User talk:Donama/archivelist/2010-12-16

This page is an archive (2009-11-14—2010-12-16). Please do not alter it in any way. Archived by — Donama (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Re, Makedonsko devojče

Hello! I would like to inform you that the song is composed by the Macedonian author Jonče Hristovski in 1964 and it is written in the Republic of Macedonia, not as the other user (Laveol) says and represents each edit by the Macedonians as vandalism. There are 4 refsa about this.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

islam in europe

• Thank you for improving of File:Islam in Europe.png. Could you change Template:Islam in Europe by country with the exact colors you used ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Done using your legend. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Donama! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Esther Anderson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ice disc

Hello, I have now created the article sv:Isskiva on Swedish Wikipedia. Rex Sueciæ ✎ 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Rex. Donama (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Improving CC article

Thanks for the reminder and edit. I wasn't able to locate support for the section which accurately represented what was being said. That doesn't mean that there isn't support out there, but just that I haven't yet come across anything.

One of the items mentioned by one reviewer was that the RIS published books (Daniel and Fortt) should give some indication that they are from a "counter advocacy" source when they used to support controversial statements. So, apart from those who seem to want to challenge every single word, are any of the statements referenced using either of these books actually controversial? I've made a list...

Daniel citations (reference number link, followed by material being referenced)

• note 24: That the early core of followers sold all and joined the ministry (refers to the 1905 listing of workers, which gives the dates)
• note 37: Overseers saw Irvine's activities as meddling (backup reference also cited)
• note 64: Names began to be adopted with WWI
• note 76: More awareness of the church by outsiders since publication of Secret Sect
• note 103: Members encouraged to attend meetings and speak at them (source quotes worker Leo Stancliff).
• note 148: Listing of the types of meetings. Specific items which have been challenged within this list have citations to other sources.
• note 159: Other than invitations to gospel meetings, no other materials are published for outside circulation.
• note 163: Organization. Again, specific items which have been challenged were given backup sources.

Fortt citations (reference number link, followed by material being referenced)

• note 93: Great weight given to thoughts expressed by workers, especially senior workers.
• note 117: Jesus held to be God's son, rather than God.
• note 138: List of special terms.
• note 140: Women do not rise to position of overseer, etc.
• note 146: New workers are paired with experienced older companions.
• note 165: Some hymns in the hymnal were authored or adapted by workers.

I'll note that most of the material being referenced was put into the article by others, and the resources are just used to reference them. So why a statement might be more controversial once a reference was provided (as opposed to its previously uncited state) is beyond me.

The reviewer seemed to feel that these were SPS, though I don't think that is the case. But if the statements being supported are controversial, then we certainly can flag the source using "according to" as suggested by the reviewer or by some other means. It has already been conclusively established that the Parker book is RS, so the reviewer's reservation about that being SPS isn't a factor. The members I know don't think these things are controversial, though a few might join those who object to the very idea of any article. As someone who has known people within this church, might you give your take on whether any of the statements supported by the sources listed above is controversial? If you find any, then I can delve back into locating something else to reference or to support amending the statement (though going through this material is getting tiresome).

The other objection raised by the reviewer seems to be that it is a dull read. Part of that may be my lack of skill in redacting the article, and part (IMO) due to objections insisting on overly restrictive usage of terms. Improvements or suggestions on that score would also be good. Anything else?

This article may never achieve GA or FA status, but that doesn't mean that we should abandon looking at improvements. If nothing else, the challenges have resulted in at least some support for the article's contents: currently 225 statements and sections are referenced using 32 books, 43 articles in periodicals, 2 scholarly papers, and 8 websites (and there are more that I haven't used because they deal with things beyond the scope of the article or there are sources for the material already cited—I'd never dreamed this much material existed before I started on this). • Astynax ^talk 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm so impressed with your scholarly approach to this article. It really is quite amazing how many sources you were able to find in the end. I really doubt any of the above statements are controversial, except possibly "Names began to be adopted with WWI" note 64. You may have noticed it's a serious sticking point for many in the church that it "has no name" except "Christian(s)"/"Christianity" because it is the "one true way", etc, etc. No one wants to believe that official names were ever adopted even though they were, specifically to obtain conscientious objector status for men called upon to fight in the wars. Anyway, there do exist government records (in Australia for one) of these names so I hope that would quell any emotive challenge of that particular point. Oh also, any statement that even references Irvine (being the founder and all) would be seen as controversial because the church is supposed to have been continuous from sometime in the first century and "have no earthly founder". Not sure I've completely address your comments here, but I have limited time and not quite as much motivation/dedication as yourself. Thanks for all your work on this. Cheers Donama (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I have recently come across old newspaper references to the name "Testimony of Jesus" being used officially during WWI for Conscientious Objector status in New Zealand and other parts of the empire, so I can likely find an alternate reference supporting that statement. There are many unimpeachable sources stating that Irvine founded the church, so I cannot think that this is truly controversial (though I agree members absolutely disagree with that).

Do you recall when the title of the article was changed to "Christian Conventions"? I ask because very few of the references materials use that term. They use "Cooneyites" in British/Irish sources, and "Two by Twos" in U.S. and Canadian sources, and a mix of those two elsewhere. Was there a compelling reason to change the title to "Christian Conventions"? I ask because John Carter seemed to feel that the title should be either "Cooneyites" or "Two by Twos" in order to better reflect how the group appears in scholarly sources. I'm personally ambivalent, since people who search on either the "Two by Two" or "Cooneyites" terms get directed to the CC article, and those other names are included out in the lead section. But Carter has a point, too, about the name used in the literature. • Astynax ^talk 04:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Anyway, there do exist government records (in Australia for one) of these names" Do you know if there are any gov't records online for Australia? If so, I'd like to get those archived in case they need to be used. While ill last week I came across Australia's online newspaper archive. That is really going to be a fantastic online resource as they scan more material into it. I wish the British Library and U.S. Library of Congress were working on something as fine, but their online materials are pathetic in comparison. I suspect there is much more documentation out there which will slowly make its way onto the 'net. • Astynax ^talk 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll note I was the person guilty of originally suggesting it (see key point in archive). My rationale was that since it has no name we had to come up with a title in Wikipedia which would be an invention so a neutral one (to the interests of readers and editors) would be best. I reasoned that a name that is not insulting to the church and that has been used in both the USA and Australia would be suitable. You will see at that same point in the archive I link to a PDF showing the name was used in Western Australia. Unfortunately the link no longer works and I didn't save a backup of the PDF. I have no problem with the article being moved to a new name given a sensible rationale -- it's relatively trivial to redirect things. Donama (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference one way or the other. However, I think that it will be good to ask John Carter about this once he returns from his vacation, since I think it is bothersome to him. Disappointing that the link is broken. Was the .pdf link similar to this one: http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/ConsumerProtection/PDF/Associations/Associations_list.pdf (the only one I could find)? • Astynax ^talk 07:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't similar to that PDF as far as I can recall. It was more like a specific declaration/certificate for a single organisation. Anyway, it leaves me with a feeling of confidence that the official name 'Christian Conventions' was taken in Western Australia at some point and a record of that would be able to be dug up if it was truly necessary. Sorry, not very encyclopaedic I know! Donama (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I may be overthinking the issue, and it may not be necessary. There are undoubtedly further incorporations and registrations out there in other names. Nothing wrong with that, and absolutely necessary in the modern world just from a practical standpoint. Thanks again for looking, and we'll see what develops. BTW, from what I gathered from reading Parker, Australia seems to have had even more divisive issues than N. America due to the strong personalities who were in charge there. The move to expel Irvine beginning in Australia, and with Cooney's followers and a remnant of Irvine's followers still in existence there, Australia seems to have played a significant role in the church's development. Rather than having a "controversy" section with the disputes du jour, an explanation of the schisms among schisms in Australia and N. America might be better to add into the history section. But it isn't something I'm personally motivated to do. • Astynax ^talk 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SA 2010 election

