GordonE

My edit to your user page

Hi. I just edited your user page to link to BARF Diet. I hope you don't mind. I found your comments about what you feed your dogs quite interesting, but I didn't know what BARF meant, and I thought future visitors might be in the same position. Feel quite free to WP:Revert my edit if you want. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Chris. I have been planning to add to the Raw_feeding article in some way, and thought it may be a good idea to show some of where I come from.

Hey, thanks for that pointer. I wasn't aware of that. Having grown up on a farm (near Naracoorte) where we fed our sheepdogs lots of raw meat, I have quite a bit of sympathy for the idea. BTW, I've added edited both BARF Diet and raw feeding to link to each other. I suspect they could be WP:Merged if people were interested. Regards, CWC(talk) 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind! Merging would almost certainly be a good idea.

And because it is a good idea, I have proposed it in the proper manner (5 June 2006).

Kelpie-Collie

Sorry for the slow reply, I'm not very active at the moment (work commitments).

I think the link is valid - if the article is on Wikipedia then it should be linked to from any other connected pages, and the parent breed is connected. That said, I'm not convinced by the article itself. I don't see that there is any real distinction between Kelpie-Collies and any of the other thousands of cross-breeds. If the article were referenced more fully and showed that there was a specific breeding program to develop this into a breed, then that would be a different story. But at the moment it seems to be unreferenced and not giving good evidence of notability.

There are two options really, either the article is taken to AfD, or it's improved with references to show that it is a valid subject (if there are such references). But while the article exists, it's correct to link it. You could take it to AfD as well as I if that's what you think best. But I would recommend talking to the main author first and asking her to provide more references and evidence of notability. That seems the best starting point.

I hope all that helps - probably not what you wanted from me, but my best advice :) -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I too have noticed the Kelpie Collie areticle, and think that because it isnt a true breed, it shouldnt be on wiki. However I have added the references tag and a cleanup tag and will wait a couple of weeks before nominating it for deletion. skorpion 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks skorpion. I have just realised that Ezza is only in Year 12 of High School, so may not appreciate the need for citations and research -- it's obvious she didn't fully read the Kelpie history! So I'm inclined to treat her gently...

Kelpie

Yeah, I hardly ever get on wikipedia any more because it's just too--too--ok, I'll admit it, addictive. So I'm also not so familiar with people who are editing and doing stuff although I am pretty familiar with all the dog articles, having been obsessed with them for over 2 years. :-) Anyway, I don't know what "the LDB page" is, sorry, maybe I'm being dense, and you didn't include a link to it, so I can't respond there. But comparing "Australian Kelpie" to "French Poodle" isn't useful--there's no breed club or kennel club anywhere that I know of that uses the official name "French Poodle." And comparing it to "Maltese (dog)" doesn't work, either, because there *is* no other designation among kennel clubs for Maltese--it's just Maltese--so there's no other name to call it by. However, since the major kennel clubs all DO call it "Australian Kelpie", it seems like a useful and reasonable way to title the article. SOOOOO then we can proceed into your argument which feeds into a much larger ongoing argument about whether the major kennel clubs are worth their weight in spit (ask me about my opinion of the AKC someday and get an earful--ok, no, you better not--) and whether it's reasonable in wikipedia to downplay the role of all other kennel clubs or similar organizations. THAT I don't have a great answer for either way. We've debated it off & on over & over. But IMHO as long as we have a widely accepted name for the breed, we might as well use it--if indeed the Plain Kelpie is considered to be a different breed by working-line clubs, then maybe there should be an additional page titled Kelpie (dog) for that breed, but then one wonders whether the info about history and appearance and temperament and all that will end up being 95% identical on both pages. So...I'd vote for leaving it as Australian Kelpie. You can copy my comments there if you want or let me know where it is and I'll do it next time I'm on, which probably won't be a while because in 10 minutes I'm leaving town again. I hope I don't sound curmudgeonly. I don't claim that resolving the dichotomies among working & show lines of ANY breed is easy. Elf | Talk 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

docga - etymologyonline.

I swear that I didn't see docga mentioned there when I look at the link, maybe i'm going blind now ^_^.

I really wouldn't have so much of a "problem" with that link if there weren't a wiki project alternative. As nice as that site is, it is best for wikipedia to use wikimedia sister projects instead of external projects unless the wikimedia project does not have information. That's all. - Trysha ^(talk) 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can go along with that, and I won't revert it. OTH, IMHO too tight a usage of wikimedia sister projects can get quite incestuous, especially if the sister project doesn't cite references. And what happens if the sister project then refers back to the originating project?

I notice that Wiktionary refers people off to "hound", without mentioning any of the history, the etymology, of the word. It is only my personal opinion, but when a (Wiki) policy demands (politely requests?) citations and references, those references should refer to some original research. Of course, original research is forbidden in Wikipedia... Gordon | Talk, 15 July 2006 @00:33 UTC

Maltese pic

I am the taker of that pic with the maltese. I am new to wikipedia and i am not completly informed about the copyright stuff. Is the copyright tag i chose satisfactory? I would like to recieve credit for taking the pic so i am wary about releasing it into the public domain. Please right me back and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Tobyw87 10:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Tobyw87, you're talking to another non-expert in the "copyright stuff". However, what you have done looks good to me... If you want credit, you may want to fill in the "Image History" bit. Gordon | Talk, 25 July 2006 @13:10 UTC

Sprotection of Dog

You're welcome. Amazing which articles get targeted for vandalism. I read recently that Cheese is a big sufferer apparently. Go figure. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Koongamia

Ok the latest streetsmart doesnt necessarily mean anything  :) believe me! I will check with DLI and or Geographic Names and Mundaring shire on Monday and will revert if i get the info, otherwise its good to see someone is keeping alert on this stuff  :) SatuSuro 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you believe the 2005 StreetSmart also says "no Mundaring"? However, I too have noticed the odd mistake or three in the StreetSmart directory... Gordon, 5 August 2006 @05:18 UTC

I have also sent an email. I think the UBD might acttually be more accurate (!?) - there may be some examples we need to straighten out for other wiki entries as well :) SatuSuro 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just looked on the Swan Online Mapping Facility, which can be reached from the main city map page, on the city website. Swan claim exclusive ownership of Koongamia... Gordon, 5 August 2006 @13:35 UTC

It gets weirder the more we go into it - I cannot remember hearing anything in the last year or so about changes in LGA borders in the area? Midvale is in Mundaring - and looking at the UBD 2006, the mundaring and swan border defies logic!? SatuSuro 13:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Och aye!!! But check out the Stirling/Bayswater boundary between Inglewood/Bedford and Inglewood/Maylands, just as an example. There is no logic, just politics! Gordon, 5 August 2006 @14:14 UTC

spelling ifx

Thats alright I'd hate to have to pay a dollar for every typo i leave behind it'd cost me fortune. Gnangarra 13:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Food

Greetings. I've been adding sources to the food article. I noticed you added the statement that nearly all forms of life have been eaten by humans. I was wondering, do you have a source for this, or is this just your supposition? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

G'day Quadell. No, it's not supposition, I just can't remember where I saw it... It was not that long ago, about 5, 6(?) years ago. I'm currently trying to chase down the source, but given the nature of these things, try not to hold your breath. If it's of any help, I do remember the quote was in a food-related context. Gordon | Talk, 7 October 2006 @01:15 UTC

Western Australia

Thanks for the note. Feel free to revert with that as your edit summary. It wasn't your revert I objected to; just the absense of an edit summary, as if the edit was vandalism. Snottygobble 13:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just goes to show I shouldn't indulge in rv's in the evening of a 16-hour work-day. Gordon | Talk, 13 October 2006 @13:39 UTC

Note to Self

Methinks merging Sulimov dog into Canid hybrid would be a good idea -- the info in Sulimov is not sufficient to keep it as a separate article, but it would neatly fill out the Canid article. 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

TOWN?

Gawd - check out Kalgoorlie - talk page for what might constitute a city - and you want to go on the record to call something a 'town' - you're brave!  :( SatuSuro 12:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yo! Kalgoorlie what a heartbreak old place it is - if you follow the issue - one of hesp (previously snot)'s mates - f-d killer (a sock, puppet or droid of some sort) used to put mount isa and kal up as deadend

issue in the list of largesst cities in the world (I think I got it back to front) anyways off to look at VP. cheers SatuSuro 13:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Like the look of the boxes and the map - they make me think I should get back to the mundaring burbs with stuff like that!-but is herrison island that spelling - its got me wondering where my road maps are! SatuSuro 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice map Ive moved it into the info box, can be moved out again if a suitable picture is taken(maybe I get time tomorrow) BTW. Iv'e given it a copy edit move orientation of LGA around to more logical positioning based on visual examination of map, added polly freeway. Hierrison Island is the correct spelling it named after a frenchman during their exporations of the river. Does Kings Park need to be highlighted. Gnangarra 14:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice map! Thanks for that. I was actually going to make something similar, but yours is really nice and neat compared to mine. :) Are they done for all the enclosed areas or do we pilfer at will? Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 10:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, one at a time... SatuSuro, yes "Heirisson" is the correct spelling, and no, I don't know the ethnicity, possibly French (I've just seen Gnangarra's comment above!); Gnangarra, it's purely a matter of my layout taste, but putting it in the info-box seems to make the info-box too fat, if you see what I mean? I've highlighted Kings Park and Heirisson Island in all the maps I've made 'cos KP is virtually unique in urban geography and a well-known tourist icon, and 'cos HI is, well, HI; Orderinchaos78, I don't understand "enclosed areas", but I've done one for each of the inner suburbs -- Peppy Grove, Subi, etc, which will be uploaded in the next few days -- just by highlighting the appropriate area. I'm making a companion set for the outer suburbs -- Armadale, Swan, etc. Gordon | Talk, 1 November 2006 @04:59 UTC

Thanks for confirming the HI spelling issue - good to see you guys have met (O-in_C and G-E) keep up the good work! SatuSuro 13:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mdg

Thanks for the new map and the cleanup! SatuSuro 06:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Villain Award

For GordonE for relentless and tireless challenging the geographically challenged

Hey your work is so thorough and relentless - the totally out of whack SatuSuro challenging the geographically challenged award is lumbered on his talk page SatuSuro 07:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, SatuSuro. Now I have to live up to it. Sigh  :) On the bright side, I think I've got all the LGA's, but must check if the "regional" articles have been got -- I know I've done some, but... (This is the downside of forking the articles and not cross-linking them.) BTW, the Mdg+ looks like a typo, so I'm tidying up the organisation. If it was deliberate, please yodel or something. Gordon | Talk, 5 November 2006 @08:09 UTC

Suburb / Locality / LGA

Rather than have it spill onto every talk page for every article, I'd rather sort this issue out and move on.

• First of all, I've looked at your work on Wikipedia across a range of areas and respect you as a fellow editor with a lot to add. I hope that nothing I say is perceived to contradict this. The maps in particular will be of great use.
• Secondly, we seem to disagree almost conceptually on the idea of the definition of a suburb.

The disagreement should be put to rest, as all the Australian Wikiprojects are very clear on what a suburb is - a bounded locality (LOCB or SUB on [1]). This definition seems to be unique to Australia and New Zealand in its formal sense, when I was in Vancouver a "suburb" was more like a broad term for a district - eg Maple Ridge, Richmond, Surrey, Langley - but would never be used for a "neighbourhood" as they called it (Kerrisdale, Kitsilano, etc).

The confusion between us appears to creep in especially when an LGA is named the same as a suburb. As I understand it, the suburb usually comes about first (eg Victoria Park, Stirling, Joondalup) then the LGA follows some years down the track. Unfortunately at Wikipedia, a trend previously emerged (in 2004-05) where people were using the *suburb* articles to put information about the *entire LGA*, resulting in non-inclusion of information about the locality. In very recent times it seems Australian Places has gotten on top of this and decided to use gazetted names, so the council and the suburb are clearly disambiguated and each can talk about what it does best. As a result we now have an opportunity to greatly improve the information available about the localities (suburbs). This is an ongoing process, which explains why some are done and others are not. I intend to complete all the LGA disambiguations this week but have been focussing on country areas lately.

There is indeed a lot of improvements to be made. Very few articles followed a standard until recently. The quality and quantity of many suburb and LGA articles was woeful. This isn't at all a reflection on editors - most of the articles were POV and written by IP addresses, or were just stubs. Country WA was even worse - often nothing at all of any kind whatsoever. I've had more time than usual so have devoted it to fixing up the articles and bringing WA into virtual life - like many WA people I feel that there's more emphasis put on eastern states stuff and indeed NSW is far more complete than WA is at the present time.

So what I'm saying is I'd like to work with you to resolve some of this deficit, and I'd appreciate if we could come to some resolution on this one matter so it does not become an ongoing problem every time both of us happen to work on one article where a suburb and LGA share a name. I do apologise for the length of this post on your talk page. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO you guys should cross-check with our mates fellow perthies and admins User:Hesperian and User:Moondyne as they have been at the coal face of australian place name debates at the important place - and for that matter User:Gnangarra - if you let em know your problems - I am sure they could come on board the conversation and give some ideas about it all! SatuSuro 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was coming to the same conclusion myself -- You recall I chucked a map into Stirling, Western Australia, because I assumed that it had had the same treatment as Victoria Park, Western Australia and Town of Victoria Park, ie: been forked. I realised that our problem is what you have just elucidated -- the locality is created, then eponymously names the LGA. What we've run into so far is collisions with locality articles.

