Talk:Gundagai/Archive 1

message: To reinforce the header message - ie all new discussions should go on the current talk page, I have semi-protected the page.  This is because there is one editor who frequently breaches talk page etiquette and wikipedia guidelines and conventions - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*--A Y Arktos\talk 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

message: ::From that i have head about this 'massacre' is that a Neville Williams who is a Wiradjuri Aboriginal clams that there was a 'massacre' there (I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass.
RobertM 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much? (ABC News 17/4/2006) No end to Coolac bypass delays. I never had a go at Neville Williams i just stated on what i know!
RobertM 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coolac bypass hold-up 

message: The anon editor has suggested that 2004 references are "old, out of date info".  There appears to be no later environmental review than 2004.  http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview_dl1.html  There seems no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time and that any new information has come to light.
This ABC news item from August 2005 suggests that the heritage study was over 10 years old.  However, it is not clear if the RTA or the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation agreed and were prepared to act on the suggestion to redo the heritage study.  This article does indicate that Neville Williams was involved in the discussions.  A Google search does not turn up any later news items than August/September 2005 and no evidence that any more recent surveys have been done.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Coolac bypass heritage investigations 

message: Although the anon contributer has been referred to Wikipedia:No original research he or she has still suggested that "poems about the massacre as citations but then .... that requires skill in textual analysis to recognise those poems are citations".  It is not a matter of skill.  Analysing citations to draw conclusions is original research.  Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.  Textual analysis published in a peer reviewed journal would be accepted.  Unpublished textual analysis would not be acceptable as a source.
Wikipedia is not responsible or otherwise for the presence or absence of plaques on the Hume highway.  Nor is it hiding massacres.  Wikipedia will not include information that cannot be verified from Reliable sources.  Wikipedia is not meant as a source for researchers; researchers need original material and they will not, or at least should not, find it here.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder of what wikipedia is not: translate "no original research" 

message: I just read on the wik notice board a discussion re here.  In particular a 'grahamc' post.  This person claims he is involved with Coolac and with NSWNP but was retiring.  I have no idea how a State government employee would be talking about stuff to do with work in this manner.  I also have no idea how he would be claiming knowledge re Coolac as if he had any he'd not be saying he had, or be commenting on any of it here.
Is GrahamC of Indigenous heritage and/or initiated?  If he isnt, he isnt qualified to comment on the symbolism.  I'd say he isnt Indigneous and/or initiated as there is no one with that name on my radar.  Is he a qualified archaeologist.  No, I know he isnt.  Is he an informed local.  I would say he very certainly isnt so would have no useful local knowledge re any of it.  He claims knowledge re this issue.  He very obviously has no 'expert' knowledge of it so has put some scoffing remarks here re it all just to be negative about the whole topic claiming at the same time, some inner knowledge that gives him the right to make some sort of pseudo qualified statement.  
Its annoying when people put rubbish here.  The surveys arent completed so no report can be done till they are.  Perhaps if you go put misinformation elsewhere, but not on this Aboriginal Massacre discussion site.  If you don't know stuff, dont claim you do as the topic doesnt deserve that.    
I know you have totally no registered interest in Coolac either as an RTA person or as a community member.  The information you put on the Wik Notice board re here is mostly on the public record but with errors so you repeated it out of context and though you put some vaguely correct stuff here that has been in the papers and maybe was general talk at the RTA, you dont know the finer points and the restricted stuff you would never ever be privy to so wont ever know so cant comment on it.  Yes, the massacre isnt in the way of the new road.  You know how the RTA know that?  I told them.  I'd only be able to tell them (RodS) that if I knew other stuff and if they then checked I'd notifed new stuff to cover themselves.  As a State gov employee you would not have put stuff here that wasnt on the general public record anyway, especially with this stuff.
If you are Aboriginal and/or initiated I will accept you are qualifed to make comment re the symbolism though you didnt learn your cultural story well and are wrong with your assertions.  If you are not, you very certainly are not qualified to comment on that aspect re Coolac - so dont presume to as it just messes here up.  Claiming you are qualified to comment on the symbolism of another culture by commenting, is similar to claiming you are a pilot then crashing the plane after it takes off.  I am qualified to comment on the symbolism. 
Likewise with other aspects re Coolac, you do not know for specific cultural but also professional reasons.   
"Statutory authorities put cultural heritage values above scientific values."  
Navin Officer, Coolac ICHRD Report for the RTA 2005.    
Translated that means that in Australian archaeology (VIA which EIS Reports are made), what you 'think' re the symbolism has totally no weight as it is so out of touch its ridiculous. Statutory Authorities such as the RTA know that the symbolic stuff carries immense weight and go forward, paying respect to that so that heritage can be saved and construction jobs can be effectively completed with all interests being addressed.  You need to have a chat to the RTA arch and get educated about how the RTA now handle this Indignenous Heritage stuff starting with the Sheahan Bridge after they learned re Coolac.  Its scoffing attitudes about cultural heritage that holds stuff up and that doesnt assist anything. 
THE TWO AMIGOS URBAN MYTHING
Imported From Wik Help Arktos page
Gundagai
Hi - would somebody like to look at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales. Deep breath on my part. I wil attempt to reorganise the anon's contributions to the dialogue again despite the talk header - but I think I really need somebody else to review whether I and another editor are missing the point.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coolac bypass discussion revisited

message: Thanks for the ref.  As I live in Canberra, I use the ACT Library Service.  They don't have a copy but I have ordered it through them - it will take a while.  If I pass through Gundagai, I will look out for the book if I have a chance.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back by Cliff Butcher published in 2002 page 213 

message: If people here edit stuff (editing being the main purpose of those who sit tying stuff in), why do some have to make a point about correcting a typo or spelling error.  Its easier to just correct the error and that is it.  Finito.  If there were no spelling errors here though that would rob some of being able to complain so they actually feed off having errors to fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.110 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2006   (UTC +10 hours (AEST))
*Response - edit summaries are preferred - see Help:Edit summary, they tell people what you did.  At least one of the typing errors was my own - no judgment is implied in fixing people's typing errors.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary

message: Wikipedia policies
Article standards
Neutral point of viewInclude only verifiable informationNo original researchCiting sourcesWhat Wikipedia is not
Working with others
Assume good faithCivility and etiquetteNo personal attacksResolving disputes
*I have reverted the renaming of the section to do with Pondebadgery.  There is no need ot translate Sturt's context - it isn't sophisticated stuff.  Hew went exploring and recorded his findings in a journal.  When he got to what is now Gundagai, he recorded: "This plain, which the natives called Pondebadgery".  No interpretation required.  Source provided.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by anon reverted 

message: Charles Sturt was almost certainly not a graduate of a University anthropology/archaeology department ! I have put "native" in quotes in the Pondebadgery section.  It is the word Sturt used and to mind is quote clear he was referring to indigenous people not settlers.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Native

message: The RfA mentioned above was rejected by the ArbCom in favour of mediation being tried first. I have now lodged an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* in order to start dispute resolution from the beginning. An RfC is required to meet a two-person threshold, ie at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. ... The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried and failed. I've certified your request. -- Longhair 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is your nth and final warning. Sign your edits, or face yet another block. -- Longhair 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment