User talk:Longhair/Archive12

I noticed that you made a small contribution to Peter Foster (added a tag). Can you please take another look at the "article"? I have tagged it for lack of proper citations, POV, and weasel words, but a few IP editors keep removing them without making significant changes. One editor dumped a load of supposed sources, but didn't link them to any specific statements.

I'd like an admin's feedback on the situation.

Thanks. Prometheus^-X303- 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just discovered that the WikiProject Cricket banner has a parameter for "australian-sports". Does that mean that any talk page containing {{WikiProject Cricket}} should not get a WP Australia tag? --kingboyk 12:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Longhair. I'd appreciate an elaboration on why a YouTube video clip is unencyclopedic. I added a number of Naomi clips on September 6 that included her abject apology for the swearing incident. Seems to be it would be worth keeping. A direct link to a video clip is a lot more reliable than a news citation. Your thoughts? MrMonroe 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as you asked.

Hkelkar 12:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it is very boring but I guess the log of activity helps.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote I'm blocking that particular editor on sight now. It's so trival to create an account for editing, but some editors (including this one) are (ab)using the anon facility to create havoc and upset otherwise good contributors. Whilst it appears not much is going to be done with this pest, keeping an activity log of their unwanted behaviour will be useful to justify our blocks if they're ever questioned. I agree with your approach. I documented my approach at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*#Statement of AYArktos' intended ongoing reponse to this editor just so that nobody was under any misapprehension, plus of course on various talk pages as relevant. Apart from the occasional rants and abuses, the issue is trying to rewrite history with uncited assertions about Coolac. If it was cited, no problem. I think she should know better, she appears perfectly capable of citing sources at other times. The policy is unambiguous about unreferenced claims. She keeps on threatening sources - I would welcome them.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a poll going at the Talk:Syd Barrett page. Would you like to participate and help us solve an issue? TheQuandry 01:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Longhair, I just realised this morning that you commented on my page on the 16-9, but I didn't see it. Not sure how I missed it, but sorry for not replying. :) My RfA has finally finished and the result was 160/4/1. I'm completely blown away by how much support I recieved from so many truly fantastic people. Thankyou so much for your support and for offering to nominate me yourself. I feel really honoured that you were willing to put your name up there beside mine.

On an unrelated note, I asked the Australian editor User:Deon555 about the backslashing because he is involved with the open proxy project and he posted a few links on my talk page here about the backslashing business. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't giving you false information the other week. :)

Please keep an eye on me and let me know if I do the wrong thing! Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um....thank you for the welcome. ^_^ Whatocean 11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an AOL ip, though. In any case, if it comes back someone else will take care of it (feel welcome to watch the page too :o)). I don't think long-term semiprotection is required either. Have a nice day. --Asterion^talk 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Longhair. I actually noticed you doing some editing to Dupas earlier this evening and I thought it was looking excellent. And you've found some great references like the Crime Library (their article had me distracted for a while!). I'll go through the article closer and see if I can come up with any suggestions, but, from what I read earlier, it is definitely heading in the right direction. I've been following the case and it will be interesting to see what comes out in these new hearings.
By the way, how do you get the Aussie flag on your pages? I really like it up there and I was trying to work out the code on your page, but I can't figure it out. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks Longhair. I didn't know that about Crime Library, so thanks for the heads up. I have free access to a heap of databases like Factiva, LexisNexis and the Aust NZ reference center, so if you ever need a hand with research, give me a yell. Thanks for the admin feedback, I really appreciate it. :) Cheers Longhair, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I found newspaper articles from the 80s on Factiva and the Aus NZ Ref Center for User:Ghostieguide, but I'm really not sure about the earliest dates LexisNexis archives. The Australian LexisNexis is described as "Contains Australian legal content and provides access to a wide range of legal information and journals. It incorporates the areas of Civil, Consumer, Corporations, Media and Intellectual Property Law. Content includes cases, legislation, commentary, forms and precedents and journal articles." It doesn't cost me anything so I'm more than happy to run a check on whatever you want. Just let me know the keywords to search for. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I enjoy doing research, so don't hesitate to ask. :) Cheers Mr Longhair, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Nice work, Longhair. I'm going to go over it properly, but first look and I'm very impressed with how far you've brought it in only a day. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Longhair, I changed Dupas to "alleged serial killer" because the serial killer article defines it as "someone who commits three or more murders". So far Dupas has only been convicted of two murders. I'm sure he is a serial killer and that there will be more convictions to come, but I thought in the meanwhile there should be consistency between the articles. I've been searching for an article on criminal signatures, but there doesn't seem to be one. The closest seems to be MO. I'm bit surprised by that. I might try and write something up over the weekend. I think that would be a good keyword to wikilink. The article looks very good, I've only noticed minor stuff so far. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Did look for a userpage as per comment,like yours but cant adapt it. Can u plz help?--Nathannoblet 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i dont know you, but I DIDNT INVITE YOU TO THIS DISCUSSION.

--Maxasus 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

144.138.196.230: This IP is Adrian Jackson, a well-known local pest who was expelled from the Liberal Party for anti-Semitism and amuses himself making nuisance calls to Danby's office. He has already been blocked once under his previous IP and should be blocked again until he desists. Adam 09:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. Since it predicts a glorious Latham victory in its opening section I'm not surprised. The para on Danby is a way down and is tripe anyway. Adam 09:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to protect Division of Melbourne Ports, too. Adam 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could I ask that you remove the offending and highly offensive edit from the article's edit history? I don't think even a politician should be subject to that kind of abuse. Adam 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will ask Mistress Rebecca. She don't stand for no nonsense round here. Adam 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know anyone can get rid of edit summaries that might cause issues for a BLP; as long as the page isn't massive, just delete the whole thing then restore all the good edits. I've gotten rid of the junk from the Danby history. --Peta 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you any good with template syntax? If so can you work out how to make the content not bold in this one {{Lighthouses of Victoria}}. Thanks. --Peta 08:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This site lists them all, I'm in the process of updating and expanding our list right now.--Peta 09:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Do you think you'd be able to chip on the deletion review discussion and help me keep this crap deleted? Rebecca 07:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're all absolutely notable - I'm not disputing that! It's more that they were a bunch of completely and utterly useless nanostubs that were worse than having no article at all, and seemed to only serve to boost the author's edit count. I'll probably get around to writing new ones in the new year, but in the meantime, this crap really needs to stay deleted. Rebecca 08:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bgmag88 10:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. When will that statement in the entry's history be removed? Bgmag88 10:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That deflamatory statement concerning Naomi Robson made at 06:50, 30 September 2006.Bgmag88 11:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been. ((cur) (last) 06:48, 30 September 2006 Bgmag88 (Talk | contribs)). Sorry for any inconveniences caused. Bgmag88 11:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the deflamatory claim in the naomi robson article has still not been deleted from the page history. In the warning notice, it said that after making a formal appology to you, you would be able to delete the claim from the page history.Bgmag88 11:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the deflamatory statement:'Naomi, while being on a supposed 'current affairs' program (which is rather tabloid like, has absolutely no crediability in terms of journalism, and is harshly regarded as a 'media slut'.'Bgmag88 11:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I realise that the text has been removed from the article, but I thought that it could be removed from the page history. So that is not possible? I deeply appreciate your help.

Acknowledging that that deflamatory comment was very inappropraite, not to mention invalid, will there be deflamation problems that may arise?Bgmag88 11:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May you protect this page: Template:Pokepisode, there is a edit war going on. Thank you (Yugigx60 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)) [reply]

Hi,

A while back, you said that you plan to be around Victoria to check out the GHC. Any chance you could be there tomorrow? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are able to have someone else complete the task without too much trouble, that would work for me as well. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next week sounds good to me. Thanks! --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in answer to you question. Yes, The LiveWIre IS goin ahead.

Thanks, Thewizkid93 19:00, 3 October 2006 (AEST)

Maxasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I see you've banned him for 24 hours?

Interesting, since he's actually Joshuarooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks against me and others, along with the use of sockpuppets.

Just thought you should know.

The evidence is on his userpage (His name is signed multiple times) and my talk page (1). Also Rooney's autoblocks were rescinded, and Maxsaus had to fight an autoblock before joining wikipedia. I'm not too sure of the time frame in which both were done, but it's suspicious to me.

While none of his current escapades are as personal as his previous ones, just thought this might be of interest to you.

Logical2u 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with my Israel vandalism accusation. --Tuvok 20:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have responded on my talk page to your comment. --Tuvok 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again: Tuvok's Talk page

See above. --Tuvok 04:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I still don't really understand all the protocols -please be patient as there are literally thousands of rules here, and unless a person wants to give their life to learning all about wikipedia, newcomers are going to break some of them. What I don't understand about adding comments is whether it is possible to reply to separate points in something someone else has written. Is it only possible to add chunks of text below other chunks of text, and never to reply point by point without really ticking someone off? To me, *that* is what makes a discussion confusing. Can you do it if you copy and paste their signature after their words, or is it just not done?thanks70.20.150.139 11:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) that's me-DianaW 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thought I let you know that the Anon returned but only stayed for a short time User:203.54.186.203‎. -- Bidgee 14:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Longhair :) . -- Bidgee 10:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There editing there talk page however I'm not going to revert User talk:203.54.174.219. -- Bidgee 10:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There back again Contributions: 203.54.9.95. -- Bidgee 10:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Returned yet again 203.54.186.180. -- Bidgee 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I seen that there username was odd so I thought I would check it out. -- Bidgee 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Longhair!

It would be useful if I could email you about something adminny. Could you drop me a line? ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: "Adminny stuff" or similar. Ta! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Around now, but probably a bit early in the morning for you :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Longhair, for your tireless contributions, for spotting things like ACOTF when they're broken, and for helping fix them when you've identified them. Cheers — Donama 01:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently nominated a page for speedy deletion and the talk page was not deleted. Please delete it: Talk:The_Greeks_Don%27t_Want_No_Freaks Thanks! RickReinckens 03:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I'll let you know, if there are problems or more than 10 edits per minute (smile). I did just send these two notes to the project team members - who are SOME of the editors on the page, any feedback is always welcome on how I am facilitating this. Wonderactivist 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Waldorf Project Team Members, I just wanted to let you know that two proposals have passed on the Waldorf project and two more - one based on Fergie's starting place - have been set out for discussion here. Feedback has been given that the project has been going slow. I apologize as I had hand surgery a week ago, but truly nothing should wait for one person. If we each check in once or twice a week, we should be able to get through the article in a month or two. I would appreciate your valuable insights on the proposals and timing. Wonderactivist 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Edits In clicking around to user pages to send the note, I have seen that the edit wars are truly still raging - they just have moved from the Waldrof page to user pages. As a result, I do not advise speeding up this project - time will be well-spent hashing out the disagreements civilly, with the result being a better page for Wikipedia and its readers. The problem with this page, overall, has been each person's need to push their own agenda without taking time to consider other viewpoints. Please do not resume your edit wars on the page. Wonderactivist 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project"

Thanks forthe to do edit - because truly ending the wars are the first "to do." It will help us to focus Wonderactivist 12:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC) and thanks too for the encouragement! Wonderactivist 12:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the discussion at this link. Edit wars are difficult to avoid if a user is unwilling to discuss the item properly; User:Pete K has repeatedly reverted a long-standing section of this article that conforms to Wikipedia policy. Hgilbert 01:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Long-standing" doesn't make it correct. HGilbert seems to think that he can grandfather in his POV... which happens to agree with the POV of the Anthroposophical Commission he continually wants to site to refute Steiner's racist dialog. Ted Kaczynski's neighbors thought he was a great guy. Should an article about him include their testimony? Or is there some voice of reason that says what his neighbors thought of him is irrelevant compared to what he actually said and did? There is NO reason to included the testimony of Anthroposophists that support their guru in discussions about readily available comments by him that constitutes racist speech. HGilbert has sought to remove Steiner's ACTUAL WORDS with the excuse that the article is too long. Making room in the article by removing the biased and unnecessary findings of a commission of Steiner's OWN FOLLOWERS (especially when the entire article is written from this POV) is a reasonable solution to Mr. Gilbert's concerns about how crowded the article is. Steiner's views about race and ethnicity are best expressed by quoting Steiner's OWN words, and not the biased opinion of a farcical commission of Anthroposophists. --Pete K 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the following "diffs" vis a vis Pete K's edits:

