convention

Hi Rebecca. There is currently a discussion being held at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention. Your opinion would be very welcome there. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lang Labor in New South Wales

Hi Rebecca There is a discussion on Lang labor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Your input would be greatly appreciated if you are about Many thanks Porturology (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim? Bruxner

Why do you consistently edit to a 'Tim' Bruxner on: Leader of the New South Wales National Party. There is no evidence of any NSW politician by that name. James Bruxner is correct. He served the NSW Parliament for 19 years and was Deputy Leader from 1975-1981: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/9281a10237f1f6d5ca256e2100035768?OpenDocument. Please stop making these pointless and silly edits. Regards Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. there is no 'ton' of evidence suggesting that he went by the name of tim, I did do my research and nowhere did it say he referred to himself by any name other than James. Dont say you did your research, when you clearly haven't, all the while not giving me any citations or references that support your argument. On no website or reference bok is he referred to as Tim and a simple google search reveals on the first page 9 references to a James Caird Bruxner and only two references to a "Tim" Bruxner, which I believe may be mistakes on the part of the speaker. Besides, if he, as you suggest, went by the name of tim...then why? Last time i checked Tim was short for Timothy not James, would that not be Jim?

References: Google search: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&cr=countryAU&safe=off&rlz=1G1TSAU_ENAU385&tbs=ctr%3AcountryAU&q=james+caird+bruxner&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= NSW Parliament: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/ResourcesFactsparchild http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/708fbcd69e69bee4ca256e2100054d6c?OpenDocument http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/1fb6ebed995667c2ca256ea100825164/9281a10237f1f6d5ca256e2100035768?OpenDocument

State Library of NSW: http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/search/simpleSearch.aspx?authority=name&ID=122641 http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/search/subjectsearch.aspx?authority=name&id=122641 http://investigator.records.nsw.gov.au/Entity.aspx?Path=\Portfolio\136

NSW Government State Records: http://investigator.records.nsw.gov.au/Entity.aspx?Path=\Portfolio\136

National Library of Australia: http://nla.gov.au/nla.cs-pa-HTTP%253A%252F%252FACMS.SL.NSW.GOV.AU%252FITEM%252FITEMDETAILPAGED.ASPX%253FITEMID%253D131171

All I found for Tim in a google search was this: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/d890a06557517cedca256e700008765e/3639cb1022dcd7464a25672e0002e1ba/$FILE/First%20Speech.Gardiner.pdf http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC19990512008

Where is your research? Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but based upon my 'research' there is literally no case for your argument, perhaps you have some information I dont? If so what is it, what does it say, why did he use Tim?. Let's work out this properly instead of behaving like lawyers and arguing our cases until one of us gets tired.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my intrusion, but I found the research debate interesting. I found numerous references to both the actual name and preferred name. The following book extract provides some good reading and a clear description of the prefered name - People and Politics in Regional New South Wales: 1856 to the 1950s By Jim Hagan --Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were old enough to live in regional NSW at the time you would know it was Tim (first time I have heard of James) Porturology (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "not to be snarky" does not excuse your complete lack of civility towards this matter. I am a reasonable person and, having been shown some credible evidence by other editors, have seen that both forms are correct. Note: evidence by other editors. I should have thought that you being the experienced editor who knows it all, compared to myself, would have taken my argument in good faith. Instead you resorted to the assertion that you have all the answers, therefore you have no need to prove your argument. I politely asked you for some evidence to state your case because based on my investigations, which I showed you on your talk page, I had not done so previously and instead you compeletely ignored me and went on a tirade, assuming bad faith. I hope that you may realise not to be so belligerent in your arguments and be a bit more reasonable to others in the future, and above all, assume good faith. I thank the other editors for their input in resolving this matter for the moment. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wont argue this matter anymore, you obviously havent the time to be reasonable and are now resorting to cheap insults. Which I find childish and really rather pathetic.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you missed my point. Actually, the book I referenced above quite clearly states that JC Bruxner was more widely known as Tim Bruxner. I found mainly legal documents seem to refer to him as James. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950 election

Thanks for the heads up - I have fixed the table. Thanks too for the words of encouragement - I am aiming to fill in the NSW gaps between 1950 and the present before the state election Porturology (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, stop it (re James/Tim Bruxner)

We're both agreed we want high quality articles on Australian polticians, right? And we're both agreed that Mr Bruxner was born James, held office as James, and was also well known as Tim? So let's stop fighting over the right name for the article and concentrate first on making a good article. There's no wrong answer and the world isn't going to fall down. Your move of the page without further discussion I think was unnecessarily confrontational, but in the spirit of making a better encyclopedia I'm going to leave it there for the time being and give you the chance to improve it to demonstrate your contention that reliable sources more commonly refer to him as Tim. (For my part, I've found that all the sources that call him Tim ALSO note that his name is James, whereas the reverse is not always true.) I look forward to working with you to make this a high quality article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frydenberg

Since you seem to be "admin on call" at OzPol today, I wonder if you could move Joshua Frydenberg to Josh Frydenberg? (Now there's one candidate even I'm not going to argue for deletion on.) Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

WP:LGBT's Role in HIV / AIDS articles

Is Pride POV?

Harvey Milk and Jim Jones

Queer Studies is offensive!

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery

This month's Wiki stars

Compulsive hoarding of templates

The Violet Quill and magazines

Mom's nagging for Pride Month

Fresh faces to brighten our pages

VC's at the Australian War Memorial

Electoral district of Ridley

June 2008

Sarah Palin

Notice and question

FYI

Messages

WP:ANI discussion

Richard White

Rail images

Usurpation @ fi-wiki

FAR

Murdoch

Pol Oz template

3rr

FTF

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

Sonia & Tamie

Usurpations

Usurp

More railway images

Rebecca at nlwiki

Civility

My Lionel Ovesey article is threatened with speedy deletion

Leake

Request

Criminal tag

Your comment

"bollocks"

Sergei Bagapsh

Interview request

AfD nomination of List of shopping malls in the United States

Australian Railway History

March 2004 railway station edits

Quick one re capitalisation

Deletion query

My RfA

LOL

Costa bipolar

Railway templates

Registered historic places

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Paterson Bridge

Grammar

RE:

Hang in there Rebecca

you might want to

Eight Hotels Australia

Article tagged for rescue

Moriac and railway lines

Three revert rule

3RR

Civility

Thanks

Gwen Araujo

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

Paterson Bridge

Thanks

Factual problems at Amanda Milan

Murder of Gwen Araujo

Murder of... and BLP

Dates in members tables

edit warring -warning

your comments and request

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

Keegan

Image source problem with Image:Bourkestreetmall.jpg

Happy New Year