User talk:Nick carson/Archive02

Super8 Diaries Project

I didn't see any assertion that this film or its producer was notable per WP:N. Let me know if I'm missing something. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film is notable within Melbourne's independent music scene and is an important historical document of its subject matter. It's compliance with WP:N is irrelevent as if it were to be omitted it would be to the detriment of Wikipedia as a whole due to its global user-content edited encyclopedia format.

1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan

I have gone through Wikipedia and 'seeded' links to 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan in the relevant spots, and came across your talk page. If you want to jump in and start making the article, then you now where to put it! Wongm (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Ohana (band)

A tag has been placed on Ohana (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Yourname (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:Westerfolds map.PNG

Image:Westerfolds map.PNG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Westerfolds park map.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Westerfolds park map.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne - missing information

Feel free to be WP:BOLD and add additional content about the indigenous occupation of Melbourne as you see fit. See also History of Melbourne for on the indigenous people of Melbourne. Create a separate article on Indigenous people of Melbourne if you wish. If others have a problem with what you are adding, they wil certainly tell you! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 01:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering format

Just thought I'd let you know that when making comments in a numbered list, don't just indent using two colons, put an octothorpe (pound sign) before or else the numbering will be thrown off. See the numbering in the Oppose section of your RFA in this revision for an example. Useight (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Hi,

I saw your RFA and was about to close it, however some other users think you should be given the oppurtunity to withdraw. Hence this message, I hope you can see that your RFA will most likely WP:SNOW and that leaving it open appears nothing short of ignorance. You are one the right track however you do not have the experience that most admin candidates have. Have you considered admin coaching? Please dont feel disappointed that your RFA hasnt gone to plan, as many users first RFA commonly doesnt succede. Thanks «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given a little more WP namespace work, I would probably support your RFA next time. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I saw this edit and have closed / archived your RFA. HAve you considered Admin coaching? «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback

Hi Nick, Saw your RFA, and the fact you had a rough time of it. If you're interested in some free advice (worth avery penny):

If anything Promethean said stresses you out, feel free to ignore him. He doesn't speak for many others.
RFA sucks. I don't have any decent numbers, but a sizeable percentage of current admins failed their first RFA. Another sizeable percentage of anyone who's gone through the wringer, pass or fail, feel that they weren't treated with respect. That doesn't always have so much to do with you as the people writing the comments.
This helped me after I failed my first RFA: You're basically already an admin. If you want someone blocked, and your judgement is good, report them to WP:AIV and they'll be blocked. If you want to delete an article, and your judgement is good, tag it with a speedy delete tag, or send it to AFD, and it will be deleted. If you want to protect an article, and your judgement is good, bring it up at WP:RFPP and it will be protected. If you want to help mediate or solve conflicts, find a thread at WP:ANI or WP:WQA or someplace and just start helping out; non-admins can do that just as well as admins. That's what people mean by "admin activity".
Just do what you like to do here. If none of those tasks sounds interesting, don't do them. If, however, you find that you're doing them alot and it's getting frustrating doing your admin tasks that way, and that it would save you quite a bit of time if you could do it yourself, then it's probably time for RFA#2.
Don't listen to the people who say admin coaching is necessary. Don't listen to the people who say admin coaching is worthless. Take a look at it, and if you see something that would be valuable, try it. If not, don't.

Sorry, maybe some of this sounds patronizing. It's just that I've seen this happen before and would hate for this experience to sour you on the place. --barneca (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll be wanting to become an administrator after the process, haha! My time is best invested in actually contributing to WP. Nick carson (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk

Replied. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit links missing...

..that's a problem caused by putting too many images or templates all in the same place. It can be fixed, see Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. If you have questions, feel free to ask... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Friends Bridge Blackburn Lake.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Friends Bridge Blackburn Lake.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Mornington Peninsula Map.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mornington Peninsula Map.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Regarding this edit at Australia, Wikpedia's Verifiability policy requires that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The information that you added[1] was not easily veriabiable. It was most certainly not supported by the following citation[2] and that is why it was challenged. This is normal at Wikipedia and you should always be prepared to provide citations for something you add. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you are aware, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."[3] If it had been as easily verifiable as you say, I wouldn't have needed to challenge the claim. I note that the reference that you added is a rather obscure, undated, SBS program, which makes it hard to check the claim. Surely, if the claim is so easily verifiable, there is a better on-line reference available? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the ratings figures, most Australians don't watch SBS. That doesn't means that most Australians live under a rock and it's rather naiive to think that the documentary series is well known, even by SBS viewers. If the web site you mentioned supports the claim then by all means, add it. If it doesn't, there's little point. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Suburbs

You'll see that I've deleted your additions to this page. While you're not wrong about the issues pertaining to low-density suburbia per se, the discussion doesn't belong on the SOS page - those issues go way, way beyond SOS and are covered in much more detail on other WP pages, some of which I have now added links to on the SOS page. Also, as is already stated on the SOS page, SOS have been in favour of many policies that are progressive (at least in Australian terms). Furthermore, as some academics have pointed out, there are many threads in common between contemporary environmental movements and the values held by residents groups like SOS. So, if you do wish to include a section on criticisms of SOS, I recommend that you derive such criticisms from reliable, verifiable sources and focus them on specific actions or policies of SOS, rather than the broad-based critique you made previously. Eyedubya (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point Taken. I thought there should at least be some reference to criticisms of the group as the article read like a SOS handbook for potential members. I do agree, I should have sourced references, however some information regarding criticisms should be left. Nick carson (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms are OK, but they need to be reliable and verifiable, and more to the point, they need to be accurate - as in, they need to directed at SOS, not just argunents against sprawl in general or any other generic issue to do with cities and sustainability, which was the nature of the entries you made. Eyedubya (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellarine Peninsula

