Talk:Gundagai/Archive 2

Semi-protection
I have invoked semiprotection for this article. Any comments about the semiprotection should be directed to the relevant Request for Comment.

I will similarly semi-protect any related articles if I notice any abusive edits being carried out from the same IP range - abusive edits refers to the tone of the edit summary as well as the actual edit itself.

All editors should be aware of Wikipedia policies, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.

Recommencing editing in less than the block period is a breach of the Blocking policy.

All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed. Unsigned comments may be reverted.--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your semi-protection stance to reduce vandalism to this article. Rather than block in the first instance from now on, I'll semi-protect wherever necessary. Blocking will of course be used if the problem moves on to other articles. -- Longhair 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of edits and blocking
I have reverted the unsigned and abusive edit of and blocked for three hours. Avoidance of the block by this editor would be a breach of wikipedia policy.--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another revert and block of - again for 3 hours for deliberate and provocative breach of Etiquette--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Bruce Elder
Plagiarism is a serious allegation.
 * In an unsigned edit from IP 203.54.9.195 at 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC), a suggestion was made that this article included plagiarism:  'Gundagai in Literature' has not been cited. Its a blatant plagarism off Bruce Elder. Wake up to your self whoever put this here and stop plagarising (well known Australian) authors.

I assume the anon editor is referring to the unattributed columns published by the Sydney Morning Herald or Fairfax which I htink are in fact written by Elder. In the case of Gundagai, the two relevant publications are Walkabout and SMH Travel. The Wikipedia text is largely from the creation of the article in September 2004.

Easiest comparison to my mind is probably by table:

Do others think this is plagiarism? I don't. It certainly covers similar ground - that is the nature of the topic, however, from the article on plagiarism: It is not plagiarism to use well-known 'common sense' facts. Accusations of plagiarism that are false are quite reprehensible.--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I can't see any plagiarism there. There are similarities, in that the same poems and songs are mentioned in roughly the same order but, as you mentioned, the nature of the topic is to mention the literature surrounding Gundagai.  Next we will be accused of plagiarism because our article also mentions the Dog on the Tuckerbox.  I am presuming the anon user is trying to find ways to discredit the article after failing to insert his/her POV in the article.  --Roisterer 10:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite visiting us twice yesterday, she didn't seem inclined to respond to this discussion point, despite making the allegation in the first place.--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Two additions of 12 August (reverted as reproducing material on plagiarism from other websites as well as being unsigned), did not deal with the actual lack of congruence of the text. Anon editor was warned twice with Nothanks-drm--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 10:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I did respond to the content above re plagarism, but 'they' deleted it too or reverted it. I think they deleted it like they did what I put on Rfc. I forget now. Its all been too bizarre.

What I put re plagarism was put there a couple of days ago, and disappeared again as they do to all I post.

The comment I put here previously that was deleted in part, dealt witht he fact that till about 3 years ago, Bruce Elder also noted Middleton Drive on his Gundagai Walkabout site, assigning Middleton as another literati he knew of from when he was at Uni. Bruce erroneously thought this Middleton Drive a name assigned when the town was originally surveyed in around 1840.

However, Middleton Drive is named for the Pres of the then local Apex Club because he arranged those large poplars to be planted along there where they are, in the 1960s.

I think it a pity now Bruce Elder corrected that Middleton Drive reference he had on his Gundagai Walkabout site as I am betting if he hadnt, it also would have been noted on the wik site as one of the early named streets.

Heaps of Other Literary Streets
Gundagai has a heap of literary named streets. The ones named here that are the same as the ones named on the Walkabout site, leave all the others out. Because of this, most of Gundagai's story as told through the streets and noted for its "remarkable nomenclature" by GA Robinson, isnt noted. Thus, noting just a few of the streets as is done here, is like telling the story of Red Riding Hood but starting and finishing at the title.

Yarri
I seen the post on AN/I and just wanted to understand the issue here. Is there a reason the kicking Yarri story the anon is trying to insert is being removed? is it fiction? a copy-vio issue or something else? Not taking sides just wondering, it seems sourced, so I was wondering what the reason was. --NuclearUmpf 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also wonder why the anon was being reverted. If it is a copy-vio the content can be rewritten. Gimmetrow 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1879 I believe would be predating copyright law. Not 100% sure. --NuclearZer0 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this reversion, it looked like the added content was very close to the phrasing of hte 2003 ABC.net.au article, which would be under copyright. If that is why it was reverted, it can be rewritten. Gimmetrow 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The text on ABC is in quotation marks meaning they are reciting it word for word as it appeared, that would mean the original story is posted in that form in the newspaper, making the copyright, if one existed from 1879. If ABC didnt create the story they cant own the copyright anyway. I believe stories written before 1939 or something close are too old to be copyrights anyway. Also I believe written stories coyprights expire after 100 years, we should ask the copyright peopel about that if its the last issue. --NuclearZer0 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought it had some of the non-quoted text too. Gimmetrow 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1879 the source is out dated and I can't even find it. -- Bidgee 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the ABC.net.au article, which I was able to find quite easily. It references the 1879 newspaper. Gimmetrow 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we know if the ABC has used parts of this story without checking it's sources? -- Bidgee 13:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is ABC a reliable source according to WP:RS? What basis do you have for doubting it? Gimmetrow 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no copyright on the 1879 Yarri story. Its still appropriate to note its origin though so it can be checked, plus also polite to do so re original author/publisher.

I put the 1879 article re Yarri here and its copied word for word from its source,a nd its two sources given. Bidgee can easily check as there is a copy of Butchers book in the town library of the town he lives in as he well knows. He can also come to Gundgaai and see the original source on microfische or get the library where he lives to get the copy sent over which would take maybe a week, and he can view it at his local library. Bidgee would know all this. If he checks the artcle also, he can see its fully cited.

Well the story itself doesn't have the source to the 1879 article and it's only one source (We can't see whats in the 1879 article since we don't know where to find it). -- Bidgee 13:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats not how WP:RS works. Since ABC passes WP:RS we have to assume that they did their research. The ABC link says the story came from the newspaper and so its a legitamate source. We should list ABC however as the source and not the Gundagai Times, since we are really using ABC for our information. --NuclearZer0 13:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear, the above is NOT how u cite the article. U MUST cite the original source. Do it like this >>> Yarri article 1879 in ABC Online http://www.abc.net.au

I think ABC (it would have originated at ABC Riverina) got it out of Butchers book though, in which case, all three cites must be there as per above, with one added. The original cite goes in italics, then the next is underlined, then the next something else. All three must be noted though. If ABC got it straight from the original paper at Gundagai Library, then no need to cite Butchers book but MUST cite its original source.


