User talk:Caltraser55
Welcome
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
September 2018
[edit]
Hello, I'm Newslinger. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Jordan Belfort, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]Based on your editing style, addition of copyrighted images to articles, articles edited, etc. it is obvious that you are abusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. I've blocked this account indefinitely. Please make sure that you abide by the rules of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Caltraser55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't have multiple accounts, and my edits are always there to help, so I've been unfairly blocked for pretty much no reason. So this is a bit like the whole burning witches thing, anyone can accuse anyone and have absolutely no evidence for it, great. I assume he thinks I'm a sock puppet because I uploaded an image which had previously been deleted, though I assume is a mistake because under Australian copyright laws the image is free to use, perhaps he has had a run in with the prior person who uploaded the image, in which case my reuploading it is entirely coincidental. Caltraser55 (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A simple denial is not sufficient in sockpuppetry cases, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. You will need to specifically address why we think you are a sockpuppet if you are not(in this case, the reasons Magog the Ogre gives). 331dot (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I only have the one Wikipedia account, two I didn't know you can be blocked for editing articles??
- FYI, your request was reviewed and declined. If you want to make another request, you can, but I suggest you respond to the issues I brought up. It was fairly obvious based on these characteristics. Not only did you upload the same image, you have the same interests, edit summary style, userpage style, and disingenuous copyright tags on Commons. The circumstantial evidence was strong enough to block your account even without checkuser evidence. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've unblocked your account based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rogerduckling24. The circumstantial evidence was convincing but I guess I got it wrong. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, your request was reviewed and declined. If you want to make another request, you can, but I suggest you respond to the issues I brought up. It was fairly obvious based on these characteristics. Not only did you upload the same image, you have the same interests, edit summary style, userpage style, and disingenuous copyright tags on Commons. The circumstantial evidence was strong enough to block your account even without checkuser evidence. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thankyou, these things do tend to happen but sometimes it is just coincidental. I did see when I uploaded the image that a previous one had been deleted but couldn't find any reasoning for it so assumed it must have been a mistake by a bot or something? My interests tend to focus on Australia as a whole, across the spectrum from culture to politics, but I have particular interests in Queensland and Brisbane. All the best--Caltraser55 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC
The revisions you made to the lede seem somewhat inaccurate. Firstly this article isn't about City of Gold Coast (or we wouldn't have two articles) so you can't say that it is officially known as that. It's the same issue as Brisbane vs City of Brisbane and Sunshine Coast vs Sunshine Coast Region etc, where the prevailing consensus is that there is a general meaning of the place name as a different geographic area than just that of the local government area bearing the same name. In past discussions on the Talk page what most people appear to understand as "the Gold Coast" seems to be "the bit I've gone to on my holidays" which appears to mean the coastal strip that extends from The Spit south. The ABS treats it as a a trans-border urban area for statistical purposes, so you have to be more careful with claims about being the Nth biggest place. The local government area is 2nd most populous in Queensland (true) but this article isn't about the local government area. The claim of being the 6th most populous city in Australia from memory depends on the inclusion of Tweed Valley (which ABS includes and I think ABS excludes some of the hinterland in the local government area) but this definition of "Gold Coast" is inconsistent with in the Wikipedia definition of the "Gold Coast" as is "in Qld", which I think is why the previous lede makes explicit mention of it. As is generally the case, complexities are best explained in the article body in full, and not abbreviated into an inaccurate shorthand version in the lede or as a field of the infobox. As a personal opinion, I think it's a bit strong to say it is "often" called G.C., I don't think it has that much traction in everyday usage. A quick trawl of the Brisbane Times doesn't turn it up as a common term (I used Brisbane Times as Gold Coast Bulletin is behind a paywall). "Sometimes" might be better. Kerry (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kerry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here? The Gold Coast is a city, I'm aware the city council includes a regional area of the hinterland but I'm not sure why that matters? The Brisbane city council covers Moreton Bay and the islands which is a regional area. And Tweed Heads might be part of the regional conurbation, but it also isn't in Queensland, and therefore not part of Gold Coast city.--Caltraser55 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- This article is about the geographical area that generally known as "the Gold Coast" in an unbounded area (officially gazetted as a "population centre"). It is not the article about the "City of Gold Coast", which is a precisely bounded area. You have said they are the same thing. Your comments about how populous the Gold Coast is supported by citations that incorporate the Tweed Heads area but you removed that fact so the statement is now misleading. Kerry (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- What are you talking about??? Local government areas of Queensland, it has City of Gold Coast, I don't see a LGA of the Gold Coast?