User talk:Thewinchester/Archives/2007/June

Obscure humour

You have a gmail SatuSuro 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gawd - for the record - just in case anyone reads the afd and then trys to ascertain what we are up to - It was meant in humourous and good faith irony.

A big problem with valid lists - is I keep wanting to tag them (when doing the Australia project tagging) as rateable - but some projects are religiously putting them as unassessable

Anyways - enjoy the afd i see you have the weight with you :) SatuSuro 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

arrrr, the answer lies in the soil ↓- we all need more good dirt to spread on the playing fields of life ↓  :) SatuSuro 03:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow - how perspicacious that was! with arrows and all - anyone reading this talk page probably would not even get the irony :) SatuSuro 03:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts of reliable sources past...

Um, yes. :D In addition, their copyeditors need to be fired. Hell, if Channel 9 could do better and they weren't even going to print, these guys have no excuse. Orderinchaos 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging articles with db-spam

Hi Thewinchester. Could you explain why Connect Financial, ANCA (company), Jaycar, Network Video and The Reject Shop all got tagged as "blatant advertising" by you? What about these short stub articles made them read like blatant advertising? Neil ╦ 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You also tagged Red Herring Surf - an article which had survived AFD before and so was not eligible for speedy deletion. Please take the time to actually look at the talk pages of the articles you are deleting, and consider that many articles need editing, not deletion. Neil ╦ 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ogalo

What "link" are you talking about regarding the Ogalo article? (see my talk page).. Secondly the article is deleted! --Mikecraig 22:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Beerenberg Farm

I note your comment regarding the Beerenberg Farm article. For the record, I thought you were very patronising.Fitzpatrickjm 23:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he was referring to this edit [1] where you inserted the {{uw-test1}} template. It really was not the right one as Fitzpatrickjm had made a good faith contribution and had had previous dialog on the article's talk page. It was hardly an experiment or test. —Moondyne 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair call too there Moondyne. That's what you get for selecting the wrong option with twinkle. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. —Moondyne 05:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to both Thewinchester and Moondyne. I can understand the frustration associated with the ongoing battle tidying up bogus articles and deleting rubbish! Good luck in the future! CheersFitzpatrickjm 10:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Network Ten

With the category that was removed to this article before, what reason would this article/subject in question not be suitable for the category? --Mikecraig 01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

List of articles

Would be happy to provide a list of articles to you and others, that maybe are worth deleting based on other articles nominated for speedy deletion and reasons stated. --Mikecraig 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Specialised Container Transport

I probably did create Specialised Container Transport, probably because it completed the list of Rail transport in Australia#Rail freight operators. Are you intending to delete the other rail operators? Cruff, I suppose.--Grahamec 04:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Men in Black

I think it may concern WP:COI for LDS editors to delete embarrasing topics and claim they are attack pages. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey, I would ask that you assume good faith of fellow editors. As someone with absolutely nothing to do with the LDS (I'm somewhat shy of all religions personally due to my own experiences during adolescence in a "word faith" church) but I could see that it was an unreferenced claim that some organisation within a church is fleecing old women of their money, and that when that claim is removed, there really isn't an article. Furthermore, a Google and Factiva search failed to find anything of note (Factiva, representing the world's newspapers, did not in fact return a single match for either "Mormon men in black" or the supposed official title of the organisation). Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See talk page

See my talk page, I have permission to remove comments from my talk page. This includes edits from editors who may be spamming and violating WP:COI. I will remove any comments you place there. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Herring Surf

The article should now meet WP:CORP - perhaps you might reconsider your AFD? If it still doesn't meet WP:CORP in your eyes (the reason for it being nominated for deletion), please could you let me know why not. Thanks. Neil ╦ 09:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

When going through the hoops - some bods go gaga about what appears in popups - ie the first sentence - thus my alteration up there. cheers - hey you set a mean standard there! SatuSuro 14:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

bods - bozos on the bus - whatever you call them will want the title in bold and the continent in there so that the geographically challenged ...nah nuff said SatuSuro 14:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah - nothing to do with it - start really worrying when you get to longhairs count (most counter software refuses to count it) SatuSuro 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Wesley Inquirer etc