 * I just wanted to point out that some of the information they were adding to Coolac seems to be true as well regarding the dog. I found this same information repated elsewhere, not the poisoning scandal issue, but of the dog. It appears that the dog on the tuckerbox story is what put Gundagai on the world map apparently. This is why its usually best to selective edit instead of revert. I will clean up what they were trying to add later today if I get a chance. --NuclearZer0 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the links about the anon which states that I'm wrong. Can someone have a look at it for me? Also I have recordings of the local news but the copyright act stops me from uploading it. -- Bidgee 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying the massacre happened as I pointed out. I cant find anything on it in relation to the dog. I was just stating that the dog and accompanying poem is what made Gundagai famous world wide (didnt know it was). As for the massacre I am not even sure how to verify that as I have yet to find sources stating it and feel analyzing poems for contextual meaning is not proper, and so should not be used for a source, that is just my opinion and you may want to ask the folks at WP:CITE for a firmer response. --NuclearZer0 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
Looking very briefly at the article and the edit summaries left by the anon editor two days ago, it seems to me that the real dispute is that the article says the 1853 flood was the beginning of reconciliation, while the anon wants to point out that racism and abuse of natives actually continued for many years. As usual, the answer to a dispute over information and sources is more information and more sources.

First, I have to point out that it is not vandalism to want to say such a thing, it is a content dispute, and editors need to work together rather than making assumptions and blind reverting. The anon editor was editing inartfully, but it wasn't vandalism.

You can not say in the article that the flood was the basis of reconciliation; that's opinion and original research. You can report that other people have said so if you have a source for it. Likewise you can not call this view a racist whitewash, but you can report if other people have said so. And the incident and controversy over it may need to be introduced in a better way. For example, Gundagai was flooded in 1852 and many residents were saved by three natives in their canoe.(ref) Gundagai residents point to this incident as the beginning of the reconciliation process (ref). However, historian John Smith has noted that racist incidents and harassment of natives continued in Gundagai for nearly 50 years after the flood (ref). For example, in 1897, a visitor to the town saw several locals abusing a blackman, whom he acertained was Yarri, one of the heroes of the 1852 flood (ref). Appropriate references vary. For the statement that locals consider their town the start of the reconciliation movement you could use the towns own web site or a published history of the town even if it is arguably biased. You can report what people say about themselves, expecting it to be biased in their favor; reporting that they say it about themselves is different from reporting that it is true. For statements that harrassment of natives continued until 1897 the 1897 newspaper is adequate; as a professional news network (not a blog or other advocacy site) we must take the ABC report of what the newspaper said at face value unless someone actually gets a copy of the 1897 article.

The point is you need sources and to report what other people have said and written in those sources, and not to include your own conclusions, opinions or interpretations. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ONE gundagai local (out of 3,000) claims the town is the cradle of reconcilitation. Its said to gain commercial kudos.

Thanks for your input, (above). I dont reg as it isnt compulsory - is it. No need to. Is that like not stepping forward to volunter, then all others step back?

Attacks on Indigenous people continue at Gundagai (recorded in nationwide media) up to Sept 2005.

The reconcilitation claim is uncited, incorrect and twaddle. Isnt wik after more correct content?

I am being deleted from my comments on Rfc by these same editors. Can Rfc be deleted by editors?

the anonymous editor
I would like to hear from the anonymous editor on my talk page before I unprotect the article. I would like to know why he/she hasn't or can't register for an account, and I would like to discuss editing techniques. However I do not want to leave aonymous editors locked out forever. Thatcher131 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Might want to ask why they never sign their posts either, leaving it for the likes of everyone else to clean up. Good luck. You'll need it. -- Longhair\talk 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Longhair, go take a quick eze. Spread yr misery elsewhere.


 * I'm giving you one clear warning. Stop wish your personal attacks, or be blocked once again. -- Longhair\talk 10:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bidgee imagines the Wagga paper is a credible source re Gundagai. So funny. No paper is regarded as a credible source of info. They are largely just words on paper, then when they are corrected, they use the correction as more news. Its also funny how the poor old platypus became politcal. No one does that to magpies. Some humans minds work so weird many times.


 * Your comment is misleading. It wasn't just in the paper it was on both Prime and Win News. Wiki classes papers as credible sources. -- Bidgee 10:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What was in the Wagga paper and on Prime and Win News? Was it the recent update re Coolac? If so, that is because last week there was a media briefing as I have told u elsewhere. I have tried to get the media to report coolac better as there is some really interesting arch stuff happening but Doug Hogan for example told me that it was up to Indigenous people to invite them. As its all being run by the RTA, it was up to the RTA to issue invites. Seems they did but as there is not much known by the media, (to lead to asking questions etc etc), I guess not much was reported. The recent current issues such as platypus and when is it to start got discussed though. The media is only as good as it wants to and can be.

Re the yarri bashing the local 1879 newspaper source is OK as that was reporting an observation of a bashing which is pretty straightforward. Re Coolac the media reporting has been totally woeful, starting first as some sort of joint media campaign claiming that 'roads kill' to get the bypas started ignoring that the bypass cannot start till the EIS is completed properly under Oz Law no matter what the meeja think they can influence - as it eventuated the last 2 years in reality, totally contrary to the meeja campaign. Bet the meeja sold more papers etc because of their failed 'roads kill' campaign which meant that commercially, they were successful. Killer roads. I think DSM-V has a category for that sort of claim (aka delusional). Next we will hear about iceblock eating roads perhaps. Personified roads.

Re promoting Gundgaai as the cradle of reconcilitation - this idea sprang up around 2001 when it was decided to get funding to jazz up the Old Gundgaai Site (that the 1852 Flood washed away) and promote it as a tourist attraction. Small towns and topurism is a big deal post the 1993 LGA. Small towns are now expected to fund themselves as much as possible rather than expecting the State Gov to do so for stuff it should not have to. Multiple funding applications re the Old Gundgaai Site were made by the then Heritage Advisor. An amount of near $500,000 was sought I think to tizz the site up and to link it back into the local museum with a viewing platform etc. for tourists. They were going to curb and gutter the site and put in signs etc etc. so people could view - basically, nothing. When the applications were received in Sydney, they were rejected. Heritage specialists in Sydney think professionally and probably a bit different to the intentions and politics of small town locals, re some issues and other massively significant heritage. Promoting Gundagai as the cradle of reconcilitation a few years back fitted in with the propsed European image building for the town as an ethnocentric tourist drawcard. Bit like creating the Gallipoli legend for the nation.

Cradle of Reconcilation is a huge claim. It would need to be correct and given there were multiple massacres around this area and the reports of the Commissioners for Aboriginal people also tell a different story, Gundagai is probably one of the last places to be able to legitimately make that claim.

You know, post the 1852 Flood, the NSW Government would not send food supplies or any other assisatnce as they were still very unimpreseed with Gundagai re the Coolac Massacre and its cover up, some 20 years previously. It wasnt only that Aboriginal people saved many non Aboriginal from the flood in 1852, they also then assisted them to find bush food and helped the community get back on its feet. The 'deaths'of Aboriginal people continued after that though. In the 1860s the professional people arrived in town and took major offence at Indigenous peopel being here, so they hunted them. Peter Read records that but its also noted in the old newspapers.