• Oct 2, 2006
• Oct 2, 2006
• Oct 2, 2006
• Oct 2, 2006

There is clear consensus around including the commission report, which Pete is ignoring (and edit warring). Incidentally, I have not removed Steiner quotes from this article except in two cases, when they were duplicated here (case 1) or in the main article Rudolf Steiner (case 2). This is a false accusation. Hgilbert 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus regarding the report. You and Goethean vs DianaW and myself. Are you suggesting a "consensus" can be had by simply ignoring the views of people you don't agree with? You, BTW, repeatedly removed quotes from the main Steiner article. I'm quite sure Longhair remembers this - and that I had reintroduced new quotes each time - for which you and TheBee tried to have me banned. This is not a "false accusation" in the least. That you work with partners to edit the article back to YOUR POV, really says very little. You are not independent editors, you are working as a team to push an agenda and a POV. That a team of people can promote a dishonest view on Wikipedia is unimpressive. I insist that Steiner's words should speak for themselves - and people who think they can "summarize" Steiner's views on race and ethnicity fairly WITHOUT suggesting that Steiner's views on race and ethnicity were racist, should step back and consider they may have missed something. --Pete K 23:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is no place for tens of quotes on a specialized sub-topic; see Wikipedia:Quotations. I created the sub-article in order to make space for a topic that needed fuller treatment without overwhelming the main article. Your accusation above referred to the sub-article, from which I have deleted no quotes (except duplicates, as noted above). My answer also referred to that. I will continue to move excessive quotes from the main article to the sub-article, where they belong. I agree that Steiner's words can speak for themselves, as can others' words; it is normal to include various POVs. You are being untruthful when you say that you are trying to only include Steiner's own words, as you have inserted Hansson's critical views. In reality, you and Diana - both blatant POV pushers and members of the PLANS organization which opposes Waldorf education and anthroposophy - are trying to make sure that only negative statements are included.

Note that the commentary removed in the following edits is completely unencyclopedia, POV-pushing commentary on the material, and any experienced Wikipedia editor would agree that it was completely inappropriate. I am going to take the matter to dispute resolution. 68.193.184.127 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the edits of the Waldorf Supporter tag-team in this edit sequence:

• 11:40, 2 October 2006 Hgilbert (Talk | contribs) (→Report by the Anthroposophical Society's Commission on Racism - remove unclear modifier)
• 11:31, 2 October 2006 Hgilbert (Talk | contribs) (→Report by the Anthroposophical Society's Commission on Racism - remove commentary)
• 10:03, 2 October 2006 Goethean (Talk | contribs) (rv aggressive, uncivil pov-pusher)
• 09:38, 2 October 2006 Goethean (Talk | contribs) (rv aggressive, uncivil pov-pusher)
• 09:09, 2 October 2006 Goethean (Talk | contribs) (rv pov-pushing)
• 03:53, 2 October 2006 Hgilbert (Talk | contribs) (→Report by the Anthroposophical Society's Commission on Racism - remove commentary)
• 03:51, 2 October 2006 Hgilbert (Talk | contribs) (→Recent Charges of Racism - neutral language, restore deleted content)

--Pete K 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try this again:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

--Pete K 23:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longhair,

I've just posted this in the discussion page of the now locked "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" article, but I thought I should bring it to your attention here as well.

The locked article, as it stands, contains the defamatory statement below: "In an article [38], written in 2004 in response to criticism [39] of the Swedish branch of the CSICOP [40] for publishing and defending defamatory writings about anthroposophy by a repeatedly unreliable author, Peter Staudenmaier"

Wikipedia administrators should consider removing this statement about author Peter Staudenmaier as there is no support for this statement and leaving it there without such support is malicious. It is unfortunate that this article was locked after such a malicious edit and personal attack. Despite the disclaimer, I feel Wikipedia bears some responsibility for leaving a malicious attack on an individual visible for many days (or maybe even weeks) without allowing it to be addressed or removed. I would recommend using a previous edit as the locking point for this article. You will note my edit described the previous ones as "vandalism" - and it was reverted by editor Goethean, thus replacing the vandalism. --Pete K 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Bluetongue, Longhair With regards to the Schapelle page, - are you both aware of the 3-revert rule?? [8]. I suggest care be taken. --Merbabu 09:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! (Hope I'm doing this right, not used talk pages before. Let me know if I screw up. :) -Jasonb 10:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Some of User:Pete_K's edits to Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity border on vandalism. He is extremely persistent and uncivil, deleting sections of text without warning, edit warring, and attacking anyone who disagrees with him as a troll. He is a single-purpose account, dedicated to deleted positive information and adding (what I see as highly selective) negative information about Rudolf Steiner to articles. Can anything be done about this? — goethean ॐ 19:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A peek at user Goethean's talk page reveals he is simply a trouble-maker with little regard for actually editing the pages here. He goes from article to article trying to get into fights with people. His own talk page reveals HE is uncivil, not on one topic but apparently on ALL topics. In the article he describes above, I have gone to significant effort to discuss the edits I make in advance if possible or to explain in detail after the fact when I made them without previous discussion. The talk page on all articles I have had the opportunity to edit is always replete with my discussions on those other articles. User Goethean has, on the other hand, done exactly what he accuses me of - ripping out sections of direct quotes by Steiner and reverting legitimate edits that have been discussed by me and without any discussion on his part. This IS vandalism used for the sole purpose of pushing his own POV and if some action is taken it should be taken against this user.--Pete K 23:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a seen similar behavior on the PLANS article. He gives policy and consensus "lip service" but quickly abandons both with an "I don't care", and threatens to start an edit war to get his way. Professor marginalia 16:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are just as guilty of this nonsense. I suggest we all use the discussion pages and AGREE before making ANY edits on ANY of these articles. Or let's say, anything more than a sentence. That would allow reasonable corrections to be made without the edit wars and the wholesale stripping or insertion of entire sections could be discussed in advance. But it would take more than the three of us to come to this agreement. --Pete K 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Pete is now suggesting ravaging the Rudolf Steiner biographical section (see Talk:Rudolf Steiner in total violation of the above words. Hgilbert 15:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shameful misrepresentation of what has transpired. What have I ravaged? In EXACT accordance with the above words, I am discussing this on the discussion page. I haven't ravaged anything. It was suggested by another editor that much of the biography of Steiner could be abreviated as it is insignificant. I agreed. I assume Steiner isn't your sister - why you would get so upset (ravaging???) about a discussion regarding what to leave in the article and what should be discarded? It's a discussion - JUST LIKE the above words that I have proposed. That's what editing an article is about - making changes to make the article read better and more precise, and more accurate. The editor that suggested these changes IS A PROFESSIONAL EDITOR. It's what she does for a living. The recommendations were absolutely reasonable - and I agreed with them. I suspect the administrators are getting tired of your whining - I know I am. --Pete K 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear Lord, "ravaged"? It was me who suggested all this, not Pete. Admittedly I was fairly flip about what I see as some completely ridiculous content in the Steiner article. But my suggestions would certainly improve the article, and the removal of flattery and fawning tributes to someone whom it is clear the authors of the article personally look up to (Steiner) really would make anthroposophy look better to those encountering it via wikipedia. It shouldn't read like a tract passed out by Steiner groupies - this makes you look less credible, not more.

Despite some unpleasant insinuations to the contrary I am a professional editor "in real life." Editors are used to authors being kinda bummed when they're told their article would be better if it were shorter - and I'm accustomed to having to tell authors (somewhat more politely than I have done here, it is true) that their article simply *is* going to be shorter; I often just have to say, "Here is what we are going to print" - and I can tell you I am not often accused of having "ravaged" the article. This is taking things a little personally. I suggested moving material that is not of interest except to anthroposophists (quaint details about Steiner's childhood, details of his early career that are largely irrelevant to his substantive accomplishments; such things as the title of a book he wrote on Nietzsche, that is not even of interest to Nietzsche scholars). Going on about Steiner's architectural or sculptural accomplishments is not credible; I don't know how to put this more gently. I can guarantee you that if you hired someone to improve this article they'd do just what I suggested doing (admittedly without some of my satirizing).

Elsewhere, I suggested (perhaps you'd prefer the word "demanded," as indeed an editor would do if this were submitted for publication) that where you state that Steiner wrote a series of articles for a magazine combatting antisemitism, the reference needs to be to, well, the series of articles - not to anthroposophical web sites "summarizing" "Steiner's stance on antisemitism," and not to FIVE FULL VOLUMES of the man's collected works (which you originally hoped no one would notice). All of my suggestions unquestionably improve the article, and if you submitted it for publication - outside of anthroposophy - this is exactly what you would encounter. And I only worked on a couple of small sections of the article!DianaW 03:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On "The editor that suggested these changes IS A PROFESSIONAL EDITOR. It's what she does for a living.":

You mean the professional editor, who after her first session here at Wikipedia described it on it on an off-wikipedia mailing list with:

"Y'all know me here, so you know what I did. I ranted and raved, and then I ranted and raved. I ranted and raved systematically, every 2 hours or oftener (kind of like feeding a baby; is it really 2 hours between feedings, if you time it from the start, and the baby nurses for an hour and forty-five minutes?), anyway I did this in reply to every single *$%^## piece of smoke Sune Nordall could blow. I practically slept at the computer.

I was *very* pleased when he basically cried uncle." ? --Thebee 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, more defamation from TheBee. What a surprise. Are you disputing that she is a professional editor? Or are you pointing out that you don't like what she had to say ON A DIFFERENT WEBSITE. Again, what a surprise. And you brought these comments here to attack her personally. How nice. Shall we grab some of your famous rantings from the internet and post *them* here? Again, this is more childish nonsense. Please address the issues and stop defaming the participants on Wikipedia.--Pete K 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Defamation"? The above just uses the method you recommend for representing Steiner: Quoting him and letting the words speak for themselves. "Shall we grab some of your famous rantings from the internet and post *them* here?" Feel free to quote four sentences from any of the websites for which I am partly or wholly responsible as webmaster: Thebee old, new, Waldorf Answers or Americans for Waldorf education if giving the original source URL. Anything beyond that I'd consider a copyright violation and will complain to Wikipedia about it. As for the WC site and list archives, everything published there, that are postings or texts I've written constitute copyright violations there, and will do it here too, if posted by anyone else than me. I expect if Diana opposes to the quote above from what she has written regarding wikipedia as a copyright violation, and tells about it, it will removed as such. --Thebee 18:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you will get a reprimand for your behavior here so I'm not going to engage you in this nonsense. Diana works full time as an editor. That makes her a professional editor - your twisted opinions notwithstanding. --Pete K 23:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Sune, you may quote me anywhere, anytime you like, I am never going to charge you with "copyright violations." I write what I write with the understanding that people may read and discuss it. Your own attitude ("4 sentences or I'll charge you with copyvio") is rather unpleasant. I *like* for people to quote what I write. Now why you find the posting from me from the critics list, where I describe myself "ranting and raving" so damning I cannot determine, but it is pretty amusing. I am wondering if it is a language barrier, and you have some perverse notion of what these words mean in English. Again you have my blanket permission to quote me as you wish. (The post in question, where I say I ranted, slept at the computer etc., was right after you were forced to remove the "hate group" libel from the PLANS article and I am still extremely pleased with that accomplishment. I will take the opportunity to assure you again that you will not put it back without a fight from me.) I admit that I do feel you may be trying to imply above that I am not a professional editor and that is an unpleasant insinuation, and one that you would not be able to justify (as I *am* a professional editor, of many years). Has it ever occurred to you, for instance, that if I were looking for a job, someone considering hiring me could google me and come across the suggestion that I am a member of a hate or extremist group? You know that this is not true. The accusation is vile. Please don't repeat it again - it is very unethical to spread false accusations about people, and it has potential consequences in the real world. Thanks.DianaW 03:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think you guys should be thanking your lucky stars that someone with Diana's credentials took the time to recommend edits to your Steiner article - FOR FREE - instead of whining about why you don't get to call people you don't like a "hate group" or why you don't get to publish reports that say Anthroposophists excuse Steiner's racism. Shame on you. --Pete K 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I tried to vote for deletion on this Manuel Diaz. It says the deletion discussion is archived and the result in June was delete but the page either has been recreated or was never deleted. Please check it out. Thanks! RickReinckens 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I am stunned to see that you have removed the section on the Dutch Anthroposophical Society's report from Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. What possible justification could you have for this? Hgilbert 01:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal seems to be a mistake, as the motivation for the removal of the section on the Dutch Commission in addition to reverting the intro on Hansson to an earlier version, is

(rv to remove potentially defamatory statements re: Peter Staudenmaier)

The section on the Dutch Commission has nothing to do with, nor mentions Peter Staudenmaier.

What PeteK is upset about is the introducing paragraph of the section called "===Hansson Article===* that you also removed.

He writes:

The locked article, as it stands, contains the defamatory statement below: "In an article [38], written in 2004 in response to criticism [39] of the Swedish branch of the CSICOP [40] for publishing and defending defamatory writings about anthroposophy by a repeatedly unreliable author, Peter Staudenmaier"

He also writes at the discussion page:

"there is no support for this statement and leaving it there without such support is malicious."

What PeteK writes is untrue. The answer directly following what PeteK writes in his first article on anthroposophy documents in full 1, 2, 3 that Peter Staudenmaier is a repeatedly unreliable author by comparing what he writes in his article and in internet discussion with the published sources he refers to and documenting both. Both what PS writes and the sources he refers to are found on the internet, accessible to anyone for comparison.

But I'd have no problem replacing the introduction with the completely not-potentially (non-)defamatory one found at the RS page, where PeteK again has started extending the section that is described extensively in the sub article, after the special sub article was blocked, after his repeated insistence on removing the whole section on the Dutch Commission, describing his last removal of the section with the personal attack on Goethean "Reverting article - Vandalism by fanatical Anthroposophist."

In an article, The Racial Teachings of Rudolf Steiner, [30] written in 2004 by Professor Sven Ove Hansson, skeptic activist and central founder of the Swedish branch of the CSICOP, in response to criticism of the group (branch) [31] for its publication of an anthology on anthroposophy, criticized as being repeatedly unreliable [32], he states

Only, hm, PeteK seems to have reintroduced the by him smashed, now unintelligible version of the intro, where he has deleted the description of the reason Hansson wrote his article, instead of my repaired version of it.

It seems he is working his way towards getting the page on RS blocked too, as he did with false accusations for the Waldorf page. By the way, he violated the 3rr rule for that page the last 24 hours. --Thebee 12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy to fix. TheBee should stop defaming people on Wikipedia. It seems that his approach to anything presented that is critical of Steiner is to defame the persons bringing the criticism instead of addressing the content of what they have brought. If somebody brings something that is inaccurate, simply show how it is inaccurate. That should be pretty obvious. TheBee has used this tactic against Peter Staudenmaier, Prof. Hansson, Dan Dugan (Secretary of PLANS), PLANS, and me of course. Concentrating on the content and not the individuals is primary here. His own personal website demonstrates the extent to which he will go to defame individuals critical of Waldorf and Steiner. Wikipedia, however, is not TheBee's personal website. Steiner either said the stuff we are quoting on the article or he didn't. It's really that simple. --Pete K 14:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the personal comments do not belong here. Please replace the other section accidentally removed (on the Dutch commission), which provides a second POV to the Hansson article. Hgilbert 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, (), you know better than that. The Dutch Anthroposopical Society's Self-Appointed Commission of Biased Anthroposophists does not constitute a valid second POV. AND, you are going to considerable effort to disguise the fact that it is ENTIRELY a biased group of Anthroposophists that make up that commission. If it is added now, as soon as the article is unlocked, that section will be removed anyway. There has been considerable discussion about this on the discussion page and you haven't been able to support your opinion that it should be allowed - AT ALL. The discussion has pointed out to you the difference between Professor Hansson's report and the Dutch Anthroposopical Society's Self-Appointed Commission of Biased Anthroposophists findings. And, it would be unreasonable to put those finding in without, as you have also disguised in the past, pointing out that the 16 counts of racist speech that EVEN the Anthroposophists found Steiner guilty of, were counts that would have caused Steiner to be IMPRISONED if he said them today. You guys are playing loosey-goosey with the facts here and the reference will either be clarified completely or removed. There is no question of this. --Pete K 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a mediation process but already one party has voted "disagree". Does this mean the mediation process will not happen (because all must agree for it to engage)? What is the next route?

For the record, I am not refusing to mediate, only refusing to agree to the list of issues as presently worded. I may suggest a revision of the list but it probably won't be for another day or two. I am objecting to the weighted and biased way the issues have been framed. Much of it is inane: who could dispute that biographical material on Rudolf Steiner belongs in the Rudolf Steiner article? The anthroposophists, I'm guessing, think if they can get such a point "mediated," anyone then changing, removing, or adding material to the biography section that they don't like can then be told to get lost, that they're violating the agreement etc. Obviously just *what* is going to be mediated has to be agreed before you can expect people to blithely agree to abide by mediation. The language is, at best, far too vague. Some of it is outright nonsense: you can't ask people to change their "tone" on an article's discussion page in "mediation," for instance. If you don't like someone's "tone," don't talk to them; that doesn't mean their views are less worthwhile than yours or they have less right to contribute to the article. You cannot expect Steiner's critics to maintain the same reverential tone toward the man that his defenders display. This sort of vague, behavioral type requirement has to be altogether deleted from a list of points to mediate IMO. I'll go post this at the case page too.DianaW 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied Diana's comments and my own to the discussion page of the mediation request. Why don't we work out the terms there?--Pete K 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I'm involved in an edit-war that is being discussed here I wish to lodge some form of request for arbitration. How do I do that? Can you leave answer on my talk page. Could you tell me the type of request/compalint I should lodge. Mark1800 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Mr Longhair. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I am still on holidays and on a very poor modem connection. Thanks for the block. I feel only a bit guilty about reverting her RfC comments but my stance is no signature, no comment. They're pathetic comments anyway. I will document next week when I am back. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :). There back under the IP 203.54.9.129. -- Bidgee 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a User (Not sure if there a Admin) editing Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/203.54.%2A.%2A. I have posted on there talk page. User talk:NuclearUmpf‎ -- Bidgee 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at quitting and having all my edits as well as images removed from Wikipedia since people are treating the anon as the victim. -- Bidgee 01:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anon is enjoying every bit with there comments not getting reverted [9]. They even made misleading clams that we were removing there comments which isn't true. -- Bidgee 10:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments, I am feeling a bit sickened by the anon so will continue my break a bit longer. I semi-protected Dog on the Tuckerbox as she put her massacre garbage in there again. Ignoring her is very hard despite my advice to Bidgee.--Golden Wattle ^talk 10:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to ignore her but It's so hard to when they edit with something that is misleading. I'm also not liking them posting my old username (Which is my name). I maybe offline as I'm currently moving to a new ADSL provider. -- Bidgee 11:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am failing to ignore her and will take a wikibreak. I might of course not like the response that the community would rather have her than me! Thanks for all your support and I appreciate you are copping it too. As you say perhaps they will wake up when they see the edits she makes.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor shed :-) The AGF really got up my nose with User:Durovna - way too high a horse. Perhaps she can demonstrate leading by example and dealing with it!--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm taking a break as well since I have to much anger on how the Anon is bring treated as the victim. -- Bidgee 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to read about the deletion process some time. My point was that it was silly to have 2 Bann Baa. There is already an article called Baan Baa, New South Wales (for what it is worth). This appears to has been generated (by a Primary School?) though ignorance.--Grahamec 08:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)--Grahamec 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

