User talk:Mattinbgn/Archive 14

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

AFL categories
Thanks for your comments. I think the best thing we can would be to wait a few days while we get these silly nationality categories sorted out. Some have already been listed for deletion at CfD and others which are not populated would probably qualify for a speedy deletion tag. With them out of the way than it should be easier to argue at CfD for Category:Australian rules footballers to get reinstated. I'll tell you what, if ever wikipedia holds a contest for the most pointless category, you would be hard pressed to find a more worthy winner than Category:Tuvaluan players of Australian rules football. Jevansen (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update. If you feel like banging your head against a brick wall, I have nominated a bunch of the nationality categories at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 1. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism or content dispute?
Hi Matt - I've been attempting to get an editor who is currently "updating" player stats in rugby league articles to update the "update" field when he/she adds new stats. He/she does remove existing dates, which is fair enough, but refuses to replace them with either 5 tildes or a text form of date. As with other sports such as cricket, the update field gives readers and other editors a guide to the currency of the information presented. I realise wikipedia will never be perfect, so am I pushing shit up hill to persevere, or is it vandalism and should I continue with user warnings? Here are two examples on the one article, Chris Sandow - 1, 2. There are two ips involved, 118.208.50.23 and 118.208.44.3. It's great that he/she is taking an interest in updating stats, but detrimental in other ways. Thanks for any advice.  florrie  03:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Florrie, sorry for the delay in responding. I understand your frustration


 * My view is that it is hard to attach the tag of "vandalism" to what appear to be good faith edits. If I had to speculate (and this is only speculation) the IP editor(s) may be a particularly statistically-minded person whose skills in other other areas may not be as developed. They may not understand what you are trying to say and not understand the problems they are causing. I had a similar experience with a contributor (with an account) and a little research showed that is was a 13 y-o boy who was somewhere along the autism spectrum.


 * Given that the editor has done nothing that could really lead to blocking and I doubt that there is a case to argue for a ban for disruptive behaviour (and I would be loathe to permanently block an IP address for this sort of actions anyway) I see a few courses of action.


 * Revert edits as they arise as unreferenced. This seems a little tendentious as there does not appear to be a problem with the quality of the edits.
 * Go around and add the tildes ; but this will get tiresome, or
 * Accept that Wikipedia will never be perfect and that sometimes near enough is good enough. With any luck the IP editor will start to add the tildes or lose interest in providing the updates. (my suggestion).


 * If you like, perhaps seeking some more opinions at the Village Pump may throw up some other solutions. Cheers and good luck, Mattinbgn\talk 05:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My turn to apologise - don't know how I forgot to thank you for your reply! Too much RL probably. Anyway, I'm digging my heels in over the Wests Tigers players and inserting only verifiable data in the infobox. My own little island of verifiability. Cheers,  florrie  05:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

List of localities in Victoria (Australia)
Have finally made good my threat of redoing this list (and renaming it)-fairly complete, a few places yet unlocated and may be some neighbourhoods placed in the wrong locality (on the other side of road or creek etc) so could use some help on this (All the spelling is OK though)- Many of the linked articles where all the info. is supposed to be will need some work but I will be doing this shortly. Could it be 2 or 3 page list?? If so, I dont know how to achieve this (Epistemos (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)).

Any Clue?
Do you have any idea about what's going on with YellowMonkey? Has he left or just having a break? I'm very concerned.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 09:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response. I had no idea all that had happened.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * YM is probably like me ATM, has Wikipedia burnout and needs sometime out. Next few months I may take a few week to a month off but ATM I'm just limiting my time here. Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been on wikipedia much lately.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Back and kicking. Time for a revolt, or at least smarter tactics to keep Squealer (Animal Farm) from getting a free lunch. Still, they must be looking for any reason to get rid of me, so said Chappelli about the Phantom, I'd better hope I have a few folks to protest for me  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you have the support of 51% of the people your going alright.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 08:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hughes
Thanks. I think CFD is pretty useless....As for Hughes, I saw that in the recent changes. Yeah I wasn't around in his day, but I've heard him commentate on ABC radio and think that he was way worse than the whole fleet on Indian commentators on the IPL. And so biased as well, even worse than David Morrow who thinks Bracken, Katich in 2005, etc and everyone should be in the Test team and that Clarke should never have been dropped in 2005. I didn't think he was smarter than Shoaib Akhtar judging by that performance. Having said that Brearley would easily make a fool of any current international captain. The Haigh chapter about Hughes in teh ACB history book is pretty scathing, especially the ridiculous quotes about his ego trips and brash statements. And well yes, Chappell*2 + Marsh and Lillee were pretty horrible in those wild days. And people think that the current behaviour is the worse when the lawlessness of the 70s and 80s was so horrible. Especially when Hogg kicked the stumps and punched Hughest on the field! Definitely an interesting and ugly period in cricket history, and Roebuck kept on plugging the book in his commentary, and Ryan writes for the Monthly with Haigh so it must be a scholarly book. I should read it sometime.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Geoffry Boycott isn't much better, although I don't mind when he's on air because his ridiculous comments every time there's a six hit are hilarious. It's always a dirty slog or pathetic bowling.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FAVOURITES
 * Laxman Sivaramakrishnan - accent and blocked nose accent should get him banned. his wife should slap him each time he keeps on saying "It doesn't get any better than this" every few minutes
 * "Bumble" Lloyd - amusing for being a great guy and not knowing anything and saying ridiculous stuff.
 * Lawry - ridiculously over the top etc,
 * Roebuck and Lawson, hooray for the cynical left-wing intellectuals.....especially when Roebuck is deliberately being pompous and airy fairy and deliberately forgots what happened in the last ODI
 * Aggers, the best.....
 * NEIL HARVEY, should make him the post match interviewer and see how long it takes Ponting to bash him
 * G Chappell getting angry and not replying to Aamir Sohail for about two overs. Sohail noted that Chappell gave Suresh Raina lots of chances when he was coach when Chappell kept on waxing lyrical about Raina belting all these sixes everywhere.

 YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that a list of your least fav commentators?  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 08:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Roebuck, Lawson, G Chappell, Aggers are great. Bumble and Lawry are fun. Harvey and Bedi would make an ideal interviewers, at least for provoking egotistical modern players :) Siva and most of the Indians are horrible. Dileep Premachandran is a excellent writer but when he did a guest stint on ABC last year as the "expert" he was a bit passive and he didn't seem to sound scholarly like Roebuck and Lawson. Also, the "Expert" is usually a player who does technical comments and Dileep obviously wasn't can't do what Roebuck can do, but as Kerry wasn't there, they were short on retired players. They should have had Dileep on as a normal commentator like Manthorpe is and paired him up with Roebuck. At least Lawson is back now. Those were the best entertainers mostly, except Siva who is terrible. Arun Lal is pretty bad, Shastri, if he is going to load up on cliches he might as well camp it up like Lawry. Gavaskar, only good for flaming, we should get Bedi in there to partner him. Most of the Australians while not being particularly eloquent, are quite astute. Slater is a bit ridiculous it seems as though he is trying to emulate Lawry and Peter Walsh, who is completely ridiculous. Harsha and Roebuck are a good pairing. Harsha always spends his time talking about Indian soceity and he is very good at painting it vividly. Especially when Roebuck is with him they always end up philosophising about rural v city, regionalism, communists, caste system etc. Also Kerry trolling Harsha. Splendid!!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting to note Manthorp is currently commentating on TV for the SA V Aus ODI series. Kerry gets a lot of flack but I don't mind him as there is never a dull moment in the box. Man you should hear Peter Walsh's footy calls... lets just say he nearly sends you deaf! Rajit Fernando from Sri Lanka (as with all SL commentators) is an absolute shocker.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 08:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm half way through reading Golden Boy and enjoying it-its a great shame Claggie is keeping his mouth shut, but I can understand why he is. I loved Jack Rutherford's references to the Victorian bastards. Someone should write an article on The Subsidy. Djanga 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have heard that a well-balanced Western Australian is one with a chip on both shoulders! ;-) -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done on hughes. Very scholarly with the Haigh  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to more, I dont know much about the establishment team during the WSC split. Saggers is on FAC...with all the strings of cites everywhere  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia article
A long term editor who has been here since 2005 removed content from the infobox twice. While they may raise some valid concerns removing content that has been in the article for sometime would need a consensus however they think the content itself needs a consensus. I see it is that a community consensus would be needed to remove the content which is in dispute. I don't really have much time to get involved with this since I have a number of assignments to complete but would be interested in your thoughts. Bidgee (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Though so. On talk|history|links|watch|logs)|Wikipedia:Requests for page protection I've been trying to deal with an IP editor who just keeps reverting to what they want and now says I threatened them. Really this project is starting to become a hell hole with more uncivil editors doing what they want and act how they want. Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now the Anon editor clearly has changed IP's to undo the edit. Bidgee (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP who reverted is clearly one editor since the ISP matches to those on the talkpage and is using two ISP's to push their agender. The article needs to be reverted to the original state. The Anon editor isn't proving that it does exist within the source given since I've not found the claims made and have looked at almost all the possible reliable sources here in the TAFE library and not found the claim. Bidgee (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bidgee, busy day at work and haven't had a chance to have a good look through it as yet. Will get back to you or perhaps raise at WP:AN/I -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bob Cristofani's death
This is an interesting one, as CricketArchive and Cricinfo disagree on both the place and the date of death. As things stand, we have the place of death as Canberra, per Cricinfo, but the date as 21 August, per CricketArchive. Given that the infobox source is CricketArchive, if we're going to depart from that for part of it we'll need to explain why, presumably in a footnote. Do we have any other sources (newspaper obits or something) to back up using one site over another? Loganberry (Talk) 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No crusade against relation articles
you will note many of these country x-y have been deleted. some of have been retained, but they are all going through the proper process of AfD. you should note these were all created by a now banned user, there are 200 odd states in the world which would lead to 40,000 possible combinations. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply. I understand the editor was temporarily banned for excessive article creation. then permanently banned for sockpuppetry under this ban. Personally, I'd like to see some criteria established for notability of country-country relations. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron
I appreciate your work on the country relation articles. You may interested in this organization.

Bob Cristofani again
I've had a reply from CricketArchive. They believe that they are correct, and have provided the relevant line from the UK govt's death index. This certainly does show that a "Desmond Robert Cristofani", with the right date of birth, died in NE Hampshire (which contains Fleet) on 21 October 2002. I'm starting to wonder if the way to go might actually be to include a short paragraph in the article proper noting the discrepancy between the two main sources. Loganberry (Talk) 23:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Saggers
Might need some reinfrocements about the stack of refs for the byes.... YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, from a fellow One-less person who wants to see Rohit Sharma bat!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for that I can chuck in teh next FA now  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Don
Don't you think Don Bradman deserves promotion? He is probably the best known Australia, don't you think? Wallie (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1948
Can you find any decent Invincibles tour books in there that I should check?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Yes Mallett is pretty slack with accuracy, but a good raconteur and analyst. He says "Gauhati" instead Guwahati and got a few venues mixed up in his 69-70 tour of India in the Walters book.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Leslie
Hi! I responded in part to your comment at the AfD, but I don't want to debate there, as I think people's comments should be allowed to stand on their own without a few loud voices dominating. But as a general question, related to this (but not exclusive to this), my concern with WP:BLP1E is the idea that our coverage will be detrimental. If the person won't otherwise be discussed, then it seems our coverage might keep things alive. Which may well be bad. But if it is the case that the person becomes an example, and is thus regularly pointed to in the press as "the person who ...", (even if, or perhaps especially if, much of the coverage is trivial), I think that a case might be made that having an NPOV article is a positive, because it would allow people to get context that would be lacking in the mass media.

It's something I've been thinking about in relation to a number of articles (most not AfD related). I was wondering about your thoughts, though, because it seems you've been thinking about similar issues, and I think that there are complexities here which are hard to weigh up. - Bilby (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I made one or two draft attempts to respond to Mark Hurd's argument at that AfD: "Also any "harm" was done by the media then". While I believe that there was in fact harm done (using inverted commas tends to suggest that Mark feels no harm was done) and that a Wikipedia article will cause further harm. Media interest is transitory and populist by nature, Wikipedia articles are in contrast supposed to be written for posterity. From Avoiding harm (an essay) "As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity" I said at Corey Delaney discussion, "as a project we are aiming at a higher ethical standard than the press and wire services, all attempting to meet deadlines and generate content." While your argument that an NPOV article that provides context would be a positive for the subject is worthy, to me it has several flaws; the biggest being I believe it is impossible to write an article in this case that does not cause further harm. Merely mentioning her arrest and trail is likely to continue to cause the subject additional harm, no matter the motives for doing so.  Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. In general I agree with you, and I think the difference in this case is simply one of where we each draw lines. :) A couple of points, if I may: I agree that the "harm was already done" argument doesn't hold, and I don't share it. While media is no longer truly transitory (thanks to the presence of archives), it still seems reasonable to say that further harm should be avoided, and Wikipedia may cause further harm. I fully agree with the deletion in the case of Cory - the difference here is that Cory was always going to be of only brief interest and disappear from the media. What I'm thinking of is cases where the subjects remain in the media, long after the primary event. In this case (as an example), every time someone is arrested with drugs in Asia, the media refers to Leslie. Similarly, she get's coverage when she broke up with her boyfriend, shows up at a major event, or even (in one case) doesn't show up. Along with coverage about regarding other related issues, normally from a strong POV. If the world won't let the subject walk away, then my thought was that we can serve a "harm reduction" role through NPOV. I think it is related to the "low profile" clause in WP:BLP1E, but it seems that what amounts to a low profile is going to be hard to judge. - Bilby (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, our point of disagreement can be boiled down to the following: I think she is non-notable outside the one event; you feel the subsequent press coverage means that she is now notable in her own right. This is a matter of opinion. WP:BLP states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." For my part I read the "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile" part of this test very, very strictly. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with you - I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, as I wasn't trying to talk you into changing you !vote, as I assumed you would have considered this sort of issue already. :) I think she is fairly close to borderline - I put her on the "not low profile" side, but I think it is also perfectly reasonable to put her on the other side of the line. What I really wanted to do was check my reasoning with you, as this is a bigger issue for me than just this one AfD. Thanks for your comments, by the way, they're much appreciated, and have helped. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

original research
Ok now I'm feeling seriously persecuted by you old timers! :-)

The whole issue of escort agency scams has been well documented across the internet and I can provide you with links dealing with the issue including the one given in my contribution from which the entry was summarised. So are you saying that something that hasn't been said somewhere else before by somebody else can never be included in Wikipedia? I'm a bit confused by the whole thing and think you guys should be more supportive of new people! I really welcome your feedback on how I can be a more useful and productive member of the Wikipedia family but just deleted my contribution on a subject that is well documented and which I am very familiar with just seems to be..... well wrong!

I hope you understand where I am coming from. I am genuinely interested in using my knowledge and experience to help other people and make Wikipedia a better place!

Hagis69 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Michelle Leslie
courtesy blanked. I'm having second thoughts about my close myself, so I guess we'll see how I vote should it go to DRV. Wizardman 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Leslie
I disagree with many of your points:First, I agree that we don't take BLP seriously enough. But the primary problem has nothing to do with deleting well-sourced, neutral content. The primary problem is the large number of poorly referenced or completely unreferenced articles about non-notable or mildly notable individuals. Deleting articles doesn't solve that.

Moreover, "The idea that the media have given her a good kicking, so our further little kick won't hurt is, to me, morally indefensible" is misleading and inaccurate at multiple levels: First, this is an individual who had prior to the incident and continues to have after the incident a public career. Second, an article by us does not "kick" her at all. A google search or similar search will look nearly identical with our article included as with not. Indeed, if anything it will look better since many of the top hits are the more tabloidish coverage, not well-written, neutral discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing to bring the issue into the public domain and preserving into perpetuity is a "kick" regardless of our intentions. Her public persona before the incident is questionable to say the least. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, we aren't continuing to bring it into the public domain. There has been continuing coverage of her (indeed, if there were not I would have been much more inclined to argue for deletion). Anyone googling for her will find the same result whether or not we have an article. Coverage of her wil exist in perpetuity in many sources other than us. So again, having a neutral, well-written source on the matter makes sense. Second, I don't know what you mean when you say that her prior public persona was "questionable" if you mean it didn't meet WP:BIO that might be true. If you mean that there was something bad about it, then a) I don't see that and b) insinuating that without evidence isn't by itself very BLP helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Questionable, meaning of questionable notability not questionable reputation. You are right, I should have been more careful. That is another example about how careless use of words here cause harm. For your further point, claiming that a Wikipedia article is not "continuing to bring it into the public domain" is almost wilful ignorance. There was "X" amount of coverage before the Wikipedia article, there is now "X" amount of coverage plus the Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article is a further intrusion into the public domain of someone else's life, over and above the press coverage. You are ignoring, again almost wifully, the difference between press coverage (written for the moment and not by its nature designed for perpetuity) and an encyclopedia article, written as a lasting record. Giving this whole story the Wikipedia TM tick of approval is likely to cause more damage to a subject than any amount of press articles. Finally, you much more confidence in Wikipedia's ability to write NPOV articles than I do. NPOV is a goal, and a worthy one but it is impossible to meet in practice. All writing must make decisions on what to include, what to leave out, the words used etc. In Leslie's case, even a sympathetic article has to wade through the muck. This must cause additional harm. The problem is not what is written, it is that it is continued to be written about.
 * Look, this is going nowhere. You see an in theory NPOV article and think "what harm". I see the existence of an encyclopedic article as by its nature causing additional harm to the subject over and above coverage elsewhere. Our views are not likely to change. The majority appear to agree with you and so we muddle on. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification...
I've tried not to get involved, but I've been watching the talk page comments this morning on Leslie, and note that you have been referring to a few of my comments. You are not presenting them accurately, indeed, you are presenting them incorrectly and to be quite objectionable. This, IMO, is particularly grating and over-dramatic.

Granted, Leslie might be a marginal keep/delete case and there are many more far more notable topics. And our efforts debating her article could be better devoted somewhere else to improving the encyclopedia, but some things need to be put right. And, I note that you seem to be replying to a lot of people about my comments except not to me.

Not once did I "liken" or "compare" her to John Wayne Glover - to say so is completely unhelpful (I can't believe that someone of your apparent intelligence misread it). Nor did I support the notion that because a newspaper writes negatively about her, another "kick" from us is not going to hurt. On the contrary, I've specifically said we could use wikipedia to get it right (again, distinction between AFD/notability and BLP/quality).

If, in your opinion, I have missed something here and need to be corrected, then please say so directly to me, without basing it on a strawman argument, and with a degree if civility. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your intentions (which I am sure were without malice to Leslie), you directly related Leslie's notability with Glover's. You mightn't like to be told that, but it is a fact and it was objectionable. Secondly, I did tell you directly, I posted my response directly below your comment at the AfD.


 * I am still amazed that you feel your action is somehow OK because you didn't mean any harm. That is the problem with these articles, most people of goodwill (which is most of us here, incuding you) don't mean any harm but it happens anyway. It happens because we treat people as abstractions rather than as people with feelings. When we do that, comments like "may i ask rhetorically whether perhaps we should delete the John Wayne Glover article to preserve dignity for his family" in a discussion about a girl with two pills in her purse is the result.


 * The major problem with BLP1E as it applied is the notion that once someone appears in the press, even as marginally as Leslie (who was no Jennifer Hawkins by any means) they therefore forfeit any rights to privacy. If they are lucky they will get what "we" (not the subject) determines to be a NPOV article (which, again even with the best intentions, rehashes the muck and makes it available to a wider audience) and if they try and edit it, we then block them for breaching COI!


 * Look, you won, I lost. The tribe has spoken and I have no intention of taking this to DRV. However, in my opinion, the way we treat our living biographical subjects here at Wikipedia is a scandal. I have a quote on my user page I found around the traps. You can read it at User:Mattinbgn/Resources. The last line says "Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story" Unfortunately, this is not true and until such time as we make a total hash of something and someone gets seriously hurt, it is unlikely to change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. My attempts to discuss your assumptions seem to have only cemented them, and apparently opened more (incorrect) lines for you to berate me further. We really both have better things to do. However, I did find the afd surprising, and was certainly cause for reflection. regards --Merbabu (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Berate" must be one of those irregular verbs: "Merbabu discusses assumptions, Mattinbgn berates"!


 * In my initial comment at the AfD I said "I have given this one a bit of thought as some editors I respect have argued for keeping this article". You are one of those editors. That doesn't mean that I will agree with you all the time or find every comment that you make praiseworthy. I think you were wrong to support keeping the article, but people will disagree and it seems your point of view on these articles is supported by the community and mine is not. I think this makes the encyclopedia less worthy, again you disagree.


 * I think you crossed the line badly with the Glover comment and I said so at the time. What was the purpose of raising Glover at all if not to compare his situation to Leslie's? I know you did not intend to compare Leslie to a serial killer, it was merely a rhetorical device; but compare them you did and it was wrong to do so. As such I feel quite comfortable citing that comment to ensure a courtesy blank of the AfD discussion where the objectionable statement was made. I also note that you have not commented on your incorrect claim that I "seem to be replying to a lot of people about [your] comments except not to [you]" even after I demonstrated that I did reply almost immediately to your comment.


 * My views on BLP articles are not new, I have held them for some time and they were crystallised in the Corey Delaney case. Things have not improved in the way BLP articles are treated here, and indeed the Leslie case indicated they are going backward. You disagree and you have the right to do so, but there is no point getting upset with me because I disagree with your actions and see them as bad for the project. As I said, you won and I lost. End of story. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Idle curiosity
Completely idle interest and of no consequence whatever, but what does the bgn stand for? Feel free not to answer (or to tell me to mind my own business), its just inexplicably something I've been trying to guess at and failed. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied via e-mail. It's no big secret but equally no point ruining the mystery for others! -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Silly Hilditch.... again
Picking Brett Lee for T20 WC with no match form. Lee is not going to get a game when he gets back to the IPL....Punjab have no local batsmen (or won't use them ie Srivastava and Kaul), so they can only have one import bowler (Y Abdulla unless they want to drop him for Lee) ....unless they want to drop Katich or Jayawardene for Lee and then possibly drop Sreesanth or Vikramjeet Malik for some Indian batsman they won't trust to bat above Chawla.... so looks like Hilditch hasn't taken into account the fact that Lee might be on the bench..... Then he will have about one FC game before the Ashes when his Test average in England is 45+. Silly. If he was serious he would have gone to county cricket like Hughes.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ranted  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WOW
I honestly don't have a good excuse for this half-conscious effort other than to state that I should never work on Wikipedia before coffee, sitting on the train platform. I can tell you what I thought I saw: I saw a name that looked like a veiled attempt to insult the original user, and edits to that user's user page linking to a blog, with something to do with ranting and calling someone a "silly hilditch" -- which, I have to confess, I have no idea what that means. I also have to admit that I'm having a hard time grasping what this user is about (other than cricket) from his user talk page. I can only meekly chalk this up to a barely awake misinterpretation and make my sincerest apologies to the user -- did he even see it happen? Again, I'm unbelievably sorry. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mattinbgn and actually I had no clue I was blocked at all as I hadn't checked the Userpages part of my watchlist for over a day! Not a problem at all.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
has been disrupting Wikipedia and is now disrupting the Westfield Parramatta by trying to turn it into a forum for information rather then improving the article. Really I give up on this editor. Bidgee (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor has changed IP but still the same ISP. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Johns
Could I suggest full protection, established users are now trying to POV push. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the article fairly closely, none of the edits as yet seems to be made in bad faith, although some skate the BLP line. I am happy to watch for a little longer before fully protecting, which should be a last resort - even for BLPs -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Too Americanised?
Hi Matt,

I've been deal with US editors who think that School bus isn't primarily about the US. At least 75% of the article is focused on the US which is were I see rather unfair of them to remove it because they feel is fine when it isn't. Bidgee (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of -up
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.


 * I have a bad flu - but a short spurt there in the -up territory best of luck with the dyk and the duplication farce - SatuSuro 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/find/guides/wa_history/place_names might be a lead SatuSuro 14:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9479/guugu.html sfunny rod milne used to be a railway history researcher too :) SatuSuro 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.det.wa.gov.au/education/abled/apac/districts/bunbury/places.html possible cross reference SatuSuro 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help (and the links), it has been a big improvement to the article. Hope you are feeling better soon. -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugger wikipedia addiction i thought the local referendum admin work and the flu had hit it for a six - you must check also Pinjarup and the carrolup piccie in the noongar art SatuSuro 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are piutting it up for dyk beware the fictitious additions like those that creep in viz this edit the possibilities of fictitous ups and others requires more than eternal vigilance :( SatuSuro 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm youre running close to the wind in your comments at the Hammond afd - you have 'no idea' how up themselves perth lawyers are :) (I'm no lawyer and my cv could outshine that crap If I bothered) SatuSuro 12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah point taken it is a cv through and through - but if there was a smidgin of a notability with the absestos thing - we have very little on the whole thing in the wa project and james hardys we have run out of money despite millions profit announced today is a linkable issue if the character really did have anything to do with it - the whole tone of all this was meant as a joke - wish some of the locals in wa project would poke there noses in on -up - I have a feeling there is alot more somewhere but... SatuSuro 12:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You may have not met our little fella at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_watercourses_in_Western_Australia :)  SatuSuro 12:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell! I don't think I have space for all those -up rivers! That must have been a mountain of work for someone. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You would need to talk to hesperian about that I think he dumped from something that made it easy :) - maybe up for localities is the best way to leave it for the moment SatuSuro 12:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gasp! Satu you aren't that dude that has swine flu and was on the same flight as the Freo Dockers?..... Or the one that just won't stay at home?  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Lists of national cricket captains
Talk:Australian national cricket captains. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I tried to start up discussions on the talk pages themselves earlier, but the database was locked, and I couldn't edit. For some reason, the move function still worked, though, and I thought the moves were cleary supported by guidelines so they wouldn't be controversial. Sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The mini-redirect war here might have been a clue that there was not universal agreement. There is a good argument for the rename but I just think it is silly to add redundant words to an article title just because of a guideline. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming also has to do with Wikipedia-wide consistency. "List of" implies that the article is primarily a list, while the lack of the appended "List of" implies that the article is mainly prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Junee citation
I have made some edits to the page but alas I cannot claim that quote as my own. I take your point though Chrisfromcanberra (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Junee citation
I have made some edits to the page but alas I cannot claim that quote as my own. I take your point though Chrisfromcanberra (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

-up
Yeah, they look fine. There are two other possibilities.

is the vowel of "coop". If you want the vowel of "foot" (and in US English at least, "woop" and "oops!"), it would be.

is a full vowel, often transcribed with "secondary stress", as in "tea-cup" or "pick-up truck". If you want the reduced vowel of "gallop" or "bishop", it's.

kwami (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bryce
Even though she is a representative, she acts with the power as monarch. For lack of a proper equivalent, she is like an Acting President or Acting Prime Minister. They execute the power without officially holding the office. Recent comments  used in the article also show the government's attitudes. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that it was bizarre. The fact that she acts as the head of state due to the official head of state being indisposed is exactly like an Acting PM. Several other heads of state and heads of government without substantial powers are still considered national leaders. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Macartney
Do you know of any specific books with more detail on him. I've only got the general history by Pollard and a few tidbits from Haigh's Big Ship.... I'm trying to make it better, I don;t think it was very good.... (too much Perry and raw stats) ... the same for Tallon too ....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Been a bit tied up with the swamping of FARs...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ponny
Looking good imho  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I re-read it last week and thought that it may be worth a shot. I am a bit nervous as to how it may go when a non-cricket fan reviews the article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied about the bodyline riot and some other stuff. Miller is up there too  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Chin up. Brian is one of the tougher guys out there and he likes cricket. I suppose it means that CRIC FAs will be sturdier in the long run  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His feedback was welcome (and useful) and FA status is a means to an end&mdash;an improved article&mdash; and not an end in itself. I was just a little confused by some of his points and I hope he returns to clarify them for me. 1(a) will always be my biggest stumbling block at FAC and all I can hope for is that improves my writing skills in the process. Thanks for the support! -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I coyedited all of it. Did you see my queries about there being no info on 33-34 and 29-30 at all?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pinged Brian . MAybe that's why he didn't reply yet  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurray!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, looking good now. Thanks again for the help. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed
Gundagai editor is back and edited at Hume and Hovell expedition which I've since reverted 3 times but they have reverted there version back and also included personal attacks in there edit summaries. Bidgee (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like VS has got this one under control. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be absurd...
...to suggest that you could help with this? It's doesn't seem to be the biggest thing in the world but for me it's the matter of life and death right now :) --62.216.120.76 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I really that naïve??
replied at OE's talk page.

Western Melbourne
Did you mean Footscray. In my opinion it isn't safe in the middle of the day... YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been there in the middle of the day and had no problems... down around the African section off Nicholson Road. Orderinchaos 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Capalaba
Hi,

If you're confident about the IPA for Capalaba, could you remove the 'dubious' tag?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Miller
Replied  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking councillors
Wow! I didn't know that was him! I expect we'll see a few notables popping up here and there, though ... Frickeg (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notification - CfD
A proposed rename for LGAs "of" cities to LGAs "in" cities - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_17. Thought I'd drop a line as you edit a fair few of them. Orderinchaos 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's basically a ghost town with about 10 farms in the general area. The 557 makes it look bigger than Dwellingup, Western Australia which is the only real town in the area. Orderinchaos 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ponsford
Congratulations on the promotion. Hope to see more along these lines. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ora Banda
I have left some clues for wombat - like an an example of a good short ghost town article SatuSuro 02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Definite they really should be designated PD - he didnt create them all by himself - they are probably lifts from pre 1940 items SatuSuro 02:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Goddard
Just to let you know that the PROD on this article has been contested and the article has been restored. You may wish to nominate it for AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, an OTRS ticket can get an entirely unreferenced article about a living person restored now, in flagrant breach of Wikipedia policy. Fine, will list at AfD. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can contest a PROD. Due to the confidentiality of OTRS I can't provide any further details, but you will have to trust me (or your choice of other OTRS user) that 2009062310024207 justifies the matter. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is not with the PROD being contested, it is with your restoration of an unsourced biography of a living person, despite WP:V and WP:BLP. No matter what the OTRS request was, it surely cannot justify blatant policy breaches. As a result, the article has to go to AfD for a deletion discussion, where the subject will no doubt be discussed in less than glowing terms like "non-notable" How this can be considered appropriate is a mystery to me. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The details of the OTRS ticket actually do make a difference. I'm afraid I can't elaborate further, but please feel free to ask another OTRS user to verify this. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:John1abbes
Didn't see you had him in your sights. Straight to a level 4 warning!  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 11:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree completely, but wish others see it the same.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Images of 2009 womens world cup
Thanks for the link. I'll try to figure out who's who and request those images. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Derrick Bailey
Thanks. Could do. I suppose there aren't many former county cricket captains who founded airlines. Johnlp (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx
...for the heads-up. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? It is the truth. You are the one in the wrong putting FALSE MISLEADING information on the internet. I will continue to edit what is WRONG, with proper correct facts. Have fun banning me on Wikipedia