Hi, yeah I'd noticed the essay. Points well made. OIC emailed me about the same thing last night. I think I said something about turning the computer off and getting back to ra-ra training... What is it about Aquinas College that attracted so much of it all at once? It ended up with quite a tidy pocket universe going on... hey, is the Aquinas set of articles worth listing there ;)

I would really like to see these guys (they are all guys aren't they?) go out and edit actual academic articles rather than stuff they are so closely associated with. But good luck convincing them of that, every article they edit ends up with some AC-related template slapped on it (footballers it seems, are only notable as having previously attended AC, even if they play international football....). Garrie 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know (as the article's author), WP:AQC's been MfD-nominated. Orderinchaos 11:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Tag team article improvment

agree its also nice to beat some of the major media outlets to the punch, i expect some vandals to appear in a while better keep an eye out. Hossen27 07:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good that will save time. I've been surprised by the lack of images so far. They have been reporting that there will be three Victorian investigations and i think also a federal one, we should look into this. Government sources are always a little more reliable. Hossen27 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn looks like the whole side is ripped off there. Hossen27 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sky news just showed channel 9 chopper live footage. Hossen27 07:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You will see them in the evening news, i think the SMH pic was a still from that footage. Hossen27 07:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

After i started the AfD process with that article, i then realised that looking in the category we might find alot more and hey presto i thik i found all of them. Thanks for making all of them into one huge AfD.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award this to Thewinchester for his tireless work on Australian AfD's Savin Me 08:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work on Australian AfD's Savin Me 08:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way around the AfD process, whereby you can just delete them (without afd) citing a precedent. eg: "We can delete Girls Sport Victoria Sports Champions because that was the outcome of Public Schools Association Sports Champions"? Savin Me 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

Why was Image:CBCPerthMain.jpeg deleted? The uploader had added a {{PD-Australia}} template and you tagged it with {{db-badfairuse}} (#i7). Why would it need fairuse rationale if it was PD? What am I missing? —Moondyne 10:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries (I'll undelete it). Remember that just 'cause they came from LISWA doesn't mean that they can't be PD. The copyright and permission needed tags that LISWA and others add to these old photos are generally bullshit. Anything pre-1955 is public domain and valuable material worthy of keeping on Wikipedia. —Moondyne 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Schools

They are all the same unfortunately. My daughter attends Noumea Primary School. How hard is it to leave it as a section of a suburb article until I scrounge up two independent references?Garrie 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aiming to do similar standard work for all the education supplements for the free over the fence local rag.Garrie 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Order

and sleep do not correlate - I keep pointing out he has made more edits while his notice at the bottom of his talk page editors who are not active than when he did not have it up . sigh SatuSuro 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP Music

I got called away mid-setup with this work, sorry about that. Sadly, the overall WP:AUS documentation is falling behind, mostly in regards to sub-project assessments. Any assistance to get that side of things up to speed is most welcomed. -- Longhair\^talk 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can only try

You can't be too careful in a POV dispute like this ;-) Hesperian 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gunns 20

The claim it's supporting is that opposing parties consider the case to be silencing criticism, so of course it's going to be someone with that POV saying it. —Pengo 07:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He said it, He's said that he's said it. Why do you think we need another source to say that he's said what he says he's said? —Pengo 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Hi there, I was wondering if you could look at this article List_of_most_popular_social_networking_platforms_by_country and see if it is one that should be deleted as per reasons stated? Appreciate your assistance. --Mikecraig 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw your edit on that one, thanks for your help. --Mikecraig 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Consultation?

What is it with Wikipedia editors today - trying to do everything in secret are you? Why didn't you ask me about the article before just nominating it for deletion? Your behaviour is rude and not fair. I haven't even finished it and you want it deleted already... JRG 05:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking why you didn't even ask me before you just go ahead and delete the article? JRG 05:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please answer the question (without swearing at me)? JRG 05:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I find the title of that essay offensive and take it personally as an attack on me - don't refer me to thing like that. All I am asking for is that you consider asking people who create new articles like this to consider sourcing or something like that. I am not a newbie - I've been here for a while and I can communicate. To just launch straight into AfD isn't really fair. If it's spam or something like that or clearly not notable, or sourceless, sure, but a bit of asking and consultation would go a long way. Especially when I only created the article a couple of hours ago. JRG 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No it's not - you should have asked beforehand as would have been the civil thing to do; nominating an article only an hour or two after creation, despite sourcing, and without consultation, appears to be a personal attack on the editor who created it or some comment that you don't think their edits are worth it. Again, I ask that you please stop using that word at me. I would like an apology. JRG 05:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

JRG, you're creating a false impression by referring to it as "an hour or two after creation", rather than "an hour of two after recreation". Hesperian 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'm sorry for accusing you of bad faith. All I wanted was some consultation. I'll leave things for now. JRG 06:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"A user you've been having run ins with over school content "

Dear Thewinchester, Let me say on the outset, that it has never been my intention to vandalise any Wikipedia page, just provide some consistency between the various Australian School Pages and School Sports Pages.

I have only gone along with what has occurred in the past, and as such, implemented the previous decisions as new pages have been formulated and developed. This applies to table formats, alignments, usage of full and shortened names and the presentation of information in general.

I am happy to agree to a format, and if you wish to change it, then that is fine, but let’s try and be consistenent.

And let’s try and be up front with one another and not sneaky as your comments below to Pkortge .

“I'll not mention the username, but he's got three warnings from me on his talk page and he just loves to play around in school related content. Know who it is yet? Chances are you do, and i'll happily inform you the user is on constant watch for his recent activities. It is understood the user is some kind of school archivist who has his own unique views on things and will happily make changes without seeking consensus or following policy. If you have continued problems, let me know via talk or click on my email the user link and i'll see what we can do to help you out. Thewinchester 10:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)”

Yes, I am a professional school archivist, well respected in my field in Melbourne, Victoria and across Australia. I also work at an independent school, and have worked at many others in Melbourne, so I do nknow the system very well. I also know what informaitponis availble on-line and what isn’t. I though Wikipedia was a place where missing information on the www could be presented ina cohesive, and regulatory manner, but if that is not the case, then please let us all know, and we can go elsewhere.

PS: I have commenced a Discussion re: School Table Formats on Category:Australian schools associations

Sincerely Steve Stefan 07:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Moment of silliness

User:Orderinchaos/Notability. Orderinchaos 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Thewinchester, Since I've had a couple of days to think about things and some time away from editing here, I wanted to sincerely apologise for my appalling behaviour the other day. I'd like to think I had an excuse (and maybe I was a little stressed from exams), but there really wasn't and isn't any excuse for being rude to you. I want to apologise for my actions, especially in assuming bad faith, which was not the case. I do appreciate your work - there's some really good stuff there (the railway line diagrams in Perth are excellent, for example), and I hope that we can work together in a much better fashion in the future, putting this behind us. As a precaution I'm staying away from all AFDs unless I can make a useful and positive contribution to them. I will not be revisiting the Northern District Times AFD or any following related one at all. JRG 13:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag on FAIR article

Hi, Thewinchester! I noticed that you put a POV tag on Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research. I don't see any explanation for the tag, though, and the article seems pretty devoid of overt bias at a quick glance. (Second glance: hmm, some potential problems like "refuting accusations"and "wanted to defend their faith", which I think could simply be phrased more neutrally. Not much else though.) I wonder if you could kindly wander over to the article's talk page at some point and post a comment describing what you think is problematic from a NPOV standpoint. Typically it's expected that the editor who posts the POV tag supplies a reasoning for it, in case you weren't aware. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 21:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I cleaned up the wording a bit and removed the POV tag. Have a look, and if you still see POV issues, feel free to restore the tag with accompanying commentary on the talk page, or else do further cleanup if that seems better to you. Thanks! alanyst ^/talk/ 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian Egg Corporation

