Jump to content

User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

On vandalism

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism for the official definition of what is and isn't vandalism. Non-neutral point of view edits made in good faith is not considered vandalism. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do understand that. The "vandalism" that I was referring to was Macktheknifeau constantly reverting whatever edits were made on the Exetel page by other editors back to his version without justifying the reversions. This is, IMO, the same as constantly blanking a page which is considered "childish vandalism". --AussieLegend 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Exetel Mediation Response

I've taken a look at the mediation cases submitted by both you and User:Macktheknifeau. I've posted an initial response to the situation on the Exetel talk page. It would be appreciated if you would take part in the discussion that I hope will follow so that we can achieve consensus on how the article should look. Thanks, Cheers. Canadian-Bacon 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whirlpool moderators

Siice two of you agreed with my queying of the non-notable trivia about moderators there, I was bold and removed it. Keep in mind that the entry has its fans (go through its history) and I strongly suspect that my changes will be reverted, quite possibly by an administrator. Peter1968 11:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Documents and oral history

This is of course a difficult area to cite. But the National enquiry - report would probably bring some support to a careful edit. Also related to this subject is this project. Is this what you meant. Regards Fred 10:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)



Thanks...

...for fixing the Newcastle Earthquake page. Nice work!

–Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

LGAs

I think the confusing thing here, and NSW and SA in particular (as in the governments) have gone out of their way to make it confusing, but the official name of the *council* (a local government authority) and the official name of the *shire/municipality* (a local government area with gazetted boundaries) are different. Wikipedia is not writing about the council, but about the area which the council manages (and talking about the council only with respect to that management). For example, one can't say, "East Gresford falls within Dungog Shire Council", it falls within Dungog Shire. The site referred to actually specifically looks to name the former - presumably so one can contact councillors, etc.

In the Government Gazette and in legislation pertaining to items which fall under an LGA, the correct terminology is actually "Shire of ____" or "City of ____" (NSW GGs are available right back to the mid-1990s online), but as nearly all councils in NSW appear to have incorporated their areas as "____ Shire", we're left with the odd situation of having to go with that as it's the most commonly used (and referenceable) name vis-a-vis those entities, and to use the correct name would only be confusing. Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 1993 doesn't help either. So "____ Shire" seems the best compromise, except in the "____ Council" cases as they seem to be an Area under the terms of the Schedule, and said Areas are discussed in terms of the "____ Council area". (In the case of Singleton Council, they've actually gazetted the name for the area as well!) Hope this helps explain my reasoning.

Personally, I much prefer the system here in WA where they've kept it nice and simple - LGAs are Shire of-, Town of- or City of-, while councils are -Shire Council, -Town Council or (except in one or two instances) -City Council. Orderinchaos 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Williamtown Fighter World.jpg

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Williamtown Fighter World.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all 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. 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!

Sfan00 IMG 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The photo is not an appropriate one for a major photo of an article - take a look at every other city in Australia - they have a more encompassing photo of the CBD area. The one you deleted is more appropriate, and mine is good as well. The best one would be one taken across the river from Stockton. JRG 11:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But thanks for the editing on NC. Good to see work on the article - thanks for the NC Airport pics too. JRG 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle article

The article is NOT about the Newcastle LGA only - it is about the whole metropolitan area, just as in the same way an article about "Sydney, New South Wales" would not just be about the Sydney LGA, but the whole metropolitan area. Please see the demographics section in the article, among other places, for discussion in the article showing that I am correct. I have removed the misleading LGA reference in the infobox, but that was about it that would show otherwise. Feel free to update the correct population statistic to 493,465, but the article is about the entire metro area, not just the Newcastle LGA. JRG 10:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the question - broadly agree with JRG here (although, after taking a quick look at the article histories, agree more on content than on action). 493,466 appears to be the correct figure according to 2006 ABS - 512,000 is, from what I can gather, an earlier estimate by the ABS before the figures were known. The way I see it is that Newcastle, New South Wales should be about Newcastle the way an outsider would see it - just a city with a general extension in various directions, its culture, social characteristics, attractions etc - which would apply to the whole area which Newcastle services. This argument comes up for larger cities - especially Melbourne and Perth - occasionally, as the ABS definitions include some areas that are very rural, while excluding connected urban areas - most weirdly, in Melbourne the definition includes the Mornington Peninsula while in Perth it excludes Mandurah and its urban area, in every way a very similar area to MP. The article on the council then should be an article about local government and the area from a local governance point of view - I wrote hundreds of them for WA a few months ago (see for example City of Bunbury which has a similar problem in that a large part of the metro area of Bunbury is in three other shires - Capel, Harvey and Dardanup). Re the C/M thing this morning - no worries, I'd guessed that was the situation :) Not quite sure why Greta didn't turn up initially in my postcode checks though - I did a sanity check in a street directory which revealed the omission. There's two others for Cessnock - Carrabare and Olney - which were in postcodes which weren't in the list but I don't know enough about the area to know if they should be there or not. Orderinchaos 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If there's information that means the article is not inclusive, then you're welcome to fix it up and I will support you in that - I appreciate your help and I'm sure you'll do an excllent job fixing the article. I and others have always thought this article is on the metro area, and an outsider would expect it to as well. JRG 10:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it wouldn't make any sense for Kotara to be included but Kotara South to be excluded, or the two Adamstowns to be separated. Port Stephens does appear to be a bit of a strange one - only one contiguous suburb (Fern Bay) - as does Cessnock. The other area of confusion is Beresfield/Tarro/Woodberry/Thornton where part of the Maitland LGA is closely connected to Newcastle. Interestingly enough, if you look on the 2001 census stats, where Urban Centres/Localities are defined, "Newcastle" is taken to be all of the Newcastle LGA plus a shade over half of Lake Macquarie, taking in everything to Swansea on the east side of the lake and about as far as Toronto on the west. Orderinchaos 11:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool - my main bone of contention was with the exclusion of Lake Macquarie, so it seems we agree on that, and I agree that you actually do have a point with regards to the other three. (I intend to come to the region in late November, so I'll see it all for myself I guess - though with the limitations of public transport :P) So two possible definitions here - an area of 826.1 km² with a population of 313,598 (2001) / 324,891 (2006) (the two councils together), or an area of 259.8 km² with a population of 278,773 (2001) (not yet measured for 2006) per ABS Urban Centre/Locality, either of which would seem to work for any evaluative purposes. Orderinchaos 13:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This is where it's going to get confusing - the entire east side of Lake Macquarie, including Swansea (but not beyond it) are deemed to be within Newcastle by the 2001 UCL (see map above). Orderinchaos 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem, however, is this. We can't just make arbitrary definitions to suit one city, when the ABS definition has been adopted for the Australian project and is essentially the only verifiable source for this information. If we don't accept their definition, we have to accept somebody else's, and there's noone else around with that kind of authority. It would also require redefining all other Australian cities, for which consensus was reached years ago. I agree with you about the suburbs (had the same problem myself with the ones I was working on), although most of the areas in question are very sparsely populated areas. When in doubt you can always use the CCDs within the GNB boundary, such as I had to do with 2001 stats prior to the 2006 release for WA. As for what people say - within 20km of a city centre (in the case of Belmont) and clearly part of the same contiguous urban area, served by a bus company called Newcastle Buses, etc, strikes me as local parochialism. Orderinchaos 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and re the organisations - I live about 15km from Perth's CBD in the City of Stirling, to whom I pay rates. I do not pay rates to the City of Perth. But if I claimed I was therefore not part of Perth, I'd be laughed out of a shop. I am also within the Division of Stirling (not Perth) and the Electoral district of Balcatta, and I have a postcode quite different to Perth's (for the record, the entire Hunter area is treated as one entity - "17 Hunter" - by Australia Post according to their online postcode spreadsheet, while the entire Central Coast right up to Wyee is under "21 Pymble"). Orderinchaos 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It started getting a bit long, so I created a subpage on my user talk page at User talk:Orderinchaos/Newcastle. Orderinchaos 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A long term request - can you take a picture of Williamtown Airport and perhaps Belmont Airport (now closed I believe - hopefully before it's torn up and turned into housing) as well? JRG 06:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Newcastle_CBD_from_Stockton_001

Funnily enough I have a photo that looks exactly the same, but I thought it lacked detail and didn't upload it. I was working a photomerge of a greater detail image, but the important centre photo is too much of a difference in colour, so I am unsure if I can pull it off and make it work. -- Macr237 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the photo. Is there any chance you can get one that is of better quality? I'm not going to change the photo back because yours is a more representative photo, but a better quality one would be much more appreciated. Thanks. JRG 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying to get a good photo is really hard, due to the scale of the place and the distance. I have a series of shots that I wanted to join and have joined but one image is quiet a bit of difference in colour, so the photomerge looks crap. I will try a 3 part merge and see if I can avoid the bad photo. -- Macr237 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok out of the 10 shots in the series, this is the only two that really match. What do you think? -- Macr237 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Central Newcastle

Karuah Population

Hi there. The ABS census is the official population for Karuah so those other approx 1300 people must belong to another town right. Unless i am mistaken, i mean are you talking about those isolated houses on the side of the Pacific Hwy either side of Karuah? If they are not part of Karuah then which town are they a part of? How did you get the figure of 2000 from? Roadrunnerz45 05:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobbys Head Revision

Hey Aussielegend, what point does it serve to hyperlink dates, which have no purpose and do not improve readability and understanding of this article? Correcting format is fine, but hyperlinking to a date that does not expand on the article is pointless. OIC and myself have discussed this before with another user and agreed to allow me to change them back. -- Macr237 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to other dates gives a quick reference to other things that were happening at the same time as the events in the article and a lot of people find interest and value in the comparative historical references as evidenced by the fact that there are thousands of such articles. Often there is no direct benefit to the article in the link but sometimes items of direct relevance appear and as Wikipedia becomes bigger the chances of linking to a relevant item grows so linking dates can be a type of future-proofing. It also allows editors to identify information for inclusion in the "On this day" and related articles such as 10 May. Working out what to link to can be difficult so it's a lot faster just to link all dates since it doesn't detract from the original article. There's also the possibility of a benefit from the other direction. Somebody might know a date or even a year and find the article they're looking that way because it has been listed on a "On this day" article because the article linked to the article for that day. The more references that you can provide to articles, the easier it can be to find the information that you're looking for. That's why sites like Google are so important. If you want to remove the links by all means feel free to do so but it seems like a wasted effort since they don't detract from the article. --AussieLegend 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Singleton Population

Hi, I was wondering whether you could help me find the population for Singleton if thats OK with you. I dont know whether it is out of your range, but the wiki article is stating a 2001 census, and the 2006 doesn't even have a close match for it so i am stumped. Can you think of an accurate estimated figure? Dont worry, im not going to ask you for all the pop. figures in NSW! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton%2C_New_South_Wales#_note-ABS Roadrunnerz45 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

In short: yes, you're right. Will (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cities in NSW

I'd read the List of cities in Australia page and the NSW section to find out why the definition of city has been confusing. There was an edit war over the page until I added that and there's still conjecture as to whether it should be councils which make up cities or just old-style "cities". JRG 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle population figure

Hi AussieLegend. I'd just like to let you know that when you reverted the anonymous IP's edit, you were actually reverting a figure closer to the real figure! In fact, Newcastle is listed on Wikipedia's List of cities in Australia by population and on the ABS's QuickStats website ([1]) as 493,465. I did some searching on the ABS's website and couldn't actually find a reference for the figure you put down. Thanks, Auroranorth 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. I saw the QuickStats page said 'Statistical District', so that's why I notified you, rather than just doing it and not notifying you, as you reverted the previous one. Auroranorth 07:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As a complete aside on this issue, the UCL data came out last week, so we now have a 2006 UCL figure we could use for Newcastle if necessary. It gives 288,732. [2] Orderinchaos 08:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page

The discussion is simply an argument between you and I that ended up on a talk page. It does not interest anyone else. Either we archive it or I move the entire thing to our talk pages where it belongs. Stop reverting things and stop accusing me of vandalism. JRG 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to continue this discussion. Please stop, ok? JRG 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding my own comments is not vandalism. Again, please stop accusing me of something I am not doing. JRG 04:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I reckon it's the bottom-end templates. It seems patently odd that the issue would only affect a small group of LGAs in Queensland out of the thousands of articles with the infobox. Orderinchaos 04:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I navbox-standardised Template:LGAs SEQ and Caboolture all of a sudden works. Will have to check the others now. Orderinchaos 05:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Duns Creek

Suburb of what? Paterson. It is in the bush. It is more town than suburb. Nomadtales 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2007

I agree that External Link looked very lonely, but rather than putting it in "References", wouldn't it be better in "See also"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Bill Shorten

Just regarding your recent edit to Bill Shorten, i just thought i would let you know that he was not made parliamentary secretary for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, as you typed. His was made parliamentary secretary for Disabilities and childrens services. refer to: http://typingisnotactivism.wordpress.com/ for further details.

