User talk:Rebecca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

---

Contents 1 Starting a stub 2 Ned Hanlon 3 Thanks 4 ICJ case names 5 Sock Puppets 6 Westfield Eastgardens 7 Those lovable scamps: The Right 8 Serial vandal 9 A friendly suggestion 10 Members of the South Australian Legislative Council, 2006-2010 11 Le baron's stupid timewasting 12 Schapelle Corby 13 Michael Caltabiano 14 BOT - Regarding your recent protection of User talk:Rebecca: 15 Regarding the transsexualism photo 16 A humble request for your opinion 17 Regarding Association of Members' Advocates 18 Date links 19 re: Electoral districts 20 Sarah Hanson-Young 21 Gary Anderton 22 Westfield Eastgardens 23 Suncorp Piazza 24 Melbourne naming 25 Australia First Party 26 Date linking, again 27 Shopping malls 28 2006 Victorian election campaign article advice 29 Image_talk:Peter_Beattie.jpg 30 A local shop(ping centre) for local people 31 Westfield Tea Tree Plaza 32 Date linking yet again 33 Anon POV soap boxer on Western New Guinea 34 Question 35 Vandal 36 IRC 37 Preselections 38 South Osetia

Starting a stub

Hi Rebecca, Can you help me start a stub? I'm trying to copy the Australia-Labor-politician-stub template to set one up for The Greens, but I don't understand the process.

Ned Hanlon

Good Idea to move Ned LW77 10:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the useless comment over at Olympia Snowe sorry for trying to fix up a crappy article, I guess i'll leave it up to you then. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

ICJ case names

I just posted a response to your query about names for articles about ICJ cases, on the Project Law talkpage. I don't know that I advanced the discussion much, but I did want you to know someone had noted the question! Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

Hi Rebecca! Just to say that I think banned User:Ste4k has returned as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The latter appeared out of nowhere with a totally in depth knowledge of wikipedia policies the day User Ste4k was banned and continued the same policy of serial deletion of other editors work: contantly quoting wikipedia regs as she swathed through about 50 articles per day wreaking total havok, getting into edit wars and getting other editors into trouble with the admins etc etc Colin4C 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Eastgardens

I should be grateful if you would explain your rollback reversion of this article. JSIN 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Those lovable scamps: The Right

Hi Rebecca, found your tag when I was at a stub at Socialist Left and a quick look around your page indicates you may have some good advice. You are certainly much more experienced. I have been trying to fix what, to my mind, seems obvious bias in some linked articles relating to WA politics. Dr. Lawrence's article was primarily innuendo that she was somehow responsible for Penny Easton's suicide. Many other articles linked back there and contained similar unverified content, that is, libel. Or, if I can assist your contributions, you would be giving a novice some direction. Regards--Fred.e 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lawrence article doesn't imply any such thing. It seems to be a factual account of what happened. Adam 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your right, it does... now. Thanks for the support. But seriously, it can use some more good edits. Fred.e 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Serial vandal

User:152.163.100.67 has had about six "last warnings." See Kouros for his handiwork. Please crush him like a bug. Adam 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion

This comment is utterly unhelpful, and I would ask that you do not post anything like it in the future. I cannot help but admire the irony of accusing others of being uselessly provocative and lacking conflict resolution skills. How was that comment anything but uselessly provocative, and how could it possibly help to resolve any conflicts? Think before you post!! --Cyde Weys 03:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Members of the South Australian Legislative Council, 2006-2010

Why? Cause half of those listed *weren't* elected at the 2006 election... Timeshift 06:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But to have the intro say they were elected at the 2006 election is incorrect... what is the objection exactly? Timeshift 06:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Le baron's stupid timewasting

• Please review User:Le baron's recent edit history and Talk page. I and others have asked him many times to stop wasting our time and yet he persists. I think he should be blocked again (he has been warned many times and takes no notice), but I will leave that to you.
• I seem to be spending a lot of time asking you to deal with vandals and problem editors. Perhaps I should review my reluctance to become an administrator. My fear is that if I do I will spend all my time in disputes about banning and blocking people. What do you think? Adam 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I will take your advice on that. The ruthless PMA has now stepped in and zapped le baron. Adam 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby

Hi Rebecca. Tell me, what do you think of Catstail's edits to the article? I reverted - see my edit summary and his diffs to see what is going on. I don't think his changes are for the best, nor do i like his modus operandi. So far I have reverted once - no reaction yet from him (as I type this). I might let another admin know too in the mean time. Thanks --Merbabu 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, his 20 odd edits over 30mins just stopped once I reverted. No further contribs anywhere since. Coincidence? Ie, he's gone to bed and doesn't know about my revert, or maybe i scared him off??? lol. --Merbabu 23:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Caltabiano

I am interested in why my edits to the article made it worse. It seemed to me they restored some relevant info (the election defeat) and shortened the section while retaining the material. This is not the usual "how dare you revert my edits!" message - I genuinely want to know so it doesn't happen again. Jeendan 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The edit summary seems a little hostile, but I take your point. Jeendan 04:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of User talk:Rebecca:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the transsexualism photo

Well could you, on the appropriate talk page, outline your objections to the newest picture so I can address them. Please? I want to find a compromise that we can all be happy with. Please recognize the rigorous constraints of copywright and suitability for the wikipedia that I have to work under. Finding a picture or pictures to illustrate what needs to be illustrated will not be easy. --Hfarmer 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca. Those pictures are from other wikipedia articles and as I have shown on the talk page that Alison so graciously set up for discussing this matter those pictures do not violate the copywright. The way that I have used them is well within the fair used guidelines of the Wikipedia and the U.S. Copywright office. There is no arguement against them.

So it seems I have to drop diplomacy in this case. I have been able to reason with Lubos Motl on the issue of Loop Quantum gravity. I have been abel to reason with Andrea James on the issue of BBL theory. It seems you will not reason on the issue of this picutre. This is a picture that seems to be in good taste to at least one intereted wikipedian. Andrea Parton who cleaned up the caption and did not delete it.

Whereas you are being unreasonable the edit war has to be on. I have a high speed always on DSL connection and too much time on my hands for a 26 year old. I will wear you down. I will be able to keep this up much longer than you. I will strike everywhere you care about on wikipedia reverting your edits everywhere and reverting anything you do to me. I have more allies than you to help me in this. You will be unable to do anything on the wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The image is back there and it will stay there. Or else things you have done and do like here in the Wikipedia will be subject to votes for deletion and arbitrary cavalier reversion by me and my allies.

 :-) have a nice day. --Hfarmer 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Hi Rebecca. Regarding date links, can you please direct me to the debate where a consensus was reached? I'll gladly follow the community's view. Thanks. Harro5 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been informed by another user on my talk page that, as I had suspected, there is no community consensus on any area of this debate. I don't do these date link edits en masse (only to articles with a date link for every mention of a year) so don't think it is called for to use the rollback power on my edits. Anyway, I may use the script in future where an article is overbloated with such links (as is far too regular on Australian politicians' articles). Unless there is a definitive community vote on the matter (I'd suggest that you raise this at WP:CENT because a wider debate is certianly required for these issues) please don't be too forceful or aggressive in applying what is currently just one opinion on date links. Thanks, and please let me know if a major discussion is established. Harro5 09:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Electoral districts

Thanks Rebecca for your encouragement. It is a shame that I myself only found re-member (totally by accident, its amazing such a useful website is so hard to find!) when I was halfway through creating the pages. Anyway I was hoping to go back and add tables as well as create the remaining district pages before the election, but at the moment most of my spare time is being taken up campainging for said election. In any case in what spare time I do have I'll also work and help you get all this done before the election.

Also, you probably have already come across it as I've referenced it a few times, but in case you haven't Antony Green's election guide for the 1999 election [2] contains brief but sometimes useful background for most seats.

