User talk:CatonB

Fair use rationale for Image:Kate Fischer with mum.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kate Fischer with mum.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia-National-politician-stub

Hi, nothing personal, but I listed Template:Australia-National-politician-stub for deletion. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:ACE Holding.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ACE Holding.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FiggyBee 23:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral district of Williamstown

Your edit is premature as the count has not been declared yet, but I guess we can leave it. It is certain he will be the member, but he is not right now. --Bduke 06:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Lebowski

I noticed you reverted by deletion of the subsection you added about "Imperfections in the film". It's considered polite to include an edit summary when you make a change like that. (You'll notice that when I deleted the addition, I included an edit summary as to why I deleted it.) If you have a disagreement with an edit someone has made, you can also discuss it on the talk page. But just reverting something with no edit summary is just unhelpful. Rray 06:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cohanim nominated for deletion

Hi CatonB: FYI, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 26#Category:Cohanim. Sincerely, IZAK 10:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eamonn Walsh (Glen Eira Councillor)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Eamonn Walsh (Glen Eira Councillor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Longhair\^talk 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of David Southwick

David Southwick, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that David Southwick satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Southwick and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of David Southwick during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Blueboy 96 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essendon and Flemington

Sorry about that - I should have created seperate articles for the other two electorates at the time. I split them originally because I felt the merging of the districts together was artificial - the only thing the prior districts really had in conjunction with this one is that they were in the same general region. Rebecca (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past electorate articles

Nice job with these - it's pretty useful to have at least basic articles for these old ones.

However, you seem to be, at least on some of these articles, automatically disambiguating every link with (Australian politician). This is breaking every single link you're adding on those articles. If there's no other person in Wikipedia by that name, we generally link to the article at just that person's name. If there is someone else, it might be (politician) or (Australian politician) - if the MP was in parliament after 1979, it would be helpful to check the past member lists (Members of the Victorian Legislative Assembly) to find out where the existing links are targeted. Rebecca (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nevermind - I see you've already worked that out. I've fixed up the early ones, anyway. Rebecca (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abolished Victorian Upper House Provinces

I am not very active thesedays but I'll be happy to have a look at this for you. I'll see how I go. Teiresias84 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can, but I'm not sure how easy it would be. It's pretty easy enough to go back as far as the last system goes - back to the 1950s - and there's a few examples (Nunawading being one) that come to mind that could be added. The problem with going back any further is that I have no idea how the Legislative Council was made up prior to that date, and I'd probably have to do a bit of research to find out which electorates fit in where. This is why I've held off doing that so far, as opposed to say, my project on the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, where I have details of every abolished electorate ever. Rebecca (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more, but as I said above, I think we should be careful about going back any further than the mid-1900s until we confirm that the earlier electorates were actually provinces in the same way as the others here, and not some earlier system. I'll probably do a National Library run in a few days, so hopefully I might be able to get my hands on a history of the parliament. Rebecca (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. MLA indicates a Legislative Assembly electorate, MLC indicates a Legislative Council electorate. The problem is that the format of the Legislative Council has changed over the years, and I'm not sure if (as happened in 2006, when all the provinces were abolished and changed into larger regions) the early Legislative Council electorates were provinces (as the pre-2006 ones were) or some earlier electoral system. For that, we need to actually do a bit of research. Rebecca (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please hold off on creating more of these articles? Neither of us have any idea whether South Bourke, Evelyn and Mornington Province was actually an electoral province in terms of the pre-2002 system, or whether it was even called a province. You don't know anything about the division except that there was once some sort of Legislative Council electorate by that name that had members, and that's not really good enough. Rebecca (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! I'll go and track down some sort of history of the parliament in the next week or so and sort things out, and then we can run through and catch the rest of these and make sure we're being accurate in doing so. Hopefully I might be able to find a bit more about them (location, population, etc.) while I'm there. Rebecca (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Wrixon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wrixon.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Eira

I've semiprotected it per your request. As to whether to delete it or not - probably could go either way. Rebecca (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Councillors of City of Glen Eira

The article does not appear to be eligible for speedy deletion criteria, this article should receive a full discussion. You may list it for deletion by following the non-speedy deletion method at WP:AFD. You may state your case for deletion there. Royalbroil 05:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably best to follow Royalbroil's advice. Rebecca (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the article semi-protected for the time being?--Matilda ^talk 23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Councillors of City of Glen Eira

An editor has nominated Councillors of City of Glen Eira, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Councillors of City of Glen Eira and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedies

The criteria for speedy deletion are as set by WP:CSD, and no others. That an article would almost certainly be deleted if carried to AfD is not a reason for speedy. That similar articles have been deleted at AfD is not a reason for speedy. If sufficient importance doubted, use PROD or AfD. DGG (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie candidates

Those candidates have some claim to notability--WP:CSD#A7 only applies to articles that have no assertion of notability whatsoever. Feel free to AfD them, though. Blueboy 96 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of xxx descent

Is unnecessary categorisation as per WP:CAT guidline # 9 Do not apply categories whose relationship to the topic is definable only as "(Article) is a subject related to (category)". Gnan garra 10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire rationale of x of x descent was discussed last month, consensus does not seem to be in favour of retaining it except in very clear and obvious cases. Orderinchaos 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the placement of the articles in the category, also note that WP:BLP on the this in relation to Jewish associations. Gnan garra 10:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per above, and Roxon talkpage. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not follow the train of thought that just because one sort of page exists, it gives precedent for another similar type. It is an ambiguous and IMHO pointless cat to have. The others you mention may have merit for deletion too, but I did not come across those ones, I came across this one, and aside, is especially contentious on the Nicola Roxon page and the very involved history on that page. Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, a bitter war was conducted on the Nicola Roxon page by a troll just three or four months ago on this very issue. Orderinchaos 09:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Di Natale/Southwick

Hi, I think you may have understood my last note. I was trying to talk to Di Natale's notability outside of the election process. I understand Southwick ran unsuccessfully, as has Di Natale (several times). I also understand that Southwick's candidacy attracted press. The point I was trying to make was that Di Natale has attracted press in reliable secondary sources for his activity outside of the election process - eg his commentary on safe injecting rooms and on terror laws. These comments, not related directly to his election attempts, have attracted comment in major metro dailies. Cheers Murtoa (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quit - Wikipedia is a joke --CatonB (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:GTunbridgeMelb.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GTunbridgeMelb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Gobbo, Jr.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article James Gobbo, Jr., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unsuccessful political candidate, no notability per WP:POLITICIAN

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Frickeg (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 election articles

Hi, I've just deleted the 2010 Victorian election candidates article you created as it was a straight copy and paste of the 2006 candidates article and recreated it as a redirect to the Victorian state election, 2010. Similarity, I've converted the 2010 federal election candidates article to a redirect to Australian federal election, 2010. As the major parties haven't finished preselecting their candidates and there's no way of knowing which minor parties will stand, both articles are premature at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]