Just thought i would let you know.

(James 92327363744 09:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Bill Shorten

Hi, i must have read the history incorrectly. Sorry about the confusion. Also, i'm a passionate Labor Party supporter and member and i watched live when Kevin Rudd announced his cabinet and i must say that he did say that Bill was secretary for childrens services and disabilities, so im not sure why the other resource said what it did.

Also, i did re-insert the information you deleted on the Bob Sercombe page, i have added a reference as to where the information came from and i believe that it is necessary.

Regards,

(James 92327363744 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Stamp


Here's a stamp from the Faroe Islands for you! Stamps from the Faroe Islands somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill Shorten

Hi, just commenting on a prior discussion we had regarding Bill Shorten, i have checked my information and he has been made parliamentary secretary for disabilities and childrens services. NOT Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, which is what you argued he had been made secreatry for.

I am posting this message to you so you do not (again) revert the edit i have made, as it is correct.

thank you, (Jones234Jones (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Shorten cont.

Well maybe next time you will trust that other editors (who i might add, live in Victoria) know more about Victorian federal labor candidates/members than someone such as yourself. No offence, but the problem with a lot of wikipedia editors is that they think they know best, and are not willing to allow edits of people who know more about the subject, and since wikipedia is basically annonomous, it is hard to prove that i know more about a particular subject than you do, and therefore i know that my information is correct.

And BTW, you dont own wikipedia so please dont act like you do. The fact that you say "i am now happy to see your edits" or something like that, suggests to me that you think you control what happens and have more of a say than what you really do.

All i am saying is next time check your facts much more carefully before you decide to revert other editors information, which is correct, when yours is not.


Regards,

(Jones234Jones (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

I agree with you AussieLegend just as it says on your userpage about how unfair Copyright is. All pictures should be free. I'm glad you are a user who dislikes Copyright on Images. Happy Editing!Swirlex (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubbo and Orange

On the list of australian cities by population you keep changing the list back to give Dubbo and Orange much smaller populations. Check the official figures from the councils buddy. Just because you are a wiki editor dosent mean you know EVERYTHING. Dubbo and Orange both have populations around the forty thousand mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.167.209 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hervey Bay Image

if you look at the history i have consensus for the image and this is a place where everyone should fell welcome to edit but people like you make it hard and if you look at the Abs website properly they give different population stats i have found 2 different figures.[3][4] so how can they be more accurate that the city councils site Jay2k (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • For your information - I noted your rollback of this image on Australia also. User L.Wadsworth has asked me a question on my talk page to which I have responded the following:
  • Please show me/us exactly where you have had the discussion on this image so that I can review my concern. I will also post this question to the other editor that has removed the picture. We will await your return and until then please do not put the image back up. Cheers!--VS talk 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hervey Bay

just another quick note if the places are outside Hervey Bay but within the city council boundaries than they are part of Hervey Bay and should be included in the Hervey Bay figures.

Merewether

When was The Junction detached from Merewether and formed as a distictly separate suburb. If so it must have been only in the last 20 years. The Junction formed part of the old municipality of Merewether and the old Hunter Theatre at The Junction gave its address as 'Merewether' as did The Junction School'. Christchurch (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re gazetted suburbs btw, that's when every suburb in New South Wales then in existence was gazetted. Up until then, towns and villages and so forth had been gazetted (I have gazettals of Caringbah and Miranda in the Sutherland Shire which pretty much conform to suburb boundaries) but not actual suburbs. Oddly enough I think Christchurch may have gotten confused with LGA boundaries from pre-1938 - not every suburb had its own council at that time. Orderinchaos 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Not confused at all. The Junction related to the junction of the two Merewether railway lines. When I lived there in the early 1970s, in Merewether Street, The Junction was part of Merewether. The Municipality also was Merewether until these councils were all incorporated into Greater Newcastle. See the latter council's publication for 1947. Christchurch (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop rank

I'm quite uncommitted re the pop rank - I think that sort of thing should be in the prose personally. Was just fixing it as it said 2nd (which would be Melbourne). Based on the UCL it should be 8th behind Canberra, but yeah. Orderinchaos 08:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate :) Orderinchaos 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia and AWB

Thanks for catching that. It was when it turned <br /></ref> into <br /" />. I manually remove the unworking template. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I really need to learn to type as well. Part of the above was supposed to go as a bug report to AWB. The last sentence should have read, "I should have manually removed the unworking template". CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right. I noted it at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Odd reference in article may cause problem and was pointed to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 6#Unexpected modification. At least with the next version of AWB it should be fixed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation date

Hi, I'd like you to give me more explanations about your edit summary: "It's still not a person, which is what the template is for.". Because I created "foundation date" and I can tell you it's not intended for person, rfc 16@r (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Creating a redirect with an appropriate name doesn't automatically turn the template into one sutable for any of those things."