There have been about 20 or so edits made by 70.54.4.159 on the article Treeplanting and I just don't know what to do about it. It looks like copyvio, but I can't be sure. Can you look at it with your administrative wisdom? Thanks, — JeremyTalk 12:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Do you have arrangements for a visit to the GHC tomorrow? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I think it's someone different. It's an IP who keeps ranting about aboriginal cannibalism and John Kerr and Paul Keating being gay. I blocked him for one day which then got extended by Netsnipe to one week after he ranted on the mailing list, called me a filthy animal and made legal threats. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is 124.184.224.64. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think it is someone different. The anon we are dealing with though would quite possibly have access to uni IP addresses too--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man, not sure how to send you a message, is this right. Nath85 06:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice now i get it. thanks mate. Nath85 06:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are you following me around or something? Nath85 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is that a wikipedia rule or are you just enforcing that on me? Nath85 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how the crap do i archive then? Nath85 08:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your a wikhead!! Nath85 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Just wanted to send a quick note of thanks for your support in my RfA. :-) I really appreciate it! Best, Irongargoyle 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. ~~

Hi Longhair, The 'original' information contained on 'Geelong, Victoria' is seriously incorrect. Somebody has made up fictional statistics that are not even close to being correct. You may consider my entry to be vandalism, but it was closer to fact than the current so called statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.243.136.166 (talk • contribs)

[10] [11]

Please look at these. The user not only vandalized the discussion page, he falsified my signature. --Pete K 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's back. Today he's butlerjoe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudolf_Steiner&diff=80826593&oldid=80743437

Yesterday, his name started with an "A" - I hope he doesn't plan on going through the entire alphabet with aliases. Pete K 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one... {sigh} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudolf_Steiner&diff=80908274&oldid=80891197

Pete K 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's this guy again: [12] [13] [14]

I think it's about time to cancel his account. Thanks! Pete K 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You welcomed me on June 20, 2005 [15]. I think that, since you are an Australian admin you could help a bit in the issue in Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard. Bouchard was an argentine corsair who, among may other things, conqueres California and as he was a corsair and not a conqueror he left and continued capturing Spanish ships. Now, User:Lordkinbote (Californian) and User:Mdhennessey (< 50 edits) want to put in the opening section a paragraph saying the Californian-Spanish of the XIX Century say he was a pirate because...

I deleted it because it was an oppinion "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and so "it does not belong in Wikipedia [...] regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. — WP:NPOV

And now they want a request for comment and possibly are probably not going to stop until the cruel murderer pirate has a very insulting article in WP. Please, if you have time, would you give us your oppinion? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support, especially in light of the developing situation with an anonymous editor. I hope all goes well between us in the future. Thank you for your trust. Results of the candidacy are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I suspect that this is Nathan. I think he means well, but needs to learn more about working with other people. On the brighter side, I think he's helped WikiCats and I to find some common ground :-) --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We all live by our reputations here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us a hand in a discussion about whether citations to original texts in German need to be translated for editors who cannot read German? Hgilbert 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether, to support the contested fact that Steiner wrote a series of articles in a particular journal, the German-language complete works of Steiner where these articles appear (with references that show their original publication) can be cited in a Wikipedia footnote. Or is it impossible to show (give verifiable proof) that these articles exist merely because they were written in German? Note: this has nothing to do with the link discussion I see on your talk page below. Hgilbert 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a arabition request. Thanks 4 your help. Nathannoblet 06:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at this edit by User P.K.? Thanks, --Thebee 08:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at a follow up question at my page, Longhair? Thanks. Thebee 00:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the edit. You guys are playing link wars again - why not stop it while the Waldorf Project team is deciding this issue? I'm inclined to delete ALL the external links and let the project team put back what they have determined belong there - especially if it will hold off another edit war and avoid getting the article locked up again. Pete K 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You guys are playing link wars again" On 17:20, 18 October 2006, you started playing a link edit war of the Waldorf article by removing links from the External links section, after noone had done anything with the section (except a small addition on 12 October 2006) since Longhair unprotected the page on 28 September, three weeks earlier.

Maybe you should consider correcting your description of reality, and stop playing games with Longhair and others. Thebee 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've got my hands full correcting YOUR description of reality. Pete K 02:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting and commenting for me in my RfA last month. I'll try again as previously planned in the late of spring, and hopefully I'll win it. I sure learned my lesson on a fair use image misplacement!! When I get off Wikibreak I'll start visting xfD everyday. Do you have any tips or suggestions for me? Thanks again, X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 07:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be accused of being a spammer, but it would seem fair to me to spam a note about the requested move of Global city to everyone who !voted on the (withdrawn) AfD. Comments? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was wondering how I could change my username?? Lil Flip246 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naughty Nati it seems this article passed afd but was delete anyways. Not sure what is going on here. Valoem ^talk 07:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K,im sorry. Ill withdraw the arabation request if you promise to start doing what you were doing a month ago. I reall liked it and I am still learning. So, please. I come here in peace. I beg you to start helping again. I'll even withdraw scott's case. O.K? Please???????. -- Nathannoblet 08:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I restored the article per discussion on [[16]]

Emmalina has passed the initial 1st AfD. This article should be temporary restored maybe for a 4th nomination, until a general consensus can be reached. Valoem ^talk 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I was just preparing a recreate if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notable_YouTube_memes fails AfD and is deleted. Valoem ^talk 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Notable YouTube memes has officially been delete article Emmalina warrents a restore. So here is the Deletion review I posted Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 26. Can you please help me restore this notable article? :) Valoem ^talk 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I saw that you recently blocked this username. You might also want to take a look at User:SinceICantHaveMyOwnAccount,CanIBorrowSomeones? and User:I'llPayYou$18.53IfYouGiveMeAnAccount. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just started Wikiproject Gold Coast, what do u think?. Also, can you please give me some private admin coaching. I plan to run at RfA next year.

Nathannoblet 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Article talk pages should not be automatically archived by the bot after a given time period. Whereas on user talk pages, the user has control over his talk page and is generally the only person being communicated with, on article talk pages issues raised in discussion sections may not be resolved for months or even years. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, archives should be absolute links so that if the page is moved the archive is still linked properly.) —Centrx→talk • 02:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a revert war with an anonymous user who keeps on inserting his/her POV into the Makybe Diva article. Could you take a look, and if necessary, block the user. - Cuddy Wifter 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you having another look at this article. It seems to have attracted more POV's. -Cuddy Wifter 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? I left a note recently, but have yet to receive a reply. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you heard anything? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longhair,

If you have some spare time, could you please cast an eye over the 2006 Victorian election campaign, which I split from the parent page Victorian legislative election, 2006. There is a dispute about how the article should be structured and whether it needs to be significantly altered at all. I think that the article is suffering from a lack of diversity of editorial opinion, which makes consensus appear impossible. There is of course a dialogue to follow on the talk page as well Talk:2006 Victorian election campaign. Thanks, Grumpyyoungman01 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't makes changes that breaks the usage of a template. _→AzaToth 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For many contributions with limited reward, I present you with this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Sharkface217 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi why did you deleted HateML Pro article? It was very similar to PHPEdit article.Cimenax 11:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this article? --Dweller 13:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

No problems Longhair; a coffee fix is more important. :) I just hope I did the block correctly as I have never done range blocks before. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I think if she can get around it, we'll know soon. I haven't done a range block on her previously because I'm a little scared of mistakenly taking out half of Aus! But I just copied the ranges that Thatcher gave me so I'm hoping I haven't done anything Very Bad. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your efforts and all for no cents too as she observed in one edit summary :-) --Golden Wattle ^talk 19:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

How on Earth can [www.girra.110mb.com/wiki] be an invalid and 'unencyclopedic' link to the Girraween High School page? Did you even go to that page? (It may currently be closed for a few days for matience) but how is it any less important than that BS Alumini page. How can you judge that it is not valid? Atlantis Hawk 09:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well how is the alumini website link encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs)

I must agree with Atlantis - the link was perfectly valid. It was a resource that included fare more information on the school than was available from Wikipedia.

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The anonymous Gundagai editor is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Adam 05:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you are an administrator and I wondered if you could look at my User Page and see if the 'disucssion' I copied and pasted breaks any rules. Thanks in advance, Sugplumxx 08:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Longhair. Sugplumxx 08:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Dear Longhair, thank you for your tireless work on tagging talk pages on articles related to Australia. It's a tremendous effort that you're doing. enochlau (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome Longhair. Actually I joined the nl: wiki when it only had about 400 pages, so I've been around for a while. I dont come here often but I had to clean up some phys chem stuff before my students get misinformed..

Jcwf 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a friendly little q - why didn't you ban this guy permanantly - he has way too many vandalism notices for just another warning surely - but cheers for your work Danlibbo 10:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah - that's cool - there's just a lot of warnings and blocks on the ip page - but if it's multiple users then hmmm... Danlibbo 10:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here from WP:AWNB Hesperian 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: HM Prison Pentridge

Copyrighted source

plaigarised version

As a result of a greatly increased crime rate in Victoria due to the gold rush, the government decided to establish a number of penal stockades and also make use of abandoned ships. One of these stockades was set up at Pentridge (the old name for Coburg) to receive, in December 1850, sixteen prisoners from the overcrowded Melbourne Gaol. Pentridge was thought to be a good place for a prison, being near Melbourne, yet isolated from it. Moreover the village reserve was the only Crown Land left unsold. The purpose of the stockade was to provide labour for the construction of the newly proclaimed Sydney Road. There was a lot of bluestone in the area so the prisoners could do 'hard labour' breaking up the stone and working on the unmade road. Residents were frightened and angry because the stockade consisted only of log huts on wheels behind a low 1.2 metre wooden fence with prisoners guarded by an inadequate number of overseers. Because it was so insecure, mounted aboriginal troopers (police) were employed to patrol its perimeter. The first superintendent of the stockade was Mr Samuel Barrow. Prisoners worked, slept and were fed in chains. People passing sometimes talked to chain gangs working on the road and gave them tobacco. Prisoners slept on wooden benches and ate standing outside in all weather. Those who broke rules or refused to work were punished by wearing heavier irons or given solitary confinement on bread and water. Some were flogged. Prisoners could only have one letter or visit every three months. The worst punishment was to be sent to the hulks, the floating prison boats moored at Williamstown. In the period 1857­64 the stockade was transformed into a typical Pentonville-type prison. Single cells replaced the dormitory accommodation of the earlier stockade, and high external bluestone walls with towers for sentries were built providing a much higher level of security. 'A' division was designed as a women's prison and remained as such until 1871 when female prisoners were transferred to the Melbourne Gaol. By 1870 there were 650 male and female prisoners and 100 staff. A new three-storey building was erected in 1894 to accommodate the then 195 female prisoners. It was supervised by a female governor and staff and continued until 1956 when Fairlea Female Prison was opened. The three-storey building then became a remand prison known as 'D' Division Prisoners worked in various industries such as the woollen mill, bakery, printery, tailor's shop, garden, library or in the labour yard rock-breaking. A car number-plate manufactory was established in 1962. By 1945, prisoners were allowed one visit per month and to receive and send one letter a fortnight. In the 1950s and 1960s the prison became a bit more humane. Prisoners could study, join a debating team and some acted and put on plays. By 1970 there were over 1000 prisoners. With the closure of the Melbourne Gaol in 1926 all executions in Victoria had been carried out in Pentridge. The last man hanged there was Ronald Ryan in 1967. He had been found guilty of killing a prison officer, George Hodson, during a prison escape attempt. For a long time, Coburg Council tried to have the prison moved or closed. From 1984, drugs and general unrest in the prisons gave rise to rioting and strikes. In 1994, the State Government announced its program to privatise prisons. In May 1997 the northern half of the prison was officially closed and the prisoners sent elsewhere. June 1997 saw the beginning of public tours of the prison. The southern part of the prison closed on 28 November that year and in 1999 the site was sold and is now being developed as housing estates, parklands and business precinct.

As a result of a greatly increased crime rate in Victoria due to the gold rush, the government decided to establish a number of penal stockades and also make use of abandoned ships. HM Prison Pentridge (the old name for Coburg) to receive, in December 1850, sixteen prisoners from the overcrowded Melbourne Gaol. Pentridge was thought to be a good place for a prison, being near Melbourne, yet isolated from it. The village reserve was the only Crown Land left unsold at the time. The purpose of the stockade was to provide labour for the construction of the newly proclaimed Sydney Road. There was a lot of bluestone in the area so the prisoners could do 'hard labour' breaking up the stone and working on the unmade road. Residents were frightened and angry because the stockade consisted only of log huts on wheels behind a low 1.2 metre wooden fence with prisoners guarded by an inadequate number of overseers. Because it was so insecure, mounted aboriginal troopers (police) were employed to patrol its perimeter. The first superintendent of the stockade was Mr Samuel Barrow. Prisoners worked, slept and were fed in chains. People passing sometimes talked to chain gangs working on the road and gave them tobacco. Prisoners slept on wooden benches and ate standing outside in all weather. Those who broke rules or refused to work were punished by wearing heavier irons or given solitary confinement on bread and water. Some were flogged. Prisoners could only have one letter or visit every three months. The worst punishment was to be sent to the hulks, the floating prison boats moored at Williamstown. In the period 1857 - 18­64 the stockade was transformed into l Pentonville-type prison. Single cells replaced the dormitory accommodation of the earlier stockade, and high external bluestone walls with towers for sentries were built providing a much higher level of security. 'A' division was designed as a women's prison and remained as such until 1871 when female prisoners were transferred to the Melbourne Gaol. By 1870 there were 650 male and female prisoners and 100 staff. A new three-storey building was erected in 1894 to accommodate the then 195 female prisoners. It was supervised by a female governor and staff and continued until 1956 when Fairlea Female Prison was opened. The three-storey building then became a remand prison known as 'D' Division Prisoners worked in various industries such as the woollen mill, bakery, printery, tailor's shop, garden, library or in the labour yard rock-breaking. A car number-plate manufactory was established in 1962. By 1945, prisoners were allowed one visit per month and to receive and send one letter a fortnight. In the 1950s and 1960s the prison became a bit more humane. Prisoners could study, join a debating team and some acted and put on plays. By 1970 there were over 1000 prisoners. With the closure of the Melbourne Gaol in 1926 all executions in Victoria had been carried out in Pentridge. The last man hanged there was Ronald Ryan in 1967. He had been found guilty of killing a prison officer, George Hodson, during a prison escape attempt. For a long time, Coburg Council tried to have the prison moved or closed. From 1984, drugs and general unrest in the prisons gave rise to rioting and strikes. In 1994, the State Government announced its program to privatise prisons. In May 1997 the northern half of the prison was officially closed and the prisoners sent elsewhere. June 1997 saw the beginning of public tours of the prison. The southern part of the prison closed on 28 November that year and in 1999 the site was sold and is now being developed as housing estates, parklands and business precinct.

The copyrighted material, from [17], clearly marked ©Copyright Moreland City Council 2000, was inserted by Longhair on 18 November 2004.

Will Longhair withdraw the contribution and apologise?

Gretaw 00:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to WP:AWNB -- Longhair\^talk 03:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was unaware that the RfAr had been closed and a ban enforced. The checkuser was pointless and irrelevant; she is obviously the Gundagai editor. I have blocked her until her ban expires. Hesperian 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crooshi vandalised two articles, I left a warning on his talk page and attacked me with this...message [18]. I realise he's only made three contributions, so I feel a bit silly about reporting him, but you should watch him anyway, and block later if necessary. Thanks, — JeremyTalk 11:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Some small satisfaction in the number of edits she would have had to work through :-) (ie you have large number of edits and she went back a long way). The checkuser result came up with a very different provider though, I had an email from the checker. Most strange - I am still not sure she is the same person. The topics of her edits seem conclusive in some ways except they are more articluate and they are signed. Still the sum total of a user page and then attacks on you for an edit of over two years ago and one other for something that didn't make sense - why should one (Sarah Ewart in this case) be held responsible for the quality of an article when not the major contributor??[19] - are hardly useful contributions to the project.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not comfortable that they are the same person - know each other probably and have discussed the matter, hence the edits. The typing is more competent, the language and capitalisation are somewhat more precise, ie mostly proofread and grammatical. The comments on the talk pages are signed! She could of course be trying to establish a new identity, but why? On the other hand why has Gretaw launched in with nothing but attempts to discredit two particular users, admins involved in the case. I am waiting my turn :-) , except she is now blocked til November 2007.

I have never had an impression that the anon from Gundagai could use mark-up in the way that it has been in the posting to AWNB - she had trouble with ref tags for example,[20] although I had told her about them, including the need for a section for the footnotes to appear at [21] - not many days before her Charles Sturt edits. It seems surprising that she has suddenly mastered table formatting as per the above post originally on AWNB - ie:

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td valign="middle"> <b>Copyrighted source</b> </td> <td valign="middle"><b>plaigarised version</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="middle">

Just doesn't seem the right person. And of course she denies being the same person. [22] [23] And the checkuser came up with an ISP that just doesn't match - I guess that is not conclusive but seems surprising.

Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my blocks are subject to review, so feel free to overturn it. But you won't, because like me you know that the Gretaw account, irrespective of whether it is a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, a drive-by copycat troll, or something else altogether, existed for the sole purpose of waging war on behalf of the Gundagai editor. Hesperian 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Premier is pretty obviously the same person, back at Paul Keating and Indigenous Australians. Adam 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, Longhair. I need your help.

If you look at talk pages that transclude the WP:AUS template, namely {{WP Australia}}, they have this on them:

'To the Levert Family. We are so sorry to here about Gerald. May god bless and be with you all. We all loved him . But god loves him best. Janet & Howard'

I can't figure out where it's coming from. See Talk:Kangaroo for an example. - Richardcavell 02:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still see it. But I've looked through the templates and I don't know where it's coming from. - Richardcavell 02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done ?action=purge and it's gone. May I ask, because server code is a little beyond me, whether this solves the problem for others? Is there some way of flushing the problem out? - Richardcavell 02:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, Longhair. You've certainly attracted some very interesting fans recently. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've s-protected your user page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A couple of days ago, you blocked 218.186.9.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a week for vandalism. We got a complaint to unblock-en-l that someone who wants to create an account there can't. The page says that it's a shared ISP hub system; would an anon-only, account-creation-permitted block be more appropriate, or was the nature of the abuse there serious enough to warrant a complete block on the IP? I quickly looked at the abuse history and recent contributions, but I don't really know how serious the problem was.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response on this! Georgewilliamherbert 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:FaeryTaleAdventure.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I think User:Merbabu is calling for help on a long standing nuisance who has done Sydney nuisance edits - if you could look please? Thanks SatuSuro 14:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes he's quite capable of looking after himself - but there's a newbie whom I think should be on an admins watch list - who happens to be battering same person on Indonesia and Overthrow of Sukano - with huge blocks of uninvited text in talk pages. John Smith (nom de guerre) I would apprecciate if if you could - as I am not an admin I'm not capable of doing somethings I think he might need in the short term. SatuSuro 08:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Did you get any info from the GHC visit? Folajimi 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hover_bovver_coverart.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kikstart_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Rene Rivkin should be added to Crime in Australia under white colar crime, Notable enough? Ghostieguide 13:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longhair, can you tell me either how to make subsidiary pages within a page (i.e. in a discussion page, creating an archive page; or in a user page, making sub-pages) or where I can find this info? Tried with no luck User:MojoTas —Preceding unsigned comment added by MojoTas (talk • contribs)

This guy was suspended for vandalism - and he's back at it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudolf_Steiner&diff=83333574&oldid=83331644 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete K (talk • contribs)