This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Regarding this edit summary, the linked discussion is talking about categories set by {{infobox former country}} that are no longer being set due to its merger with {{infobox country}}. I was merely re-adding the appropriate category based on previous usage. If the category shouldn't have been there in the first place, that's fine, but if the only reason you reverted me was because "the discussion doesn't say why it's added", then I would kindly ask that you re-add it until someone verifies its accuracy. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Copying from an incompatible license
Hi, I noticed that you are importing text from the New South Wales State Heritage Register, e.g. in Ottery Mine. However, this source is CC 4.0 licensed, and according to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, the WMF legal team has stated that the 4.0 license is not compatible with the wikipeidia license, and therefor 4.0 text may not be imported, not even with an attribution. I'm afraid that we'll have to delete all the articles you imported in this way, which isn't a nice thing to do; but sadly a necessary thing. I'm not blaming you for not knowing that this license was not acceptable here, I only learned about it last week myself. Fram (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I went into more detail on your talk page, but tl;dr - please read the pages you link before threatening people based upon them. Your own page explicitly states that CC-BY is compatible - you're either confusing it with CC-BY-SA or you didn't read the page, or both. Either way, poor form. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Ah, I mixed up between CC-By 4.0 and CC-By-SA 4.0, these licenses are really too confusing. You are right, the things you imported seem to be perfectly acceptable, so please carry on. Fram (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was curious why you considered the 3 women I submitted to the Hot 100 for improvement to GA status to be inappropriate. Lucille Ball is the only "Hollywood American"; Olivia Newton-John is an Australian entertainer, and Virginia Woolf is an English writer. 2 of the 3 articles are considered Level 4 Vital articles on Wikipedia, and the other (ONJ) is considered Level 5. I specifically chose them because of this importance. I was trying to add more articles for people to take note of since we had some vacant spots in the Hot 100. I don't mind if you think other women should be in these spots, but I would argue that whoever they are should be from the Vital lists. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Why on earth are you deleting Tingle's revealing statement of her view of the "trouble with Turnbull" at his final press conference? Surely you are aware of alternative views? Why would you want to hide hers? She has repeated it in all her analysis of the downfall of Turnbull. Leave it please. Observoz (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The questions journalists ask in interviews and press conferences can't be assumed to reflect their own views. It is a standard journalistic technique to put provocative views/propositions to interviewees. The text here stated that she was presenting the views of voters anyway. As such, this isn't useful content. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This month
Hi i saw that you have made a complaint about at least this time you notified me.
Thought I would just make it clear I am not a member of the Liberal party.
--110.22.50.32 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32--~~
Spinifex
Hi, I hope that I'm sorting out the "spinifex" links correctly, so it was good to have some reassurance from someone who appears to know about the Australian flora. As far as I can see, most links from the text "spinifex" in articles relating to Australia relate to the genus Triodia, because they are concerned with the arid interior, not coastal sand dunes which are the habitat of true Spinifex. If you see any errors I've made, do correct them and let me know. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, many thanks for your work on Dede Alpert - that's great, looks so much better now. Thanks again, Tacyarg (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Bathurst
Hi there. Would you please tag me or send me a list of Bathurst articles needing photos. I will source pver the next few days. I have limited internet connectivity. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Thomas Elder 4.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I used to dine out on the fact the Sydney project per se was the under-developed project for Australian cities (when watched over the last ten years) - well yourself, Kerry and Rangasyd have transformed the project - well done!!!! JarrahTree 10:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The general increase of material about Sydney - even just the framework of articles and categories - is so important - you all need encouragement to keep at it! JarrahTree 11:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. I added a new source; I haven’t removed the other (a Crikey article). Given that this is a biography, we should be very careful about the weight we give to unproven allegations... even if the subject is dead. Mqst north (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Program for Australian television
