User talk:Dinkenfunkle

Welcome!
Hello, Wayne aus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Stawell, Victoria. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg (chat) 16:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Pliny
Hi Wayne aus, I seem to have been moved to blitz the NH. I have added many refs, drafted new text on missing topics, extended the Reception section, and chopped great lumps of WP:OR and WP:TotallyIrrelevant. I suspect we are getting quite close to feeling like going for GA. What do you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, you certainly did have a little blitz. The article is greatly improved. Well done you! I've never been down the GA track, so I probably can't comment meaningfully on that. Wayne 12:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I've brought several natural history book articles to GA (see my user page) but never an Ancient before. Fingers crossed! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. by the way, I've identified the source of the highfalutin' windbaggery in the article: it's the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Pliny the Elder. That reveals that there is still a small amount of the century-old text remaining, mostly in the Natural History (Pliny) section. You might possibly like to have a go at replacing some of it with fresher material? If you want a GA credit... All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've kicked off the GA process. What sort of time-frame does that typically entail? I ask because my ongoing health issues, along with some prior commitments, will most likely prevent me from doing anything helpful in the next several weeks. (That's why I used, as you may recall, the phrase: "... things that I potter around with, from time to time" in my post in the NH article's Talk page.) My point being that timeliness is not one of my strong points as things stand. It's also why I rarely do anything more than minor copy-edits.
 * The review process generally takes a week or so, tho' it can be quick; one often waits weeks or months before someone decides to take on the GA review. If you can fit in a little bit in the next week or two, that would be very nice.

You're right about the Britannica article being the 'inspiration' of some of the content in that section, quite liberally so. Certainly unhampered by any conscience regarding plagiarism, anyway!
 * To be fair, what probably happened was that someone automatically populated a large number of Wikipedia articles directly from the out-of-copyright 1911 EB; there is an acknowledgement so neither copyright nor plagiarism can be alleged. Now that WP has been running for more than a decade, we have all acquired a healthy distaste for EB-speak and lack of inline citations, and the stuff is being ripped out by the handful. Lumps of it will undoubtedly remain in quiet corners and sleepy hollows for many years. I'd dearly love to get rid of all of it from this article but it would take some doing, as the EB scholars did look up many (unnamed) sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey ... the Good article thingy got up ... congrats! Further to your observation about the content coming from 1911 Brittanica ... I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the background. I'll keep an eye out ofr it and rip out some handfulls as well. Again, congrats on the GA.Wayne 17:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The reviewer enjoyed it, and the article is improved. I did a compare with the EB and I think we've more or less got rid of all of it, if you can find any then feel free... and there's always room for improvement. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What to do?
So I'm hoping an experienced and maybe admin-type person will see this and advise ...

I've wandered onto an article about a prominent Australian business person, (Nathan Tinkler) and the talk page has some ... not vandalism as such, but pretty dodgy comments. Now, if it was in the article itself I'd be happy to edit it. But it's not, and I seem to recall seeing some injunction somewhere about not deleting other users' Talk entries. On top of all this, I really can't face getting into a stand up argument with the user/s concerned, partly because I'm pretty much a nobody around WP...(a half-hearted one at that) and partly because I don't know that editing it is justified. Even though some of it looks a tad libelous to me,and Mr Tinkler is in a ... controversial position of late. (usw).

I look forward to hearing from any helpful souls with advice on:
 * Is the material in question of a nature that warrants attention, and if so:
 * What is the preferred WP way for a not-very-active-or-confident user like me to deal with it?

Cheers. Wayne 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Wayne, it appears the offending content was removed by in this edit. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

LiveWatch
As reviewing administrator, I decided not to delete the article because it was basically factual, not promotional. Presenting the basic data about a company in an objective manner is acceptable--what is not acceptable, and is very common and well worth deletion0-are the articles about companies devoted mainly to puffery. A useful guide is that if it is what one would expect to find on their web site as their main page, it's almost certainly promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback  DGG. I'd be curious to know if you looked at the material linked in the 'references'? They are all 'sham' articles written by or for the business that is the subject of the WP article. (Clues to this are that the company itself or the person named as the principal of the company are mentioned or quoted, always in a positive light, in each item.) This is what lead me to my assesment of it as a promotional article, rather than the content or wording of the WP article iteself. (No matter, I'm certainly not going to contest your decision.) Thanks again. Wayne 02:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That aspect is the question of notability, and in specific, whether the sources are independent. I agree with you that it is questionable, and the place to discuss it is AfD--one has in fact been started by another editor at Articles for deletion/LiveWatch.
 * I see you apparently agree with me that the combination of weak notability and significant promotionalism is enough reason to delete an article; I have been saying so for a many months, and have taken several articles to AfD on that basis, and intend to do so with a few hundred more. (it really has to be AfD for such cases, not speedy, because it's usually not black/white, but a judgment call; Consensus has been sometimes to delete, sometimes not.) It isn't right for an admin   to use speedy on the basis of their own opinion if they know others might disagree in good faith.
 * I urge you to continue to pay attention to articles like this-- it's a plague, and we need to fight it.  DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I gather then that it was the correct thing to nominate the article as 'AfD' (I'm still getting used to WP acronyms), but I shouldn't have used the 'Speedy' option. Now I know. Onwards and upwards!

(you said) ..."agree with me that the combination of weak notability and significant promotionalism is enough reason to delete an article: ..."

Why yes indeedy! I'm still a bit cloudy on where the line should be on notability though. At this stage I usually think that WP can afford to be a little more inclusive than say a printed encyclopedia, but clearly a 'free for all' isn't going to be workable either. I have read Wikipedia:Notability of course, and that will be the benchmark for any action to delete, but what to leave in-situ has, I think, a little more room for discretion. I guess I'll clarify my thinking on that as time goes by. Promotional stuff I have no reservations about: Off with his head! Anyway, must go and look for more plague-like articles. Cheers. Wayne

Bob Carr Neutrality
Hello!

I think one major thing missing in the neutrality of Bob Carr's article is the legacy of corruption he has left behind. He was a part of the labor right, and a facilitator for the terrigals, in fact he raised Eddie Obied to prominence (his diary says he hated the guy, true, but then his diary is invariably biased and in all honesty is quite revisionist, I doubt most of it was written at the time).

The fact of the matter is; most of Bob Carr's close colleagues in the NSW Labor party are now either under investigation or have been declared corrupt by the ICAC. I think that what you have done is fantastic, it makes the article much less of a Labor party flier, or a huge excerpt of Carr's own revisionist history diary, however I still think the article generally paints Carr in a very positive light.

I do understand the risks associated with persons living etc, but I think it would be a major oversight not mentioning his many negative points, he was afterall a highly contentious politician and far from universally loved. He is kind of like a moderate version of Putin; terrible, but with no opposition.

in any case, thank you for your work it is really good; lets see how long it lasts.Shuggyg (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Shuggyg. No one has undone any of the edits during or since the several weeks from my first edit. I'm pretty well done with the article. Re your comments above, I'm sorry to say that it seems to me that you're never going to be happy with the article because of your own POV on Carr's history. For example you talk about "the legacy of corruption he has left behind". Got an independent verifiable source for that, or is it just an opinion? And as for your "The fact of the matter is..." I wont even go there. I don't give a toss about Carr, the ALP or NSW, so none of that interests me. I do care a bit about WP, which is why I started editing the article at all. So I wonder how that NPOV tag of yours will ever be rescinded. Not enough to get into an argument about it though. I'm off to find something else to improve. Cheers Wayne 13:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I do have reputable sources, there are thousands of articles about Bob Carr and his role in supporting the terrigals, yet the terrigals, the faction of labor to which he belongs, is hardly mentioned. The fact that when you search for the names Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi they aren't there speaks volumes, these are two undeniably central politicians in the same political party, political faction, and general political milieux as Bob Carr when he was active in politics, he has opinions on them, he has supported them - yet mysteriously there is no mention of them in the article about Bob Carr. I think you've done great work, but it's still not neutral, You're right it's better but it's not neutral.


 * Book; He who must be Obeid - Kate McClymot
 * Articles; http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/eddie-obeid-well-someone-has-got-to-get-paid-20140728-3coai.html
 * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-11/mitchell-obeid/4561852
 * http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/carr_now_claims_obeid_not_his_fault/?nk=66f5ffa38fd52e2e910b8f8d85048672
 * http://www.theage.com.au/comment/bob-carr-cynical-departure-sends-his-reputation-up-in-smoke-20131023-2w0t6.html


 * there are tons and tons.


