Jump to content

User talk:Matilda/Archive11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This page is an archive of messages from January 2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.



Happy New Year

Hi Matilda - have been away during the second half of December (in TAS on early holidays). Back now and wanted to say thank you for your message on Riverina FAC - what a great achievement. Happy New Year to you and your family - hope you are well - will see you around much more in 2008. Best wishes --VS talk 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Dear Matilda, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests ;) All the best!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter

This newsletter is a monthly newsletter with details relating to events and happenings within the Australian Wikipedian community and WikiProject Australia. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or receive it in a different format, relist your name appropriately at the subscription page. Delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

GeorgeVM

Hi Matilda - I have made a couple of comments at George's page (he is showing good interest in Riverina issues) which you might like to read and add to? --VS talk 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matilda, thanks for your comments. Yes Mary Gilmore is a controversial figure. Often disparaged, dismissed as sentimental, etc. I suppose what attracts me to her work is the emotive power of her stories, & the deep grounding they have in history & place. There are truths to the dramatic history of colonisation that, perhaps, can most effectively be conveyed through poetic means...--GeorgeVM (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nelligen, New South Wales =

Thanks for adding the images to this article - they make a vast improvement to it. The article was bashed out in a hurry and could do with a lot more work, so feel free :) Euryalus (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government Categories

Hi Matilda. I see you have created categories for the South Coast, New South Wales. I have been tossing up for some time creating {{Towns in the South Coast}}, similar to {{Riverina}} and {{Towns in New England}}.

With the cats, I think they should be named Category:Local Government Areas in the South Coast, New South Wales rather than "of the South Coast..." The LGAs are "of" New South Wales, in so far as the State grants them existence and "in" the South Coast region, if that makes sense. The same would apply to Category:Local Government Areas of the Riverina, New South Wales.

The disambuigation is another issue. Should we use a comma or brackets for NSW.

What do you think? Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Overzealous"

No, my speedy-deletion request for F. B. Vickers was not overzealous in the least. The article was barely more than a line at the time of my action, and clearly fell under speedy-deletion criteria, just like many other new articles of a similar nature. The fact that the article was added to later does not make my action overzealous. I have been a new-page patroller for quite some time, and if I were to encounter the same article under the same circumstances again, I would take exactly the same action. I notice that, despite your complaint, the article is now up for an AfD debate. I shall vote to delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted in your last message, my speedy-delete criterion was for little or no context, not for nonsense. Just because an author is published does not make him or her automatically notable. Maybe I simply didn't navigate your links far enough, but I couldn't find anything to support the claim of 26 books. Even then, someone can self-publish that many books (or more) and still not be notable. A situation like this needs some ource citations of book reviews to help out, in my opinion. I suspect the AfD outcome will be to keep, but I still stand by my opinion unless more independent sources can be provided. If they can be, I'm open to changing my mind — I've done so before. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even get me started on Pokemon. :-) Back to the subject, and the library: You're getting closer to convincing me, but you're still not quite there. Keep going, you might convince me yet... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed O'Loughlin

Hi. I saw your sockpuppetry case. I suspect Avraham is not a sockpuppet, although sock or meatpuppets are involved.

I only got involved yesterday when the article was created for the second time. Here's some background information:

As you look at this stuff, be sure to check out any deleted contributions.

Here's a list of additional accounts for you to take a look at as potential sock- or meat-puppets:

Regards, --A. B. (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement regarding your accusation

Thank you

I appreciate your withdrawal of the accusation, accept that the issue was not raised as a personal attack, and, in turn, I apologize if I may have responded too brusquely. I have removed my comments and I hope, as Majoreditor had said, that this will not serve as a distraction to any further interaction that we may have. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re Adon Emett

Hi Matilda. Re Adon Emett: He seems to be the stereotypical earnest newbie that may need to nip a little but don't want to bite too hard. I've been doing a little informal advice/orientation with him, including discussing WP:SOCK policy, and he seems to take it well. Have a good one.  :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image sizes

Just a couple of comments on this change: [1]. Moving the images to the left is fine, but on what grounds do you say that pictures should be left to the default size? I don't think there's much consensus on this, and the default size is arbitrary anyway - and a bit too small for most uses. The other thing that's awkward now about this article is the map is *huge*, far bigger than the photos. Considering the tiny amount of information the map contributes, don't you think it would be better to have big photos and a small map? Stevage 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me on what grounds do you say that pictures should be left to the default size? Firstly image sizes can be set by user preferences. It seems rather strange that you would seek to overrride user preferences. A debate on image size defgaults can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8#Forced image size. This discussion led to the policy at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size - In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" . Thus my grounds for that edit are that it is in accordance with policy. Exceptions are things like maps where the detail might not be able to be seen satisfactorily. Regards Matilda talk 08:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, are you trying to pull a swifty? The policy ([2]) which you pointed me to makes no comment about image sizes at all. It just says to use the thumbnail tag. It even implies that it's ok to have larger images, but no longer than 550px wide. Also, if you follow the links there, the MoS ([3]) explicitly says "However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article."
All of which is to say, I don't think it's correct to go around stripping out image width attributes unless there's a compelling reason in the specific case. Stevage 11:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said Hmm, are you trying to pull a swifty? The policy which you pointed me to makes no comment about image sizes at all. It just says to use the thumbnail tag. It even implies that it's ok to have larger images. No I am not trying to "pull a swifty".. The policy states use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting). - the clarification in brackets refers to size - ie the default size option if you do not put in fixed pixel height or width when using the thumbnail markup. Thus the policy in fact does refer specifically to size! Once again I question why you are trying to override user preferences in your mark-up? If you personally wish to see pictures as larger, please modify your user preferences. I take the qualification about image properties to refer to such things as maps or perhaps other images with text in them where the default zsize would make them unintelligible. The pictures in the edit you are referring to are landscape type images and do not need to be any larger than the default width of 180px (or whatever default width a user has chosen for themselves). Please note that I resent the lack of good faith assumed in are you trying to pull a swifty? --Matilda talk 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I question why you are trying to override user preferences in your mark-up? If you personally wish to see pictures as larger, please modify your user preferences.
Of course not. Give me a little credit. The obvious benefit of using non default image sizes is to improve layout and general usability. I don't think I'm alone in finding the default size a bit small. If you look around, you'll find no shortage of thumbnails with sizes specified. It's a real pity that there's no clear guideline or policy on this, because I just don't interpret the text you quoted the same way you do. In the absence of a clear prohibition on specifying sizes, you should leave them the way they are.
I take the qualification about image properties to refer to such things as maps or perhaps other images with text in them where the default zsize would make them unintelligible. The pictures in the edit you are referring to are landscape type images and do not need to be any larger than the default width of 180px
Unreadable text would be one reason to specify a size, layout is another. Anyway, I think you understand my point. Time to move on. Stevage 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canola

I wrote the contrary material to assertions sourced from "The Great Conola", and I'm pleased to see you removed the whole thing. My fear was that this source would be quick to resurrect itself, so originally I went with the rebuttal approach. MaxEnt (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast (New South Wales)

I only did the first 4 edits listing the major towns; the climate info was contributed by an IP on 12/2/07. Obviously different people have different views on boundaries and when I was young and my grandparents lived in Wollongong most people considered that Wollongong was on the south coast (but in those days people also thought that Southport, Queensland was on the South Coast, not the Gold Coast). I think the article should say that the term South Coast is now normally reserved for the Coast south of somewhere (Kiama? Nowra? I have reservations about suggesting that Ulladulla is not on the South Coast). Regions often overlap: tourism promoters have been expanding the concept of the Southern Highlands in recent years as far south as Marulan (when I was young it extended from Mittagong to Sutton Forest), but the whole area was traditionally part of the Southern Tablelands (an area strangely enough very similar to what promoters now call the Capital Region).--Grahame (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my user talk summary of our discussion

I had made an incorrect assumption that you were the nom, thanks for correcting it. Also thanks for our pleasant civil discussion. It's nice to be able to disagree amicably and move on without all the drama. It's a refreshing break from all the delrevs I am involved in now, after helping clear the 4-day backlog at WP:AFDO this past weekend. That really wears me down... no good deed goes unpunished, they say. JERRY talk contribs 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Eden

Thank you! It's only a fairly low-quality stub, but Australian ports articles are woeful if they exist at all so I had to start somewhere. I could have included the material in the Eden article itself but thought it would start to overwhelm the rest of the piece - there's amore to be added purely from a declared port and export trade perspective and the volume would start to give undue weight to shipping compared to the history and makeup of the town.