Hello, in regards to your recent reverts of television shows where you left the edit summary "not Australian English, just awkward" when changing the term "program" to "series" in a large number of articles, you are actually not corrent. An RfC determined that "program should be used for Australian television series" and that "..program was the preferred usage for television series. The RfC looked at whether "program" or "programme" was the correct spelling for Australian television-related articles, and consensus was found that "program" is indeed Australian English for Wikipedia articles relating to Aussie television. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm thinking of submitting this article for re-assessment on the WP:Australia page (perhaps C-class?), as I think I've largely exhausted the sources available online. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? Thanks, Warrenjs1 (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback - it's now been re-assessed as C-class. I'll keep looking for more sources on the union's later history, but there is very little published material available for the post-war period, unfortunately. Warrenjs1 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
riot
thanks for your comment at frickeg - I have taken the history back - as I find the idea that because I was there I know what happened level of editing somewhat disconcerting. JarrahTree 22:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Your baseless edit-summary notwithstanding, your claim that slavery could exist in 1880s Western Australia must be backed up by extremely solid sources written by historians, not environment specialists. How could slavery possibly exist when it had been outlawed by an Empire-wide Act of Parliament? Yes, kidnapping, illegal forced labour, and other slavery-like activities could exist, but as "Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property", you need to provide highly reliable sources explaining how slavery itself, and not merely a slavery-like setting, could exist in a setting to which the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was applicable. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
PS, the source never asserts that slavery existed in this setting. The string slav appears three times: once in speaking of slavery-like conditions, once in "reports of slavery", and once in the title of a cited work. Let me remind you that placing information in connection with a citation is a specific claim that the source provides that information, that if the source doesn't provide that information, it's a hoax, and that repeated addition of hoaxes is grounds for blocking. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have taken this to the Australian noticeboard - It would ideal if you both could recuse yourselves and see what the Northern Australian circumstances show up at the noticeboard rather than a personal conversation. JarrahTree 00:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Slavery and slavery-like settings are not the same, even if they have the same result for the individuals involved, and if you once more insert a statement that is not reflected in the cited source, I will request a block for the insertion of hoaxes. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Given your edit-warring, insertion of hoaxes, and personal attacks on me, I have requested a block. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Slavery in Broome
Hello I found an article mentioning slavery in Australia although it doesn't specifically mention Boone. Going to do a bit more digging (via Google and other search engines) to possibly come up with some sources that prove/disprove slavery in Broome. Sakura CarteletTalk 01:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
How does this edit qualify as removal of WP:UNDUE content – [1]? You have, in fact, re-added all the contentious material. Please explain yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick{c} 11:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Merging WP:UNDUE content into the core of a short biography, therefore flooding it, is absolutely not an improvement: it's making it worse. I have been WP:BOLD and removed the content that you gave more prominence. I'm not sure about the best place for the remaining content, but it's impossible to resolve if you won't use the talk page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reproduced here from User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's talk page
I have removed all contentious material from the BLP until the matter is conclusively resolved on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick{c} 11:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I was posting here to thoroughly apologise, because I'd carelessly assumed that you had reinstated Ascv's edit (which I seriously objected to as making things worse), when you had in fact done your own. I don't particularly object to your version of the wording there; although I feel it's a little bit POV in Ghahraman's favour and doesn't explain the controversy as well, I don't know that it's worth fussing over.
Of course, while I was writing this message, you (again without discussion) have removed the content entirely, which is completely unacceptable. I'm not going to revert you immediately in the interests of stopping a revert war, but please revert yourself to your previous edit. We're clearly not far apart and this whole dispute would be completely unnecessary if you'd discuss first rather than ignoring the talk page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reproduced here from User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's talk page
In accordance with WP:BLP policy, the burden of evidence rests on the editor who adds or restores contentious material. The current version is fine as it is, until the BLP dispute is conclusively resolved on the talk page. For the record, you were advised earlier to engage on the talk page, which you did not until moments ago – [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick{c} 11:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Spotted Draft:Evelyn C. White in the recently generated WiR list of AfC rejections. The creator (apparently a journalist who was profiling the subject) resubmitted but it was unlikely to pass 2nd review in that state. I rewrote it to show that the subject clearly passes WP:AUTHOR#3, but while I'm usually fine with moving rejected drafts into mainspace, I'm not sure if that's good practice for drafts that are still "waiting for review" in AfC. If you have a chance, could you take a look at it? Many thanks either way. Bakazaka (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
dont add fuel
Just saw your response at Freo, I suggest a revert as thats not all that helpful, either to you or the arguments. cheers Gnangarra 00:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Enmore High School
I saw your reversion of my edit to this article, and do not understand why you chose to address it that way. I see that you have a lot of experience on Wikipedia, but I think I still have to point out that even if a technical and further education school is called a TAFE in Australia, Wikipedia is not just for Australians. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, which is meant to educate. TAFE is not a word, it's an acronym that is not universally known, so it should be defined at its first use. An undefined acronym that is unintelligible to most of the English-speaking world is not helpful to readers. The TAFE hyperlink redirects to the technical and further education – as it should.
My edit also included quite a few other changes, such as deleting a duplication of the word 'the' and fixing random capitalizations and do not understand why you chose to revert those, too.
It is called a TAFE. It is not called a "technical and further education institution". There are literally zero non-spam hits for "Enmore Technical and Further Education": there are well over 10,000 for "Enmore TAFE". For anyone who is confused and needs further definition, Wikipedia has a handy article at TAFE, which is unmissably linked from that very sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Newcastle railway station, Sydney
The bug in the template which caused this redirect to be needed, has now been fixed and is no longer required. It and some others, are now causing a problem in the template which has needed to be expanded to cover that. Hence we are asking for their deletion.Fleet Lists (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thanks for your message
Thank you JarrahTree 07:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
email JarrahTree 00:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
NSW SHR update
Hi there. Just checking in to see if you think City of Hawkesbury heritage sites are complete. I finished a few off for you, but you will need to update the CSV workbook. And then we should chat how we're going to manage City of Sydney LGA. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi again. Can you have a look over the revisions that I've just made to your edit of Jenner House and incorporate them (map, architectural style, categories, change portal from NSW to Sydney, create tags for talk page, etc...) into all your other edits in the Potts Point, Darlinghurst and Kings Cross articles. Many thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi TDW,
Have you found anything in Chinese - reliable references only, of course - about this? I might be able to help out with the Chinese characters for its various names. CF: Sze Yup Temple
墨爾本之彼得 aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For keeping on trucking with the New South Wales State Heritage Register rollout! Kerry (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I take your point that none of the others are directly sourced, but when I saw it, it was a redlink as well as being unsourced. That wasn't much evidence of its existence. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Frederick Hanson
Thanks for cleaning up my confusing edit summary at Frederick Hanson. I agree with your assessment that "Corruption allegations" is the only part that's okay, and it cannot stand alone after the revdel. –dlthewave☎ 11:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Vic LC ticket order
I'll check them all—that was the order in the VEC candidates file and it was seemingly only Labor in a weird order, but I obtained another VEC list so that might have a more realistic order. --Canley (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the Labor tickets based on the new VEC file, seems much more realistic! I'll check the minor parties too. --Canley (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
sue hickey
please explain??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1199bob (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
Please stop issuing false warnings against disruptive editing or against vandalism over what is nothing more than a difference of opinion. Fake warnings against vandalism and fake warnings against disruptive editing are abuse of admin status and can result in loss of admin status. It is your duty to try to remember, even though you disagree, that WP:AGF is still a Wikipedia policy, and you should behave in accordance. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 02:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It is bad practice to assume motives. WP:AGF and WP:ADHOMINEM both apply, and are still principles of Wikipedia. You should attempt to follow Wikipedia policies.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 04:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, The Drover's Wife. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
Undid your undo because there is no citation or evidence for the assertion that the SDA's culture is adverse to what it perceives as militancy by traditional unions. Indeed, the SDA was the biggest financial backer of the famously militant MUA in the 1998 waterfront dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.88 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Please explain why you are deleting accurate information from a living person biography?