(Hesperian, Moondyne, Gnangarra and SatuSuro, please invite yourselves in whenever you want!)

As far as definitions of localities goes, here is what I wrote on List of Perth suburbs: Many of these "suburbs" are in fact "localities", that is, they are not incorporated or otherwise legally defined entities. Western Australia uses (loosely) the definition used by the United States Board on Geographic Names described in the Wiki article Locality/Geography. So all we need do is agree on a name for LGA's. Any solution will probably not be adopted by the wider Oz community, so we could agree that a suburb is a legally defined entity, as opposed to a locality which is not. And the rest of Oz can catch up if they want.

I would suggest that in the interests of simplicity we simply rename the LGA articles to "City/Town/Shire of ...", but keep all the info in that article, don't fork it as was done with Vic Park (which still has no schools). We could keep the "..., Western Australia" titling for the localities -- I was thinking of trying "..., 'LGA'", but when we get something like Mt Lawley which is shared between Bayswater, Stirling and Vincent then this scheme will fail. Or look at the locality of Claremont!

Don't worry about taking space on this page -- one, that's what these pages are for, and two, if we don't do it now then we can never refer to it in future. I can always archive this discussion! Gordon | Talk, 10:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah cool - no worries :) Re LGA articles - they are all going to be titled such by the end of the week, so that will avoid one key source of confusion.

With the definition of suburb in Australia being synonymous with "locality", and with the common, media and legal use also reflecting that - citing Town Planning Act 1967 and its regulations as a notable example, although most acts play it safe and use "locality" - as well as its use Australia-wide - any government or agency form I've ever had to fill out, including a couple of hairy ones yesterday, has Suburb as a field - I think that the use of suburb on Wikipedia to mean postal locality in an Australian context is uncontroversial so long as we define what we mean by suburb for international audiences, which as I can see has been done. I think we should avoid any usage that conflicts with general usage, "leading the way" is tacking too close to WP:NOR IMO. The point of forking is really classification - information about two distinct areas with differing borders (actually three if you include the Electoral district too in the case of Victoria Park) should not be intertwined in the same article unless one is seriously non-notable.

Also, separation allows us to track changes - there is MAJOR shakeups planned for the LGAs in the next one or two years, some of which could see some disappear completely while others may assume quite different borders. An approach which requires minimal maintenance (as an IT person I'm well aware of the concept of data redundancy and its risks, so the less maintenance required to introduce a change, the better) is probably favoured for an encyclopaedia of this kind. Normalisation (that is, the resolution of redundant sets into distinct entities and relationships) should always be the goal unless normalisation would produce a result so bizarre and cumbersome that the system becomes unmaintainable (an example - making an article for every street, or including "This shopping centre has a barber, a Video Ezy, a camera shop, seven delis" etc in articles which I've seen here and there believe it or not!) Orderinchaos78 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have two differing regions with this, firstly the Perth metro(and outer areas) the treatment of burbs/LGA aka Victoria Park is definatley the way to go as each has sufficient unique information to warrant seperation.

Once you move into country LGA's places like Cue, Halls Creek, Bruce Rock, Yalgoo the difference between LGA and town events are difficult to distinguish. Then theres shires like Yilgarn, Victoria Plains, Gascoyne where they dont have a named town site to share. So with the country towns we should only follow the city conventions when theres sufficient information to split, the other LGA pages should be redirects to the town name.

Dam i hate 2am thoughts what do we do with Kalgoorlie, as Kalgoorlie-Boulder were once seperate LGA and town sites Gnangarra 18:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kalgoorlie-Boulder is going to be fun, as is Perth and Fremantle :P I can foresee trouble on all three. With the country ones I've just been creating fairly basic template articles for the LGAs, with information from 2001 Census, the council's own website, and a handy page I found which details the history of every council in WA. I then hit the street directory and online maps, then search each town to ensure it is indeed within the shire in question, then list it under Towns. I've not been including every one, as some really are just a point on the map about which very little is known. Orderinchaos78 12:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you believe we can practice for the rural centers (Cue, Bruce Rock etc) with Peppermint Grove? Peppy Grove has only one locality, Peppermint Grove, with the same boundaries as the Shire. (Oddly enough, Peppy Grove hosts the Cottesloe Primary School, and the "Cottesloe Central Shopping Center" at 460 Stirling Highway. I kid you not.)

