User talk:JPD/Archive7

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Archive 1: 17 May 2005-16 May 2006
Archive 2: 17 May 2006-16 September 2006
Archive 3: 17 September 2006-16 January 2007
Archive 4: 17 January 2007-16 May 2007
Archive 5: 17 May 2007-16 September 2007
Archive 6: 17 September 2007-16 January 2008
Archive 7: 17 January 2008-16 May 2008

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Australian rules football.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 07:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation

A mediation case in which you have been mentioned has opened here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football. Comments are welcome at the article talk page. MBisanz ^talk 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

You do know there's post-election polling out, don't you? ;-) Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above meaning a new graph can be started! :D Also, thinking about designing those earlier polling tables we were talking about? Timeshift (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With three Newspolls, do you have the time to start on a graph for the next Australian federal election? Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

May you insert in correct manner with English language grammar this source and other source from this edit in introduction of association football? In first linked site you read section Australian Rugby Union and you read sentence the 2003 Rugby World Cup was the fourth largest sporting event in the world behind the Olympics, Soccer World Cup and the World Athletics Championships: Olympics is most followed sporting event in this source. In other source volleyball is most participated sport and Formula One Racing has the largest television viewing audience in the world. I would like insert other sources which consider various sports are most popular in the world but not soccer: sure several sources consider soccer most popular in the world but other sources no!!!! Regards,--PIO (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about using the source you tried to include - it is just a collection of figures collected from various sports federations, with no information about how the figures were derived. The volleyball federation itself is quoted as saying there is something wrong with comparing the volleyball and soccer figures.

The other source is fine, but not really relevant. The most followed sporting event doesn't really tell us which sport is most popular (that is the mistake that Fourplay has been making with rugby league). Even if we could compare single events to compare the popularity of sports, it would be unfair to compare a multiple-sports event such as the Olympics (which includes soccer, after all) with a World Cup in a single sport. JPD (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After my this edit AlasdairGreen27 and Ashwinosoft insist on edit warring in national sport. I posted comments in talks of both these editors but they ignore consensus and mediation!!!! AlasdairGreen27 removes a statement, citing 3 sports considered Australian national sports, proposed by himself and voted by me too in mediation: is it a provocation or vandalism? I request your edit in this article or your action against this form of vandalism!!!!--PIO (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag article help

Hi there. I recently managed to get Flag of Germany up to FA status. Although it passed FAC, a request for copy-editing was made. I've done what I can in terms of copy-editing but, after spending so much time on this article, I can no longer see the wood for the trees and would appreciate some fresh eyes here. Since you appear to be one of the main authors behind the FA Flag of Australia, would you either be able to help out or point me towards someone who would? Thanks. 52 Pickup (deal) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 52. I'm not sure I'm that great at copyediting, but I'm happy to give the article a fresh pair of eyes by tomorrow. JPD (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's no hurry. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why d'ont we make a page for regional cricket associations in each country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.14.130 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News not news and where is the article?

The territorial waters issue at Australia talk page intrigues me - where is there an article about australias territorial waters and maritime boundaries? Satu Suro 00:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The territorial waters issue is interesting. As far as I know, while the notion of "sovereignty" is applied to land, when it comes to sea it is best to avoid the term and talk about a countries rights in different zones. Australia's claimed rights are in the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. They are outlined at this GA page - note that the EEZ description speaks of rights to the "waters superjacent to the seabed" whereas in the rest of hte continental shelf on the seabed and the subsoil are mentioned.

In April a UN Commission approved Australia's submission on where the relevant continental shelf ends (in line with the convention). This was widely reported as Australia extending its boundaries or continental shelf, but it was really just the last step in claiming the continental shelf rights set out by the convention for all coastal countries. The first news articles I can find about it are [1] [2] and an article today about other countries [3] (note the phrase "on and beneath the seabed").

Clearly the extended limits are important, but in terms of the history section they are a very minor point, a bureaucratic detail in an international agreement, rather than a significant move by Australia. It might be worth having an article on Australia's maritime rights and responsibilities, but it is probably covered fairly well by the descriptions of the international agreements. JPD (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all says to me we need a very clear article that links all the bits and pieces - otherwise how is the ave user gonna know any of that or the eez - yep I dont feel well equipped to do it and it sure looks like you are! we need an art that ties and links all that stuff together topoint out the huge range of issues Satu Suro 08:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial waters seems to be at least a fairly decent start at laying out the issues, unless you are suggesting that we need an Australia-specific article. I have to admit I don't know of anything that is specific to the Australian situation. JPD (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - my edit history/contibution chaos might see something ventually - I do know a friend who has a phd in oz maritime boundaries (part of) If he is still ok after heart attacks - might check him out next week re his work - thanks for the suggestion Satu Suro 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]