Regards Teiresias84 06:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young

Hi Rebecca, as per your previous opinions on this page I would appreciate you taking another look at it. It has been protected against re-creation without any real reason, when those arguing for its deletion actually encouraged it to be re-created.
Zzymurgy 01:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• • update: here's the link to my unprotect request. Your help would be appreciated. Zzymurgy 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gary Anderton

I am not sure if you have this one on your watchlist but could you keep an eye on it for me. Mainly because its very close to home for me and I am concerned that anything I do on wikipedia might conflict with my relationships in the Liberal Party. A user called User:Sally Moore, who seems to be very close to Anderton, keeps playing down his comments on his blog and removing unfavourable external links. I've written about this in more detail at the talk page. The best thing might be to nominate it for a AfD due to his not-notablity but ironically his whole blog incident possible might have made him notable? I haven't been around long enough to know. Anyway I've fixed up the page for now, but I would appericate someone else kept an active interest in the page. Thanks. Teiresias84 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Eastgardens

Hello, I'm wondering why you restored the article for that shopping area -- such places are not considered to be of encyclopedic interest, and the article was little more than an advert/product listing. I've made it a redirect again -- if you could explain why you think it merits an article, that'd be great. --Improv 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm deleting it as per CSD G11. If you wish, you may challenge it on deletion review. --Improv 05:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rebecca, thanks for reverting one of Improv's speedy deletions. I've added a History section to the Westfield Eastgardens article - the construction of the centre was a major political issue in Sydney back in 1982 which is still used against the NSW ALP to this day. Also, at the time it was Australia's biggest shopping centre for several years. Hopefully this makes it notable enough to give sensible admins pause for though before considering speedy deletion (although after the "biscuit wars"[3] I'm not too hopeful! --Canley 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Suncorp Piazza

Hi Rebecca, You reverted a change on the Brisbane page that corrected the incorrect name for the Suncorp Piazza. Please visit this page for confirmation of the venue name. http://matrix.ourbrisbane.com/corporate/venues/suncorp_piazza I have made the change to Piazza. This is particularly important as there is a seperate location called Suncorp Plaza located in the brisbane cbd. Thanks Rimmeraj 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne naming

Rebecca, your edit to the Discussion on the various names appears to have wiped out the preceding several comments. Are you able to clean up please? Reversion is such a blunt stick, and I've already redone my own edits once after an edit conflict. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Australia First Party

This article is being repeatedly hacked by Australia First people, and either they need to be scared off or it needs to be protected. Adam 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Date linking, again

Hi again Rebecca. I was interested in the comments you left on User talk:Hmains. I wanted to query your use of the term "mass-delinking". Having scanned through Hmains' contributions I can't see any evidence of this. An edit like [4] for example (selected at random) seems to me like a reasonable attempt to reduce overlinking; as you know, we have a policy that not every linkable item needs to be linked, and I think the guidance given is still Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. We also have "Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006, although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Correct me if I am wrong, but is your objection not mainly to mass-delinking of dates? I'm trying to see how your mass-reversion of Hmains' edits is helpful to the project, but cannot. You can answer me here or in my user talk. Thanks for your time, --Guinnog 11:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick reply. Having had a (quick) look at the user's contributions, I can't see a pattern that would suggest an automated process. Instead it looks like they are spending a few minutes copyediting an article; albeit, much of this does seem to be delinking years! Here's another random example: ([5]). As someone who does a lot of copyediting myself, I quite often remove links to years (and other links), where they a) are repeated within the article, b) in my view add nothing to the meaning of the article or c) contribute to an article which is made hard to read by overlinking. One comment I would make (and will pass on to my reply to Hmains) is that the edit summaries could and should be more informative, especially in a case like this where it has been the subject of controversy. I would always include wording like "delinked date fragments" or "lose low-value date links" where that was a non-trivial effect of an edit I had made.

Do you think there is any way we can turn this impasse into a productive discussion of policy? I know it has been discussed extensively already, but would prefer to at least attempt this than to witness another instance of friction between good contributors over a matter that seems fairly peripheral to the priorities of the project. Best wishes, --Guinnog 11:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca: I apologize to you for thinking you were using a different userid. I mis-understood the situation. After I realized my mistake, it was too late to fix it. Sorry. Hmains 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I'm not stalking you but you seem to pop up on talk pages that are on my watchlist. You say "you'd mind far less if at least some thought went into the matter - "is this date link useful?" rather than "date link! die!"" If this is the case, wouldn't it be more constructive for you to revert only those dates you think should be linked, not a mass revert. It seems to me that leading by example and teaching people which dates are acceptable to revert would be the better route. It is clear that just mass reverting people will cause friction and nothing is learned. David D. (Talk) 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Rebecca. Would it help for now if Hmains refrained from using the script? Would you then stop reverting his edits? If that is acceptable to both of you, we could then maybe return to discussing the policy implications. Fuzziness in the policy seems to be a lot of the problem here, aside from the misunderstandings which I think have now been ironed out. Best wishes --Guinnog 10:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Shopping malls

Hiya, please explain your reversions? Is there a conversation that I missed somewhere about how we want to have an article on every single shopping mall? --Elonka 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I'm not trying to "sneakily"[6] do anything -- There was a discussion about this kind of thing at the talkpage of WP:LOCAL, and a new template was created today, {{local}} which seemed to directly apply to many of the articles created by Tuddy (talk • contribs). I only tagged those articles which have no credible sources, and left the verifiably notable ones alone. And even with the ones I was tagging, please keep in mind that I was not flagging them for deletion, I was flagging them for expansion or possible merge, which seems completely reasonable to me. Also, please consider that if you would have gone to the trouble of contacting me in a civil manner and bringing up your concerns, or pointing me at any discussions that show there is consensus to keep shopping mall articles, I would have happily gone through and reverted my own changes. Instead, the first I learned of it was when you went through doing a mass revert of my edits. Was that really the best way to handle it? --Elonka 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the discussions/AfDs that you refer to, that show that articles about unreferenced shopping malls are routinely being kept? Also, I encourage you to please come in and participate at Wikipedia_talk:Places of local interest as to the usefulness of the {{local}} template. --Elonka 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Victorian election campaign article advice

Rebecca, you may like to add your opinion the discussion about the article format on Talk:2006 Victorian election campaign. Regards, Peter Campbell 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image_talk:Peter_Beattie.jpg

Do you have any other suggestions or are we doomed to have all our politician photos deleted? Timeshift 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A local shop(ping centre) for local people

Hi Rebecca, sorry, didn't mean to have a go at you on the {{local}} discussion. I'm also getting a bit sick of these campaign deletions or dismissive tagging of non-US related articles as "non-notable" or "spam" or "not meeting WP:CORP". I hate to sound parochial, and I know this is a global project, but I think the management, cleanup or deletion of these articles should be left to WP:Australia who can best discuss and understand what is required in an appropriate context. Looking more carefully at Elonka's contributions log, she did only tag Australian shopping centres, and should understand any justifiable reaction from Australians. If she'd tagged all Missouri malls, I'd have deferred to her local knowledge as to the appropriateness of the tag, and I think she should allow Australian users the same courtesy. Take care, maintain the rage, and I'll have a look at that Tea Tree Plaza article, see what can be done. (A few more keep votes just came through by the way!). --Canley 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Tea Tree Plaza

Thanks for the Factiva info. I'll add it to my search tools. I only get 5 hits when I enclose Westfield Tea Tree Plaza in quotes. Does that matter? I really felt the vilification of User:Tuddy was uncalled for. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Date linking yet again

