Talk:Natalie Gauci/Archive 1

Untitled

There is too much vandalism on this page, Jealous fans are posting un-sourced and un-true negative statements on this page. Any unsourced negative comments will be deleted. 144.139.29.18 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

can we please change the picture. i think an actual photo of natalie would be better and look better than a single cover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.210.38 (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Can you change the current picture to a better pic, that is not the best picture of natalie.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.47.208 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I know the picture has been changed, but this still isnt a good picture. u can hardly see her face. can it be changed. if possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.210.38 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC) WELL SUX 4 U :@ (Violetion (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC))lol u picked an awesome pic!!!!!!!!

Fair use rationale for Image:88697208692.jpg

Image:88697208692.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Song and album comments

In both the Here I Am (Natalie Gauci song) and The Winner's Journey (Natalie Gauci album) there is comment about the lack of popularity of the song and album, yet these facts have been censored from the article on Natalie Gauci here, primary by User:Violetion. I do not completely understand why this is, as the unpopularity of the song and album, in comparison to prior Idol winners, is relevant, factual, provable, sourced, and important to the topic. Whether people from Malta might have liked one of Natalie Gauci's performances, or what one newspaper might have said is borderline relevant, but a large factor, such as the fact that both her debut album and debut single are the least popular debut releases by an Idol winner in its 5 year history is quite significant. This omission is especially confusing given that in the articles on both the song and album they lack of popularity is listed. It appears to me that there is a violation of WP:OWN going on here. Dyinghappy (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The members of the Natalie Gauci Official Forum would appreciate if people stop vandalizing this webpage with negative material. If you have something to include please source the information adequately. And stop deleting the informative material which has been included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.73.35 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourced material seems to have been wiped quite a lot of times from this article. Now it seems that this is no longer just being done by Violetion, now it is by a group of people orchestrating it from a forum. Dyinghappy (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dyinghappy, why are you so determined to add all this BS to Natalie's Wikipedia article? It's very obvious you don't like her, we get the point, but why waste your time trying to vandalize her Wikipedia article? It's like a part of your daily ritual. It really makes no sense to me. Do you have something against Natalie? Did she deny you an autograph or something? (Violetion (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

If it was sourced and relevant to Natalie Gauci it would not have been edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samie47 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can call it vandalism when it is adding sourced, neutral text. It is disappointing to see such bias exist, where true and important things are being removed. Everyone has two sides, and both should be presented. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Even though you are now sourcing your information, it is from an unreliable source. Contact Sony/BMG or Aria and they will tell you, as they have told us, that there was never any unit figures released to the public about the sales. As for the continuous edit about Natalie rearranging popular songs – how does that exactly make her fake? And who else bar you has ever said it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samie47 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You Say Quote:"It is disappointing to see such bias exist", Where there has never been any article or anything official to say that Natalie rearranging Pop Songs makes her fake. This is your Bias Opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The anubis123 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There is a comment ¨To others, it was a reason to consider Gauci to be fake.¨ there is no source and should be removed as it is offensive!