Ok, so you don't mind if I create independent templates and then use them on articles so that others contributors are able to express some criticisms. 16@r (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

flags at Sydney

Perhaps it's time to consult WP:DEADHORSE. In the past I’ve been in your position and have been shown it too, sometimes we just have to ask if what we are fighting so hard for is actually really worth it. We all know there is much more significant work that could be done on WP that‘s not controversial. Why not focus on those areas instead of chewing up your time and energy on Sydney on what is ultimately really quite insignificant? Just a suggestion of course, said in good faith. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

my suggestion was based on you apparently being the only one supporting the flags' inclusion, and the only one suggesting arguments for non-inclusion are flawed. "Flawed" argument in this case is clearly in the eye of the beholder. --Merbabu (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sydney and Global City

Please explain why you think the conclusion that Sydney is Australia's primary Global City is OR. There are differences in rankings, but there are none that suggest Sydney isn't a global city, and few that place Sydney lower than Melbourne. Perhaps the statement could be more neutral - something like " ... giving Sydney global city status ..." which doesn't exclude any other cities. Eyedubya (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Underbelly

Oh, I see. But then why do shows like LOST put the number of episodes aired? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that what you are saying is right. Look at the pages for LOST, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Prison Break etc. and tell me what you see. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to argue or anything, but I just confused as to why every single other show puts the number of episodes aired. I read the template, and I see what you are saying. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a source saying 13 have been produced, then leave the number as it is. But if you don't, then we need to change it. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes

I know what they were saying. The point is, to say what was "produced" requires secondary sources to confirm that filming has ended on all of the episodes. Show's don't generally acknowledge when they are done filming completely for their season. Fansites usually find this stuff out, but fansites aren't reliable sources. This is why we typically rely on the "when it airs" formula, because when it airs we know for sure that they've "produced" it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Newcastle High School Logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Newcastle High School Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Seaham Public School logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Seaham Public School logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What the hell is going on? I didn't vandalise the Australia page, I come from Australia! Those edits are from 'X360', that was my old account. Obviously someone has re-registered it and it is redirecting to my user-page. If you look at my contributions you can see I never edited the Australia page. Hayden120 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Stop trolling, OK? I don't know if stalking other people gets you off, but I wouldn't let be obvious about it, if I were you.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, be civil --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with resizing it - the site's owner got his nose out of joint when I resized both the logo and the screenshot in an earlier edit. Peter1968 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be biased because I use whirlpool but hey look Google's logo is 240px wide. Ebay is 210px. Ars Technica is 278px. YouTube is 200px. Facebook is 200px. ninemsn is 200px. And you two get pissy over a 10% difference? seriously, lame. --BrianKJ (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your problem

I'd strongly urge you not to take yourself so seriously. First, you can't block me because you're not an administrator. Second, I couldn't care less if I were blocked. Unlike you, Wikipedia is not my life. Third, if you contacted an administrator to try to get me blocked, I would be happy. Stalking people is not condoned here and hopefully someone would tell you that a little more clearly than I. If you're looking for someone to stalk and edit war with, I don't think you've picked the right guy.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not I am an administrator is irrelevant. You can still find yourself blocked for behaviour in breach of Wikipedia policies, such as you've demonstrated in articles, image pages and even user pages. I'm simply trying to give you some helpful advice, that is all. As for your allegations of stalking, you're being quite ridiculous. I suggest that you not take yourself so seriously. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No. I don't think you understand. I've sent you an e-mail and we can talk about it that way.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your real problem is that you don't understand that this man may actually believe you are stalking him via the internet. See here. 71.255.66.62 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand quite well. His peculiar email to me and his peculiar comments here (for example) make that quite apparent. However, that is not my problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Supertask and Aussielegend, please use the talk page to come to an agreement on what to use. Don't edit war back and forth. You never know - a third party might chip in with a great way forward that niether of you had thought about. Edit warring doesn't help anyone. kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to me on the talk page of the Australia article.--Supertask (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, please respond to me on the talk page of the Australia article.--Supertask (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowhands enjoykeep/Fdgdf3

There is no doubt that Fdgdf3 is Knowhands enjoykeep. The guy has been emailing me to complain that I blocked both his accounts. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just looking into some of his past edits. Is this the same guy as User:List Expert2 and User:List Expert (who I now realise is suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Primetime)? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it. I'm not sure if he was the contributor with the most edits, because he was just restoring an article that had been deleted previously, that had if I remember correctly over a thousand edits. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, Conman, SQL, Ned Scott and AussieLegend

I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.

TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.

I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.

But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.

I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.

Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.

I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty, smelly socks

He's already been splatted. I don't know how he got around the autoblock--I'm gonna see if there's a way to get his underlying IP blocked. Blueboy96 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you know ... we were dealing with a sock of long-term vandal Primetime, per this Checkuser request. Blueboy96 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you three are tag-teaming doesn't mean you haven't broken the 3 revert rule together

My revisions have changed accordingly, your revisions have remained the same except for that last edit where you saw I consolidated a duplicate reference. My edits have been productive in improving the article, your so-called "concensus" has not been and if you would only read the flaws I noted on the talkpage, you would see why! BTW answer the question I addressed to you in the section I created for you 3 editors in particular. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. And in order for edit wars and violations of the 3 revert rule to not occur you need to do what is expected of you and discuss issues on the talkpage. You have failed to do this and this is why I offered an alternative revision which you seemed to have reverted based on me as a user offering it and not the revision it was on content. The talkpage is meant for discussions on the article so use it! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User reported

I've reported the user in 3RR [5] Bidgee (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend please see User_talk:Bidgee#For_the_sake_of_clarity for an explanation as to why he has very much so broken 3RR. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - you might like to note Removal of comments, warnings on user talk pages and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments :-) Regards --Matilda talk 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dramedy

Dramedy is actually a term we use in the states alot. I'm not gonna revert the thing on Scrubs, mainly because lots of folks have never heard of it, but I just wanted to letcha know... ;) Qb | your 2 cents 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your last edit there, I figured... basically, if the discussion were a straw poll, my comment would have been a "support" !vote :D Best, umrguy42 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Do you wish for me to add rollback to your account? I've been reviewing your recent reverts and saw you used the undo button. Rollback is much faster. Buzz back if you wish. Rudget (Help?) 13:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done If there are any problems, please contact me. Rudget (Help?) 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way (it hasn't shown interest in showing your point of view either) and WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't. If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation because this is when it made its dent on history 9 October 1942.--Supertask (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page.[6]
  • "WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in WP:DEADHORSE, ie:
As you are well aware, I posted that quote at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster[7] but, like every other response, you just ignore it, or misunderstand it, and come back with the same old arguments, just as you've done here. To be quite frank, it's more than just annoying and gives nobody any incentive to discuss things with you.
  • "If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation" - There is nothing in the template to state that the date is to be the date it was formally adopted. One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[8] and I rebutted that immediately.[9] What you claimed is not true. Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 states the date of royal assent as 9 October 1942 and the date of commencement as 3 September 1939 so these are obviously the important dates. In the amendment that I made to Australia after you raised your concerns,[10] which you might note I explained by creating Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster[11] and which was not opposed by anyone else, I have clearly explained the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Act. There is therefore no reason for you to change anything as your apparent concerns are completely and accurately covered by what is written. I pointed this out at Talk:Australia back on 21 May 2008[12] and you haven't made any attempt to explain why what is written does not satisfy you. Instead you've just continued on about legal technicalities and how it was actually adopted on 9 October 1942, which is explained in the note any way, making it impossible to know exactly what would please you and what exactly you find wrong with the current article. Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.
All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits. Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely, then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