I saw your message to Hmains and your reversion of his edits. Here's a suggestion. Why don't we three (and anyone else that cares to join) pick just one of those articles and see if we can go through it, link by link, and agree principles about when date links are and aren't appropriate? We will likely disagree on some, but I suspect you and he are both too hung up on principle by now. In practice, I think issues like this can only be solved by compromise and black-or-white approaches tend not to work here. What do you think, and if you agree, where is the best place to do it? --Guinnog 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this would be contructive and I think it would help to determine which links are the ones in the grey area and which we all agree on. I have every expectation that there will be disagreements but we need to start somewhere and i see no reason why this exercise could not be done in a calm and intellectual manner. David D. (Talk) 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Please see User:Guinnog/date linking. --Guinnog 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a table to see if we can establish some kind of rules-of-thumb about the value of different kinds of year links. It has been interesting to examine properly my own assumptions in this area. See if you can add something to it. --Guinnog 14:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution there. You are right that the way I've done it is imperfect; thanks for going along with it anyway. We just needed to get started I think, and I'm glad we did. I think the next step now might be to choose an example and talk about it, link by link. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. If you leave it with me I will draft up an example. --Guinnog 10:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now done this. I made up an example for us to discuss, adapted from a real article. If you look at the resolution page again, I've laid out my thinking and some simple ground rules. I'd like you, in your own time, to copyedit your own version of the article as the next step in taking this forwards. Thanks again for your good will in taking part in this. --Guinnog 12:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I've made the edit I thought you would have made, based on what you said in your various responses, and my own (unchallenged and I think consensual) idea that multiple links to the same article aren't needed in prose. Please, when you get a chance, see if you agree (broadly), that this would fit in with your approach. I'm awfully sorry, I just noticed from your user page that you were studying in real life for final exams. I can totally see why you might have better things to do with your time. Just do me this favour, and accept the diff or make a correction. Very best of luck with your studies. --Guinnog 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Rebecca. I took a preliminary look at the exercise; the results so far are at User talk:Guinnog/date linking. I would value your input. --Guinnog 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've finished for now. Would you mind taking a look? --Guinnog 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon POV soap boxer on Western New Guinea

hi, there is an anon IP making major POV edits to this page. I feel it already presents all "sides" objectively. But this ed seems to be trying to make a point. The only reason i contact you is that in my experience, it is the anon eds that don't care about NPOV or 3RR etc and I am thus at a disadvantage. --Merbabu 00:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rebecca. He had two goes add modifying the article, but has since stopped since i posted on his talk page. Coincidence or he got the message? Wait and see. have a good weekend --Merbabu 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that Merbabu is doing "Reverts" without any attempt to discuss the topic or their desire to 'revert' the article. Although the person who edited Western New Guinea a fortnight ago failed to cite references and did not explain the situation, their edit claiming the Indonesian action was illegal was correct. Indonesia admitted in 2001 that its attempt to divide the territory into separate Provinces was illegal under Indonesian law; but because Indonesia had already announced their intention to divide the Province they would not reverse the decision. Likewise, article 28 of the Indonesian Constitution protects citizen's rights to free speech and other forms of expression; but, again this is over-look when arresting or shooting West Papuans who raise the West Papuan national flag or discuss self-determination which the TNI and Police interpret as an act of treason.

P.S. There are no "sides", it is not a debate, it is meant to be a factual article. When I first wrote the article in 2001, it was about the territory west of PNG; a territory which had in 1961 elected its own Parliament and rename the territory as "West Papua", since that time Indonesia has used seven different names for the region, 'Irian Jaya' being the sixth name it used. It is a sad reflection that the article was made the subject of a neo-Nazi revert war and multiple re-naming by John Kenney and Wik and their sock-puppets who opposed the historical fact that Melanesian (black) people were able to form a government in 1961 or conduct any civil movement since 1965.Daeron 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

You have made some comments on the talk page of Bathurst railway station that are aimed at the previous comments of Elonka. As creator of this article, I was just wondering if there is something I can do to the article to stop it being deleted. I have undertaken several suggestions from Elonka, including adding refrences and information, but I'm still confused about what I have to do to satisfy Elonka's guidelines.

I have contacted the user on his talk page, but are yet to hear back. I have seen you do some very good and sensible things right across Wikipedia, and know you will be help. --Whats new? 09:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments and reassurance --Whats new? 08:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

58.6.40.187 has had half a dozen "last warnings". Please zap him. Adam 04:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks. Adam 04:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

IRC

No, not on IRC - I'm editing from work :) -- Chuq 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Preselections

I will see what I can do. Referencing will be a problem because this is an area which many people "know" but few people write down. Adam 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

South Osetia

Hi,

I do not think the term "Republic of South Osetia" is a proper one to point out the secessionist territory. There are many other ways to do it without using this term, which is incorrect in essence. For instance: "Secessionist territory of South Osetia". Maribge 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Maribge