I'm not sure "fake" is the best word, but the plain truth is those allegations did take place, even if you disagree with them. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing would be ideal, but I agree that's not the best tone. I'm inclined to remove both the positive and negative sentences, or replace them with "Some fans appreciate this trait, while some critics do not." Pending sourcing or better diction, at least. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My memory must be failing as per RaNdOm26 below. Please remove the "fake" statement, but keep the rest in (as in, don't revert to the old versions that said Gauci was awesome for her interpretations either). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the second sentence ("To others... fake.") since no one seems to be arguing for its inclusion, at this point. The more positive sentence also strikes me as potentially NPOV-problematic, and I do think we'd be fine without it, but I'll leave it be unless removing that is also supported. Will check back, but feel free to let me know if anything comes up that I should look at. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dyinghappy has requested that I remove both sentences; is there any objection to doing so? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. It has been published from the number of news sources that her renditions were mostly praised from the audience. I'm using an article here [1] that clearly comments about the audience being impressed about her renditions. There is no source that states about any negative commentary of her performances. That was what WP:NPOV clearly states, keep it verifiable. I don't know what Dyinghappy is trying to prove when he/she says "It is a verified fact that her alteration of lyrics received widespread negative publicity", unless Dyinghappy will attempt to give sources like I have. RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Say they were impressed and add the source [2], but "To her fans this is one of the many reasons Gauci became so popular." is too POV and should go. Being impressed != making someone infinitely popular, and there aren't "many" reasons given (not mentioning the fact that her sales indicate her not being popular). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just use my other comment which somehow I missed it out. "In my opinion, I would change the wording of the sentence, citing the source which I've given. Write abotu the fact that Natalie impressed the audience with her renditions of "Umbrella", "Running Up That Hill", "Crazy" and "Here I Am"." RaNdOm26 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't any accusation from the public that Natalie was a fake. I'm strongly opposing keeping this "fake" info until I see evidence. Also, please see my comment below. RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

When and where did they take place? Name it, show it? Where? Those allegations were made towards Tarasi but not towards Natalie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.73.35 (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some nonsense on tis page. Namely the quote ¨to others, it was a reason to consider Gauci to be fake.´ This is untrue and needs to be removed.

It would be appreciiated if the phrase regarding Natalie Gauci being fake is to be removed immediely. It has no source and has never been said by anyone other than the person who keeps editing this article. Furthermore it should be unprotected as some people actaully have some constructive things to add to the page.

A note to future contributors

I have tried my best to remove some of the WP:NPOV issues in this article, only to have all of my efforts reverted. User:Violetion seems to think that he owns this article, in violation of WP:OWN and has now petitioned on a Natalie Gauci fan forum for an orchestrated effort to control this article.

I am giving up here. This article is never going to be accurate or neutral whilst this is going on, and I am just one person and don't care enough to want to fight it.

Anyone future who might stumble upon this article should be aware of the control and nastiness associated with this article, alongside people who are vandalising the article with messages like "SUX 4 U" who at the same time make false accusations of vandalism against people who try to get rid of them. See WP:VANDAL for what vandalism actually is.

Thankfully other articles on this topic are more accurate, but this may change in time. Just be aware when coming across this, as it seems to be a warzone.

I will leave this article now, as I don't care enough to fight, and I have better things to do. Just a warning for anyone else. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

2 BAD 2 SAD (Violetion (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

To others, it was a reason to consider Gauci to be fake.??? what is that? u get protection after posting that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.73.35 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to present the information in a neutral manner and present all points of view, even if we disagree with them. See WP:NPOV please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s ok we will gladly now contribute to this article, without having to fix it up everyday because of your negativity. Go wreck someone else’s page!! Bye!!!

That's pathetic, Violetion, and you should be ashamed. I've requested proection of this article, so you'll need to discuss further changes here. Sorry, no more POV pushing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You said natalie gauci was fake. Thats the first time i have heard any such comments - therefore i believe u are the pathetic one not violetion.

When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. No one agrees with the phrase of her being fake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samie47 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing I've heard about the public calling Natalie a fake, it was Tarisai who was called this. Tarisai was the one who was critical to Natalie. This info must be deleted, unless people can find a source (if any). Info about the lackluster sales of her single and album, and the sales figures should stay, however, as this was reported in the news [3] [4], which is a reliable source. RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Tarisai who called Natalie a fake first. There are reliable sources about this. [5] says it pretty bleeding clearly. And it was a major news event that caused great discussion. Talk about Natalie's lyrics being viewed kindly was never a major news event, and didn't generate any discussion at all. There's a big difference. Divinyls comments regarding Natalie Gauci's cover of their song Boys in town also made big news, and was heavily discussed. There's a degree of difference between relevant versus fluff.

The only possible objection to including factual verified and relevant information about Natalie Gauci is WP:BLP but I don't see how this kind of thing is relevant to it.

Put simply, you've got 3 options:

1) Great stuff about Natalie stays, coupled with relevant, factual, provable, negative things, for example her poor sales figures, the huge amounts of criticism she has received, etc. 2) Any opinions about Natalie being great disappear, and we stick with factual stuff. Put in that she changed lyrics, but don't put how it was viewed, because that is NOT a universally accepted agreement, nor should it be toned in a way that implies it was universally accepted, when it wasn't. This isn't a fan site, this is an encyclopaedia. 3) Leave it as it is, horribly biased, and let Wikipedia be a laughing stock.

As I said before, I am sick of the bullying on this article, so that's it. I tried to present a neutral point of view, but was not allowed to. I added lots of positive factual things about Natalie along with the negative factual things. I was trying to present facts. Sadly some people seem to be misguided in to thinking that they should be making this into a shrine about Natalie and that all negativity is evil. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake? WZF

Natalie was known to significantly alter songs when covering them, such as Rihanna's Umbrella, Michael Jacksons Man In The Mirror and even on the winner's single "Here I Am". To her fans this is one of the many reasons Gauci became so popular. To others, it was a reason to consider Gauci to be fake.

Umm... please get rid of this BS. Why would rearranging popular songs make someone look "fake"? Eh? That makes no sense. Unsourced and completely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violetion (talk • contribs)

The line about altering songs could stay, but it should have a source. The lines analyzing that statement and determining that some thought that made her popular and others thought it made her a fake should be removed until a source is provided. --Onorem♠Dil 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie was called fake by Tarisai when she was eliminated. It caused a major stir, and was seen as Tarisai having sour grapes. It was reported in several newspapers. The reason that Tarisai called Natalie fake was also reported - because of her interpretations of songs. The bit about her changing of songs being "why fans love her" is the part that is unreferenced. You shouldn't have any difficulty finding information about Tarisai calling Natalie fake, or Natalie overall being called fake, in relation to that. To be balanced, of course, either the part about how wonderful it was for her to change songs is removed as well, or else they both stay. (Divinyls at the ARIA awards were also reported as calling Natalie fake in relation to her cover of "Boys in Town").

Is that what all of the disruption is about? I don't think so. If it is, then wipe both statements. It is completely untrue that it is universally accepted that Natalie's unique decision to completely change the lyrics was taken in a positive light. This was, in the main, taken in a very negative light. There is no source whatsoever to suggest that it was seen positively. Dyinghappy (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The content will be removed as per the above section. However, there is also disruption re. the sales figures information which some users are removing despite it being in reliable sources. Will they agree to stop doing so? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As we have said contact Aria the sales figures you keep posting are not from a reliable source, and that is the reason we keep removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samie47 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} To whoever keeps saying that their was not postivie media surrounding her rearrangement of songs there are more than 20 articles stating that there is.

"However, Gauci impressed audiences with her renditions of Rihanna's Umbrella, Running Up That Hill by Kate Bush, and Crazy by Gnarls Barkley.

Her version of Here I Am was also a hit with the Idol judges, who praised her treatment of the song."

