Talk:Gundagai/Archive 2

message: I have invoked semiprotection for this article.  Any comments about the semiprotection should be directed to the relevant Request for Comment.  
I will similarly semi-protect any related articles if I notice any abusive edits being carried out from the same IP range - abusive edits refers to the tone of the edit summary as well as the actual edit itself.  
All editors should be aware of Wikipedia policies, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette.  Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.  
Recommencing editing in less than the block period is a breach of the Blocking policy. 
All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed.  Unsigned comments may be reverted.--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your semi-protection stance to reduce vandalism to this article. Rather than block in the first instance from now on, I'll semi-protect wherever necessary. Blocking will of course be used if the problem moves on to other articles. -- Longhair 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I have reverted the unsigned and abusive edit of  and blocked for three hours.  Avoidance of the block by this editor would be a breach of wikipedia policy.--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits and blocking 

message: *In an unsigned edit from IP 203.54.9.195 at 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can't see any plagiarism there.  There are similarities, in that the same poems and songs are mentioned in roughly the same order but, as you mentioned, the nature of the topic is to mention the literature surrounding Gundagai.  Next we will be accused of plagiarism because our article also mentions the Dog on the Tuckerbox.  I am presuming the anon user is trying to find ways to discredit the article after failing to insert his/her POV in the article.  --Roisterer 10:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite visiting us twice yesterday,"diff=68770830"oldid=67359971 "diff=next"oldid=68771727 she didn't seem inclined to respond to this discussion point, despite making the allegation in the first place.--A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two additions of 12 August (reverted as reproducing material on plagiarism from other websites as well as being unsigned), did not deal with the actual lack of congruence of the text.  Anon editor was warned twice with --A"nbsp;Y"nbsp;Arktos\talk 10:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism of Bruce Elder 

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

text: 1879 the source is out dated and I can't even find it. -- Bidgee 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is ABC a reliable source according to WP:RS? What basis do you have for doubting it? Gimmetrow 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats not how WP:RS works. Since ABC passes WP:RS we have to assume that they did their research. The ABC link says the story came from the newspaper and so its a legitamate source. We should list ABC however as the source and not the Gundagai Times, since we are really using ABC for our information. --NuclearZer0 13:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to point out that some of the information they were adding to Coolac seems to be true as well regarding the dog.  I found this same information repated elsewhere, not the poisoning scandal issue, but of the dog. It appears that the dog on the tuckerbox story is what put Gundagai on the world map apparently. This is why its usually best to selective edit instead of revert. I will clean up what they were trying to add later today if I get a chance. --NuclearZer0 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Looking very briefly at the article and the edit summaries left by the anon editor two days ago, it seems to me that the real dispute is that the article says the 1853 flood was the beginning of reconciliation, while the anon wants to point out that racism and abuse of natives actually continued for many years.  As usual, the answer to a dispute over information and sources is more information and more sources.
First, I have to point out that it is not vandalism to want to say such a thing, it is a content dispute, and editors need to work together rather than making assumptions and blind reverting.  The anon editor was editing inartfully, but it wasn't vandalism.
You can not say in the article that the flood was the basis of reconciliation; that's opinion and original research.  You can report that other people have said so if you have a source for it.  Likewise you can not call this view a racist whitewash, but you can report if other people have said so.  And the incident and controversy over it may need to be introduced in a better way.  For example, 
Gundagai was flooded in 1852 and many residents were saved by three natives in their canoe.(ref)  Gundagai residents point to this incident as the beginning of the reconciliation process (ref). However, historian John Smith has noted that racist incidents and harassment of natives continued in Gundagai for nearly 50 years after the flood (ref). For example, in 1897, a visitor to the town saw several locals abusing a blackman, whom he acertained was Yarri, one of the heroes of the 1852 flood (ref).
Appropriate references vary.  For the statement that locals consider their town the start of the reconciliation movement you could use the towns own web site or a published history of the town even if it is arguably biased. You can report what people say about themselves, expecting it to be biased in their favor; reporting that they say it about themselves is different from reporting that it is true.  For statements that harrassment of natives continued until 1897 the 1897 newspaper is adequate; as a professional news network (not a blog or other advocacy site) we must take the ABC report of what the newspaper said at face value unless someone actually gets a copy of the 1897 article.
The point is you need sources and to report what other people have said and written in those sources, and not to include your own conclusions, opinions or interpretations.  Hope this helps. Thatcher131 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locus of dispute 