 * but like i said, i like what you've done, and i respect your work, but it's still not neutral.Shuggyg (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My first AfD ... should I, or not?
Article in question: Robert C Shapcott

So ... about 12 months ago I stumbled across this article, and tagged it as not notable, also leaving a comment in that page's Talk. I also noted that it survived a previous PROD.

Since then ...zip, zilch, nada. It's still there, no edits, no response in Talk.

I've just done a search on google, google books and google scholar. Only scholar contains one result that may, or may not, mention this person. It seems that some one may have cited this person's earlier research in a later publication. it's pretty tenuous though.

So I'm still thinking ... not notable.

Hoping some experienced heads could give me some guidance on the question of this article warranting an AfD.

Thanks in advance.

Wayne 13:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this looks AfD-worthy if you have done the necessary checks per WP:BEFORE. I don't see any great claim of importance or significance, it reads like an obituary, and it may well be a copyright violation from the source given at the bottom. That doesn't seem to be on-line; I tried some of the text on Google, but only found an obvious WP mirror, so there isn't enough evidence for a copyvio speedy. JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for the advice, JohnCD! Time to strap on the ol' WP:BOLD and try something new, I guess. (maybe tomorrow, it's 2am here) Wayne 15:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on schools: government and non-government
Hi there. There is a discussion on Australian schools that may be interest to you, located at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Improving the John Anderson page
Hi thanks for pitching in on this page. It currently has a lot of statements with no source. And it doesn't reflect what we know about the subject from secondary sources. I sense that you're acting in good faith and we have common ground in wanting to see a genuinely encyclopaedic article. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd be really interested in what you'd see as the standard to get to in this space. To my mind there's only one really good political Australian BLP, and that's the one for Julia Gillard, although the one for Kim Beazley is pretty good too. Thoughts?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't get too carried away about my 'pitching in'. Neither the JA page nor its subject are likely to hold my attention for a long time. I only came across it and its problems after a conversation about JA after he announced his current foray back into Aus politics. Reading the article and its striking POV issues led me to the Talk page, and here we are.

I've just left a rather lengthy comment on the last entry in JA Talk. We can continue that part of the conversation there.

I'm not familiar with many other BLPs of Aus politicians. I had a bit of copy edit blitz on Bob Carr a couple of years ago, so I was a little familiar with it then, but that all came about much the same way as my input on JAs article ... I looked at it (Carr) after a conversation sometime after (IIRC) his time in the Gillard ministry, and it was so partisan I felt compelled. In both cases it was much more about my concern for the quality of Wikipedia content than trying to defend some pollie's reputation. (And by the by, I think the intro on that is way to long. It's a thing for me. The intro on Angus Taylor ... yeah, 3 sentences! Way to go that WP editor.)

In terms of using other articles as a pattern, do you know of any BLP relating to a figure of similar circumstance (say, a leader of government in a liberal western democracy, broadly speaking) has ever been or nominated to be a featured WP article? I wasn't familiar with the Gillard article so I've just made a quick perusal. First impressions are that it, and especially its intro, are way to long and detailed about stuff above and beyond the reason/s for notability. I readily acknowledge that this a point of separation for me and most WP bio's. I often grumble that there is way to much personal info. In the case of the JA article, the very last bit about his child's congenital health and eventual death ... I'd prefer it not be there. I often think stuff like that is just not our business, and must be a source of pain to the articles' subjects. If I was writing for a trash magazine, then sure. An encyclopaedia? Not so much. But as I say, I recognise that it is all through WP and my distaste for it is apparently in the minority. Possible a minority of one, who knows? Anyway, I'll have a look at the Beazly page later and see what that's like.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I (reasonably easily) change my user name?
And if so ... how?

I've been browsing Help pages and found a bit that says that "only trusted users can change your name". Is that me, or somebody other than me? Trusted by whom? le sigh.

Nothing else offered any suggestion of the "how" bit.

EDIT: found it!

Wayne 10:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)