http://merimbula.yourguide.com.au/articles/1092710.html?src=topstories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samie47 (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's exactly what I've cited before some sections above, and obviously there are others who still think the opposite, refusing to change their mind, and still think about Natalie's performances as negative when there wasn't anything like that. RaNdOm26 (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was positive media, but that doesn't support the claim "it made her loved by fans". Just leave it as is... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No no, remove the sentence, the news only said she impressed the audience, which is as positive as it gets, so change it. But no negativity please. RaNdOm26 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I really should look at the article before commenting. OK, reword to "impressed..." etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The sentence "The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost." is completely irrelevant to the point being made in the preceeding and following sentences of the paragraph. The sentence has nothing to do with the topic of this page either. So, that sentence should be deleted.DrDownunder (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that Natalie Gauci was not one of the 2 that progressed through from her semi-final stage (the two were Tarisai Vuche and Lana Krost) was very relevant, especially as Natalie Gauci ended up winning, and the two that beat her at that stage finished 5th and 11th respectively. It is true and very relevant. And it's not even negative. Of course, Tarisai and Natalie became bitter rivals after that, which is relevant too, in light of Natalie controversially winning, and the various scandals associated with that. Dyinghappy (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I said and in part you understand that "the fact that Natalie Gauci was not one of the 2 that progressed through from her semi-final stage" was relevant, especially as Natalie Gauci ended up winning. That fact leads directly to the next stage which is the subject of the sentence that follows the irrelevant sentence. Who got in voted instead and when they were subsequently knocked out is not relevant to the story of Natalie's journey. Tarisai disliking everyone including Natalie and being relegated to being remembered only for her tantrums is also irrelevant. Lana getting knocked out too soon and Tarisai too late is also irrelevant so please stick to the topic at hand. The sentence in question does not link the two related sentences in any way other than to mention Tarisai and Lana by name. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDownunder (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dyinghappy; it is relevant in that she was initially opposed, but was later voted by the public past those too. It must mean something, and it isn't negative, there really is no reason to remove it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets put it this way: Natalie Gauci is the only wildcard ever to win Australian Idol (in 5 seasons). Most people who read that won't know what wildcard means. They want to know why that is relevant. So let's put it in plain English - At the round of 24, the semi finals, Natalie Gauci was not one of the 2 people from her group that was chosen to make it through to the finals - Lana Kroft and Tarisa Vuche were. Natalie Gauci was put through as the wildcard from the group, chosen by the judges, not by the public. At that stage of the competition, Natalie Gauci was liked by the public less than Lana Kroft or Tarisai Vuche, however Natalie Gauci was liked sufficiently by the judges to be given another chance. She then progressed through.

Leaving something like that out, or not explaining what it means properly is a bit like if you were commenting on the 1999 cricket world cup, which Australia won, and you said something obscure, such as "Australia won with their backs to the wall". Well, let's be more specific there - Australia was about to be knocked out before even making it to the super 6 stage - they had lost their first 2 matches and needed to win the next 3 just to have a chance of making the super 6s. Once there, they then had to win all of them just to have a chance of making the semi finals. They were in a dreadful situation. They were not favoured to win. And yet they won.

Now, the two situations are similar - Natalie Gauci was not liked by the Australian public, just like how the Australian cricket team in 1999 were not favoured to win (pre-tournament they were 3rd favourite, but at that stage they were given no hope). The fact that Natalie Gauci won is quite incredible, and very relevant. Natalie Gauci wasn't just there or there abouts - she was given no chance. She wasn't in the top 3 in the betting in the early rounds. It was only after various favourites got knocked out that Natalie Gauci was given a chance, and even going into the final round, Natalie Gauci was worse than 5:1 against to win. Hugely unlikely. Yet there you go she won.

Now, for anyone who likes Natalie Gauci, I am sure that that is one thing that you are very proud of. At the same time, of course, for anyone who is just a little bit skeptical about the whole thing, it is pretty good evidence that things weren't quite on the level, especially when combined with her poor record and concert sales, and the generally negative way that she has been viewed in the media. Almost like she won because one of the judges thought she was good looking.

Why remove something just because its negative? Or because it can be used to demonstrate something negative? We should be informing people. This isn't some great secret, it's not something that is in dispute. Natalie Gauci was not the favourite to win, was never popular in the general public. She was liked by Mark Holden, the head judge. Not mentioning something like that is pretty awful.

I just have to wonder why there are so many things that people are trying to not mention here. Pretty important things, pretty easily proven things. And yet there's a lot of stuff in there that's simply not true, isn't referenced at all, and is quite simply opinion.

This isn't, or shouldn't be, a Natalie Gauci fan forum. By all means link to a fan forum, but don't turn the article into a fan forum, please. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow...it is pretty obvious you don't like Natalie for some reason. And that you have too much time on your hands to allow you to write that long winded string of unrelated and irrelevant text. All that needs to be said is the following: "She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12, hence the judges chose her and Carl Riseley as the judges choice to be included in the Top 12." There is nothing difficult to understand in that statement, and it does not include the irrelevant extra info, but it still leaves your point that the Australian public had not yet accepted her. If you want to mention Tarisai and Lana just because the Australian public later picked Natalie over them, then we need to mention all the final 12. Or we can just put a link to the Australian Idol page on this Wikipedia site. The most logical choice, however, is to just put in the relevant information, which is easily achieved by deleting one irrelevant sentence. DrDownunder (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, before I discuss any content you suggested, I'd like to make this clear. Don't attack Dyinghappy. Read WP:NPA. If you don't like him, take it too his talk page, but on this page you only discuss the content he has proposed. Clear? Good, let's move on.

I have no problem with what you've suggested...nothing has really explained why the public "adopted" her in the Top 12, and I don't want to go making stuff up (nor do you). So I'm cool with this, although others may have differing opinions. I do think we should make it clear (per some of my comments above) that she was initially rejected though, but I think your current version says that. So we'll see Dyinghappy's opinion on the proposal.

Remember, discuss the content, not the contributor, and we'll all get along nicely. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DrDownunder thats all that needs to be said. (Samie47 (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

I am glad to see you agree that my suggested changes say all that is necessary to be said. I look forward to seeing the change implemented.DrDownunder (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}} The sentence "The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost." is completely irrelevant to the point being made in the preceeding and following sentences of the paragraph. The sentence has nothing to do with the topic of this page either. This has been discussed and a consensus reached....So that sentence should be deleted.DrDownunder (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. There is NO consensus for removing that statement; infact, there's probably the reverse. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussion before. Yes, who progressed through to the next round is irrelevent. We only need to know that Natalie wasn't a contender to win in the beginning. Why mention who progressed through? She beat them in the end. Its unnecessary. The end. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Without reading everything above, if I recall correctly, it was said that it's worth mentioning that she was beaten by Vushe and Krost in the semi, but that she beat them *overall*. Country "adopted" her, etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But why is it worth mentioning? I can't think of why we need to mention who they were. RaNdOm26 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus in as far as everyone agrees there is no justification to name Tarisai and Lana in an article about Natalie Gauci. Only one user is arguing against the change and that user admitted above, "but I think your current version says that", indicating that the original point was still being made with or without the irrelevant mention of who eventually lost to Natalie. That user is continuing to insert those names into the paragraph on a daily basis and that user should be reported to the administrators if said user continues to ignore the consensus opinion of the other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDownunder (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no need to mention Tarisai and Lana that is irrelevent. (Samie47 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree, mention of Krost and Vushe is completely irrelevant.Chellekat (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We have now received the requested input from the Wikipedia 'Editor Assistance' helpline and the experienced independent editor has agreed that "it is beyond the scope of this biography to list round-by-round results, or whom was advanced before she was". The user that seems to feel that 'consensus' really means 'their opinion', is now requested to respect the true consensus opinion and stop inserting unecessary names of other persons into this biography of Natalie Gauci.DrDownunder (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

you win

Congratulations, members of Natalie Gauci fan club, who have ambushed this page and related ones to present false information on your favourite person to put her in a false good light, and remove any hint of negative publicity. You are now the majority of people editing this article, and have driven away all attempts at accurate editing.

This is just not worth it. Goodbye. Dyinghappy (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems. We will take care of this site! bye bye! (Samie47 (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

As if it matters. No-one will care once the new series starts. Natalie who? 121.216.61.22 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF what does that have anything to do with this? I care so that screws your NO-ONE theory! (122.107.34.154 (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I care too. Natalie has dedicated fans. Such bitter and jealous comments - why not spend your time positively like posting about people you like rather than negative posts like that.Chellekat (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

why is this article protected?

I need to put something up to do with italo-maltese origins please. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest changes using {{editprotected}}; there are still concerns about neutrality in the article, so an admin will make the changes if they have consensus. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is protected because someone kept putting false and negative comments on the page. if you want something added type the following

{{editprotected}}

and then what you want and the mods will look at it for you. (Samie47 (talk) 12:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Can we get this article unprotected... it's been ages now. (Violetion (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

There's a request up here, however, I will re-request protection if the edit-warring restarts. Assuming good faith, but not holding my breath. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is now unprotected. I hope this should be better. RaNdOm26 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is only one user currently trying to continue the edit-warring, whilst also threatening to request protection. Typical bully tactics which will not go well with the administrators I suspect. There are a lot of users here trying to keep this page honest and true, a task not made any easier by a small number of users with a contrary aganda.DrDownunder (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we are trying to keep this page honest and true - to the small number of you entering biased comments with unsourced information please stop. I don't understand why you would waste your time doing that - I certainly don't go to pages for people I don't like constantly trying to post information which I believe is true but is actually just my opinion.Chellekat (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging 2007-2008: The Winner's Journey and Appearances?

Wouldn't it be better to merge 2007-2008: The Winner's Journey and Appearances? They really all fit under one category. It's less confusing that way. Keep all her appearances under the one time frame. (Violetion (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

I also think its better to merge, and have removed the name, but you should be bold and do it yourself. Since the page is unprotected, we can all now edit and improve the page. RaNdOm26 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got no problem with this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Film debut

Apparently shes in an upcoming musical film in which she plays an art teacher. Also starring will be Delta Goodrem, Missy Higgins and Toni Collette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.109.89 (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Per this request, I have done a little reading of the theatrics ongoing. I will attempt to help as much as I can. There are a few points that immediately stick out:

1. This article has obviously fallen victim to a fair amount of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, and there appears to be some outside canvassing that may skew consensus. Edits and commentary from single purpose accounts should either be taken with a grain of salt or disregarded entirely; SPA's generally are more interested in pushing an agenda than they are working constructively and within our policies/guidelines/expectations. WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are resources that may assist in combating socks/meats.
2. There also seems to be some incivility and personal attacks (mild as they may be). Please make sure to refrain from commenting on editors' motives whenever possible, as it is rarely a constructive enterprise. If things get really bad (and I don't see it here) you should notify administrators via the appropriate noticeboard.
3. In points of heated debate or frequent disagreement, it is probably best to call a community-wide request for comment, so that a larger group may weigh in on particular content disputes. Often times editors become focused on a micro-topic and lose a more global (or community-wide) perspective, and an RFC may help settle disputes. In a strictly one-on-one conflict you may request a third opinion, though a wider audience seems to be in play here (#1 above notwithstanding).

Now, as far as the actual meat of the content disputes I have a few personal opinions, but please know that I am neither an official authority (if any exists) nor familiar with the subject matter (beyond what I've read here and in the article). My biggest observation is that there seems to be an excessive amount of trivial and/or ancillary information in the article. It is important to list the subject's major accomplishments and their significance. It's certainly important to note that she is the only contestant to win without significant popular support (or whatever the exact details may be); it is beyond the scope of this biography to list round-by-round results, or whom was advanced before she was. Fans often become obsessed with including minutia or excessive detail, of which we are surely not a repository. I also caution against synthesis and especially original research. Stick to reliable secondary sources, refrain from statements of fact without citations through which they may be verified, and never introduce analysis or commentary that is not attributed to reliable sources. I sincerely hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to our request for Editor Assistance. Hopefully the user that insists on mentioning Tarisai will now recognise that it is not only the consensus of the vast majority of users editing this page but also that of unbiased experienced Wikipedia Editors, that "it is beyond the scope of this biography to list round-by-round results, or whom was advanced before she was". DrDownunder (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I will respect Blaxthos' opinion here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Natalie Gauci/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Two other wildcard Idol winners: Mau Marcelo, Philippines; Oleg Karezin, Kazachstan.

Last edited at 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)