AussieLegend: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8]
Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent which I wasn't, apart from that I still have questions that haven't been answered, the argument continues but you want to block me out.
AussieLegend: All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits.
There is no definition of a status quo in Wikipedia policy you just made it up. There is no consensus because no one has supported your point or mine and I have already said this. There is no policy on Wikipedia which says those defending the status quo get a boost of any kind.
AussieLegend: Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely
I wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed. You have not answered some of my points properly and are now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'. Your argument is not the default because it's the status quo, they are still equal, you only supporting yours openly and me only supporting mine openly.
AussieLegend: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing.
It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.
AussieLegend: Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.
What about this as a compromise: I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence so what if rather than saying: "- Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 (commenced 3 September 1939)" it said: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)"--Supertask (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent" - I suggest you read what was actually said. I provided a link to it but you apparently didn't bother reading it so, for your benefit, here is a copy with the relevant statements bolded:
The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities. Australia did not have the power to legislate itself completely freely before 1942, the backdated adoption date is a legal technicality, as shown by your own cite (11). It says "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" which was 9 October [[1942]. History documents when things actually happened - the backdate is a legal technicality. When your cite (11) says the law was "adopted" from 1939 it means they will apply it from 1939 if anything is discovered in that past time that relates to the law, but when it says it comes into "operation" in 1942 it means that they can only start applying the law from then because laws can't travel through time.
What I am trying to say is that the backdate is just to deal with the past and doesn't change the date the law actually came into force. As I said in my last edit, I apply the same logic to the Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 1901 like the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 came into force on 9 October 1942 (I did accidentally type type 3 October rather than 9 October).--Supertask (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the template instructions and I didn't see anything about actual independence dates vs legal technicalities not that it really matters because it's irrelevant. Requiring Royal Assent itself is a legal technicality since the Governor-General normally gives assent to any Act passed by the parliament. Using your logic, "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" is also a legal technicality because you can't just pick one part of the Act and claim that it is a legal technicality while claiming that another part isn't. Royal Assent gives the whole document authority so section 3 has just as much authority as section 2. Yes, Royal Assent was given on 9 October 1942 but that same Royal Assent made the document effective as of 3 September 1939 and that's a significant point. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no definition of a status quo in Wikipedia policy you just made it up." - Wikipedia doesn't generally redefine words and phrases that are already in the dictionary, like status quo.
"wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed." - That's not what you said at all. You said "If this is your final word I will change the date". In other words, "if you don't respond i'm going to change it" and you could add to that, "despite no consensus having been reached to change it". The edits were controversial because they were opposed and reverted and because they are at odds with other articles, as I've already pointed out. What you were saying was "Despite discussion and clear opposition from at least one other editor I'm going to change it anyway, as soon as he has gone". That's not the way it works. You're supposed to work towards consensus.
"now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'." - I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying here.
"It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view." - It is pestering if the other person has made it clear that they don't wish to continue the discussion. The discussion has naturally ended because everyone that has been involved has lost interest. It's not a discussion when there is only one person talking. I'm only responding here, now, because you keep asking me to respond on my talk page but I see no point in the discussion continuing for reasons that I've already made abundantly clear and that you keep ignoring.
"What about this as a compromise:" - That doesn't answer my question. You expect answers from others but you don't seem willing to answer questions yourself.
"I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence" - I think most Australians would disagree with you. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 is just an Act that does nothing more than formally adopt the Statute of Westminster 1931. The Statute of Westminster is the more important of the two Acts. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically your saying you want to leave the discussion because it is your opinion that it has come to an end, but I can't change anything anyway because the community hasn't commented. When I said there is no Wikipedia definition of status quo I meant there is no policy on it - you are putting your argument on higher ground by saying that if the discussion stops (despite the fact your the one stopping it) your view automatically stays just because it is the status quo - you could have saved loads of time if you had only responded to me once, then flashed WP:DEADHORSE and said "actually I think the discussion has come to a natural end and you can't edit this article because my view is the current status quo" - show me anything like a WP:Status Quo and OK.
I thought the Australia act was more important because it's when the Statute of Westminster 1931 actually took effect, and it would allow the infobox to display both dates. My point on legal technicalities vs actual dates is that the actual date that act had an actual effect on Australia's independence can't have been your date because the act hadn't been invented then. In addition, even if beyond that you say they are equal dates, both being in the document of the act, then which one should be picked? Well the one which has a being on physical reality would be the one. The act that Australia used to ratify the Statute of Westminster, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is even Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (emphasis mine). You mentioned earlier that not showing the backdate would be excluding relevant information, so please accept my compromise which will show both dates: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)".--Supertask (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Basically your saying you want to leave the discussion because it is your opinion that it has come to an end, but I can't change anything anyway because the community hasn't commented." - No, I'm saying the conversation did come to an end a long time ago. You just won't let it die until you want it to and keep insisting that I continue this pointless discussion. It's pointless because the concerns you raised in your edits back on 5 and 6 May were addressed in an edit made on 8 May, as I've already mentioned, and provided diffs for. You're arguing about something that was fixed for you a month ago. I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic.
"I thought the Australia act was more important" - You've only raised the Australia Act in the past day or so. Until now the thrust of your arguments has been about the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Australia Act is not relevant to the discussion that we've been having. Why the sudden change of tack?
"My point on legal technicalities vs actual dates is......" - I'm really not interested in going over the same arguments over and over and over and over again.
"please accept my compromise which will show both dates: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)" - That information is already in the article. It has been there since 8 May 2008 in response to your concerns. I've told you that and provided diffs to it. I'm not sure that there is any more I can do to point it out to you. You just don't seem to want to acknowledge it and, based on the fact that I've done my best to point it out and that you've ignored my requests to explain what exactly you find wrong with it, I'm starting to think that you're arguing for arguments sake. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
AussieLegend: "No, I'm saying the conversation did come to an end a long time ago. You just won't let it die until you want it to and keep insisting that I continue this pointless discussion. It's pointless because the concerns you raised in your edits back on 5 and 6 May were addressed in an edit made on 8 May, as I've already mentioned, and provided diffs for. You're arguing about something that was fixed for you a month ago. I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."
It's just your opinion it's ended, they weren't addressed on 8 May, just put at the bottom of the page, the date it actually happened it important enough to be in the infobox. Just putting "did" in italics still doesn't make it anymore your opinion.