If Gundagai wants to reconcile, it should admit what has happened previously, officially apologise and go on from there rather than acting like a dog with a bone re surveys of Aboriginal heritage. Gundagai may want to 'reconcile' but its a non Indigenous concept to wash away the past, with probably no relevance to Indigenous people. An offical 'sorry' and admissions re past massacres might be more effective with every support given to put plaques on the massacre sites. Maybe if the town did 20 years of stuff such as this, it might then have the basis of a credible claim re Reconcilitation but it can never claim to be where reconcilation started. Indigenous peopel had always welcomed non Indigenous people untill the land grabs and murders became a feature of it as well.

The Old Gundagai Site is now back under the care and control of the herd of cattle who live there and no curbing or guttering of the area happened, and the Public Money that would have been wasted doing this, wasnt wasted. Other damage to significant heritage also didnt happen.

Australia : NSW : Riverina and Wagga Wagga Tuesday, 6 September 2005. 13:43 (AEST) Crop-duster's spray hits group of Aborigines Emergency services are on stand-by in the village of Coolac in south-west New South Wales to treat a group of 19 people who were sprayed by a crop-duster this morning.

The chemical is yet to be identified.

A group of Aboriginal people and Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) staff had been walking the route of the proposed Hume Highway bypass of Coolac looking for sites of Aboriginal significance.

Police spokeswoman Sarah Vickery says no-one is showing signs of ill health and it is unclear if it was deliberate.

"We don't know whether they knew the people were there or not so we're appealing for anyone for anyone who might have witnessed the incident or knows anything about a low-flying crop-duster in the area to contact police," she said.


 * Well this appears to be a prank, it got both indigenous peoples and highways staff.

Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) September 10, 2005 Saturday SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 16 LENGTH: 276 words HEADLINE: Cropdusting joker could be grounded SOURCE: MATP BODY: A CROPDUSTER pilot who sprayed a group of 19 people with oil in the state's south as a practical joke could be banned from the skies, says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Decontamination units were called to the scene after the pilot dumped an unknown chemical -- later identified as paraffin oil -- on a group of Aborigines and Roads and Traffic Authority staff earlier this week. The group were looking for sites of indigenous significance in a paddock in Coolac, north of Gundagai, which could form part of the proposed Hume Highway by-pass. The fire brigade's hazardous materials unit was called in to assess the scene and the group underwent emergency decontamination. None have shown ill effects. A spokesman for CASA, which is investigating the pilot's conduct, said he told police he only dumped the oil as a practical joke. Thatcher131 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Source of the 'Gundagai as Cradle of Reconcilation' Claim
I just read the Yarri story by Bodie Asimus.

It is not a credible source.

It was written by a school child as part of a competition Lateline/ABC ran.

There are no references re any of the content though there are many available.

Bodie Asimus does not live in Gundgaai. They are Sydney people I think. His Mum used to do the PR/promotion for Maccas or something similiar.

The story is not listed in the ABC Lateline archives for that date which further notes it isnt offical Lateline content, reported and published by adult ABC journalists, who would be members of the journalists union and subject to ABC editorial and publication rules etc. As such, it wouldnt qualify as acceptable under wik guidelines re its veracity as its content would not have been checked as being within guidelines.

Its simply, an uncited STORY written by a child as part of a competition - not official ABC reporting. Stories can have any or no level of fact in them. One or two in Gundagai might try and push a claim re reconcilation as a public relations/town image building exercise, but it is not anything to do with even minority town thought. Post the collapse of the Old Gundagai Heritage Tourism Plan a few years back, Gundagai doesnt push that line these days preferring to be the opposite on many occassions. These days, Gundagai is trying to establish that it is Iirsh as a tourism thing hence the first Turning Wave Festival a few weeks back. This festival was very short on an audience going on its online reviews so I am not sure the town sees itself as Irish either. Maybe in 2010 Gundagai will be claiming its really a lost planet from outer space that landed as a meteorite 50 years ago, as a tourist incentive?

Indeed, Gundagai Shire Council on its Social Plan that is online, in regard to Indigenous people, notes Gundgaai as a tolerant community??? Tolerant? of what and whom? 'Tolerant' doesnt really tally with 'reconcilation'.

It would be better to note here that Gundagai Shire Council on behalf of the community, sees the community as tolerant rather than making a claim as being the cradle of reconcilation.

Tolerant?

Gundagai has a massively significant and unique identity but as its an Indigneous one we need to hide that. Dont tell anyone - OK.


 * We were trying to help by finding a page that cites the content you wanted to include. If the ABC page is not a WP:RS, then it can't be cited for anything. Moved to external links for now, likely to be deleted. Gimmetrow 14:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good as that 'reconcilation' artcle written by Bodie Asimus, was written by a child as part of a competition that ABC Lateline ran. The article is not one written by ABC Journalists.

The 'Yarri getting kicked' article is credible and fully cited and those cites are very easily able to be checked by bidgee in his home town. The cites have also been published wider than that too with a copy of Butchers book (that the yarri article is in) in numerous places, including in the National Library of Australia. Copies of the orignal article in the old newspaper are also available at the National Library, as well as in Gundagai Library.

OK, I read Bob Carr's blurb. Note he mentions Marie Lindley's claim that the 1852 Flood was Australia's worst natural disaster. It wasnt. So, it can be safely assumed that Bob Carr is reading info someone else has written for him using dubious sources re some stuff.

Bob Carr would not have known the the 1830s Coolac Massacre. He should have known of the Wiradjuri Wars but maybe not specifically to Gundagai.

What is reconcilitation? It seems to be a concept that non Indigenous people sprout a lot, but that many Indigenous people have stated that it isnt their thing, noting they have not conciled to reconcile.

Brody Asimus' story is just that. Bob Carrs sprout might have some merit given he was Premier, but whether the content of what he went on with or not is right, is open to debate.

Remember Carrs sprout was in the context of the centenary of the 1852 Flood, in 2002, that was also about promoting funding for The Old Gundgaai site. The Flood commoration was very linked to making the old site of European Gundagai a tourist attraction and getting the gov funding to do that.

I sort of kyboshed that, via going to the NSW Heritage Office and NSW National Parks and Indigneous leaders. Gundagai doesnt try to establish the Old Gundgaai Site as a tourist attraction these days and 4 years after Bob Carrs speech, we hear next to nil in Gundagai re the 1852 Flood as the whole idea has been dropped and we are now remaking the place as an Irish town rather than an 1852 flood town it seems. Gundagai relabels each 5 years.

Put Carrs blurb in but note it in context, that it is out of date, why Carr was carrying on in parliament re it, etc etc. It all failed despite Bob Carrs input, courtesy of my effort and the resulting assistance from heritage professionals throughout Oz for very very good reasons that are to do with objecting to stuff planned by Gundagai, that was the opposite of reconcilitation and respect for Indigenous culture.

Is reconcilation with Indigenous people to do with wrecking some of their stuff as Gundagai town intended?

It isnt u know so Carrs sprout was inappropriate, but he would not have known.

What is reconcilitation? A political thing? Do non Indigenous people invite Indigenous people to give a Welcome to Country, call that reconcilation, then the week after, bulldoze sacred sites?

Right.

Note Carrs blurb re Gundagai as being connected to promotion of the proposed Old Gundagai Site as a tourist attraction by the ones who were here then with PR skills, and their cohorts, (the committee was run by Marie Lindleys b-i-l who is boss of nsw rural racing these days and a past mayor whose gggrandfather owned a pub here on the Old Gundgaai Site that fed booze to Indigenous people as all the pubs here then did, - recorded in Returns by the Aboriginal Commissioners-, getting them addicted and ill and totally exploitable), so claiming the 1852 flood as a reconcilitation thing gave that project some trumped up credit, but the project was ultimately  unfeasible because of other considerations that were way more significant than the 1852 flood or any manufacted to fit, highly outrageous 'Gundagai' reconcilation claims, even if made by the then NSW Premier.

There was numerous close interactions between Indigenous people and Europeans in Australia for many many years pre the 1852 Gundagai Flood and in locations other than Gundgaai, some being true friendships rather than exploitation. Australia was officially invaded in 1788 so that was 64 years pre the flood.

Gundagai like other places, uses its links to State and Federal pollies to get stuff done. Also its links to other state and national entities that have people who are friends of the town or run by former Gundagai people. This is the world. Whether some of it has much to do with truth though sometimes is debateable. Whatever, there are people who look out for heritage around Oz also that even Bob Carr cant over ride that other people also have links to.

Words are cheap. People can stand up in Parliament or anywhere else for that matter, and sprout anyhting. Whether what is sprouted is correct or not is another issue. Three-quarter truths mixed in with a couple of huge inaccurcies work well also I hear.

Pollies and the meeja dont have a lot of credibility and this topic is pollies and the meeja.

Cradle of Reconcilitation is a huge claim for the town probably least deserving of it, to make.

See below, from 'Review' Sept 2006 Turning Wave Festival,Gundagai. http://www.turningwave.org.au/Reviews.htm. This review was written by John Dengates wife so has credibility.

"The launching of the long awaited CD of John Warner’s ‘Yarri’ did not attract the crowds it deserved in Gundagai ..."

The town wasnt interested. They tried a concert here of it not that long back too, and next to no one went.

Gundagai people DO NOT believe Gundagai was the birthplace of reconcilitation. However a couple of PR people used to believe in pushing that line as part of a town promotion/rebadging campaign.

Wattle seemingly believes gundagai was the birthplace of reconcilitation given how that 'editor' will not present the ridiculous reconcilitation claim in a more balanced light. That then makes information on the wik gundagai page, silly and comic like given australias known story from the 1700s on. I guess if gundagai reconciled in 1852, (got on with Indigenous people) they didn't in 1851 or Sydney didn't in 1780 etc?

I'd like to know also, if Gundagai is supposedly the cradle of reconcilitation, and that process allegedly commenced in 1852, why the outcome in tangible terms in 1952 and 2002, was that one of their major major places, in Oz, (known of by non Indigenous people), was planned to be bulldozed.

If Gundagai was so appreciative of Indigenous people from 1852 wouldnt the community have said "OK, here are your special places back and we will assist you to maintain them." Instead, Gundagai did the opposite for the next 150 years recently planning to totally destory some and also, kicking up big time re the Coolac surveys for Indigenous heritage that are ongoing. To help that cultural wrecking, they also supported moving the surviving Indigenous people to places 100s miles away so they would hopefully forget, and bought in out of country people in their place. The Indigenous people walked back home though. They were sent away again. They came home again. In the end they were hunted out of town and put on the mission stations. Some married into non Indigenous families but they were not allowed to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage on the threat their children woudl be taken if they did. Even these days in Gundagai there are people with Indigneous heritage too scared to acknowledge it. That is sad. Its OK to be Irish but not Indigenous. Anyone who paints Australia's Indigenous story as other than it is, putting out silly cradle of reconcilitation claims, is whitewashing.

From memory, I wrote to Bob Carr re some of his silly reconcilitation Gundagai claim and told him what else was happening here. He didnt reply, but he would know. I think I suggested he talk to the Elgin Marbles expert in Sydney to get filled in, or his own NSW Heritage Dept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs)


 * It seems to me that any claim of a place being the "cradle of reconciliation" requires outstanding sources. Surely there must be extensive documentation of the reconiliation movement in Australia, even government web sites, histories; etc.  If they don't describe Gungadai as the cradle it would be better off not stating it.  If there are no such histories you probably should wait until they are written.  As I said in the RFC, the current fashion in U.S. history is to see received history as Euro-centrically biased and to reinterpret and reinvestigate the past from the native point of view (arguably this goes too far in the other direction but that's a problem for a different day).  Until such history becomes available for Australia to balance or contrast with the previous history, sensitive claims probably should be treated carefully and with respect toward good sources. Thatcher131 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Coolac massacre
Regarding the alleged Coolac massacre I checked LexisNexis news service and found two articles, both relating to the highway delay due to claims that a massacre happened in the area. At this time there seem to be no reliable sources that a massacre did happen (I haven't even seen a firm date). An ABC radio report will not serve as a source for anything unless the transcript is made available, otherwise we would have to rely on the memories of the listeners. The point of having reliable sources is to have something that other people can double-check, even if (in the case of an 1879 newspaper article) the checking would be difficult.

The only place on Wikipedia that the Coolac massacre would currently be noteworthy is in the article Hume highway, where it can be noted that construction of the Coolac bypass has been delayed by claims of an Aboriginal leader that there is a massacre site nearby, and that archeological testing is underway, and the state has agreed to have an archeologist on site during the road work in case anything turns up. Thatcher131 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Erhm, they dont have a firm date as I have not given it to them.

OK. I posted here earlier but it got deleted, that the Coolac Massacre should at least also be on the Aboriginal Massacres List for Oz on wik. It should also be on the Gundagai and Dog on Tuckerbox pages. But, as I wont give the cites now, its best not put anywhere without them. OK.

To the anonymous editor (and the rest)
I'm going to make a note of this here because I don't know if you are likely to see it elsewhere.

I think the intent of your contributions to the article is generally good, in the sense of trying to balance out possible unconscious bias. Claims such as "Gudagai is the cradle of reconciliation" are so sweeping that they do require special attention to sources and if they are controversial, should probably be removed until better sources can be found.

However, your behavior at times is wholly unacceptable. You will not adopt the simple courtesy of signing your posts, so people can know who said it and when; this makes it very hard to follow discussions. You have made repeated personal attacks on other editors (recent comments documented by me at your RFC. You rely on personal knowledge rather than reliable sources.  You have inserted argument and personal comments into article text instead of the talk page.  (In some cases, other users have copyedited your comments to include them in the text, which shows that they are willing to work with you when possible.)  Your recent edits to your RFC were properly reverted because they were in the wrong place, the wrong format, and were headed with a personal attack.  While it would have been nice for the other editors to fix them for you, they are under no obligation to do so.  Fortunately you found someone else to fix them up for you.  If you are willing to cooperate with other editors on sources (as seems to be happening on this talk page) I will unprotect the article. I probably should anyway, since there may be other editors around the world with good ideas or even typos to fix. I do believe I know enough about your IP history to block you specifically if you resume making personal attacks.

Wikipedia is about working together. It is very useful to have editors with different viewpoints working on an article cooperatively. I will no have no hesitation in blocking you at the first sign of renewed personal attacks. Thatcher131 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BIG BRAVE THATCHER Whoever or Whatever Thatcher Is
Thatcher, yourself like some others here seems to like to make personal attacks on other editors so I would suggest you also take a long hard look at yourself and have a think about why u do that. Dont threaten me. If people such as yourself want to be issuing threats to Internet users, you need to be having a think about that. There are some non aggressive people on wik but aggressive ones such as yourself and the others that are a blight on some pages wreck the place. You and some of the others seem to have no idea how to work in a cooperative manner with other people who post here wanting to use some idiotic power play because you can block and unblock sites. Big deal that you have 'tools' and can do that. Have u noticed some ignore that sort of nonsense. Some of you need to enrol in a charm school course as you are causing terrible disruption on wik with your unpleasant behaviour. My personal knowledge is more reliable than some of the nonsense some of you lot put here. If you are a fan of wik being full of lies, I'd be asking why? In my book its best stuff isnt put here if it is lies such as this nonsense reconciliation claim re Gundagai that are very obvious to the world at large and anyone with half a brain is incorrect.

Go deliver your nonsense to someone more inclined to be kowtowed by bullies thatcher as this person isnt. Try picking on a one year old or someone with a major disability as it may work there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.161 (talk • contribs)


 * Blocked for 24 hours for repeated incivility (and I am definitely including the "feral editors" remarks as well . If you actually read my remarks, you would see that I agreed you had a point of view that should be represented, provided you could work cooperatively with other editors. I do not agree with simply reverting every comment you make, but there are some editors who have made such a nusciance of themselves that they are reverted immediately, and no one worries about it.  You are entering that territory.  If you wish to make contributions to wikipedia you should consider how to work with other editors rather than against them. Thatcher131 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What Is Reconciliation?
"There is no agreed definition of reconciliation. It is agreed, however, that reconciliation encompasses reparation, as recommended by the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families.14 In the report, Bringing them home, five components of reparation have been recommended. These have been taken from the van Boven Principles,15 drawn up by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as guidelines for reparation of victims of gross violation of human rights: Acknowledgement and apology

Guarantees against repetition

Measures of restitution

Measures of rehabilitation

Monetary compensation Reconciliation always begins with acknowledgement or, more colloquially, "truth telling". Alexander Boraine, Vice Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, has spoken of the capacity for forgiveness by those who suffered most under apartheid.16 In Australia, there is a need to acknowledge that the benefits now enjoyed by some have been at the expense of incalculable suffering to others. "Truth telling" is unresolved "sorry business" for our nation.

If contemporary Aboriginal health is accepted to be a manifestation of a population dying of despair, anger and disillusionment, then reconciliation is fundamental. It has been compellingly argued that "The diseases of anger and despair which wrack Aboriginal communities in Australia clearly have many of their roots in childhood."17 Acknowledgement of the causes of this anger and despair must occur as the first step in the process of reconciliation. Reconciliation is necessary but is not, in and of itself, sufficient to guarantee improved Aboriginal health.

Reconciliation becomes the foundation for health services development. The Australian Medical Association has stated that "The process of reconciliation would be incomplete without the provision of substantial additional resources for Indigenous health."18

As we await proper political processes to implement recommendations from the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in Custody19 and the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families,14 individuals and organisations can consider their own processes for reconciliation."

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/may3/jackson/jackson.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.161 (talk • contribs)

Arbitration
I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page
Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales is a page for discussing changes to the encyclopedia article Gundagai, New South Wales. It is not part of the dispute resolution process and it is not personal space for collecting evidence of grievances. Stop posting here unless it is related to the content of the article. (link to removed content )

If you register for a username you will have personal space for your comments. You can also use the space on the talk page of your IP address, for example, even when you have a different IP. Or you can ask FloNight, a clerk of the arbitration committee, to help you make a space where you can collect statements, if you wish. But you can not use the article talk page. I will be deleting all such comments, and if you restore them I will revert them and protect the page. Thatcher131 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have said previously including to you, I wont be registering. Why do you keep pushing that? You just want to keep on and on and on. Its called flogging a long dead horse. Its also called baiting on wik. You cannot go pushing people into doing stuff they do not want to be pushed into just because you think they should be. I can post here without registering. I wont be posting here that often so it is no issue. I am going to my telco in a short time re the below to get them to check the published threat here to interfere with my telco a/c so dont think a palce that facilitates that sort of rot is a place to sign on to.

That is now done so its to be checked and monitored. That will be on for several weeks to see just what is happening.

From Longhair "He's been told how to sign posts, and still refuses to do so. It's hardly rocket science. I'm going to block him on that behaviour alone if he persists in ignoring reasonable requests. Nobody needs to go along behind him and clean up - that's not why we're here. The rest of his anti-social behaviour only brings a block even closer. I used to work for his ISP. Contacting them isn't going to be easy, as most technical support staff are outsourced nowadays and any chance of reaching anyone able to do anything about this user are very remote. I think the best course of action if and when they return is simply to block the entire range. Affected customers can then determine if it's worth sticking with an ISP that doesn't act on disruptive users. Any help you need with this character, let me know. -- Longhair 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

Article unprotected
I have unprotected the article. It's time to see if the various editors can edit cooperatively or antagonistically. Thatcher131 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont bait people Thatcher. There is no need for that. Just put in that you have unblocked it and no need for other stuff. Isnt baiting anti wik policy? if u are an admin or whatever, you should display a higher level of behaviour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Asbestos

 * With this edit the anon altered the entry on asbestos. Unfortunately she failed to refer back to  the book she and I both have which was written by Cliff Butcher when doing so.  On page 107, Butcher refers to Jones Creek  and refers to the fact that prior to 1918 it was the only source of asbesos in NSW.  Asbestos Hill is not mentioned on page 107.  It is however an official place name   but is 4 km from the town  so the assertion that North Gundagai is built on that hill would seem wrong.  It may be a term that locals used and asbestos rock can be seen exposed in the cutting near the top of the hill.  However, as the assetion about north Gundagai has no citation and the information conflicts with an officially named hill nearby I think theassertion should be removed at present.  As I am on a wikibreak from article editing, someone else will need to do this if they choose to, and also to please reinstate the Jones Creek and 1918 assetions as being attributed to Butcher.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement on the article page re the original 1838 town is incorrect.

This town was not the original town. It was the original European town. The indigneous peopel lived here pre that but not down where they would be washed away by a flood. Why write Gudnagai up with no mention of all its inhabitants, not just the post 1838 ones. That is racial discrimination as it denies Indigneous people eve rlived at Gudnagai when the palce is well known for the fact that they did.

Also, Gundagai is not mostly located on Mt Parnassus. Only maybe 15% of it is. Another 50% is located on various parts of Asbestos Hill and the other 35% on the slopes of Brummy Hill at South Gundagai. Any offical map of Gundagai will show this so it is very easily cited. I also have the current but soon to be superceeded town map re Council/NSW Planning and Land and the LEP, but there are also online 'parish maps' that will show where the steets etc are. There are very very few houses on Mt Parnassus as its too step, is rotten rock, some is farmland, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Asbestos hill is not 4 k from town. Our town distance is measured from the PO which is on the lower slopes of Asbestos Hill. Allwing for the lower slopes bit I'd say Asbestos hill is in the town with its peak 300metres from the PO. I may have messed up the asbestos edit when I removed the stuff I made up to insert a place for that first mine (opposite town tip in hills if Punch St is followed out). If u have a map that shows asbestos hill as beign out of town, its incorrect. I have several that show it in town but was first alerted to its name by the old CALM (Conservation and Land Management) when I went to borrow 3d specs off them to read my air photgraphy in for uni when doign remote sensing, maybe 13 years ago). Your map is incorrect.  Also, there is asbestos 4 k from town, but the hill named that is in town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

I dont think when u saw that asbestos, you were on Mt Parnassus. U were on Asbestos hill. That said thoiugh, there is a contact zone runs through there with slate on one side, asbestos on the other and gold in-between. In Gundagai people here call all that monolith Mt Parnassus and most would have no idea it isnt and what denotes Mt Parnassus. The monolith is actually two hills, one asbestos and the other, slate. The slate one is Mt Parnassus for very particular reasons tied in with what it was named after. There is a photo from Kelsie Dadd (I have her papers here) re up there and other stuff and Kelsie is aroudn this stuff now as much as she needs to be I think, but most arent or if they are and are a Gov person from away, it wouldnt be an issue. Locals generally do not know it as they are more into other stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

These days people dont really understand the colonial surveyors naming principles either and have no idea of assemblage re other cultural stuff. A person has to change the language their eyes read the landscape with to process this other stuff and it takes a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Here is a cite for asbestos hill. Its taken from the current topo map by CMA (Central Mapping Authority).

Asbestos Hill Gundagai Map 8527-4-N Topographic Map 1:25,000 Second edition NSW Australia

Its in town. Its the hill the PO is on the lower slopes of. The other side of it is named mt parnassus so that hill structure, is two hills. That is Flower Hill out of town, or soemthing as have no idea what you are looking at. I do know the name of hill I live on believe it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Another map showing Asbestos Hill in town is Australia 1:50,000 topographic survey Series R753 Sheet 8527 4  Ed. 2-AAS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

There are more. Two is enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Can you explain why Geoscience Australia, the government's cartogropher disagrees with you? The CMA was NSW Government ; Geoscience Australia is the federal provider of topographic information but I am sure they got their information from the state authorities. I am not reading from a map but have provided internet references for my assertions that the hill officially names Asbesots Hill is 4 km away from Gundagai (see the links above), it may be that there is another hill closer to town unofficially named that. I have seen asbestos rock in the cutting of Mt Parnassus (and can even provide a photo! so I can quite understand why it would be named that by locals, it sjust I can find one place name in NSW by that name and it is 4km away according to GA Aust - this link gives their calculation : --Golden Wattle  talk 02:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no other hill closer to town "unofficially named that". Where the mine is is not called much these days apart from so and so's property as no one much stands there pondering it given its location near the dump. The other side that we see from town is called Flower Hill. That is to do with Wordsworth which is to do with location and literature. Not terrestrial location though. All that area is an assemblage/monolith also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

I dont know. The map has to stand, not someone's interpretion of it. if u are reading geosciences australia 'gazetter' I find it unreliable. Its compiled by (often) new to town engineers, who send in entries. I have tried to get the geoscience gazetter to change a couple of names here back to how they should be with no success. Thjey changed Jessups Lagoon (Jessup built the main street) to Woodbridge's Laggoon to repay a debt I think. Woodbridge didnt do anything remarkable to the longer story of the town so it was a popularist namechange that means nil. They named a damn street after my grandad that I tried to get them not to do as it wasnt in keeping with the street naming theme, but they named it for him anyway. He did something notable but was rewarded by the gov and to be named by the town re it because of other stuff, would have been an insult. That aside, streets/other placenemes should not be named after people (though pioneer explorer names such as Bourke etc or literary greats to note landscape stuff from their works, is OK to mark stuff) as dumb humans dont last long whereas names need to. The colonial naming marked a a lot of the colonial heritage stuff then along come town mares and too clever engineers and want to insert their name and their best mates name, etc. Its banal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Not long back here they intended to rename a heap of heritage street names, to one long name on the excuse that the ambos, police etc were getting lost. It was all bunkum, just the council messing important heritage stuff up but they wouldnt stop what they planned till I got the NSW Heritage boss to send them a letter. I cant quite understand why coppers and ambos get lost. (They dont.) They wouldnt get to be ambos and coppers if they were that dumb. Gundagai was heading for a town with just one long street winding in and out and round and round and about - because the shire engineer is a dimwit re stuff like that. Hi Leon! He is also SES boss so maybe it was him having trouble map reading. Engineers are pretty clever but can also be pretty dumb re some stuff. I know engineers well. He then sent me a feel guilty letter re lost ambulances that will be my responsibility or something. As we do killer roads in this area, the killer citizen because of road names was funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Yep, Asbestos Hill out of town fits, then the real one in town wont be dangerous or darken Gudnagais persona perhaps. It doesnt anyway. I live on it and there is asbestos through my land and it also shows on the geo map as Cambrian Jindalee Group, 'Gundagai Serpentinite' Geological Map Series 8527 Ed 1 1990. Geological Survey of NSW Dept Minerals and Energy. That map also shows where Asbestos Hill is i.e. where I said. Jindalee Group stuff is very special so hiding it is really silly. Its 600,000,000 year old Cambrain geology. Parnassus is slightly more recent by maybe 1,000,000 years but not much as its slate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

If someone from council here decided to move the asbestos hill to out of town to improve real estate values or town image or something, that may explain it. I will ask the engineer next time I see him but that gazetter isnt reliable and its always the maps that stand rather than anything else. Most of North Gundagai is on Asbestos Hill. The Mt Parnassus area is around to the east above the old railway station, with few houses around that side. I am only into stuff being presented as it is. There is good sense in noting where asbestos is given what we know re it these days so its not a thing I'd change the location of. Its not that feral in town just I dont dig the yard a lot. I never let my kids play in it though when they were tiny but let them play in soil 300m away where there wasnt any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).

Stuff (placenames) got moved from this area big time in 1840 but its the surveyors records and actual on ground scientific record stands re them not the moved placenames.

I do cultural heritage not coverup heritage for the sake of tourism or peoples politcal views etc. I tie the place/item/etc - to its meaning and environment that substantiates its own accuracy, not to a fairy story. The stuff that gets hidden is usually more interesting than the stuff that is presented by those who do it so they are pretty silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 (talk • contribs).


 * Please sign your comments on talk pages by pressing [[Image:Signature icon.png]] or typing ~ . -- Bidgee 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Serpentinite
There is a Serpentinite article on wik if anyone wants to link that word in 'asbestos' to it to make here more interesting as it mentions the tectonic plate boundaries that give rise to serpentinite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).

Who is vandalising here now, and WHY? There is no need for it whatever u imagine. Wattle and I discussed the Asbestos Hill etc and then along you come and remove it. I will put it back, then leave it alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).
 * Please don't refer to other good faith editors as "vandals". Also, please sign your talk page comments. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, use good faith, read the above, understand what is asks then remove the idiot accusation u just made. After you do that stop trying to be a pompus troublemaker, stop imaginign u can pick on people and buzz off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).

Dear Anon. TY for doing that link to 'serpentinite'. Muchos gracis -anon.

TY anon. So refreshing to find someone who doesnt go on like a lunatic. Most just sit ready to pounce with not a plesant thing to say in any form, revert content then zero in when that is queried. Its torrid -anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).

The nonsense about bora rings is nonsense even if someoen has a cite for it. I could say I saw a santa up in a tree and get someone to publish that but it does not mean its correct. There are totally no bora rings anywhere here. (Or santas up in trees.) The source it was obtained from was in huge error. (So I guess the error gets perpetuated similar to Asbestos Hills being where they are not.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).

Question To 'Bidgee' Re Why He Keeps Revertign Stuff on Article Page
Bidgee, why do u mess here up for? What is your issue? You have reverted stuff discussed with wattle before posting again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).

Do u just do it to be a pest, or to try and cause trouble or because you have a genuine issue with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).


 * I have not reverted anything. Please sign your comments on talk pages by pressing [[Image:Signature icon.png]] or typing ~ . -- Bidgee 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They are back as they were now but werent liek that five minutes ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs).


 * If you click on the history tab at the top of the page you can see every change ever made to the article with its exact date and time. You are the only person to make any changes in the last two hours.  If you look at a specific change and click (last) you will see a side by side comparison showing every change between than version and the previous version.  You can also click the radio buttons (little circles) on any two versions for a side by side comparision of the differences between those two versions. Thatcher131 06:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Today you accused Bidgee of vandalizing the article by reverting your changes to the asbestos hill issue. An examination of the article history shows that he did not even edit the article at the time in question. Wikipedia has an official policy to Assume Good Faith that your accusation of vandalism fails on two grounds: that there were changes at all, and that changes to your content are vandalism. When Sarah Ewart, an uninvolved administrator, asked you to not call people vandals, you called her a "pompous troublemaker" and told her to "buzz off." I remind you again that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. Working cooperatively entails respect for other editors and their contributions even if you disagree with them.

It is possible your web browser showed you an incorrect version of the page, from it's internal cache. You can usually solve this by clicking the reload or refresh button on your browser to get the most current version of the page. Hopefully, my explanation of how to use the page history was helpful. If you have found that your accusations were a mistake, you may wish to apologize to Bidgee and Sarah, and I will consider this episode closed. On the other hand, if I see further personal attacks directed at any editor, I will block your editing again. Thatcher131 07:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No Thatcher, it isnt possible that my web browser showed an incorrect version of the page, from its internal cache. Why are you here again making up this twaddle and being pompus.

First you make it up re the old page, then want me to apologise over something you just made up. I think it might be good if you stop making these fanciful stories up and stop trying to stir. You cannot see my computer settings or know that even with them set to empty, I also manually empty the cache and everything else each time I close explorer which is very very often, so that little fairy story you just spun, goes nowhere.

Internal cache reload my nellie. Is there a disneyland article here? How about you apologise to all who come here for that futher failed attempt at trying to cause nonsense. If you are an admin, then time to retire perhaps, or to go be retrained. How about you take your block tools, go find a quite contemplative spot, lock yourself into it and spare contributers here the nonsense as its banal, boring and totally and utterly immature.

I do not need you handing out this wrong advice you seem duty bound to hand out spinning totally incorrect possibles (to an olde rperson - is that ageism?) and then threatning punishment if I dont bend to your "possible" delusions. Your behaviour here isnt helping a thing, and here is about putting information on this article not how great you or any other tool holder is, believe it or not. These antics make it sound more DOMish each time the bossy stuff is tried. There is maybe a leather room down the hall so try there perhaps as its not appropriate stuff for here. Go learn some manners instead of trying to spin me ridiculous porkies about cache etc when you have no idea what my cache does or doesnt.

If you use your stupid tools hope u get yr jollies off them. All you will get this end is total disdain for trying that cache story on. Go be a pest elsewhere instead of trying to stir here up again when its now not too disruptive.

There are some bizarre ratbags on wik. Its incredible but probably par for the course also. For someone who has been online for many many years, its not new though the pompous phrasing is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.233 (talk • contribs).

And in future, if I ask someone here a question, then they answer it, that does not then need you to poke in to what is essentially a conversation betweeen those two parties. No one here needs you directing the conversation. If you want to do that, go to a speech therapy site somewhere. You are just trying to cause further trouble here when you are not even from this area as a contributor so not a reg here and I understand are not even from NSW? You are acting like an interferring parent who gets between two kids, referring and that never works and certainly never leads to peace.

Intrude elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.233 (talk • contribs).


 * I suggest you click on the history tab of the article. You will see that for a period of 6 hours last night, you were the only contributor, except for the addition of two fact tags by Bidgee which you removed.  The evidence does not support your accusations that you were reverted.
 * Regarding my presence here, you asked for outside help. Now four other editors (at least) are involved.  This is a wiki, and anyone may comment anywhere.  The fact that I do not live in Australia means that I should be cautious when editing Australian topics; however, I don't have to be Australian to enforce basic Wikipedia standards of behavior and content, like no personal attacks and No original research.  I don't much care what some hill is named, I assume that a group of editors, working cooperatively and using reliable sources, can figure it out peacefully.  I do care very much that your contributions are liberally salted with assumptions of bad faith, calling other editors vandals, alleging vandalism when there is none, and repeated personal attacks.  This should not be tolerated by any Wikipedia editor, and since both Sarah Ewart and I are administrators, we have the power to block you if you continue to make such remarks.  Please stop. Thatcher131 11:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On the article page was the word 'citation' that had been inserted in two places on stuff I had posted, so I put the citations in. If that included removing a 'fact' tag which seemed to me to be the thing that was producing the word 'citation' on the article page, so be it as the content it referred to that wasnt referenced, now is if you go look. This sort of antagonistic inappropriate attack on me because I added cites to content as the article page seemed to request, and which were needed, is part of what is producing and adding to the aggro here. If Bidgee put the 'fact' tags on stuff I was doing and if they were there to ask for cites, and I did that as I intended to, what are you having a go at me re that for???????????????????????

You are not assuming good faith and as an all powerful admin, isnt that a requrement more particularly of u???????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.45 (talk).


 * You are missing the point. It is entirely reasonable of you to remove the "citation needed" tag when you add the citation, and that improves the article, and many thanks.  My comment was directed at the fact that you accused other editors of vandalism for removing your contributions when in fact the page history proves no one did anything to your edits (except for the citation tags) for 6 hours last night.  I think you owe Bidgee an apology for falsely accusing him of vandalism and I think you owe Sarah Ewart an apology for calling her an idiot and a pompous troublemaker, when in fact it was you making false accusations.  (I tried to suggest a reason you might have made an honest mistake, and you shot me down too.)  Just don't go around making personal attacks, please. Thatcher131 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Troublemakers
In future I will just ignore the garbage from pea brained troublemakers who are so hyped up on power its taken them over, as its pointless. I react badly to that sort of psychotic ignoramus and they are not the sort of people I have ever got on with as any right thinking person wouldn't. I am a bit particular re what I associate with so flick. Troublemakers are the only ones stuck with their babyish misery 24/7 so to any anti-social creep who wants to be like that, enjoy!!!!

There will be no future lies able to be got away with re what shows up on my screen re here, or on any other page here that I visit, as all my cache contents now go into my partitioned hard drive. At the same time, my cache does not now empty automaticlly each time I exit my browser, and emptying manually is no prob for me as I do that anyway and my security software and other stuff will deal with anything else.

If anyone wants to discuss article page content in a non antagonistic manner with the end goal to have correct, balanced, informative and interesting content on it, that is fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.45 (talk).


 * I do not take kindly to being called a liar, as I am sure you wouldn't either. I ask you very politely, please click the tab at the top of the article labled history.  You will see a list of every change ever made to the article, listed with the most recent change at the top, with the date, time, and IP address or user name of the editor.  If you click on (last) for any given edit, you will be given a side-by-side comparison of the version you chose and the previous version.  You can then click on <--older edit  or newer edit--> and review the entire history of the article, comparing each change with the one before or after.  If you begin with your first edit yesterday, 23:28 10 October, and then review each newer edit throughout the day, you will see that no one removed or altered anything you wrote except you.  Your accusation of vandalism is false.  I don't know why the article looked to you like it had been changed (if you say it's not a problem with your browser cache, then so be it), but it was not changed at any time yesterday except by you.  I am sure it was only a mistake that you accused Bidgee of vandalism, and a misunderstanding that you called me a liar.  An apology would be greatly appreciated. Thatcher131 02:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

what is that saying if the cap fits, wear it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.178 (talk).

i just broke my rule as above. putting big sign on computer

Done. Flick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.178 (talk).

Cultural events
The cultural events should probably be described briefly as to date and purpose or significance. Thatcher131 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) i know that and just began but dropped choc eclair on the keyboard. it can wait a bit as i am doing other stuff and the links give a bit of info to start —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.178 (talk).

Turning Wave
There is a more direct 'Turning Wave' link at www.turningwave.org then the one put here via Council, (its the same one as on the Council site) that will be updated reg as though its an org, its run from in town by our community advancement group, if whoever put the other here wants to alter it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.178 (talk).

Photos
There are some nice photos of Yabtree online. One lot is in the heritage database, the other on their own site.

The ophiolite sequence noted at the Coolac geo site, in the heritage items, is significant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.178 (talk).

Page Stretch
The article has run out of room. It neds a page stretch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.178 (talk).

Nice and Peaceful
See, that proves it. No power crazy and rude peopel stuck their nose in here trying to mess stuff up, or order me around in the most disagreeable manner they could muster, while I put some stuff on the article page so there was no aggro, and it was very nice. Result: stuff successfully put on wik + no go at me = success. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.178 (talk).

Blocked
Ms Anon from Gundagai, enough is enough. I have blocked you for 24 hours for continuing your personal attacks, specifically those starting under the heading "Troublemakers". Please show the Arbitration Committee and your fellow editors that you respect Wikipedia's culture and community by abiding by this block and not attempting to edit under different IPs. When your block expires, please refrain from making any personal commentary about other editors. If all of us can begin to focus on article content instead inter-personal issues, I'm sure things will settle down. In the meanwhile, please use the next 24 hours to have a wikibreak. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoke ^^ too ^^ Soon
Some must take misery pills on the hour. OK, fine, this is my last visit to this page then I wont see the idiotic missives they post as above to try and cause as much aggo as they can. Go find someone esle to fight with as you are not going to get one off me. Flick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.31 (talk).

Coolac massacre - Reliable sources
I don't believe the reference cited for the Coolac massacre, http://help.com/post/3296/coolac-massacre/, meets the criteria under Reliable_sources - specifically Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. --Golden Wattle  talk 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have deleted this section, I notice that the source on Usenet has also been deleted.--Grahamec 00:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Heritage List Incomplete?
Whomever put that the list of heritage listed sies on the article page is incomplete should complete it if they consider it is incomplete. Its complete as far as its cites go. There is no cite there that says "AIHMS" and wont ever be, but also, most AIHMS level content, is stored in people's heads, not on official lists to then be transferred to places such as wik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.87 (talk).


 * I added it. It's there to say that there maybe more heritage listed sites that people like myself may not know about and that there are yet to be added which I'm sure there is. -- Bidgee 05:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they would be in the databses noted in the cites if there were, wouldnt they? You are just guessing there may be more then?  if so, why put that note if it is base don a guess.  I may have missed one inadvertably but think I put them all in when I put that list up.  There is one other hertiage list that isnt really official and is where places end up if they dont achieve a listing on the real lists.  Its a bit of a micky mouse listing that people then quote to claim hertiage significance 'significance' being a major thing in heritage 'preceedence' in Oz.  I ignore that other list as am trained in significance, and not much regard for micky mouse if saving 100000s year old sites as compared to 6 year old sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.87 (talk • contribs).


 * Not all heritage list sites are online and some newly or old listed sites may not even be on a online database. Wagga has a lot of heritage list sites that are not even listed online so I can't see why Gundagai wouldn't have anymore sites. -- Bidgee 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can' see why the listings would not be on line. I have searched the national register and the state register.  The list matches a 2004 list produced by the Gundagai shire council. I think the list is complete.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)