Thanks for the suggestion. However, I have no means of reporting Jackp as he's leaving no IP address, just the proxy address. If the Wikipedia servers could identify IP's properly, I'd be able to report him to the ISP, and he'd be able to be permanently blocked from Wikipedia too. michael talk 09:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Any further info you have on this place would also be appreciated. Cheers -- Commking 13:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yo yo yo, why did you revert? I flipped the image so he is facing the article instead of the edge of everyones monitor. Meh, whatever , I'm not too bothered JayKeaton 10:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the tip. I tried that at Prospect Creek (New South Wales) then tried to get smart at the Cahill Expressway article. But I think I have gotten it right now... I am just wondering if my online references look correct or not. I will look at the article you mentioned on my talk page. Ga rr ie 11:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your threat to protect this page is not the best idea. It is currently extremely biased and really needs a good clean-up, I'm half tempted to slap a NPOV sticker on the thing, except I've already put this article up for deletion twice (both defeated, first no consensus, second strong consensus to keep) and so I'm not the most objective person to edit it.
Also, could you please recheck your statement regarding so-called "edit warring", it is quite clear that only one person is adding the controversial and unverified stuff. This so-called warring comes from the fact that other users are simply trying to revert the edits, and avoid a potential case of libel. Lastly can I say I'm really happy that you've shown an interest in this article, and I implore you to counsel the some of the editors in this so-called "war" who's history of edits are only to this article, and therefore lack genuine Wikipedia experience. I elliot 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair,
I just started setting up some of the infrastructure to do the Version 1.0 WikiProject Color assessments and noticed your name on some table edits. I've done a lot of monkey-see-monkey-do things, but I still don't know how to add assessment comments the bot can find or how the tables at the Color listing and the assesment page should get updated. Can you point me in the right direction for some "basic" tips? Thanks, Rfrisbie talk 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Curious, found this after seeing a change on Mount Wellington, not sure what cat it should have - any idea? SatuSuro 10:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I always look at the talk pages for Vandalism or any problem users. :) -- Robertmyers 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Louie The Fly.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Didn't you live in Geelong? Anyway, Australian wine has been selected as the current Australian collaboration, so as you voted for it, any contributions would be welcome. Thanks. -- Scott Davis Talk 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
65.43.44.69 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) protested a little too much about one ickle edit resulting in a block - the one ickle edit was certainly not quite random enough. My sensitive eyes were certainly offended by just the edit summary but I guess I will survive, as will we all. I note from Whois that "addresses from within this block are non-portable". Cheers me up immensely when a block actually works as opposed to merely costing the user another telephone call :-) -- Arktos talk 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In the history of the talk is an ad which I reverted - seeing it sits there - is there any point in notifying an admin when something is so damn blatant? SatuSuro 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you're on - Perth Convn Centre has a persistent one who might need some help SatuSuro
Any chance you can make it to the GHC this week? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's urgent; I would just prefer that erroneous information be removed sooner rather than later... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair,
I am writing you because you are the only administrator I have "met" online. There is an article "Waldorf Education" that is in the middle of two groups of people who just keep fighting back & forth. Because of their incessant edits and additions - each pushing their "side" - the article is now huge and incedibly confusing to anyone who wants to just learn about the basic ideas of Waldorf Education.
The page represents every negative stereotype people have of Wikipedia and is over 100 kb long (as of yesterday morning)
So yesterday I wrote first and proposed that we do a major edit and then I proposed submitting it for clean-up. Yesterday alone there were 17 edits and five already today.
I just feel that any attempt to edit the article - separating parts into other pages maybe - or reducing the huge number of references and links, will simply result in their reverting it back. Some sites as of yesterday morning had multiple links - even 5 - on the page.
Since I'm not really involved in their battle and really don't want to be, I feel uncomfortable trying to mediate them.
Is this something that you feel the clean-up crew should take on or am I just giving them more work? Do you think we would have a better result if I offered to take on another thing on the clean-up list or is that just for administrators?
Thanks for your opinion,
Wonderactivist 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Lucie (Wonderactivist)
Hi Longhair, I am still very interested in your opinion, but I'm attempting to make the page a Wiki project. Thanks Wonderactivist 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comments and advice. I hope the Project approach will quell this and if not I will usethe comments that you recommend. 68.97.192.23 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair, I appreciate your moving the page and your willingness to help advise through this project - I hope to build a peaceful consensus and a better Wiki page. Wonderactivist 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Longhair, you suggested I have made legal threats toward an individual. I'm not sure if I should respond to you here or on my own talk page (fairly new here, sorry) but I don't recall making any legal threats. I have invited TheBee to make good on his own legal threats if he feels he as a basis for them. I find that it is difficult not to respond to unfounded challenges to my integrity and regret that this type of discussion has taken place here at Wikipedia. If I might suggest, it is very likely his intention to have me removed from this arena - he has tried this tactic elsewhere with me. In any case, I'm very interested in giving the Waldorf Education page a fair edit so I'll tone it down to a more level-headed roar and try to ignore his comments as much as possible. Thank you for your involvement in the project. -- Pete K 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair,
Can you contact me at the email address found here? I have a question for you. Thanks, -- Thebee 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering what you think about this members userpage? -- Robertmyers 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair. The above photo seems to have been taken from a newspaper, not a press kit. As such it doesn't qualify for fair use. It really should be deleted or replaced with an image under a free license. John Dalton 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it in the US all (federal?) government documents are public domain. Hence mug shots, NASA data and so on are public domain and can be used in wikipedia. In Australia all government output is covered by crown copyright. This means they are "all rights reserved" and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. There is also a difference in that the US has fair use. This is a set of conditions which trump copyright law, allowing copyrighted material to be used. Australia has a much narrower set of exemptions to copyright (eg. a limited number of pages for education). I guess it might be possible (under US law) that if it is a police mug shot released to the press it is part of a press kit and qualifies (in the US only) for fair use. My only interest in the picture is to try and keep Wikipedia "pure" and free of copyright problems. John Dalton 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey! I was wondering..How can I file a complaint concerning a user who removes sourced information, because he/she wants to make all the pages stubs and eventually be deleted? Lil Flip246 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why
User:PageantUpdater is still complaining, because she's finally giving proper references and verifiable sources to articles, something she wasn't doing before, and neither was
User:Lil Flip246. Her own "Wikipediatrix's deletions" example links above demonstrate that I was removing unsourced gossip about living persons as well as copyright-violation images (which are scheduled to be purged from Wikipedia soon anyway). And I'm not the only one who's tried to set these two editors straight - check their talk pages for advice from admins that they ignored. Lastly, note that
User:Lil Flip246 has here for the sixth time repeated her insulting accusation that I'm only cleaning up the articles in order to "make them stubs and be deleted". I actually increased their chances of being kept in the AfD by making them free of copyright violations, false sources, and unsourced gossip that reads like something off a fan blog.
wikipediatrix 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lil Flip246 is still ignoring advice given by multiple editors and admins. Take a look at the Lisa D'Amato article, for example. Not only is it filled with unsourced gossip, her citation links still don't contain the information they're supposed to be sourcing, and she still uses "I saw on it TV myself" and "Someone said it on MySpace" as sources. I would hate to think that an editor could get by with such recklessness on a grand scale simply by being persistent. wikipediatrix 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair,
As you're now involved in the improvement project with regard to the article on Waldorf education, could you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#Question_to_Admins
Also, could you look at if you think the argumentation in an article published at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS#In_Support_of_PLANS is in line with Wiki policies and -style, and if the long quote found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS#Waldorf_Master_Teacher_talks_about_PLANS is in line with Wikipedia copyright policy? Thanks! -- Thebee 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Yours_are_the_ravings_of_a_lunatic.22 Thanks, -- Thebee 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Then, how do you look at
this ?
It documents, that the user in question as part of the discussion of the article has published statements, that, when investigated turn out to be demonstrable libel (demonstrated at the discussion page 14:49, 28 August 2006) and slander, also demonstrated in the section (07:57, 29 August and 16:06, 29 August)?
When I've asked him if he was aware of that (not as a threat, just as a matter of investigated and at the page demonstrated fact), he has answered that he was, and that he published the libel consciously:
The conscious libel and (in spite of repeated request for substantiation) unverified slander is what has preceded the last personal attack.
The user also repeatedly insists on implementing guidelines differently for links he likes and links he does not like.
In response to a question regarding his latest personal attack: if he really wanted to violate the Wikipedia guidelines against such a statement as he makes in the attack, again, he has answered (06:27, 1 September) "I'm just going to sit back and be satisfied with the fact that you put it [the quote of the attack, my comment. Thebee] in very large type."
Where does Wikipedia draw the line for acceptable behaviour by editors?
Thanks, -- Thebee 07:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have one further question to you at my Talks page. Thanks, -- Thebee 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. What do you want me to do? -- Froggydarb croak 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.
I see two major issues:
1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?
2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.
Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:
1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.
My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.
What is your opinion?
And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I will take yor advice. I have asked everyone to take a break for a couple of days to cool heads and get everything set up properly. Meanwhile, I'm taking a Wiki Project crash course! I hope it is OK to print out instruction pages. Wonderactivist 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I was serious, Steve Irwin made a lot of money in his life time, one of the richest tv personalities in Australia, and the amount they travel it is extremely unlikely that Ms Irwin was "too far" to be contacted before the worlds press found out. Thanks for messaging me in any case JayKeaton 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
WolfStar3 ( talk · contribs) -- man, is it a new thing to have vandals pretending to be bots, or is it just me? Getting this a few times on Commons: now too. Ta, pfctdayelise ( translate?) 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your monitoring the events on that page, can I suggest that the talk page gets some archiving the page is already getting difficult to read. Gnangarra 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the info mate. Looking at the history of the template there seems to be quite a few edits...I was following the example of the {{ welcome}} template to invite potential Australian rules football editors to the project. Do you know of any way to fix this? R o gerthat Talk 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind indulging me and letting me know if there were any edits to Image:Irwinzoo getty.jpg after my last edit and before its deletion? If so, could you email them to me? I'm curious.... thanks. -- pfctdayelise ( translate?) 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dgies 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to give him the same warning? You should note that he got catty with me in such a fashion some two minutes before I posted that reply on his talk page. Amazing that a PUBLIC talk page can have him telling me that wikipedia would be better without me but a PRIVATE talk page in reply can't have a punch thrown back. It's nice to see cronyism (and I use it in its political sense of partiality before you fly off the cuff on me again) is alive and well. You know, I might respect your warnings if they were applied with a bit of consistency. As it stands, you revert my edits to his private discussion page to hide what would be potentially embarassing to him, yet leave his little indictment of good riddance to bad rubbish on the public discussion page with a) no warning towards him and b) no reversion either. Thank God for diffs. Professor Ninja 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ha! I don't even know what edit we're talking about anymore. I don't make a habit of personally attacking people though -- yeah I get riled up, but I calm down quick. There's no sense getting worked up when in the end other than the trolls and vandals we're all trying to do our best. Professor Ninja 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree, unfortunately. Although the armour was made in 1880, the photo very much was not. As it's a [2D] photo of a 3D object, it can take on new copyrights (unlike a [2D] photo of a 2D object). But isn't it still on display? Should be easy to replace. :) -- pfctdayelise ( translate?) 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that backslashing business is deliberate vandalism. As I understand it, inserting random backslashes through pages means the user is using an open proxy and should be blocked. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, It's still a work in progress. :) Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Dracula thinks you are a bad man, and do not deserve to be on Wikipedia, you shall find out your fate within the next 7 days. King Dracula 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Dont ya think? [1] - Glen 13:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Has just requested unblock - you blocked him as a vandal only acc. but I can only see the one edit? - Glen 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Longhair, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me with worthwhile activities as an administrator. JPD ( talk) 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction; first attempt at a stub article - any help was grateful, and will be gratefully, received MojoTas 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair
This is about the Waldorf education article.
I am a neutral user, and for the most part a bystander, in what is going on on the Waldorf education article.
I hesitate to point the finger, since I would like to be neutral, but it is clear that there are 2 editors whos constant insertion of POV prochure language, links to their own personal web sites, and general lack of civility is severely undermining the clean-up project which is underway.
In my opinion, since we are now protecting the page, an admin really needs to 'get tough' with the editors in question so that the rest of the contributers can move forward.
-- Fergie 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage! That moronic anonymous vandal was getting on my nerves. Now I can finally have some peace and quiet. Please wait some time (at least a week) before lifting the semi-protection. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BobbyDazzler cast.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair,Cormaggio, and Fergie, I know there's already been so much controversy surrounding it, but plan to proceed with the Waldorf project. Thank you all so much for your help so far.
I have organized the pages better, centering on the page Longhair set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project and have a proposal on the table for how to proceed in a very focused, organized fashion. I truly believe that this is the only way the project can progress. I would like to invite your ideas and comments on the organizational structure, and the proposals, and anything else! Wonderactivist 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks! Baseball Baby 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops! I stand thoroughly corrected. For the Waldorf project, I have actually sought out the opinions of one admin, one unbiased Wikipedian, and one involved, yet highly experienced and demonstrated-to-be-fair Wikipedian.
Cormaggio has made an excellent point: several of the ongoing editors of the Waldorf page have chosen not to take part in this project. It may be that mediation is a better choice. I am happy to spearhead a project, but just as happy to turn it over to mediators. Considering the conflict you have witnessed in the past month, which do you recommend? Personally, I would just like for the edit wars to stop and for the page to be just a bit more stable. Wonderactivist 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you - vprotection is required - everyone nutcase jumped on my back on IRC however so I wimped out. Good call matey :) - Glen 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the Steve Irwin vandalism seems to be the work of a single vandal using sleeper accounts - it would be better if we can get them identified and blocked, since they have more "value" to an abuser. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your warm welcome! I was frequent visitor of en-wiki, and I am participant of commons, where I uploaded some 30 unique World War II photos from my personal archive. Certainly, I would stay with Wikipedia because of greatness if its idea. Greetings-- Belissarius 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi LongHair,
I hope this is how I am supposed to put something on your talk page if its not the right way I am sorry, I'm just replying to how you edited the Collendina artical. I am 90% sure that it is all correct, I have mainly gathered the infomation from people who have lived in Ocean Grove for longer than I have, It is basically only word or mouth and such i have no citations. The handshake probably was a good choice to remove. But I put all my knowlage down about collendina as there is nothing on the internet about it. If you need further proof that it exists, you may well have a melways living in mildura, it is in the melways, it is on the left side of ocean grove. thanks; Koikaze
Koikaze 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note on your recent edit to Geelong, Victoria. Editing date formats has no real purpose, as editors have the option to select how they wish to view dates under their personal Preferences section (above). Check under the 'Dates and Times' heading in Preferences for more information. Cheers. -- Longhair 06:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You recently performed a full protect of User talk:217.21.235.96, for obvious reasons, but could you please revert the page to restore the pevious warnings, as it is currently a cross-namespace redirect. Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi ive just noticed an edit youve done close in time. Guildford Grammar School has just been done again by what appears a guy on red link, originally he did from a number. He puts stuff on, then wipes it - but its still in history, and I think the perpetrator might or might now how that sits. Hope thats not a nuisance to ask you to look at it, if youre too busy I'll do what I can SatuSuro 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
hoopydink Conas tá tú? 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that some categories that you have created have been placed up for deletion here. If you still have an interest in these categories, please come and give input, pro or con, to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[3] and [4] and noticed that they are basically advertising. I also noticed that all edits on them had been done by one person. How do we stamp them with a peer review or advertising note. Mark1800 07:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Aw, shucks... All I did was re-arrange it. I'll give it a copy-edit later on. And thanks for the well-wishes. -- cj | talk 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly suspect that the two attacks are the same...on user and talk - is it worth doing anything more than warnings? SatuSuro 11:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to improve the harness racing page, yet I'm not sure what needs to be cited and what would be assumed common knowledge, would you or some other suitably qualified person be able to go through and put citation needed where ever i need to find a cite. I hope to get this to a good article or a featured article. Cheers Kearney6 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit of a turbocharged template, isn't it, like WPBio and MILHIST?! I was hoping it would be a class/importance/needs-infobox job and I'd get to supporting it tonight. As it is, it would probably take a few hours at least because of all those parameters :(.
In the meantime then, mate, please try version 0.4 of my plugin to which I've added support for reviewing/assessing articles. -- kingboyk 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I have no means of reporting Jackp as he's leaving no IP address, just the proxy address. If the Wikipedia servers could identify IP's properly, I'd be able to report him to the ISP, and he'd be able to be permanently blocked from Wikipedia too. michael talk 09:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Any further info you have on this place would also be appreciated. Cheers -- Commking 13:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yo yo yo, why did you revert? I flipped the image so he is facing the article instead of the edge of everyones monitor. Meh, whatever , I'm not too bothered JayKeaton 10:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the tip. I tried that at Prospect Creek (New South Wales) then tried to get smart at the Cahill Expressway article. But I think I have gotten it right now... I am just wondering if my online references look correct or not. I will look at the article you mentioned on my talk page. Ga rr ie 11:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your threat to protect this page is not the best idea. It is currently extremely biased and really needs a good clean-up, I'm half tempted to slap a NPOV sticker on the thing, except I've already put this article up for deletion twice (both defeated, first no consensus, second strong consensus to keep) and so I'm not the most objective person to edit it.
Also, could you please recheck your statement regarding so-called "edit warring", it is quite clear that only one person is adding the controversial and unverified stuff. This so-called warring comes from the fact that other users are simply trying to revert the edits, and avoid a potential case of libel. Lastly can I say I'm really happy that you've shown an interest in this article, and I implore you to counsel the some of the editors in this so-called "war" who's history of edits are only to this article, and therefore lack genuine Wikipedia experience. I elliot 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair,
I just started setting up some of the infrastructure to do the Version 1.0 WikiProject Color assessments and noticed your name on some table edits. I've done a lot of monkey-see-monkey-do things, but I still don't know how to add assessment comments the bot can find or how the tables at the Color listing and the assesment page should get updated. Can you point me in the right direction for some "basic" tips? Thanks, Rfrisbie talk 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Curious, found this after seeing a change on Mount Wellington, not sure what cat it should have - any idea? SatuSuro 10:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I always look at the talk pages for Vandalism or any problem users. :) -- Robertmyers 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Louie The Fly.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Didn't you live in Geelong? Anyway, Australian wine has been selected as the current Australian collaboration, so as you voted for it, any contributions would be welcome. Thanks. -- Scott Davis Talk 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
65.43.44.69 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) protested a little too much about one ickle edit resulting in a block - the one ickle edit was certainly not quite random enough. My sensitive eyes were certainly offended by just the edit summary but I guess I will survive, as will we all. I note from Whois that "addresses from within this block are non-portable". Cheers me up immensely when a block actually works as opposed to merely costing the user another telephone call :-) -- Arktos talk 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In the history of the talk is an ad which I reverted - seeing it sits there - is there any point in notifying an admin when something is so damn blatant? SatuSuro 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you're on - Perth Convn Centre has a persistent one who might need some help SatuSuro
Any chance you can make it to the GHC this week? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's urgent; I would just prefer that erroneous information be removed sooner rather than later... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair,
I am writing you because you are the only administrator I have "met" online. There is an article "Waldorf Education" that is in the middle of two groups of people who just keep fighting back & forth. Because of their incessant edits and additions - each pushing their "side" - the article is now huge and incedibly confusing to anyone who wants to just learn about the basic ideas of Waldorf Education.
The page represents every negative stereotype people have of Wikipedia and is over 100 kb long (as of yesterday morning)
So yesterday I wrote first and proposed that we do a major edit and then I proposed submitting it for clean-up. Yesterday alone there were 17 edits and five already today.
I just feel that any attempt to edit the article - separating parts into other pages maybe - or reducing the huge number of references and links, will simply result in their reverting it back. Some sites as of yesterday morning had multiple links - even 5 - on the page.
Since I'm not really involved in their battle and really don't want to be, I feel uncomfortable trying to mediate them.
Is this something that you feel the clean-up crew should take on or am I just giving them more work? Do you think we would have a better result if I offered to take on another thing on the clean-up list or is that just for administrators?
Thanks for your opinion,
Wonderactivist 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Lucie (Wonderactivist)
Hi Longhair, I am still very interested in your opinion, but I'm attempting to make the page a Wiki project. Thanks Wonderactivist 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comments and advice. I hope the Project approach will quell this and if not I will usethe comments that you recommend. 68.97.192.23 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair, I appreciate your moving the page and your willingness to help advise through this project - I hope to build a peaceful consensus and a better Wiki page. Wonderactivist 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Longhair, you suggested I have made legal threats toward an individual. I'm not sure if I should respond to you here or on my own talk page (fairly new here, sorry) but I don't recall making any legal threats. I have invited TheBee to make good on his own legal threats if he feels he as a basis for them. I find that it is difficult not to respond to unfounded challenges to my integrity and regret that this type of discussion has taken place here at Wikipedia. If I might suggest, it is very likely his intention to have me removed from this arena - he has tried this tactic elsewhere with me. In any case, I'm very interested in giving the Waldorf Education page a fair edit so I'll tone it down to a more level-headed roar and try to ignore his comments as much as possible. Thank you for your involvement in the project. -- Pete K 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair,
Can you contact me at the email address found here? I have a question for you. Thanks, -- Thebee 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering what you think about this members userpage? -- Robertmyers 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair. The above photo seems to have been taken from a newspaper, not a press kit. As such it doesn't qualify for fair use. It really should be deleted or replaced with an image under a free license. John Dalton 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it in the US all (federal?) government documents are public domain. Hence mug shots, NASA data and so on are public domain and can be used in wikipedia. In Australia all government output is covered by crown copyright. This means they are "all rights reserved" and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. There is also a difference in that the US has fair use. This is a set of conditions which trump copyright law, allowing copyrighted material to be used. Australia has a much narrower set of exemptions to copyright (eg. a limited number of pages for education). I guess it might be possible (under US law) that if it is a police mug shot released to the press it is part of a press kit and qualifies (in the US only) for fair use. My only interest in the picture is to try and keep Wikipedia "pure" and free of copyright problems. John Dalton 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey! I was wondering..How can I file a complaint concerning a user who removes sourced information, because he/she wants to make all the pages stubs and eventually be deleted? Lil Flip246 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why
User:PageantUpdater is still complaining, because she's finally giving proper references and verifiable sources to articles, something she wasn't doing before, and neither was
User:Lil Flip246. Her own "Wikipediatrix's deletions" example links above demonstrate that I was removing unsourced gossip about living persons as well as copyright-violation images (which are scheduled to be purged from Wikipedia soon anyway). And I'm not the only one who's tried to set these two editors straight - check their talk pages for advice from admins that they ignored. Lastly, note that
User:Lil Flip246 has here for the sixth time repeated her insulting accusation that I'm only cleaning up the articles in order to "make them stubs and be deleted". I actually increased their chances of being kept in the AfD by making them free of copyright violations, false sources, and unsourced gossip that reads like something off a fan blog.
wikipediatrix 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lil Flip246 is still ignoring advice given by multiple editors and admins. Take a look at the Lisa D'Amato article, for example. Not only is it filled with unsourced gossip, her citation links still don't contain the information they're supposed to be sourcing, and she still uses "I saw on it TV myself" and "Someone said it on MySpace" as sources. I would hate to think that an editor could get by with such recklessness on a grand scale simply by being persistent. wikipediatrix 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair,
As you're now involved in the improvement project with regard to the article on Waldorf education, could you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#Question_to_Admins
Also, could you look at if you think the argumentation in an article published at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS#In_Support_of_PLANS is in line with Wiki policies and -style, and if the long quote found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLANS#Waldorf_Master_Teacher_talks_about_PLANS is in line with Wikipedia copyright policy? Thanks! -- Thebee 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Yours_are_the_ravings_of_a_lunatic.22 Thanks, -- Thebee 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Then, how do you look at
this ?
It documents, that the user in question as part of the discussion of the article has published statements, that, when investigated turn out to be demonstrable libel (demonstrated at the discussion page 14:49, 28 August 2006) and slander, also demonstrated in the section (07:57, 29 August and 16:06, 29 August)?
When I've asked him if he was aware of that (not as a threat, just as a matter of investigated and at the page demonstrated fact), he has answered that he was, and that he published the libel consciously:
The conscious libel and (in spite of repeated request for substantiation) unverified slander is what has preceded the last personal attack.