message: I would like to hear from the anonymous editor on my talk page before I unprotect the article.  I would like to know why he/she hasn't or can't register for an account, and I would like to discuss editing techniques.  However I do not want to leave aonymous editors locked out forever. Thatcher131 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might want to ask why they never sign their posts either, leaving it for the likes of everyone else to clean up. Good luck. You'll need it. -- Longhair\talk 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm giving you one clear warning. Stop wish your personal attacks, or be blocked once again. -- Longhair\talk 10:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is misleading. It wasn't just in the paper it was on both Prime and Win News. Wiki classes papers as credible sources. -- Bidgee 10:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I just read the Yarri story by Bodie Asimus.
It is not a credible source.
It was written by a school child as part of a competition Lateline/ABC ran.
There are no references re any of the content though there are many available.
Bodie Asimus does not live in Gundgaai.  They are Sydney people I think.  His Mum used to do the PR/promotion for Maccas or something similiar.  
The story is not listed in the ABC Lateline archives for that date which further notes it isnt offical Lateline content, reported and published by adult ABC journalists, who would be members of the journalists union and subject to ABC editorial and publication rules etc.  As such, it wouldnt qualify as acceptable under wik guidelines re its veracity as its content would not have been checked as being within guidelines.
Its simply, an uncited STORY written by a child as part of a competition - not official ABC reporting.  Stories can have any or no level of fact in them.  One or two in Gundagai might try and push a claim re reconcilation as a public relations/town image building exercise, but it is not anything to do with even minority town thought.  Post the collapse of the Old Gundagai Heritage Tourism Plan a few years back, Gundagai doesnt push that line these days preferring to be the opposite on many occassions.  These days, Gundagai is trying to establish that it is Iirsh as a tourism thing hence the first Turning Wave Festival a few weeks back.  This festival was very short on an audience going on its online reviews so I am not sure the town sees itself as Irish either.  Maybe in 2010 Gundagai will be claiming its really a lost planet from outer space that landed as a meteorite 50 years ago, as a tourist incentive?  
Indeed, Gundagai Shire Council on its Social Plan that is online, in regard to Indigenous people, notes Gundgaai as a tolerant community???  Tolerant?  of what and whom?  'Tolerant' doesnt really tally with 'reconcilation'.  
It would be better to note here that Gundagai Shire Council on behalf of the community, sees the community as tolerant rather than making a claim as being the cradle of reconcilation.  
Tolerant?  
Gundagai has a massively significant and unique identity but as its an Indigneous one we need to hide that.  Dont tell anyone - OK.
: We were trying to help by finding a page that cites the content you wanted to include. If the ABC page is not a WP:RS, then it can't be cited for anything. Moved to external links for now, likely to be deleted. Gimmetrow 14:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Source of the 'Gundagai as Cradle of Reconcilation' Claim

message: Regarding the alleged Coolac massacre I checked LexisNexis news service and found two articles, both relating to the highway delay due to claims that a massacre happened in the area.  At this time there seem to be no reliable sources that a massacre did happen (I haven't even seen a firm date).  An ABC radio report will not serve as a source for anything unless the transcript is made available, otherwise we would have to rely on the memories of the listeners.  The point of having reliable sources is to have something that other people can double-check, even if (in the case of an 1879 newspaper article) the checking would be difficult.
The only place on Wikipedia that the Coolac massacre would currently be noteworthy is in the article Hume highway, where it can be noted that construction of the Coolac bypass has been delayed by claims of an Aboriginal leader that there is a massacre site nearby, and that archeological testing is underway, and the state has agreed to have an archeologist on site during the road work in case anything turns up. Thatcher131 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coolac massacre 

message: I'm going to make a note of this here because I don't know if you are likely to see it elsewhere.
I think the intent of your contributions to the article is generally good, in the sense of trying to balance out possible unconscious bias.  Claims such as "Gudagai is the cradle of reconciliation" are so sweeping that they do require special attention  to sources and if they are controversial, should probably be removed until better sources can be found.
However, your behavior at times is wholly unacceptable.  You will not adopt the simple courtesy of signing your posts, so people can know who said it and when; this makes it very hard to follow discussions.  You have made repeated personal attacks on other editors (recent comments documented by me at your RFC.  You rely on personal knowledge rather than reliable sources.  You have inserted argument and personal comments into article text instead of the talk page.  (In some cases, other users have copyedited your comments to include them in the text, which shows that they are willing to work with you when possible.)  Your recent edits to your RFC were properly reverted because they were in the wrong place, the wrong format, and were headed with a personal attack.  While it would have been nice for the other editors to fix them for you, they are under no obligation to do so.  Fortunately you found someone else to fix them up for you.  If you are willing to cooperate with other editors on sources (as seems to be happening on this talk page) I will unprotect the article.  I probably should anyway, since there may be other editors around the world with good ideas or even typos to fix.  I do believe I know enough about your IP history to block you specifically if you resume making personal attacks. 
Wikipedia is about working together.  It is very useful to have editors with different viewpoints working on an article cooperatively.  I will no have no hesitation in blocking you at the first sign of renewed personal attacks. Thatcher131 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the anonymous editor (and the rest) 