Hi Drovers Wife.
Can you explain why you are continuously deleting and undoing accurate information I am editing on a living persons biography?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pke2018 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Second very dumb mistake in a week. Yikes! Thanks for cleaning up my mess! Frickeg (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Source for sitewide consensus on election article names
Hey there. You mentioned a "sitewide consensus" for a new naming scheme for articles on elections in a recent edit summary on 2019 Australian federal election, but didn't include a link to such a discussion. May I ask for the source to the discussion that produced a consensus on this issue? I'd like to help out on renaming articles while having the validity to back the consensus up in my edit summaries. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 05:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Your message on my talk page
Hello, you accused me of "disruptive editing" and "vandalising" Wikipedia. Could you please explain why you believe this to be the case? Gfcvoice (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Because you disagreed with him about something. That's his definition of "disruptive editing" and "vandalism".Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 23:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok got it - thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.62.147 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Barnaby Joyce and Broad affairs
Come on now, the leadership of a conservative party that pushed family values having resignations over affairs is definitely noteworthy, it's been on the front page of every single paper in the country!. Why not edit and contribute rather than wantonly reverting? Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought we were developing a bit of civility between us, but apparently not. what you claim on your revert is just not true. I spent ages on that more than half of it I wrote entirely and I tried to re-write the others, and I said it needed work...why not help? Why not help rewrite from the excellent source material. To just sit a revert and not contribute does not seem like editing in good faith to me, in-fact it seems a bit grubby. I'm going through and rewriting the bits that are too close to the source. Try and contribute in the future, instead of simply reverting, go through the source and help write the page. Bacondrum (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
whatever
the seasons greetings, if they are suitable and fit, otherwise enjoy it all - cheers JarrahTree 09:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Next question is, do you mind if I cull valid blue-links? You'll see I've been tinkering, because I just can't help myself :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Mayhap I'll fork it; do some more DABs on yours, and then cull bluelinks into a WiR version. I see you have a towerblock about to collapse - I make the assumption you may be Sydney-based. Just be careful out there. Perhaps stick with the historic buildings, none of this modern stuff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Please consider moving/uploading free images to Commons!
Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! --Animalparty! (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Australian historic places/Sydney central business district
We're duplicating content. Pleade hold off for five minutes. I've completed duplications and dabs. Rangasyd (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. Over to you to make any more changes. I'm going to take a break for a while. Rangasyd (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm done with creating content. There are two entries left. Both of which you've been involved with to date, the Bulletin place warehouses and the adjacent dwelling to the Clarence Street Police Station. Would you please mind completing them. I'm not certain that the address is correct for the Royal George Hotel, Sydney. Would you please revisit and include the adjacent terraces, if they are part of this listing. Also the NSW SHR reference is missing for the terraces. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
think
is not a useful explanation to revert category items - there is in general a conflagoration at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Exhibition_Building of templates and categories - if you think all of that is really needed - then there are WP:MOS guidelines for WP:CATEGORIES that you might like to refer to, and offer in WP:AGF to Mitch, rather than the word 'think'. JarrahTree 07:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
ok the noticeboard answer does help JarrahTree 08:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I personally think that the over-cat and over-templating of such items is really offputting - regardless of diffusion or not - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House I find it hard to believe that all the templates and categories are valid. JarrahTree 08:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The big problem is consistency throughout australia once it is separated - Kerry did a very good job of cleaning up and populating some archaeology categories that I started the other day, and Shyamsunder does very good work when he gets the ball rolling - (and when I dont interrupt) - the whole thing about tourist and landmark categories is that they can be very close to pov/arbitrary categories with in some cases very poor background reference points - they do need managing though, that is for sure JarrahTree 08:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A very good example of what happens when there is not consistency - I know the chileans take their football very seriously, I have been exposed to the enthusiasm (similar to kangaroo ticks, another side issue) - and to go find the categories have been played with by up to three (if not four) different ways of looking at how they have been populated or managed - the lack of consistency across a larger category, or within a project reflects a very bad way on how wikipedia is maintained - is something I firmly believe that the Australian eds like kerry and shyamsunder need to be encouraged - the more eds prepared to put the time in to straighten out the variant usages across the project is vitally important that eds are able to see the bigger picture - rather than just sit in their small corner of their state and not see how it connects with others - regularly with shymasunders edits - I look at the larger global connections - and typically there are problems with some under-maintained or organised subjects/topics for the whole of wikipedia not just australian contexts.steps down from soapbox JarrahTree 09:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Annalise Braakensiek
We ideally need sources that demonstrate why she is notable/detail her career etc. that aren't simply about her death... GiantSnowman 11:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not - it's a standard maintenance tag which states "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention". If there are that many sources out there then please expand it. It's been in a sorry state ever since it was created. GiantSnowman 11:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou
Oops- thanks for that on the Paul Whittaker article. I dropped in to update the CEO Sky job, saw them and actually thought it was someone having a laugh- the "Grapes of Bof" and "Palmersnorus" really sounded too good to be true, especially as they weren't referenced; I'm happy to know that they do exist heheh. You're right, I should have looked them up to make sure.
And a belated thank you for trying to find that mediaweek ref as well. I'm beginning to wonder if its dodgy, because it was inserted into the article 3 days or so before the date given as the publication date, but then, sometimes magazines do release early. Curdle (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Justices of the Federal Court of Australia
What on earth are you doing, cluttering up the openings of articles with fluff no one wants to read? Particularly concerning is the ignorant reinstatement of styleguide breaches, such as typography. Are you going to go back and fix them??? Tony(talk) 11:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry we came to blows yesterday, and that I said uncharitable things to you. Perhaps we might work together some time. Tony(talk) 00:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The above
I sympathise with you, having to deal with people who repeatedly remove links from articles because they personally don't like them. The same two people regularly go through year in topic articles taking out links to dates, not caring that they are leaving one article out of kilter with all other year articles. Maybe one day they will get bored with the game and go away, but for now we just have to put up with it. Deb (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Changes to Australian Country Party (2004)
Dear Drovers Wife,
Please do your homework before removing edits to the page.
All text edits are referenced and the new logo is clearly on all Party websites and social media.
All change of direction and the ideology outlined on the page are referenced and are clearly what the Party is and where it is now going.
Your deletion of edits means the Wiki page becomes historic and reflects the party before the Victorian Elections last year and before the complete change of Federal Executive early January this year.
I am happy to communicate with you more but do not change the page again, without your proper research, or I will have to report you to higher Wiki Authority for un-researched editing of our page.
Hello, I read your message. I confess I didn't know about the other article until I published my own. Besides, wrote to the other user (PanagiotisZois) about merging our pages, but I yet didn't have a word from him, but I guess he got aware of that. I'm sorry for this mess and I hope we all can solve it. F. E. Puricelli (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Australian Joint Copying Project
I must misunderstand the point of a draft. I refer to Draft:Australian Joint Copying Project. If no one edits that draft, it'll be deleted, and nothing will ever show up again. But, if someone just goes and creates the page, then it will show up, and the current quality will be sufficient to prevent it from being deleted. As such, what's the point of the draft?
As it is an "obviously notable topic", with only a few minor changes, why not just approve the draft, and then let the wikiworld make the changes? Additional potential sources are listed on the talk page, and I will add more in about two minutes. 203.30.234.30 (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just added references inline in the text. 203.30.234.30 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
András Nemescsói (February 2) question
Thank you very much for your feedback! Can you tell me which sources are considered problematic in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew93833 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI
Just a quick FYI, I don't think the submitter would ever get Draft:Prince Khaled bin Alwaleed bin Talal up to mainspace quality. I went ahead and made a new copy directly in mainspace here - Khaled bin Alwaleed bin Talal - but wanted to give you a heads-up since you also reviewed the sub-par draft. (Also, based on the posed photo of the prince labeled as "own work", I'm assuming this is an undisclosed COI, but c'es la vie.) Chetsford (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
realise
that this had some things I'd rather keep offline, sorry... thanks for the chat anyways - cheers JarrahTree 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
BLP articles for creation
IMHO - BLP adherence on talk page and categories should be mandatory regardless of who passes something for creation - too important to leave hanging loose as a goose unmentioned - have a good weekend anyways JarrahTree 09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies - I was watching the new article and burst a friday afternoon boiler over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Kidd - it was not adequately tagged - and also I unreleased the cats immediately (btw there is an ext link in the text a definite MOS nonono) from the article itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kidd - I have just got to a point in the Australian biota project where I have got unassessed australian bio project items down to less than 10k (although the Oz total is a healthy 3k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unassessed_Australia_articles) so I probably jumped the gun on your new article - I just think they should never go open and free from impediments unless the BLP tags on both sides - talk and main space - are clearly there... but hey thats just me JarrahTree 09:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
reason for reversion
Inadequately discussed from your side - please go to the talk page and stop reverting that unless you can provide well reasoned argument rather than your edit summary conclusions.
If you so choose offer online or offline why you have developed such a problem. Just because you cannot see anything like it somehwere else does not create a condition for a sections removal - as it stands the background of the development of the cross and darlo require a hell of a lot of that sort of information get into even a par with what it could be. The darlinghurst article is full of problems, why not focus on cleaning up rather than removing good faith additions - in all this time no one even had started the darlinghurst fire station. Also as a matter of form, there is a real need to discuss than blanket reverts. Try the discussion, and maybe there will be some progress, reversions do not help anyone. JarrahTree 10:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Potts Point, Kings Cross, Darlinghurst, East Sydney - all have quite complex historical geography - this glimmer of a view into something that you have contributed to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tusculum,_Potts_Point - is a fragment and each fragment add up to what the rather small geographical area contains - just removing parts of the earlier examples does not really help.
of the now well introduced (it would help to read the links provided in the introduction of the section) section actually situated the plans - and I would make effort to actually add more text if I was living in Sydney (unfortunately my residence in darlo was before digital photography, otherwise I would have more to back up my arguments) - the lynchpins of the earlier landscape - such as Tusculum, and the fire station - are important part of understanding the streetscapes, and rather than remove - I would say that to add text to the items, or even create good articles to link such as your creation of tusculum - is a better way to go.
But please discuss rather than revert - otherwise you can easily make the issue more complicated than we really need, thanks... JarrahTree 10:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for talking, (not for trying to give up) - I honestly thought they were having going back in, with text with the items - but the text above is what gives the context for the moment - and sorry I dont take your giving up as anything that helps you or anyone else - I insist on the talk page furthering the issue - hey there are always more idiocies on around the place than this stuff... JarrahTree 10:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
understand completely - trying to suggest down to 4 and developing text for the remaining items JarrahTree 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, The Drover's Wife. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
By way of explanation re Solicitor-General of Victoria, I tend not to red-link where I think there is unlikely to be a future article as the person doesn't meet WP:BIO. The reasons I hadn't linked Harold Berkeley QC or Douglas Graham QC were that both are deceased, no other article mentions them & I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish their personal notability, as opposed to their office. Murray, McLeish & Niall are clearly notable as judges of the Supreme Court. Given the rapid rise of Kirsten Walker, she will probably become so as well. It's not a big deal for me either way & I could be wrong about their notability. We should probably deal with Berkeley & Graham in the same way, either both redlinked or neither. Find bruce (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Request on 22:06:31, 5 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Lak2017
Hi, I don't mean to edit war with you and won't revert further, but my main concern with the material was that the sources don't actually support what is being referenced to them (that Labor's preferencing is the reason Risstrom failed to be elected, or that this was controversial). The first element of this seems odd given that the Greens have managed to get Senators elected in their own right, so a strong reference is needed to support the implication that the ALP somehow let Risstrom down (did they break an agreement with the Greens to help him get up, for instance?). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Australian Judges
I have been thinking about the structure of categories for Australian judges. It seems to me having every judge in the category Australian Judges is unlikely to be helpful. I note we already have a non-diffusing subcategory Category:Australian judges by century, although the 19th Century is effectively a replication of the various colony of X judges categories. If a reader is are looking for an Australian judge, they might want to approach it by jurisdiction (ie federal, state) or by court. While the proposal to rename Category:Judges of Australian superior courts is being discussed, is it worthwhile creating Category:Australian judges by court, not as a parent category of superior courts, but as a separate sorting category? We can then adopt a similar approach to the Courts category - there is already a Category:Australian courts by jurisdiction, maybe an another set of non-diffusing categories would be Current Courts, Abolished Courts, Current Tribunals and Abolished Tribunals. Find bruce (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
You were right about Colony of X categories - I have just been through the Sup Court of Tas & Qld adding them to the relevant Sup Ct category. In terms of category tree I agree with you about not having a separate category for current X. Subject to your views, what I am thinking is:
Australian judges
existing categories "Australian judges by century", "Lists of Australian judges" "Australian women judges" etc
Australian judges by court
all categories of judges current courts - "Judges of the High Court of Australia" etc
Australian judges of abolished courts
all categories of judges of abolished courts - eg "Judge Advocates of New South Wales"
Australian judges by jurisdiction
Australian judges of federal courts
Australian Judges of X state
Colony of X judges
"Judges by court" would be a simple matter. "Judges by jurisdiction" would probably require some automated process to make it workable, so lower priority. There is probably some level of detail that I have skipped over. As lawyas, happy to hear your views. Find bruce (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your ongoing work sorting out this category tree. That magistrates category looks very small even after that recategorising - I find it hard to believe we've only got 16 articles on magistrates across all of Australian history! The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Like you I thought the number would be higher - it is probably an underpopulated category so I will try searching for more. (Edit: the Australian Dictionary of Biography lists 406 magistrates which would make them notable per WP:ANYBIO)
You have rolled out many hundreds of articles! Thank you! Kerry (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
your absence is felt
so few active knowledgable eds left in oz - have break - but please return! JarrahTree 00:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I can understand why you have had enough - thanks for what you have done JarrahTree 23:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
:(
It's already a desert without you. Thank you for all you have done and I hope you're doing something less stressful and more fun. Frickeg (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I should have been clearer with my edit summary. When I said "the furore is over" I didn't mean any controversy about Elliott's comments. There were two editors who had an editing dispute with me on a completely different topic and followed me to this article where I had removed two sentences about comments that Elliott made that were simply not notable. The only coverage was the publication of the comments themselves and some minor commentary in fringe outlets. By furore I meant that those two editors seemed to have got bored of the situation and left. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oceania House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
AfC
You accepted the draft Erphaan Alves. However, this article is composed of 55% COPYVIO. The athuor has a history of creating articles with over 50% of the content copied verbatim from other websites. I do not wish to hurt the creator's feelings by returning an article which has already been accepted at AfC, but please address this situation (possibly by recasting trhe COPYVIOs yourself) and ensure that in future you check new articles for COPYVIOS. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Glenn Davies
The article should hopefully be as neutral as it can now. The first sentence, referring to the speech itself does not refer to bishops, except in relation to the section of the speech where it took place (which is accurate). The clarification sentence (quoting Davies) refers to "bishops and those who wished to change the doctrines of the church" so it incorporates your concerns about the second half of Davies' quote. Bookscale (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
wow
you and longhair editing today, how auspicious, all is not lost... JarrahTree 07:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Peter Beattie
You must be a Peter Beattie fan if you remove content that is factual and has references to back it up. I don't care if it is undue weight or however you put it. At the end of the day we all know what happened anyway. Sully198787 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
WA heritage etc
I have very strong views on what I believe is a total f-up of australian content, but like with other issues, I am in no way sharing and caring on the issue, as it comes back to bite... JarrahTree 03:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
but then, no one seems slightest interest in any form of evaluation off cc dumps, so I am prepared to throw my ten cents into the ring on that one, no doubt will get ignored again. JarrahTree 04:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
simple answer - as expressed at the historic places page 2x - there is no facility for the cc dumps to be sufficiently assessed by quality or importance - separate from the actual page in the context of the state project. No one is interested in assessment. very simple. JarrahTree 09:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Normanton to Croydon railway line. Accusing editors of vandalism for putting up perfectly legitimate maintenance tags is unbecoming of a veteran editor. WP:OWN, please. Ravenswing 04:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
1964 PNG elections
Hello. Was there a reason you removed the links you'd just added to Gunther and Les Johnson in this edit? Cheers, Number57 09:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Pacific Islands Monthly is a great source, and I will be able to do all the bios of the elected members from it at some point too. Number57 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Could I possibly ask for your opinions and advice about this new article? I think it is safe to say that you are subject matter expert about Australian political parties.
Thus far, it appears to be entirely referenced from its website.
The history of the various political parties in Australia that called themselves "Communist Party" is all kinds of scraggly. (Here we go, me telling you things you already know and understand far better than I do. This is for the page watchers, I guess.)
Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Nope from my perspective, very clear, if you know the scene in Life of Brian, there are the Peoples front of Judea, and the Judean peoples front it is very clear ... I dont see where the problem is...
AND - there are the essential texts easily available as well -
Gollan, Robin; Gollan, Robin, 1917-2007 (1985), Revolutionaries and reformists : communism and the Australian labour movement, 1920-1955 ([2nd ed.] ed.), George Allen & Unwin, ISBN978-0-86861-471-7{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Macintyre, Stuart; James Bennett Pty. Ltd (2003), The Reds : the Communist Party of Australia from origins to illegality, Allen & Unwin, ISBN978-1-74115-079-7
Horner, D. M. (David Murray) (2014), The spy catchers. Volume I : the official history of ASIO, 1949-1963, Crows Nest, N.S.W. Allen & Unwin, ISBN978-1-74343-907-4
Burgmann, Meredith; Burgmann, Meredith, 1947-, (editor.) (2014), Dirty secrets : our ASIO files, NewSouth, ISBN978-1-74223-140-2{{citation}}: |author2= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
@Shirt58: and @JarrahTree:: like JarrahTree said, no big deal in my book. We have the original CPA. We have the MLs, who never claimed the CPA title on its own. We have the SPA (now CPA). We have the random splitters who are correctly being PRODed for having no notability whatsoever. The only one of those that's any kind of problem is what to call the former SPA, and I like RyanDeggerz' solution from earlier today (Communist Party of Australia (1971)) as much as any of the alternatives (certainly more than things like Communist Party of Australia (former Socialist Party of Australia) being thrown around). The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say I am greatly enjoying the terrific work you're doing expanding all these MP stubs - amazing work! Frickeg (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
while youre at it - exercise on the talk pages is always appreciated - - that aside have a good holiday season... JarrahTree 05:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
always good to have points of difference, trust the new year goes that way as well. I repeat my pre-christmas greetings in part - have a safe new year. JarrahTree 12:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barry O'Sullivan, you may be blocked from editing. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Justices of the Federal Court of Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Find bruce (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Slow edit war and challenge to my posted warnings". Thank you. --DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Normanton to Croydon railway line. Accusing editors of vandalism for putting up perfectly legitimate maintenance tags is unbecoming of a veteran editor. WP:OWN, please. Ravenswing 04:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
