User talk:Matilda

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (March to July 2005) / Archive 2 (August to November 2005) / Archive 3 (November 2005 to January 2006) / Archive 4 (February 2006 to April 2006) / Archive 5 (April 2006 to July 2006)

203.54.9.169 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)

Now that he's posting to the Admin noticeboards, it won't take long before somebody else realises he's a pain and dealt with. He seems to be posting the same rant in multiple places. -- Longhair 22:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away myself shortly, for a few weeks perhaps this time. See you upon return. -- Longhair 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also found Wikipedia:Requests for investigation which may be of use. -- Longhair 00:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I appreciate the feeback concerning the external link for the National Library of Australia . --BenTremblay 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright thanks

I see what you mean in terms of my warning. I think you are correct. Thanks for alerting me to my mistake. Patbaseball2221 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOOGOO

Don't revert GOOGOO's changes to the last version by Rooster619. The two of them are working together, creating and editing the same nonsense. Fan-1967 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last good version on that Aussie list was by Grumpyyoungman01. Fan-1967 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello, AYArktos, how are you? I'm just visiting while on my Wikibreak and decided to give a shout out. Also, I found two links regarding the level of insanity that has been reached in the United States regarding Christophobia (anti-Christianism). Here are two links I found quite interesting:

[1] — Very convincing rant against the secularization of Christmas...by a Jew!.
[2] — Hilarious interpretation of an ACLU–sponsored "Holiday Claus" (replacing Santa Claus, Father Christmas) that outlines the problem America has.

Enjoy, and you can comment at my talk page. I may not respond for a while, however I'm expecting to return for another brief period circa 22 July. — ^`CRAZY`(IN)`SANE^` 08:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4chan 3rr

A lot of the reverting I did on that article were related to vandalism/non-verifiable content as well as implied personal attacks on myself, as shown in the edit summaries of the article. Ryulong 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. It's just that content such as invasions have been in question of their notability for some time. The changing of "Anonymity" to "Anonymous" is not really necessary, as the near-good faith editors have done so. The "Sourdough breads often reach store shelves at speeds in excess of 70 mph" picture with its caption is patent nonsense. And the /b/radio section was deemed by another editor to be non-notable. I will leave your latest message here for a period of time, although I will still copy it over to my archives. Ryulong 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not want to be a target for the users of the boards. I had my User page sprotected because of WatchtowerJihad sockpuppets, and I don't need my talk page or any subpages to be vandalized by /b/tards. The mentioning of my user name specifically in several of the edit summaries was a final straw. Ryulong 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do use this username elsewhere, but it is what I have been using for a while. And I doubt that they would be able to find my username elsewhere due to various numbers I use after it. I believe I am safe, for now. Ryulong 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rotto

I agree with your point about list of bus stops as it stands, I just havent got back to it to make it more stand alone/justifiable :) too many forks in too many fires :) SatuSuro 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you have been following the main art during the bits and pieces coming and going over time, but the list (created with warnings against it mind you) was made as if you look at the rotto island board map, and any usual dli map - there are many feature names on the island which relate to issues when discussing the island in the main art - but which would clog the main art up - so part of the idea of the map was a gazetteer that isnt one (heheh) as a cross ref. if it dosnt work, lets get rid of it! :) SatuSuro 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re link removals

Looking at your comments below - I was hoping you would hear my opinion as well. It took many years and 1000s of people's contributions to create such an amazing repository of images on underwater.com.au - a community website - and yes it does have commercial aspects as well, but how could a website like that run any other way.

We have a community of people that spend a lot of their time at not charge to put photos into our galleries, to catalogue the underwater world of australia and to encourage visiting these amazing destinations.

I agree with not creating links to purely commercial sites and links that add no further content to wikipedia, but honestly believe these collections (which are constantly growing as the community keep submitting images) are a value add to the articles on wikipedia - most people don't even realise the amount of underwater life and beauty Australia has to offer. We don't need the 10s of click a week we would be getting from wiki links but honestly believed them to be an enrichment of the site.

Also the links are not merely to a collection of pictures - they also crosslink to articles by the community if they are related.

Of course i will respect the decisions of the wiki family and will not post a collection of external links again.

I would like hearing from you.

seeking an opinion on external links

Could people please offer opinions on external links added in these edits. The pictures are very pretty and possibly encyclopedic, but I think it skates a fine line it terms of being a commercial website. - What do you think? -- Adz|talk 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   Adding links from one website to a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles with no other content-adding edits? Looks like linkspam to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   * I feel that they fall within the scope for removal under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. The link is merely to a collection of pictures. Interested readers, if they were looking for pictures, could find them in other ways, eg Google. I agree with Pfctdayelise, looks like Linkspam.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

       They seem clearly commercial to me. The front page (at least from the link in the Broome article) contains items for sale. I would remove them all, along with any other commercial links already there. Kevin 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   * I am removing and will leave a message on talk page of IP--A Y Arktos\talk 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

just checking if you got my comments re the link removals