It gets my prize for the weirdest article i have seen this week - and then i notice you have been there - any idea why the link brackets have been given some spare air? SatuSuro 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam Townsville

Hi Thewinchester, thanks for your note, as suggested I have started a discussion on the talk page. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 05:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vizard

That looks great, and the couple of {{fact}} tags can be cleaned up in due course (and they're not the mother of all BLP claims, either). I've unprotected, and I'll let you do the honours for GFDL etc. One thing - the "Most of Vizard's former friends in the entertainment industry..." sentence probably should stay out for now, especially as it doesn't have a source. Cheers, Daniel 09:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ikea

dear sir, am not testing the pages that information that i added in ikea page as sure of it , and if you dont mind chick thei catalog . PS : exuse my english am not a native speaker though i like john grisham <email addr removed> --87.230.179.105 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough already

You might want to take the time to look back at the history of each page you decide to alter (remove the content) and note that the information I have added, was already on those pages some 2 or 3 months ago. I am just re-instating the information, as was previously presented. I am happy to provide all references. Steve Stefan 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The information you deleted was added to the original sites months and months ago, by not only myself, but many others. The reason why the tables were moved from the parent site to a new page, was due to size and volume, not because they were irrelevant. If the consensus is to delete this type of info, then ALL this type of info should be deleted including that from the Head of the River or any other sporting competition that lists previous sporting winners. And your comment about "other issues such as copyright, arguments that the republication of this information may deprive said organisation of revenue" is a joke. Revenue, oh purlease! And copyright, well, now that is very silly too, its research, pure and simple. Steve Stefan 02:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Irked sir? You are not alone - the user has a long history of needlessly antagonising editors: User_talk:Eusebeus#Just_wanted_to_let_you_know..... Feel free to add this to the list as evidence for an eventual RfC. Eusebeus 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

G'day! Actually, I found out about it because I remain active in the schools debate, so this came up on the radar. Monitoring Alansohn - aside from wikistalking issues (which are serious) - would be almost impossible given the huge number of edits he makes. Some of us did dig around for evidence when we were mulling an RfC, but with so many edits, who knows what's there? Who, frankly, has the time, which is no doubt how he gets away with bullying, attacking and berating others. The real problem is that Alansohn is always convinced of the (moral) superiority of his own viewpoint. It is not only that he can never be swayed by other arguments - he cannot even tolerate honest disagreement, and instead resorts to attacks and name calling, thus irking those around him. I'll add your ANI to the RfC evidence list. Eusebeus 13:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I simply couldn't agree more. As my exchange (whereafter I gave up) here [2] shows, there is simply no room for accommodation, and disagreement is met with accusation. If you wish to proceed with an RfC, let me know and I would be happy to pitch in as would, I suspect, a number of other editors who have been harassed, bullied and accused. Eusebeus 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

response

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I replied in detail there. I really do appreciate your manner and spirit in politely engaging in a discussion of the issues. Let's keep that up. I can see that there's been a lot of heat generated in these discussions as well as personality clashes (something we're all tempted to do), but I'd rather avoid all that if you don't mind, even if we engage in heated arguments on the issues. Feel free to respond to my reply. I think it's easier to keep the discussion on one page. Noroton 15:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

I just pressed the send button as I got your message. Don't lose heart and fight the good fights. —Moondyne 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perth Meetup Notification

	Perth Meetup Next: 3 December 2023 (watch) Last: 22 July 2023 Other events: WikiClubWest events were suspended due to COVID-19; future events may or may not be subject to restrictions.
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

• You are invited to a meetup of Western Australian Wikipedians on the 19th August 2007 in the tearooms of Tranby House. Please sign on the Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 if you are able to attend. you recieved this message as your account has been active during May, June 2007 and your user page is listed in the Category:Wikipedians in Western Australia Gnangarra 03:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)