message: Thatcher, yourself like some others here seems to like to make personal attacks on other editors so I would suggest you also take a long hard look at yourself and have a think about why u do that.  Dont threaten me.  If people such as yourself want to be issuing threats to Internet users, you need to be having a think about that.  There are some non aggressive people on wik but aggressive ones such as yourself and the others that are a blight on some pages wreck the place.  You and some of the others seem to have no idea how to work in a cooperative manner with other people who post here wanting to use some idiotic power play because you can block and unblock sites.  Big deal that you have 'tools' and can do that.  Have u noticed some ignore that sort of nonsense.  Some of you need to enrol in a charm school course as you are causing terrible disruption on wik with your unpleasant behaviour. My personal knowledge is more reliable than some of the nonsense some of you lot put here.  If you are a fan of wik being full of lies, I'd be asking why?  In my book its best stuff isnt put here if it is lies such as this nonsense reconciliation claim re Gundagai that are very obvious to the world at large and anyone with half a brain is incorrect.  
Go deliver your nonsense to someone more inclined to be kowtowed by bullies thatcher as this person isnt.    Try picking on a one year old or someone with a major disability as it may work there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.161 (talk • contribs) 
:Blocked for 24 hours for repeated incivility (and I am definitely including the "feral editors" remarks as well "diff=79435127"oldid=79424373. If you actually read my remarks, you would see that I agreed you had a point of view that should be represented, provided you could work cooperatively with other editors.  I do not agree with simply reverting every comment you make, but there are some editors who have made such a nusciance of themselves that they are reverted immediately, and no one worries about it.  You are entering that territory.  If you wish to make contributions to wikipedia you should consider how to work with other editors rather than against them. Thatcher131 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BIG BRAVE THATCHER Whoever or Whatever Thatcher Is

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

message: Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales is a page for discussing changes to the encyclopedia article Gundagai, New South Wales.  It is not part of the dispute resolution process and it is not personal space for collecting evidence of grievances.  Stop posting here unless it is related to the content of the article. (link to removed content "diff=80633299"oldid=80631938)
If you register for a username you will have personal space for your comments.  You can also use the space on the talk page of your IP address, for example, even when you have a different IP.  Or you can ask FloNight, a clerk of the arbitration committee, to help you make a space where you can collect statements, if you wish.  But you can not use the article talk page.  I will be deleting all such comments, and if you restore them I will revert them and protect the page. Thatcher131 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of this page 

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

message: *With "diff=next"oldid=80710902 this edit the anon altered the entry on asbestos.  Unfortunately she failed to refer back to  the book she and I both have which was written by Cliff Butcher when doing so.  On page 107, Butcher refers to Jones Creek  and refers to the fact that prior to 1918 it was the only source of asbesos in NSW.  Asbestos Hill is not mentioned on page 107.  It is however an official place name   but is 4 km from the town "placename=Gundagai"placetype=0"state=NSW"place1=ASBESTOS+HILL"place1long=148.084595"place1lat=-35.031799 so the assertion that North Gundagai is built on that hill would seem wrong.  It may be a term that locals used and asbestos rock can be seen exposed in the cutting near the top of the hill.  However, as the assetion about north Gundagai has no citation and the information conflicts with an officially named hill nearby I think theassertion should be removed at present.  As I am on a wikibreak from article editing, someone else will need to do this if they choose to, and also to please reinstate the Jones Creek and 1918 assetions as being attributed to Butcher.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asbestos 

message: There is a Serpentinite article on wik if anyone wants to link that word in 'asbestos' to it to make here more interesting as it mentions the tectonic plate boundaries that give rise to serpentinite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs) .
Who is vandalising here now, and WHY?  There is no need for it whatever u imagine.  Wattle and I discussed the Asbestos Hill etc and then along you come and remove it.  I will put it back, then leave it alone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs) .
:Please don't refer to other good faith editors as "vandals". Also, please sign your talk page comments. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serpentinite

message: In future I will just ignore the garbage from pea brained troublemakers who are so hyped up on power its taken them over, as its pointless.  I react badly to that sort of psychotic ignoramus and they are not the sort of people I have ever got on with as any right thinking person wouldn't. I am a bit particular re what I associate with so flick. Troublemakers are the only ones stuck with their babyish misery 24/7 so to any anti-social creep who wants to be like that, enjoy!!!!  
There will be no future lies able to be got away with re what shows up on my screen re here, or on any other page here that I visit, as all my cache contents now go into my partitioned hard drive.  At the same time, my cache does not now empty automaticlly each time I exit my browser, and emptying manually is no prob for me as I do that anyway and my security software and other stuff will deal with anything else.
If anyone wants to discuss article page content in a non antagonistic manner with the end goal to have correct, balanced, informative and interesting content on it, that is fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.45 (talk) .
*I do not take kindly to being called a liar, as I am sure you wouldn't either.  I ask you very politely, please click the tab at the top of the article labled history.  You will see a list of every change ever made to the article, listed with the most recent change at the top, with the date, time, and IP address or user name of the editor.  If you click on (last) for any given edit, you will be given a side-by-side comparison of the version you chose and the previous version.  You can then click on <--older edit  or newer edit--> and review the entire history of the article, comparing each change with the one before or after.  If you begin with your first edit yesterday, 23:28 10 October, and then review each newer edit throughout the day, you will see that no one removed or altered anything you wrote except you.  Your accusation of vandalism is false.  I don't know why the article looked to you like it had been changed (if you say it's not a problem with your browser cache, then so be it), but it was not changed at any time yesterday except by you.  I am sure it was only a mistake that you accused Bidgee of vandalism, and a misunderstanding that you called me a liar.  An apology would be greatly appreciated. Thatcher131 02:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Troublemakers

message: The cultural events should probably be described briefly as to date and purpose or significance. Thatcher131 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural events 

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

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