AussieLegend: "I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."
Immature insults don't help a discussion.
AussieLegend: "You've only raised the Australia Act in the past day or so. Until now the thrust of your arguments has been about the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Australia Act is not relevant to the discussion that we've been having. Why the sudden change of tack?"
What?! I can't believe this, I told you its so that both dates can be displayed easily! I'm fine to have it list the date of the Statute of Westminster 1942 and the date it was adopted, but to have both our dates on it would need more space and so we could use the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 isn't relevant at all other than to display both dates and reach a compromise.
AussieLegend: "I'm really not interested in going over the same arguments over and over and over and over again."
No, you just want to back out without continuing the discussion because you can't be bothered to continue.
AussieLegend: "That information is already in the article. It has been there since 8 May 2008 in response to your concerns. I've told you that and provided diffs to it. I'm not sure that there is any more I can do to point it out to you."
The 9 October 1942 date is put at the bottom but it is not a side note it is the main date so this is not sufficient. In addition you misrepresented my argument at the bottom by saying "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 received royal assent on 9 October 1942" how many times do I have to say my argument for listing it with that date has nothing to do with royal assent? Even if royal assent was on a different day, I would still support the 9 October 1942 date because thats when it came into operation, thats when it actually started being enforced so that is when it affected Australia. Anyway basically the 9 October 1942 deserves to be in the infobox.
AussieLegend: "you've ignored my requests to explain what exactly you find wrong with it"
I noticed this but didn't bring it up because you haven't used it up until now, all you've been using is the 'ahhhh! stop pestering me with your discussion (but I still want to enforce my view)' argument so this is a new tactic.
AussieLegend: "I'm starting to think that you're arguing for arguments sake."
Yes, along with that I'm pestering, and that your really glad your not my mechanic, what more rhetorical gems of simple slander will you throw my way? I'm starting to think about what the next one will be.--Supertask (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"It's just your opinion it's ended" - This goes back to my statement about you ignoring reality. You keep saying that the discussion hasn't ended but if you didn't pester people to respond it would have ended a long time ago. The community has no interest in continuing so it did end, just as WP:DEADHORSE says. You just won't let it go.
"they weren't addressed on 8 May, just put at the bottom of the page," - There's only so much information that you can put in the infobox. That's why the statement is included as a note, which isn't just at the bottom of the page. It appears when you roll over the note tag in the infobox. There's no way anyone is going to agree to a whole sentence appearing in the infobox. That's not the way it's done. What has been added as a note is far more accurate and descriptive than just adding a date. It expands on what is in the infobox in such a way that nobody reading the article could misinterpret what is written.
"Immature insults don't help a discussion." - It's not an immature insult. It's an analogy based on the way you've handled this. You raised issues at the beginning of May and what you wanted included was added to the article soon after. Here you are harping on about it a month later with still no sign of accepting that what you wanted in the article was included so you've got nothing to complain about.
"What?! I can't believe this, I told you its so that both dates can be displayed easily!" - The Australia Act is irrelevant to displaying the dates. That's already been done without any hint of the Australia Act.
"but to have both our dates on it would need more space and so we could use the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942" - No, we don't need any more space. That's why we use notes, references and wikilinks.
"No, you just want to back out without continuing the discussion" - It's not a discussion when you're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything.
"The 9 October 1942 date is put at the bottom but it is not a side note it is the main date" - It isn't the main date. Previous editors of Australia obviously disagreed with you and so do I. We've been over this before. The Act backdated itself to have effect from 1939 so that is more important, regardless of whether or not you think it's a technicality.
"I noticed this but didn't bring it up because you haven't used it up until now," - I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month.
We're clearly getting nowhere so, unless you can come up with a much better suggestion and some new material there I don't intend continuing this. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
AussieLegend: "This goes back to my statement about you ignoring reality. You keep saying that the discussion hasn't ended but if you didn't pester people to respond it would have ended a long time ago. The community has no interest in continuing so it did end, just as WP:DEADHORSE says. You just won't let it go."
The community hasn't shown interest in either of our views so there still on equal ground, again you still pass silly judgements "ignoring reality" yet I have responded to this before and you keep bringing it up so it seems to be you who is ignoring the reality that I have already responded to this.
AussieLegend: "There's only so much information that you can put in the infobox. That's why the statement is included as a note, which isn't just at the bottom of the page. It appears when you roll over the note tag in the infobox. There's no way anyone is going to agree to a whole sentence appearing in the infobox. That's not the way it's done. What has been added as a note is far more accurate and descriptive than just adding a date. It expands on what is in the infobox in such a way that nobody reading the article could misinterpret what is written."
The date the act was passed is important enough to be in the infobox. It's amazing you are telling me no one will agree to a whole sentence in the infobox - what do you think I was talking about when I said we needed to save space and proposed my compromise which would show both dates in minimal space?!
AussieLegend: "It's not an immature insult. It's an analogy based on the way you've handled this. You raised issues at the beginning of May and what you wanted included was added to the article soon after. Here you are harping on about it a month later with still no sign of accepting that what you wanted in the article was included so you've got nothing to complain about."
"I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic." is just a quip and doesn't help the discussion. You are constantly passing false judgments on me with these silly statements yet I have not done the same disservice to you.
AussieLegend: "The Australia Act is irrelevant to displaying the dates. That's already been done without any hint of the Australia Act."
But the actual date the act affected Australia is not displayed on the infobox.
AussieLegend: "No, we don't need any more space. That's why we use notes, references and wikilinks."
While I'm trying to reach a compromise you are declaring by fiat that the 3 September 1939 date is more important.
AussieLegend: "It's not a discussion when you're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything."
Because you suddenly pulled out I am trying to get you to answer some of my points and defend your point of view.
AussieLegend: "It isn't the main date. Previous editors of Australia obviously disagreed with you and so do I. We've been over this before. The Act backdated itself to have effect from 1939 so that is more important, regardless of whether or not you think it's a technicality."
We have 2 dates, I argue mine is the main date because it is when the act actually took effect on Australia, when Australia was allowed to fully self legislate (yes, it had legislated itself before but it didn't have the independence of the British government to do this fully without the possibility of intevention, so don't bring that up), I have elaborated on this point a lot earlier. You, however, are just declaring by fiat that your date is the main date, regardless of the fact the act confirming the Statute of Westminster 1931, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is: "Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942" and regardless of the fact that my date is the one when the act actually effected Australia, as explained earlier. Now you are using the strange tactic of calling on the support of the original editor who inserted that date, again it is part of your unfounded notion that the status quo is automatically a stronger argument than objections on Wikipedia and that objections must overcome this advantage. I have already said all this, so now who's "rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything".
AussieLegend: "I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month."
No they weren't, I am referring to your edit which put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom.
AussieLegend: "We're clearly getting nowhere so, unless you can come up with a much better suggestion and some new material there I don't intend continuing this."
Fine, but don't then have the arrogance to think you can ban me from editing that date.--Supertask (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end. You haven't justified your desired change so it will just have to stay out. The simple fact is that even the Act states that the beginning of the war is the important date, and it does so in its long title:

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is 3 September 1939. I've pointed this out previously. Don't say I didn't, as you are wont to do, because here are the diffs. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 may have come into operation on 9 October 1942, when it received Royal Assent, but it immediately caused the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted as from 3 September 1939. Whether you think that's a technicality is irrelevant. Australian law says that 3 September 1939 is the date and if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour.

Now, two final points:
Point 1

AussieLegend: "I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month."
No they weren't, I am referring to your edit which put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom.

This is not the first time that you've claimed that I haven't said something that I have and you've done it even after I've provided diffs to the change. The edit where I "put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom" was here at 06:10, 8 May 2008 UTC. Your first complaint at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster was here at 00:23, 9 May 2008 UTC so the edits "were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia", 18 hours and 13 minutes before to be precise. It would be nice, just once, to see you actually acknowledge that you've made a mistake rather than ignore the fact that you did.

Point 2

Fine, but don't then have the arrogance to think you can ban me from editing that date.--Supertask (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 makes it quite clear in both the long title and the preamble that it causes certain sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted from 3 September 1939. You know that because the evidence has been presented to you a number of times over the past month. Your interpretation that the date is 9 October 1942 is WP:OR. If you insist on changing the date of adoption to 9 October 1942 it will be reverted and an appropriate warning will be placed on your talk page. If you continue to change it the changes will be treated as vandalism, for that is what they are.

Conversation ended. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end. You haven't justified your desired change so it will just have to stay out. The simple fact is that even the Act states that the beginning of the war is the important date, and it does so in its long title:

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is 3 September 1939. I've pointed this out previously. Don't say I didn't, as you are wont to do, because here are the diffs. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 may have come into operation on 9 October 1942, when it received Royal Assent, but it immediately caused the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted as from 3 September 1939. Whether you think that's a technicality is irrelevant. Australian law says that 3 September 1939 is the date and if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour."


The act also says it comes into operation 9 October 1942. So which is more important, adoption or operation? Well, as I've pointed out before, the date it actually came into effect would be. It is convention that acts have the date they started in their title, again: Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.


AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end."


Where I repeat stuff it is only because you haven't responded or have missed the point. For the record, you repeat stuff too.


AussieLegend: "if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour"


I wondered before what the next bit of simple, immature slander you'd throw would be, well here it is as predicted.


AussieLegend: "This is not the first time that you've claimed that I haven't said something that I have and you've done it even after I've provided diffs to the change. The edit where I "put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom" was here at 06:10, 8 May 2008 UTC. Your first complaint at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster was here at 00:23, 9 May 2008 UTC so the edits "were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia", 18 hours and 13 minutes before to be precise. It would be nice, just once, to see you actually acknowledge that you've made a mistake rather than ignore the fact that you did."


Your just using a simple mistake of mine to turn into as if I've been decietful all along, part of your false judgement thing earlier. I'd like you to show me the other times I've misrepresented you and these times I'm ignoring making a mistake. You have made mistakes before and I haven't passed judegement, such as this one "Because, by backdating the effective date of the Act the effective date that the Act came into operation became 3 September 1939. It's not rocket science." even though your own cite of the act itself says it came into operation on 9 October 1942, you choose to say that adoption makes the operation 3 September 1939.


AussieLegend: "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 makes it quite clear in both the long title and the preamble that it causes certain sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted from 3 September 1939"


This statement makes no sense in our universe, how can something in 1942 cause something to happen in 1939? Again a mistake you have made and I can't believe you fell into it because I've been pointing it out all along.


AussieLegend: "You know that because the evidence has been presented to you a number of times over the past month. Your interpretation that the date is 9 October 1942 is WP:OR"


You sure are good at flinging accusations, but here is a change of tactic WP:DEADHORSE stops working so now you switch to WP:OR? It's all in the act, the act gives a date, it actually came into effect on that date, therefore the act originated on that date, I've elaborated on this a lot earlier.


AussieLegend: "If you insist on changing the date of adoption to 9 October 1942 it will be reverted and an appropriate warning will be placed on your talk page. If you continue to change it the changes will be treated as vandalism, for that is what they are."


Back to threats now I see. Ones you can't carry out, either.--Supertask (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline section from Seaham Public School

(this was the only content section of the article so I presume this is what you meant)

19th century

  • 1850 - Land for a National School at Seaham is gazetted.
  • 1852 - Seaham Public School opens in a small wooden cottage by the local swamp.
  • 1859 - The schoolhouse is deemed "unsafe" and in need of major repairs.
  • 1862 - Daily attendance at the school varies from 12 to 29, when it should have been up to 50.
  • 1884 - Land is gazetted for a new public school and teacher's residence on higher land. The school still occupies this site today.
  • 1885 - New classroom and teacher's residence is completed.
  • 1886 - The new school is practically empty because pupils are grape cutting at local vineyards.

20th century

  • 1909 - More land is set aside for school purposes.
  • 1939 - The school is destroyed in bushfires. Remains of the brick classroom would be unearthed during 2002 in the school's playground by pupils.
  • 1955 - A new teacher's residence is built at Seaham, fronting Still Street. The building is today utilized as the school office.
  • 1968 - A new brick veneer classroom is completed on school grounds, the first permanent classroom built since 1885.
  • 1970 - Student numbers dwindle and the school faces imminent closure. There are less than 12 pupils enrolled at the school.
  • 1978 - Rapid acceleration in enrolments saves the school from closure. The boom in numbers will be further increased during the 1980s and 1990's by the Brandy Hill Estate.
  • 1982 - Enrolments reach 52. Classes have to be held in the Seaham School of Arts hall as the school struggles to accommodate new students.
  • 1994 - Four new permanent brick classrooms are completed to accommodate booming enrollments.

21st century

  • 2002 - School celebrates 150 years of public education and is granted $1 million to build a new permanent library and two new brick veneer classrooms. Both the library and classrooms are in use by the end of the year.

Orderinchaos 12:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

brisbane

how come u reverted?? o_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

Whats wrong with a map of brisbane being an image rather then a special program? Its not like brisbane is going to get up and move anywhere =) (Brisbane Man) (Not logged in ;[) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.201.132.189 (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Agricultural Company

Hey AussieLegend. I just noticed your edits to the AAco page. Especially this bit Carrington, New South Wales. <--Is this correct? This is Carrington in Newcastle. Should this be Carrington on Port Stephens? If so, the actual location is Tahlee, New South Wales, not Carrington.

Interesting question. With AAco. being involved in mining in Newcastle, it could be possible that they had something to do with Carrington, Newcastle (Coal loading). With out further research, it will be a point of conjecture. It would be interesting to find a better source of information than the AAco. website (which lacks any in depth info) and research it further. Maybe I may take up the challenge and visit the library. Macr237 (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I found some interesting information on AAco. It seems they still have a house standing. I will try to get a decent image and see what else I can find. Macr237 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox AUstrlian Place

Hi any chance you could add an image skyline parameter to the template as you see on just about every other infobox. This way a main photograph of a town can go neatly in the infobox at the top and avoid article clutter. WHat I mean is that it does't seme possible to have a photo and the location map within the same box ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes just like that. I did see if I could find something about it on the documentation but it seemd only one image parameter was available. I tried adding one to Alice Springs and a few other places ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You see I'm very used to using Infobox Settlement or City so working out some of the national boxes can be tricky. Is there any reason the old version was removed and the photo and queensland pin map taken out? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows XP

I have responded to your comment, on Talk:Windows XP. Showpaper (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your odd concept of WP:OR on the aforementioned talk page. Urhixidur (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not odd at all. It's directly lifted from the policy, as I've explained at Talk:Windows XP#Microsoft's "megabyte". --AussieLegend (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Aussie

I hope you don't think I was being unreasonable asking for another citation. What with the discussion that went before, I thought it might be a good idea to back up the first citation. Jack forbes (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't come across as grumpy at all. Sorry to hear about your troubles. Jack forbes (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but I don't see any way it can be removed. Jack forbes (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Australia

There is a discussion regarding your edits on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents. Your reversions of Tony1's comments seen here and here are not appropriate. Do not remove others' comments again. If you take offense to another editor's comments, then you should bring those diffs to the attention of administrators. LaraLove|Talk 14:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, given the directions of WP:REFACTOR and advice from WP:WQA. See my response at WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Rather than remove someone's comments, it is best to move them or ask them to do so. As others have noted on ANI, this is not entirely uncommon. It is, however, preferred that the formatting include italicizing, for example. That said, you need to stop invoking WP:REFACTOR. I'm not sure that it says what you think it does.
...refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors.
Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.
Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said.
I also get the impression that you do not understand the purpose of refactoring, as outlined on that page. LaraLove|Talk 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Just to clarify things a little, Wikipedia:Etiquette is a guideline and a good thing, but not policy. Wikipedia:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments is policy, and it states that "Only in the most serious of circumstances should an editor replace or edit a comment made by another editor." then reviews suchlike serious circumstances. Hope that helps, . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Software

WikiProject Software Hello AussieLegend. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==.

Thanks,
Tyw7, leading new frontiers ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 11:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Endeavour is ACOTF

Hi. After far too long, I got round to updating the Australian Collaboration last night. Please help to update HM Bark Endeavour in any way you can. Thanks for your support. --Scott Davis Talk 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Be civil

Please do not write disparaging messages on my talk page and be civil in the way you address me. It is NOT vandalism, it does not require a level 3 warning and does not require your rude comments. I have explained my reasoning for changing the edits to what they were earlier, and you had no reason to change them back to what they were. I only realised today that you had done so. I see you haven't changed from your WP:OWN ways. Be nice. Don't use that again. JRG (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning somebody about what was clearly blatant vandalism is quite appropriate and an action endorsed by Wikipedia. As an experienced editor you should know better than to blatantly revert 10 weeks of edits by several editors, as you did, back to your version. A level one warning to a new user is reasonable but to somebody with over 7,500 edits a more stern warning is required because they should know better. The warning was completely justified under the circumstances. Regarding your claim of explaining your reasoning, the edit summary you made today was simply "fix up edits"[13], which is far from what you actually did. As for the incivility, comments such as "I see you haven't changed from your WP:OWN ways." and edit summaries such as this clearly demonstrates the origin of any incivility. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I really couldn't care less what you say. I think you are wrong and you don't have to ramble on to try and prove yourself because I am not going to change my mind. I believe you do still exhibit WP:OWN tendencies as is evidenced by the speed and verocity in which you decide to post petty warnings for me changing a page to an edit I did months ago which you did not give a complete enough (in my opinion) justification for changing back. So, please leave me alone, ok? I don't want to hear from you again unless it's an apology for the way you treated me back at the Newcastle page. JRG (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I will say one thing though - I think your most recent edits to the List of cities in Australia page are a much better alternative than what either you or I had. JRG (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_1&oldid=1199621322"