Hi, nice to see someone expanding it, so I jumped in as well. The wind generator is located at Breamlea, Victoria but no longer operates. It was installed back in November 1987 by the SECV - pretty amazing! When i was younger I always remember check which way it was facing whenever I went past. Wongm (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice map. Is there a typo in the word Outter Harbour? I've left a note on the images talk page. -- Longhair\^talk 11:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA project

It was great to see you sign up for the project. You may wonder why it doesn't seem to be moving forward. On the other hand, you may have some thoughts already. If you want to discuss it, send me an e-mail or enable your e-mail. Sunray (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can enable e-mail by going to "my preferences," "my profile" and adding your e-mail address there. That allows users to e-mail you anonymously. Sunray (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor thing

Just for future reference, the article for Perth is at Perth, Western Australia, not Perth. :) - Mark 05:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability subpages

Nick: Skip and I have had a discussion that has been made all the more difficult because we were looking at different sandboxed versions. He is referring to a discussion about the lead in one of your user sandboxes. I am confused, because I thought that we had agreed to work together on subpages of the article talk page. Would you be willing to standardize on the subpages we had created at Talk: Sustainability? Sunray (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick. I agree with Sunray. I think your efforts to both draw all this information together and provide an ongoing synthesis is great but operating on more than one page will confuse both us and potential new helpers. If you wish to work in your own sandbox that seems to me a very effective way of gathering your thoughts, but difficult for others to follow. IMO if we proceed a section at a time on their sub-pages according to the "to do" box, adding "consensused" sections to the real-time article as we go, then we will see the evolving picture on the main page. Smoothing out all the bumps can then be done as a final overall edit. That would be my preference anyway. Granitethighs (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick, what you are doing is terrific. There was a misunderstanding because Skip was taking your sandbox to be a kind of consensus version and Sunray was treating the subpage as the major point of discussion. I was trying to minimise confusion (and the associated heatedness). I was suggesting it is best you put your proposed work on the subpage to act as a "scratchpad" for people to work on until we have some consensus on the final version to go up. Working to consensus will clearly be a protracted affair but editing one-anothers work in real time on the article page is, IMO, not an option. Granitethighs (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing GT, I too value your contribution. I've replied to your note on my talk page. Also, please see my latest comment at Talk:Sustainability/Lead#What the.... We need you to comment on the lead sentence. Sunray (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary word

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA - I believe there is a lot of conduct problems on the Sustainability page. skip sievert (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skip, my intention was not to insult or disparage, I was offering critique on your contributions. The subject matter of the sustainability article is concerned with the concept as a whole, not just ecology, not just sociology or culture, not just economics, detailed information on each of these topics belongs in their respective articles as they each progress to include sustainability within their frameworks. And, as I said on the talk page of sustainability, I do not believe you are trolling, but you must admit that it would be easy for some editors to see it that way. Regardless, trivial matters such as these are unimportant in the scheme of things, we have too much amazing work to do than to worry about wether or not someone is intentionally insulting us :] Chill out dude. Nick carson (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a great idea to be flippant as to this. It is a real issue, in working on the article, and no... you must admit that it would be easy for some editors to see it that way - No. I do not admit that. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. skip sievert (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being no more flippant than I am being realist. I don't understand, were you offended by my critique? Or others suspicions? and what action would you like taken? If any. Nick carson (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was I offended by your critique? That is in the past now. No action is needed. As mentioned in the title here... a cautionary word. That is all. The article is unlike others I have contributed to as to behavior of editors. It seems driven by personality and alliances and chatty backscratching. There is an old saying ... alliances always lead to war. I have tried to not get tangled in the personality aspect there except in a positive way of encouraging good edits. Thats all. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Port Phillip Map

I'd just like to congratulate you on this beautiful work and great addition to wikipedia. File:Port Phillip 10,000.PNG. Cheers ! --Biatch (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what you used to create it ? I'd like to see one to illustrate the container shipping channels for Melbourne and Geelong and am thinking of making it myself. --Biatch (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers of Victoria template

G'day Nick. I don't know if you noticed or not but I added the Coliban River to the Rivers of Victoria template. I noticed when checking the articles for the Loddon River and the Campaspe River that the Coliban entry is not showing in the nav box? However when I check the Coliban River article it is shown in bold as it should be. Do you know why it is not showing up on the other articles? Did I add the wikilink incorrectly to the template page or something?--Sting Buzz Me... 00:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Nick carson, Merry Christmas!

Nick carson,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)

Sustainability article concerns

Hi Nick, best of the season to you. You may be forgiven for not having noticed, but there has been some discussion of editing problems here. Your comments on Jehochman's proposed findings would be most welcome. Sunray (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we are close to having a version of the History section that we can flash up on the main article. Others have commented. We await your seal of approval. Sunray (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]