The user also repeatedly insists on implementing guidelines differently for links he likes and links he does not like.
In response to a question regarding his latest personal attack: if he really wanted to violate the Wikipedia guidelines against such a statement as he makes in the attack, again, he has answered (06:27, 1 September) "I'm just going to sit back and be satisfied with the fact that you put it [the quote of the attack, my comment. Thebee] in very large type."
Where does Wikipedia draw the line for acceptable behaviour by editors?
Thanks, -- Thebee 07:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have one further question to you at my Talks page. Thanks, -- Thebee 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. What do you want me to do? -- Froggydarb croak 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.
I see two major issues:
1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?
2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.
Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:
1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.
My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.
What is your opinion?
And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I will take yor advice. I have asked everyone to take a break for a couple of days to cool heads and get everything set up properly. Meanwhile, I'm taking a Wiki Project crash course! I hope it is OK to print out instruction pages. Wonderactivist 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I was serious, Steve Irwin made a lot of money in his life time, one of the richest tv personalities in Australia, and the amount they travel it is extremely unlikely that Ms Irwin was "too far" to be contacted before the worlds press found out. Thanks for messaging me in any case JayKeaton 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
WolfStar3 ( talk · contribs) -- man, is it a new thing to have vandals pretending to be bots, or is it just me? Getting this a few times on Commons: now too. Ta, pfctdayelise ( translate?) 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your monitoring the events on that page, can I suggest that the talk page gets some archiving the page is already getting difficult to read. Gnangarra 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the info mate. Looking at the history of the template there seems to be quite a few edits...I was following the example of the {{ welcome}} template to invite potential Australian rules football editors to the project. Do you know of any way to fix this? R o gerthat Talk 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind indulging me and letting me know if there were any edits to Image:Irwinzoo getty.jpg after my last edit and before its deletion? If so, could you email them to me? I'm curious.... thanks. -- pfctdayelise ( translate?) 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dgies 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to give him the same warning? You should note that he got catty with me in such a fashion some two minutes before I posted that reply on his talk page. Amazing that a PUBLIC talk page can have him telling me that wikipedia would be better without me but a PRIVATE talk page in reply can't have a punch thrown back. It's nice to see cronyism (and I use it in its political sense of partiality before you fly off the cuff on me again) is alive and well. You know, I might respect your warnings if they were applied with a bit of consistency. As it stands, you revert my edits to his private discussion page to hide what would be potentially embarassing to him, yet leave his little indictment of good riddance to bad rubbish on the public discussion page with a) no warning towards him and b) no reversion either. Thank God for diffs. Professor Ninja 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ha! I don't even know what edit we're talking about anymore. I don't make a habit of personally attacking people though -- yeah I get riled up, but I calm down quick. There's no sense getting worked up when in the end other than the trolls and vandals we're all trying to do our best. Professor Ninja 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree, unfortunately. Although the armour was made in 1880, the photo very much was not. As it's a [2D] photo of a 3D object, it can take on new copyrights (unlike a [2D] photo of a 2D object). But isn't it still on display? Should be easy to replace. :) -- pfctdayelise ( translate?) 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that backslashing business is deliberate vandalism. As I understand it, inserting random backslashes through pages means the user is using an open proxy and should be blocked. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, It's still a work in progress. :) Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Dracula thinks you are a bad man, and do not deserve to be on Wikipedia, you shall find out your fate within the next 7 days. King Dracula 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Dont ya think? [1] - Glen 13:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Has just requested unblock - you blocked him as a vandal only acc. but I can only see the one edit? - Glen 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Longhair, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me with worthwhile activities as an administrator. JPD ( talk) 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction; first attempt at a stub article - any help was grateful, and will be gratefully, received MojoTas 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Longhair
This is about the Waldorf education article.
I am a neutral user, and for the most part a bystander, in what is going on on the Waldorf education article.
I hesitate to point the finger, since I would like to be neutral, but it is clear that there are 2 editors whos constant insertion of POV prochure language, links to their own personal web sites, and general lack of civility is severely undermining the clean-up project which is underway.
In my opinion, since we are now protecting the page, an admin really needs to 'get tough' with the editors in question so that the rest of the contributers can move forward.
-- Fergie 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage! That moronic anonymous vandal was getting on my nerves. Now I can finally have some peace and quiet. Please wait some time (at least a week) before lifting the semi-protection. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BobbyDazzler cast.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Longhair,Cormaggio, and Fergie, I know there's already been so much controversy surrounding it, but plan to proceed with the Waldorf project. Thank you all so much for your help so far.
I have organized the pages better, centering on the page Longhair set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project and have a proposal on the table for how to proceed in a very focused, organized fashion. I truly believe that this is the only way the project can progress. I would like to invite your ideas and comments on the organizational structure, and the proposals, and anything else! Wonderactivist 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks! Baseball Baby 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops! I stand thoroughly corrected. For the Waldorf project, I have actually sought out the opinions of one admin, one unbiased Wikipedian, and one involved, yet highly experienced and demonstrated-to-be-fair Wikipedian.
Cormaggio has made an excellent point: several of the ongoing editors of the Waldorf page have chosen not to take part in this project. It may be that mediation is a better choice. I am happy to spearhead a project, but just as happy to turn it over to mediators. Considering the conflict you have witnessed in the past month, which do you recommend? Personally, I would just like for the edit wars to stop and for the page to be just a bit more stable. Wonderactivist 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you - vprotection is required - everyone nutcase jumped on my back on IRC however so I wimped out. Good call matey :) - Glen 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the Steve Irwin vandalism seems to be the work of a single vandal using sleeper accounts - it would be better if we can get them identified and blocked, since they have more "value" to an abuser. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your warm welcome! I was frequent visitor of en-wiki, and I am participant of commons, where I uploaded some 30 unique World War II photos from my personal archive. Certainly, I would stay with Wikipedia because of greatness if its idea. Greetings-- Belissarius 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi LongHair,
I hope this is how I am supposed to put something on your talk page if its not the right way I am sorry, I'm just replying to how you edited the Collendina artical. I am 90% sure that it is all correct, I have mainly gathered the infomation from people who have lived in Ocean Grove for longer than I have, It is basically only word or mouth and such i have no citations. The handshake probably was a good choice to remove. But I put all my knowlage down about collendina as there is nothing on the internet about it. If you need further proof that it exists, you may well have a melways living in mildura, it is in the melways, it is on the left side of ocean grove. thanks; Koikaze
Koikaze 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note on your recent edit to Geelong, Victoria. Editing date formats has no real purpose, as editors have the option to select how they wish to view dates under their personal Preferences section (above). Check under the 'Dates and Times' heading in Preferences for more information. Cheers. -- Longhair 06:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You recently performed a full protect of User talk:217.21.235.96, for obvious reasons, but could you please revert the page to restore the pevious warnings, as it is currently a cross-namespace redirect. Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi ive just noticed an edit youve done close in time. Guildford Grammar School has just been done again by what appears a guy on red link, originally he did from a number. He puts stuff on, then wipes it - but its still in history, and I think the perpetrator might or might now how that sits. Hope thats not a nuisance to ask you to look at it, if youre too busy I'll do what I can SatuSuro 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
hoopydink Conas tá tú? 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that some categories that you have created have been placed up for deletion here. If you still have an interest in these categories, please come and give input, pro or con, to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[3] and [4] and noticed that they are basically advertising. I also noticed that all edits on them had been done by one person. How do we stamp them with a peer review or advertising note. Mark1800 07:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Aw, shucks... All I did was re-arrange it. I'll give it a copy-edit later on. And thanks for the well-wishes. -- cj | talk 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly suspect that the two attacks are the same...on user and talk - is it worth doing anything more than warnings? SatuSuro 11:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to improve the harness racing page, yet I'm not sure what needs to be cited and what would be assumed common knowledge, would you or some other suitably qualified person be able to go through and put citation needed where ever i need to find a cite. I hope to get this to a good article or a featured article. Cheers Kearney6 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit of a turbocharged template, isn't it, like WPBio and MILHIST?! I was hoping it would be a class/importance/needs-infobox job and I'd get to supporting it tonight. As it is, it would probably take a few hours at least because of all those parameters :(.
In the meantime then, mate, please try version 0.4 of my plugin to which I've added support for reviewing/assessing articles. -- kingboyk 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)