Hey! Good to see an old face. I notice you created Don Pegler... he's by no means home and hosed yet, you may want to reword the article somewhat. Timeshift (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. I think I was just impatient to see information added about the guy who will almost certainly be the member. Donama (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's exciting that after four years when the last election happened and I joined wikipedia, finally there's some action again! Timeshift (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Psylli/Featured article

Hello, I see that you've been here a while, so i'm not sure if it was a typo, or misunderstanding, but do you realise that articles are only designated "featured" if they've gone through the featured article nomination process? Assigning an article FA class on its talkpage doesn't make it so. Unfortunately, Psylli is not at the standard for FA yet. I've reassessed it as a stub. Regards --BelovedFreak 14:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a typo. Should have taken more care copying the African talk page headers. Cheers Donama (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I thought that must be the case after looking at your other contributions! --BelovedFreak 10:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

St Paul's College

It was a good deletion. I'm going to delete it myself unless citations appear soon. Tony (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No explanation was given for the removal. And it was removed by a new user. Donama (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Re Uggs

Whoops sorry didn't mean to offend you. I should have checked first, my bad.Jimbo123454321 03:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo123454321 (talk • contribs)

No worries, just wanted you to be aware of the discussion going on at the talk page there. Donama (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacker

Hi Lisa! Remember me? Not around much anymore, but enough to notice that you might find useful the rollback tool. If you'd like me to enable it on your account, just say the word. Cheers, --cj | talk 11:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I do remember you though it looks like you've shortened your username :) And yes, please. Donama (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Happy vandal huntin'!cj | talk 08:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've already found it useful (didn't know it existed for non-admins prior to your mention). Donama (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Quip

Oh come on, it was just a light-hearted quip! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I know, sorry if that seemed like an overly pedantic response, but here on Wikipedia people will start to debate the politics given bait like that and I just didn't want to see that start. Also I think I was actually offended by the unflattering reference to her nose, which yes makes me a trifle thin-skinned (I'm probably overly defensive about women in public positions having their physical flaws pointed out), but that's what made me remove it. Donama (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:David Miliband‎#Religion

Please see. Rodhullandemu 04:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention the God word

There are some editors that can't bring themselves to believe we have a Prime Minister who doesn't have the 'God delusion'. It's such a simple statement ... Julia Gillard does not believe there is a "God". Good on her. Good on you. Cablehorn (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I hope this saga is finished. --Cablehorn (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Cablehorn. --Donama (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"our's" and all that

I hear you. But do at least hang around and evaluate the response from the reverter on its merits. (See also this edit of his to the fatuously titled "possessive adjective".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No response, so I reverted the addition of this stuff.

Can we please do something about the laughable fiction that English has "possessive adjectives"? (See this.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hi! Long time no type. I take it you weren't around when the great wikipurge occurred. Many countless images were mindlessly killed. Then there was Hurricane BLP... an Australian Deputy PM being proded then sent to AfD as just one example of the great BLP purge where no ref meant article deletion. Basically, as far as living people go, the image must now be free. There are still luckily a few unnamed mainly historical articles that managed to stay under the radar, I won't mention those. Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I must have missed that storm. Thanks for the headsup. Donama (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How did the holiday and photo go? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Was lovely but ended packing camera into checked baggage so no pics from the windows of aircraft :) Donama (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglesey

Hello. When you edited Anglesey to be a disambiguation page, instead of a redirect to Isle of Anglesey, you may have overlooked the fact that 882 other Wikipedia articles contain links to "Anglesey". All of those links now need to be reviewed and fixed to take readers to the correct article. As is suggested in WP:USURPTITLE, when you change the article that an existing title links to, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." Your assistance in completing this task would be appreciated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that at the same time I was writing the above message, another user reinstated the original redirect. However, please keep this in mind if you decide to change any other redirects in future. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes, I can see a separate disambiguation page is definitely the best way to go -- as has been done. Cheers Donama (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cath Bowtell

Hello Donama, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cath Bowtell, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There still may be an ability to build an article on the individual. Provided criteria did not meet CSD requirements. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit reversal

You reversed my edit on Tim Mathieson re: drink driving and his former Liberal Party connections when clearly referenced. Censoring wikipedia like this is pathetic. Why would you do such a thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.136.65 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that I inadvertently reverted your whole change (because it included certain dubious changes) but immediately restored that information about his drink driving arrest and Liberal party connections. Yes, it was cited fine. I'm sorry for my mistake. If you look at the later edit history you'll note that another editor again removed the information about his drink driving arrest and Liberal party connections on the basis of a Wikipedia guideline WP:UNDUE, not on the basis of any referencing issue. I was happy to accept the addition of this material might be controversial and there is now a discussion section about it on the talk page. See Talk:Tim Mathieson#Drink driving offence giving undue weight to one aspect of his life. Please put your concerns there and refrain from personally attacking me. Some other Wikipedia guidelines that might be of interest to you are WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. Cheers Donama (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Adelaide city centre

Now why didn't I think of that? That's MUCH better! (It's even written in English!! (Not jargon.)) Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Bob Katter

Why do you keep removing the fact that Bob Katter is of Lebanese descent from his page? He is, as evidenced by the following reference. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bob-katter-plays-hard-in-crusade-for-the-bush/story-fn59niix-1225909099589 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.122.28 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 October 2010

Did you read the talk page discussion on this? That should answer your question. Can you please discuss it there before re-adding. Donama (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Marree Man

Visiting the References 4 and 5 you have in your latest version does not bring up any of the photos in those refences, which did show up just a few days ago, after 19 Sept when "ClamDip" repaired them. The photos seem to be crucial to the evidence about the whole thing, and were interesting. Maybe you entered the References differently from ClamDip?

I have replaced Reference 7, to an out-of-date 2005 map of the Native Titleholders of the area, with an up to date one. Although I entered the full URL, which is still visible on the Edit page, it seems to be trying to link to only part of this URL, and therefore is not working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.247.57 (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Miliband

I've undone your edit to Ed Miliband; I had previously protected the article to stop the edit warring about his religion and unprotected only to allow normal editing to resume. I wrote that further edit warring about this issue would result in blocks; I won't block you just now because you may not have been aware of this, but please consider yourself warned. Ucucha 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You won't block me just now? Jesus Christ you're being ridiculously highhanded! My edit was in line with what was discussed on the talk page first. Donama (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been some persistent edit warring on the page, and I had two alternatives: block everyone from editing the article (as I did originally) or block anyone who continues the edit warring. I chose the latter (on the advise of Scott Mac). If that makes me "high-handed", so be it; I prefer to keep people able to improve other aspects of the page than religion (which is still being discussed on the talk page). Ucucha 01:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr John Hewson

Hi, I saw you manual revert of Keating 1991's edit that you claim could be a sock of Katter 1993. Actually, Katter indeed is a sock of another Victoria-based editor whom I've judiciously tracked down and had blocked. I suspect Keating is no different. Feel free to file an SPI. Thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not know why you believe I am a sockpuppet of Katter, Because I am not a sockpuppet and regards to Dr Hewson it says on Alexander Downer's page that Hewson wanted to be Shadow Treasurer again but Deputy Liberal leader Peter Costello had that portfolio in fact. Oh I read Katter- 1993 contributions and his other sockpuppets accounts plus his original Whitmore 8621 to you Mr or Miss Eaglestorm you might have provoked him or set him up to be blocked as you remove truthful information about the articles that are sourced or revert them because they may not satisfy you and might have orchestrated his blocking in some form or the other, over some vendetta one of the edits I reviewed was based around Arthur Calwell who is known for not wanting Gough Whitlam as deputy leader both you Donoma and Eaglestorm might want to read up on Australian politics I myself, my grandfathers cousin is Bob Santamaria the journalist and also in regards to I am a fan of Australian politics as their was a Federal election on just recently --(Keating 1991Keating 1991 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

• A notable factor about Katter and the other sock-puppets is that Bob Katter is a Federal member of Parliament for the seat of Kennedy and one of the sock's is called Kennedy, 007. --(Keating 1991 (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Keating 1991)

Oh, whatever, blocked Whitmore sock!--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Eaglestorm. Donama (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Adelaide city centre

FYI. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi donama, I sent you an email, but I'm going to repaste it here just in case:

Hi Donama, this is in regards to the Clive Hamilton page. Thank you for reverting to the previous info and taking out links to the (biased) piece of text I removed. I haven't done a lot of Wiki editing before, and though I wrote one article I'm not really fluent in the coding and html-ing that's involved in setting up a page. This particular page is of interest to me because I'm a fan of his work, but I don't want that to be reflected as a bias that would undoubtedly come through if I tried to add pertinent info, so I'm hoping you can help me update some of the info on this page. I recently exchanged emails with him, and he enclosed what is, essentially a resume, with a complete employment history along with all publications, schooling, and positions held. I don't know if this would be of any use, but I can forward the document if it's useful. He also included a preview of a new documentary in the works about his views:http://vimeo.com/16105870 I'm hoping you can help me out and make this page a little more complete, accurate, and balanced. Since he's involved in such a contentious subject, it seems likely that people who are strongly opinionated in regards to his work should maybe not have the final say on his page- that includes me. I can forward the document he sent me if it will help- there's also a good "about" page on his website that's not quite as complete, but has more than the Wiki page. http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=About Thanks for your excellent Wiki-work. Esmeralda -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmeralda.rupp (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Esmerelda, thanks for your info on Clive Hamilton. Even though you acknowledge your bias on the topic of Hamilton, do feel welcome to edit and add additional information as long as you can provide a citation (see WP:CITE) from a reliable and verifiable (see WP:VERIFY) source. Please note that his CV that he emailed you is not a valid source because it is a primary source (see WP:SECONDARY) but in Wikipedia only secondary and tertiary sources should be used (except in some rare cases). Please also note that if you did put information from his CV and couldn't back it up with some secondary source citation it would be considered "original research" which is explicitly not allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:OR). Hope that helps and is not too much to take in in one go! No one is going to be upset if you make a mistake so don't let the detail put you off of editing. You'll be surprised how quickly you'll get the hang of it. Feel welcome to ask questions on my talk page if needed. Cheers, Donama (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Might you take a look?

I've just done an overhaul of the citations in the Two by Twos article, the object being to consolidate the longer lists of footnotes into single notations. I've come across reviewers who have major problems with more than 1-2 footnotes appearing in the text for a single item, so bundling the multiple notes together for contentious items seems to be the solution for that objection. This took way longer than it should have, but I'm now done and wondered if anything sticks out as having been messed up due to the change (my eyes might not pick up on errors due to having been looking at this for so long)? I'd like to replace some of the Impartial Reporter citations with equivalents from other newspapers, just to satisfy those who seem to believe that the Impartial Reporter was behind some conspiracy to "expose" the group (or whatever). There are hundreds of other articles to choose from, and I've just received more info from my librarian. Characters drawn from this group also seem to have made appearances in popular fiction, and I was wondering whether that should be mentioned somewhere? • Astynax ^talk 22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this, Astynax. The quality of the article is due in large part to your painstaking activity of academic attribution. (And yes I noticed this consolidation of citations for one sentence being done in other articles; it probably is a good way to go, especially in an article like this). I had a quick skim through your changes and nothing caught my attention as being dodgy or incorrect. I will put a proper reading of the article and citations/referenes on my 'serious things to do' list. In the meantime I think another crack at applying for WP:GA status would be worthwhile. What do you think? Donama (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to nominate it for GA, I have no problem with that. I personally think that many of the reviewers give good suggestions and constructive comments during the process. I also would expect that there is a good chance of a repeat of past objections, and there is no guarantee of getting a reviewer willing to confront those type arguments. I have no problem with that happening, either. As noted, I do have some more work with replacing a couple of Imp. Reporter sources, a few minor bits of info to add, and also will give it another going-over—but nothing that need delay a nomination (it's been taking several weeks for reviews to start lately). Thanks for going over the changes, as my mind has turned to mush after looking at all those template and reference tags the past few days. • Astynax ^talk 04:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Melton's Encyclopedia of Protestantism which I cited in the article states that Two by Two membership in Australia, as a proportion of the population, is one of the highest in the world. Perhaps you would want to fit that in somewhere? If so, and if you need the full quote, let me know. Most of the published material on the church I've come across, so far, is from Britain and N. America. I have included most of the Australian references I encountered, but a few items which I could not get may be more available from libraries on your side of the Pacific:

1. Journal article: "Leaving the Cooneyites: Analysis of the Leaving Process for Long-term Members of a Sect", by Dr. Arnold Parr with Christine Wilson. (1998) Australian Religion Studies Review, 11, 1, 17-28.
2. Number 691 on this list

These sound as if they have the potential for supporting some areas the article currently does not cover, though I'm just guessing. There are certainly other refs I have yet to encounter. If of interest, perhaps those might be available on loan through your local library. I have also left out press mentions of various "scandals" (the Henderson teen suicides, sex abuse prosecutions, finance, etc.) simply because I personally haven't come across anything yet which puts them into a sociological context. If someone does want to ressurect the "Controversies" from previous iterations of the article, IMO that sort of thing would work best in a sub-article, as is done for entries on Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other churches. There are sources to cite for the existence of controversies, but for a main article there needs to be something well-cited to show how these mesh into the fabric of and affect the group. FWIW. • Astynax ^talk 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those Astynax. For when I get time... Even if I don't get much time to analyse them I promise I'll at least check to see if I can find any of those sources locally. Donama (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

incubation

Why do you see Alex Gallacher to be an inappropriate incubator article? That's where it started after all. Donama (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The incubator is for articles that were deleted. Alex Gallacher was not deleted. The incubator went astray for a bit and got confused with WP:AfC, I am now cleaning it up. Alex Gallacher should have been started in WP:AfC. SilkTork *^YES! 00:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Miliband

I don't think you quite understand. It's obvious he's known as Ed Miliband. The page is called Ed Miliband, the infobox says Ed Miliband, and where the text refers to a first name it is 'Ed'. It is quite otiose and unnecessary to add a special note at the top to say so; in effect this treats the reader as having a very limited capacity to read and understand prose. But there is a second and far more important reason why the page should not say "Edward Samuel "Ed" Miliband" - that isn't his name. His name is either Edward Samuel Miliband, or Ed Miliband, not some bastardised combination of the two. If you really feel the need, the compulsion, to spoonfeed readers of the article, then you may try "Edward Samuel Miliband, commonly known as Ed Miliband" - that at least would be accurate. But please let us not interrupt the complete and by no means lengthy name in the middle, unannounced, to insert an additional comment. It looks and sounds ugly and contrived, because it is ugly and contrived. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I don't necessarily disagree with you. The point is that the practice of starting biographies in this way (and not just on Wikipedia) is commonplace and could be argued to be a defacto standard. I don't think mere tradition should be a reason for continuing to do thing wrong, but it's a reason to go through a discussion about it first, preferably on the talk page for the article. See Bill Clinton or for someone slightly more obscure outside Australia Bob Katter. Donama (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)