I like the way this is shaping. I do feel that as much as anything else the LGA article should act as a summary of the localities -- I take the point about "intertwining" -- the type of info would be along the lines of what localities are shared and perhaps (if we can find out) why. (I suspect the sharing of localities is a result of LGA boundary adjustments coupled with a political reluctance to change the name and boundaries of the localities. A classic example is St Lucia in the City of South Perth which is now spread over Como and Manning, but still pops up in addresses. I understand the political fallout was terrible to behold.) Gordon | Talk, 12:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

<-
This appears to be working itself out. The only thing I would add is that suburbs and localities are in most cases legally defined (i.e. gazetted) places in Western Australia. For example, there really is a gazetted place in Western Australia with name "Stirling" and feature code "SUB" (Suburb); you can see the Gazetteer of Australia Online record here. And there really is a gazetted place in Western Australia with name "City of Stirling" and feature code "DI" (county, district, local government area, etc); see its Gazetteer record here. I think you'll find that every "suburb" you can think of will be a gazetted place.

The problem with suburbs isn't that they are not legally defined, but rather that in some cases they are legally defined entities that don't seem to have a cohesive identity; i.e. they are just a whole lot of houses cobbled together and given a name and a postcode.

Hesperian 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought appearance in there meant legal identity but I didn't want to argue something I didn't know :) Orderinchaos78 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Its great to see you guys are on the case - I have nothing to add myself except to say I'm happy to go along with whatever the consensus here determines - which I presume is along the lines of Victoria Park, Western Australia and Town of Victoria Park. Cheers (we must all get together sometime!). — Moondyne 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a site I use called meetup.com, I go to blog meetups sometimes and they can be quite interesting. Should have one for WikiPerth :) Orderinchaos78 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just remembered -- reminded, actually, when I saw it just now :-P -- what somebody wrote in the "Victoria Park" article a long time ago: "Victoria Park is also a locality within this municipality." I had forgotten that word. Localities don't have legal identity, 'cos they don't have governing bodies, unlike municipalities (City/Town/Shire). However, localities definitely do have legal status and definition -- how else could they be gazetted? So now we have the word I was looking for above, which is heaps more attractive than the acronym "LGA". Gordon | Talk, 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

• Localities/suburbs/towns have legal status and definition as geographic places.
• LGAs have legal status and definition as geographic places.
• Municipal/shire/town/city councils have legal status as political/governing bodies, but not as geographic places.

Real life likes to complicate things by conflating these. For example, "Stirling" may refer to a suburb named "Stirling" or an LGA named "City of Stirling". A worse example: City of Albany is both the gazetted name of an LGA (i.e. a geographic place), and the registered trademark of the council that governs it (i.e. a political entity).

Regarding municipalities, I believe that "municipality" was previously used in WA to refer to a particular kind of LGA, but is no longer. According to Ewers' The Western Gateway, Fremantle was governed by a "Fremantle Town Trust" from 1848 to 1871, then a "Fremantle Town Council" until 1883, then a "Fremantle Municipal Council" until 1929, and then a "Fremantle City Council" to the present day. When it was a mere Town Council it was governed by a Chairman; when it became a Municipal Council the Chairman position was elevated to a Mayor. What does all this mean? - I don't know, except that we must be very careful about applying the word "municipality". There is reason to believe that it is not synonymous with "local government area", irrespective of what was loosely written in the Vic Park article. Hesperian 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK guys - dont go down to Albany if you're not clear about all this - I think until recently there were two LGA's with Albany in the name - one was the town and the other surrounding area...SatuSuro 13:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hesperian: I think the person was using "municipality" in its loose, colloquial/idiomatic sense as a "governed area", what we have been referring to as "LGA", and that is cerainly the usage I would adopt rather than any technical sense. I have just looked it up here on Online Etymology. I just don't like the sound of "LGA", it's a bit like boiled fish: I'll eat it if I have to, but there really are better alternatives! Satusuro: Wasn't Albany one of the "doughnut" councils? They were big in the news a couple (3? 4?) of years ago, something about rationalising them. Gordon | Talk, 13:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Narrogin and Northam still are in this category - Northam actually looks like merging soon but Narrogin's voted strongly against it twice at referendum. Orderinchaos78 15:06

Update: Yep Albany was 1/7/1998 Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 21:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Off-subject

Gordon what do you think of the Bull Terrier article? I'd be interested. Oh, and yes Albany was a doughnut - I just dont have the correct date for the amalgamation. SatuSuro 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond on the Bull Terrier talk page  :) You asked a bad person -- I have a lot of time for them! Gordon | Talk, 11:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded by email for privacy reasons. I really appreciate your response - I do hope you can get a sense of things by the article referred to in the email. SatuSuro 13:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about being such a dagg about the Bull Terrier issue! SatuSuro 15:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. She's right. Gordon | Talk, 15:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Australian Kelpie - review

Thanks for asking for my thoughts on this article.

Commentary should go here are two examples

• but agility and ball games bring out the best—as with any breed.
• We should note that the first Border Collie was

Also the article should be more definitive between working and show dogs especially in the breed standards. and that should be 1st/2nd section not last. Trivia should go its not about the dog. Anyhow I'm short of time this morning I'll visit again tonight and give some more detail. Gnangarra 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks Gnangarra. I've followed your suggestions so far, & I fancy you may have something to say about the organisaton of the "Breed Standards" section, so I haven't altered it, only moved it. Gordon | Talk, 08:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

more

I've copy edited somewhat and reformated the layout and here are some more thoughts. I'm sorry for being so critical as its an interesting article and may even be worth making it a dab type page with links to both breed standards as seperate article given the diversity that appears to exist. Overall references need to be increased there are still a number of POV type statements and commentary, I removed some but didnt want to take what could be useful information away. Here are the running notes I took while reading, history section is noted finish to start as read first then worked back up the page. Gnangarra 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally if I'd reviewed at GA I would have failed and left you some of these suggestion, so recommend that maybe you withdraw GA nomination saying something like you've considered reviewers comments and feel it needs more work to bring it up to GA standard. Gnangarra

History

There is no Red Cloud Kelpie, beloved of Western Australians There was a dog called Red cloud, well documented as having riden mining company vehicles, even rated a 30minute spot on 6PR in the "way we were" on a sunday night which covers history with a focus on WA. the cite used is extremely poor "personal communication" doesnt have any authorative weight and would cause problems at FA.

Dingo Blood lines, needs cites who are the Some people and what opinion holds, who regarded dingos as sheep killers . it is not surprising that few—if any—would admit to the practice. needs to go its commentary.

(including the odd Dingo) occassional dingo maybe, but traites makes the Dingo odd, would a normal Dingo be ok.

Appearance

I changed that title to Description some copyediting created sub sections for working and show dog , added temperment and health as sub sections.

Suggest that a look at bread standards and consider whether it should merge into descriptions.

Lead

Think this needs to be more generalised mention two groups but keep to general info, summarise the article.

---

Thanks again Gnangarra, your help is deeply appreciated. I have delisted the article as you suggested. There is indeed a problem with the "pers. comm." cite -- I am surprised that Wikipedia appears to not recognise it, as it is widely used in authoritative journals, in a reportage situation. The problem we have is that the information has not been published, but comes from a reputable source -- the same situation many other researchers face. In these cases, it is usual to keep the relevant communication in a safe place, but not publish it. However, I will ask if in this case I can publish it. The dog you mentioned was "Red Dog", but yes, it was a red kelpie -- Louis de Bernières wrote the definitive story, but a Karratha woman whose name I can't recall also wrote one which was published here in Perth. I'll keep working on the article along the lines you mentioned. Gordon | Talk, 14:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately the price of no original research, but needed while most will honest in whats presented others will try to further their own POV without it. I'll keep an eye or two on this article an either tweak or drop you another note if I see something that needs attention, if I can be of service just ask. Gnangarra 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides I have on occassion discussed with User:SatuSuro matters based on personal knowledge/memory only to find sources later that significantly differ. Gnangarra 15:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re tech question

Entirely about sort order eg in Category:Local Government Areas of Perth for instance. One of those areas where Wikipedia is a bit messy I think... Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 08:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Goonininup - Kings Park

Do you remember the reference for this one. Gnangarra 12:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Aaahh... I did an AlltheWeb search on goonininup, but didn't look at any of the results. OK, the blurbs were not definitive, but very indicative. We could take the "Green Left Weekly" references? BTW, I wouldn't tie the name to a few square meters: I imagine it indicates quite a bit of the Scarp and down to the riverside. Gordon | Talk, 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Image sizing

Hey,

Your comment about TheJoshBot is a bit inaccurate, let enlighten you. TheJoshBot is an automated process that converts the 14 or so different aussie locaiton templates to Template:Infobox Australian Place. IAP is the new template to replace all of these templates (see the talk page for a complete list) and the bot only exists because there was about 1500 pages using templates that had to be converted. There is now only 500 left because of the collaborative upgrading of users. Also, there is a width set on the image (250px). The images are showing up fine, although the logos are not always, try setting logosize to override the default of 200px. Use only a plain number or you will confuse the system. (ex logosize=200) if you are having issues with small images, imgsize exists as well but it is preffered that you do not set this parameter.

--TheJosh 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah TheJoshBot is a standardisation tool, but now that it's been through, it's our mission to fix it. I've quickly put in all the necessaries into this one, so if you want to adjust (or if I've screwed up in my early-morning post-DST haze on the directionals) it's all yours :) Orderinchaos78 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Schools

Yeah - try in the main text - orderinchaos78 is usually better travelled in thisa than I am - I'd put them in the main text - its up to the box wizzes if they want to put them in there.... SatuSuro 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - the suburb has precedence over the LGA by the sound of it SatuSuro 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity - why are primary schools being removed? Orderinchaos78 10:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I never had any intention of listing them simply because there are so many of them -- very few localities have less than two -- but if there is general agreement that they are notable I'll leave them in where they're mentioned. If people want them listed, we can do that too -- OTOH we already have a List of schools in Western Australia...  Gordon | Talk, 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few suburbs up this way (north) have between two and four, and their establishment date gives some clue as to the development of the suburb (it's less important, obviously, in older and more developed areas). I think it's also very important to distinguish private from public - a private school can't be attended by just anybody and in my experience the school population draws very little from the area unless it's in a very odd location. My attitude to this is very much that from an encyclopaedic point of view, we're less interested in what's there and more interested in what it means (hence why I've only listed the name of the primary schools and their establishment years, and no more unless extremely notable) I've fixed the northern ones I can find (without bothering with the ones that are scheduled for a complete rewrite in the near future) Orderinchaos78 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problems there. Given your reasoning on the development of the suburbs, would the "History" section be the best place for them? When you talk about public vs. private, is that just primary schools or schools in general? It becomes important if we look at (especially) RC parishes -- I've already noted State schools via the "*SHS" pattern, and private schools generally have some fancy name, eg: "Mater Dei".  Gordon | Talk, 11:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The object of the "Senior and Tertiary Education" section is to provide some elementary framework for standardisation of the articles. If the date of establishment is known, this can be easily incorporated in the listing -- would this be an acceptable compromise?  Gordon | Talk, 12:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Arterial Roads -- Canning Beach Rd/Kintail Rd?

Yes, Kintail Rd could be added to the arterial roads templates, if you were to create the article. Of course, there are many arterial roads in Perth, but few have been created by editors. If you create the Kintail Road article, feel free to add it to the template.--M W Johnson 06:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a happy and safe Christmas season, and a blessed new year. Enjoy where you are, and who your with. Merry Christmas! From, Defrag and Jilly.

Canine copulation

"I've removed the copulation section from Canine reproduction, again. I'm not a prude, and I do respect the work you appear to have done dealing with sexual relationships of various types -- it's an area that must be reported. However, Wiki is not a grot shop, and anything as sensitive (as I am sure you appreciate) as this must be thoroughly cited. Alas, this probably means a cite in almost every (grammatical) clause..."

Hence why I tagged the article as needing expert attention. I'm no expert in the subject, the research I have done online is as best I'm able. I may do more. There should be a section of that type, covering that material. But I'm not an expert in it.

Then again I'm not an expert in veterinary and other biological-clinical subjects such as Pyometra, Hip dysplasia, Bloat, Phenoptosis, or Diabetes management (see: Article contributions), and those were also articles I substansively wrote too; writing wiki-articles is a pretty good education.

My basic stance is, I don't mind if the information I wrote is incorrect, and being replaced, but please ensure that it is replaced by factually valuable information. If specific aspects are unnecessarily detailed can you note the ones removed on the talk page as a courtesy so I can take a look? But the actual section should stand, and be correctly cited if needed, not just removed. In some articles every grammatical phrase virtually, in some sections is individually cited; that's quite common.

I think this must be a case of over-prurience. It's an article on animal sexuality, and readers will therefore expect and be prepared to find information of that nature. As long as it is reliable, notable in the article's subject, and policy compliant with regards to presentation, I'm not sure that skipping from the reproductive cycle to gestation with zero mention of the copulatory act itself is good treatment.

As for turning around, I base this upon my own experience of canine copulation, as I have friends who are breeders. I've seen it at least three times, two of which were photographed (one by myself, one by the breeder) as backup photos for other projects, so I don't think you can be correct about this, if you genuinely mean that turning during copulation is a mis-statement. Can you clarify this aspect of your comments a bit?

Many thanks, and happy new year. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: discussion moved to Talk:Canine reproduction, and back-history and material copied there from article and talk pages for completeness. Hope this is okay by you. I think it needs discussing, I just don't see this being a good deletion, although I agree cites and expert attention are needed (as stated) for the article in general. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good move.  Gordon | Talk, 13:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Talk:Canine reproduction, thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

1. Edit summaries such as these [2] [3] may appear uncivil to other users. Please try to avoid inflammatory edit summaries or summaries with "loaded words" such as "rubbish" and "garbage".

2. Edits such as this [4] appear to be disruptive to Wikipedia to make a point. Please find a less disruptive way to express your point about citations.

--Ginkgo100 ^talk 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

G'day Gingko. There are indeed a few of points I wish to make, and I have tried to make them on discussion pages. I will summarise them. ONE, Wikipedia is supposed to be a reputable, well-referenced encyclopedia, a research tool. Wikipedia is not a porn publisher. The passage in question (if appropriately cited) deals with a subject which should -- must -- be discussed in any worthwhile reference work. However, without such citation, it is no more than pornography and titillation. TWO, I quote from Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy, mandate the provision of sources. Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." (My underline.) THREE, at all stages I have indicated that such citations are necessary, and the reason I deleted the passage. User:FT2 is the only person who has raised any objection to my edits, and has done so in a manner which is completely contrary to his published aims of reconciliation. Had FT2 behaved in a less troll-like fashion, I would have been very happy to entertain his argument. But he didn't, and I treated him as I do any bully.

I am going to leave the supervision of this "Canine copulation" section in your care. Please be aware that FT2 is in no hurry to use the references he has already identified and enumerated -- "I'll cite it up shortly..." He's had 4 days to cite it, and quite frankly I do not believe he wishes to cite it.  Gordon | Talk, 12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that my message to you had nothing to do with the content of the article Canine reproduction, only with your behavior regarding the dispute. Also, the article is no more "in my care" than it is in yours, or in any other Wikipedian's -- see WP:OWN. If you feel some particular responsibility is owed to the disputed section right now, it's not appropriate to simply foist this perceived responsibility on a third party. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Without spiralling into heavy discussion, a couple of quick explanations, although the explanation on the article's talk page should be self-explanatory.

Your mass-deletion of sexually-related information was mostly accompanied by comments that the section is "venial", "rubbish", "crap" and "porn", a rhetorical question whether I felt a rating should be applied to the content, and some original research that you stated which was (as was evident at the start) unrepresentative and implausible. You then made a point and mass-deleted the entire section.

Upon the review of these on the talk page, the section was reinstated, at which time you played the game with WP:CITE to tag it around 23 times, although ignoring all other sections, necessitating a comment by myself and (to avoid a reversion dispute) RFC and independent correction by User:Ginkgo100. Improper use of policies and their wording whilst ignoring their spirit and intention isn't really approved of by communal standards; it is clear that the primary use of WP:CITE was not because the section is inaccurate or uncited and you have a wish to improve it (other sections are uncited and tagged as such too); but because you personally had a desire that the section vanishes. Finally, in response to Ginkgo's response (and as he points out), you are possibly at risk of being perceived to be veering towards incivility or personal attack ("troll-like ... "bully"), both of which are best avoided.

The difficulty is threefold - undeniably a section on canine copulation belongs in an article on canine reproduction; Wikipedia does not censor articles or restrict explicit information if relevant, and Wikipedia policies are not a means to make a point or submit your own personal view as OR. That is why the section stands as it does now, and why your handling of your concerns were raised by both Ginkgo and myself.

In respect of citing, I'd like to suggest that initially, perhaps be bold and consider researching canine copulation personally before seeking assistance or asking others to sort it out. It would probably be a very useful thing anyhow, especially if you plan to edit the article, and there are likely to be many online veterinary and breeding resources via Google to help you do so. That's all I did when you asked for cites, and if I can do it, so can you too. I'll be around, so if you don't succeed I'll have a go at citing up that section for you - but as I have a "real life" too, and researching takes time, it may have to wait a while if you want me to do it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

G'day again Gingko. I was wrong in asking you to look after the section.

However, it appears you did not consider the majority of my response. I came to Wiki as a pleasant break from 12-14 hour work days as a traffic controller, which is exacting, arduous and dangerous. I chose Wiki simply because it seemed to be family-oriented with an expectation of accuracy and precision. Now I have seen that Wikipedians are happy to put up with all sorts of smut without enforcing Wiki's own rules. In short, Wiki wants the right of Free Speech without the burden of the accompanying responsibilities of Necessity and Proof.

I don't need to be bullied by trolls, of which User:FT2 is only one. I have chosen to leave, permanently.

BTW, as it happens, the copulation section is in your care: you are an administrator and as such you are expected to uphold whatever minimal standards are permitted. If you have early-teen children or nieces and nephews, show them the article. Then explain how come it's allowed to be that way.  Gordon | Talk, 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)