Just in passing, given that you essentially wrote the main Eden article you wouldn't have any images which would suit the ports fork? I can probably find pictures of some of the vessels that use the port but a local photo showing facilities layout would probably look better and be more helpful to readers. Euryalus (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image, its amazing how much it improves an article. Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get all these great photos? Euryalus (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have? Find me an image for Port of Cirebon and I'll .... I dunno, sell you my vote on the next Corey Delaney DRV? Euryalus (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bizarre that someone took multiple photos at Cirebon food stalls but none of the town or port. Wikipedia is a funny place. I tried torturing the Port article to find a way to legitimately include the food photos but to no avail. Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. They look great - I never actually expected you'd find some (or find someone to find some). Sorry I missed your previous message - I got two posts in a row and only read the second one.
So, you win my vote on Corey Worthington. Now, how about a nice image for the Port of Yingkou.... Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Curse you and your immediate response! Okaaaay, how about Bandar Imam Khomeini? There's six hundred ports articles in Wikipedia, you know I'm going to find one you can't find a photo for some day! Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. it wasn't a fair request - it is illegal to photograph port infrastructure in Iran, so the only likely photos would be ones that predate the 1978 revolution. The port is also exclusively operated by the Iranian Government shipping line, so there's no fair use photos available on any promotional shipping websites. Sorry for inflicting this nightmare challenge on you, and thanks again for the other great photos. Euryalus (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing under other identities

Thanks for the email. I am sorry for any inconvenience caused, but I have my reasons for using other identities and as far as I know there is no blanket ban on sockpuppets (?) Grant 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fame

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. That's the second time I have made the news on this topic. Of all the topics to be quoted on...twice! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I now meet WP:BIO![4] -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Olympusc740uz.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Olympusc740uz.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 02:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Matilda

Thank you Matilda for your courteous welcome and response. I formerly had another name but somehow I became locked out and had to change it. I've put a response on the 'Waltzing Matilda' page and I hope I don't sound like a pedantic crank; I just hope we get some official response one way or the otherFoofbun (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for looking into the matter Matilda. I didn't want to delete it but sometimes Marines tell "sea stories" (tall tales) i.e. check out Wm Manchester's 'Goodbye Darkness' where he personally claims to have fought in every Pacific campaign of the Marine Corps. He even adopted the shaking of the floppies hand in the trench from the scene in the 'Gallipoli' film as something he personally saw!Foofbun (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good-oh Matilda for searching for the verification. I'll accept that and just regard my not hearing it in the parades (it always seemed to be 'Semper Fidelis', 'Guadalcanal March' and 'The Marine's Hymn' in that order) as just bad luck like not having an umbrella when it rains.
Oh, by the way, I am trying to find out just WHY Queensland has a different tune for 'Waltzing Matilda'.  Let me know if you've come across it. Thanks again for your help and courtesyFoofbun (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Matilda, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Matilda (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Nadir D Steinmetz 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Bay

Hi Matilda, I haven't done any worldwind pics for a while and I don't have it installed at the moment - but I will try to get one done in the next couple of weeks for you! -- Chuq (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

Thanks for the speedy citation for the Bateman's Bay article. It was a most interesting read and I was keen to find out where the quote came from. Much obliged. Gillyweed (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comments on red links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lip (very similar to comments I have made previously at Wikipedia talk:Red link), I have added a paragraph at Wikipedia:Red link and an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Red link#New addition. You may want to modify, or offer thoughts on, my contribution. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversaries

Hi Matilda, I fairly trivial discussion is under way here which concerns you slightly. I should have come here in the 1st place. —Moondyne click! 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. —Moondyne click! 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gundagai is new ACOTF

You voted for Gundagai, New South Wales for Australian collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so you might like to help to improve the article. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 09:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the photo! Great work. JRG (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article survived deletion but I still think it would be better merged with an article on the chef - ie all content kept but appearing under the article on Pignolet and the article title would be a redirect to Pignolet. What do you think? Comments should be made at Talk:Damien Pignolet Regards --Matilda talk 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What factors in to your decision to merge it with Damien and not Damien with it? Or merge it to Woolahra Hotel or vice versa? I need to see a line of logic. As for me I don't know what to do. Jason7825 (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matilda/Archive11&oldid=1088243493"