--Caltraser55 (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can't just go deleting other people's works without explaining why. The City of Gold Coast is the council, the article Gold Coast, Queensland which also includes the hinterland, just as City of Brisbane article is the council page, and Brisbane is the city including its mountains, islands, bay, etc. You clearly don't understand what the difference between a council article and a city is.--Caltraser55 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am explaining. The difference is beween a contiguous urban area (a "town" or "city" in the informal sense, or as the Qld Govt likes to call them "population centres" or as the Australian Bureau of Statistics likes to call them "Significant Urban Areas") and a local government area (which may happen to have "City" in its name or may not, e.g. Toowoomba Region is a local government area that contains the "city" of Toowoomba). Now contiguous urban areas grow organically all the time (people build more houses every day) and are not officially bounded by the Queensland Government, who merely designate a central point in the Qld Place Names database. It is the ABS who tend to track the growth of urban areas and redraw their statistical boundaries accordingly. Local government areas have fixed boundaries (determined by the Queensland Government) and remain the same for considerable periods of time; these can be viewed in the Queensland Globe. The population figure being reported in the lede of the "Gold Coast, Queensalnd" happens to be the figure for the ABS Significant Urban Area for "Gold Coast - Tweed". Now it is arguable whether we should report that population data at all given it includes part of the Tweed Shire but, if it is reported the "Tweed" must be acknowledged as contributing to it. You can see the maps the ABS use at Quickstats. indeed if you look at Gold Coast part of the Gold Coast Tweed urban centre, you see a different map to City of Gold Coast local government area, which is because the urban area of Gold Coast and the local government area of Gold Coast aren't the same thing. Kerry (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- You might want to read the Talk:Gold Coast, Queensland archives as this issue of the lack of precise definition of what is "Gold Coast" and what is "City of Gold Coast" crops up from time to time. Because of the ongoing vagueness of what Gold Coast, Queensland does or doesn't cover, I proposed some years back to merge the two articles but this was resisted as others felt the term "the Gold Coast" described something different to the local government area. The nub of the difference seemed to boil down to "common usage" to describe the urban area (but not the hinterland) and/or to describe the holiday area (the beach suburbs). People's "common usage" of "Gold Coast" as the urban area along the coast does have a historical basis because it appears to reflect the area of the City of Gold Coast prior to 1992. In 1992, Albert Shire was absorbed into the Gold Coast which brought in much of the hinterland and the northern suburbs not near beaches (this was very controversial at that time and may have hardened the feelings of GOld Coast locals that the "true Gold Coast" was purely the urban areas -- it is impossible to know if the people arguing for the distinction between the articles at the time were locals or not (but one certainly was). This 1975 map shows what City of Gold Coast looked like at that time, which is the area that most people in discussions about the difference between the two articles seem to regard as "the Gold Coast" as distinct from the City of Gold Coast. I note the article was called "The Gold Coast" for many years but there was a big push to remove "The" from article titles and anything that didn't officially have "The" in its name got stripped out. Now of course, the consenus may have changed since then and perhaps people would be happy to merge the articles as being about the same thing, as you seem inclined towards by saying "Gold Coast officially known as City of Gold Coast". If you want to test this, go to the Talk pages of both and propose it. That will either result in a merger or a reenwed effort to clarify the distinction. I'd probably prefer a merger myself, but while they are separate, we have to preserve the distinction that has justified keeping them separate in the past and which your changes didn't reflect. Or to put it another way, your changes to the lede did not reflect the consensus to have different articles for different purposes, but I am not personally committed to having 2 separate articles. But we can't have a half-way situation of two articles purporting to be about the same thing. Kerry (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am explaining. The difference is beween a contiguous urban area (a "town" or "city" in the informal sense, or as the Qld Govt likes to call them "population centres" or as the Australian Bureau of Statistics likes to call them "Significant Urban Areas") and a local government area (which may happen to have "City" in its name or may not, e.g. Toowoomba Region is a local government area that contains the "city" of Toowoomba). Now contiguous urban areas grow organically all the time (people build more houses every day) and are not officially bounded by the Queensland Government, who merely designate a central point in the Qld Place Names database. It is the ABS who tend to track the growth of urban areas and redraw their statistical boundaries accordingly. Local government areas have fixed boundaries (determined by the Queensland Government) and remain the same for considerable periods of time; these can be viewed in the Queensland Globe. The population figure being reported in the lede of the "Gold Coast, Queensalnd" happens to be the figure for the ABS Significant Urban Area for "Gold Coast - Tweed". Now it is arguable whether we should report that population data at all given it includes part of the Tweed Shire but, if it is reported the "Tweed" must be acknowledged as contributing to it. You can see the maps the ABS use at Quickstats. indeed if you look at Gold Coast part of the Gold Coast Tweed urban centre, you see a different map to City of Gold Coast local government area, which is because the urban area of Gold Coast and the local government area of Gold Coast aren't the same thing. Kerry (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |