User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Regarding what I did...

Sorry about what I did to the redirect. I did that in good faith, and not on the grounds of stereotyping you Australians. Besides, the first redirect was made by a banned user, so I decided to make a redirect to the country... Blake Gripling (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

La Trobe (sic)

Hi, AussieLegend. Regarding my recent edit correcting the spelling of Latrobe Valley on the Australian cities populations page and your reversion thereof. No, I didn't bother checking the reference, mostly because I would have been wholly unsurprised to find the ABS perpetrating the misspelling of Latrobe as "La Trobe", given the manifest lack of authority that institution has in the spelling of place names. Maybe one day it will realise its error and make the correction itself; in the meantime I'm afraid it would appear Wikipedia is doomed to slavishly replicate the mistake. (Ah, well, at least I tried...) Thylacoleo (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about the unreliability of the ABS (I've always considered their definitions of Statistical Divisions as including far more rural hinterland around capital cities than necessary). Perhaps a solution to the spelling problem in the article in question would be a footnote pointing out the discrepancy for the readers' edification? Cheers, Thylacoleo (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the footnote, and based on your concerns, decided to put the correct spelling in the footnote and leave the incorrect one in the table, rather than vice versa. As for an indication in the introductory text itself, I think that it would be overkill to make mention of the particular case of the Latrobe Valley there, but a general reference to the fact that the ABS draws its names for Statistical Divisions/Districts from the ASGC publication might not go astray. By the way, I've notified the ABS of their spelling error, and am now holding my breath until they make the correction... Cheers, Thylacoleo (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle

Please be aware that the Newcastle history section contained direct copy and pastes from copyrighted websites such as http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/discover_newcastle/visit_our_libraries/discovery_and_founding_of_newcastle This is not permitted on Wikipedia as per WP:COPYVIO. thanks Michellecrisp (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments. I do wonder sometimes if copyrighted websites actually lift from Wikipedia! regarding biggest port, see my comments on talk page for Newcastle. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Parramatta

Indeed, Parramatta is a suburb of Sydney (sub-urban wrt Sydney, right?), but it is a city. This has been captured by saying that Parramatta is a city within the Sydney metropolitan area. While technically it is sub-urban, it would be ridiculous to label it directly as such (suburban city?) due to the obvious connotations (i.e. since most suburbs are not cities), thus we have 'city within Sydney metro area'.

They are one and the same. The entries from the NSW Geographical Names Register are otherwise identical. I believe this is just a double-entry for some sort of obscure convenience purpose.

Parramatta is for all intents and purposes a city. I believe this is clear and am surprised at the oft-reverted edits, labeling Parramatta merely a suburb. How utterly ridiculous! Now I have gone that little extra and provided a reference (which was available just a few clicks away already on Wikipedia), thereby quashing all of this. But it's just common sense, really. Sure you can play that game, but it's obviously a no-brainer. Next we'll be saying that some other major city in proximity to some more major city is just a suburb of the latter (I can't think of any potent example right now to make this sound good, but you know what I mean).

It would be ridiculous to have a separation of Parramatta (city) and Parramatta (suburb) here, or anywhere else (although you will never see it officially anywhere else), as they are, as I have said, one of the same!

It would be good for these discussions on private talk pages to be copied somehow to the Parramatta discussion page, for reference purposes. (Perhaps you could do this as I am not a Wikipedia regular)

=) VerseDoorPlace (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to you on the Talk:Parramatta talk page. VerseDoorPlace (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

I read Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not? and then made the edit. All i had on there was TBA and that is not "full of uncited speculation." TBA means nothing is known about it yet but there is a quote from a disney president about the episodes IF you check my source. It was not a page of a magazine from another site on that site. It was in quotations because that what they said. They also did this with That's So Raven. They kept an episode for 8 months and another one for 3 months after TSR was thought to be over & CITH had already started. This is the source:
"Our audience has shown us that after 88 episodes, 'The Suite Life of Zack & Cody' remains one of their favorite sitcoms ever," said Gary Marsh, president of entertainment at Disney Channels Worldwide. "We decided to find a new way for Zack, Cody, London and Mr. Moseby to live 'The Suite Life' in a whole new setting -- this time aboard a luxury cruise liner."

--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely NO problem of you changing airdates. The problem was you moved the ep. It should look like it is exzept the airdates. What I mean is I will put the corrct air date as in your edits. you just moved the ep to the wrong place.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR rule

If you look at the edits where i added the epidode back, it was between me, so you which could actually get you blocked too. I also resonsed to your comment on the TSL episode talk page.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes, you will be blocked from editing. It was only a few days ago, in this edit, that I warned you about removing references. You simply can not remove information that is properly referenced, just because you don't agree with it. If you wish to remove it you must justify its removal. "I read it on IMDb and it is SUCH a credible source so it must be real" is not a valid justification. You need to provide verifiable evidence (also see referenced) to support your actions. Please stop your edit-warring and start abiding by wikipedia policies. Please note also that you don't own article. The episode can put up as a 88th episode IF you can find a couple more "credible" sources that I doubt exist.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above is a false warning and was deleted from my talk page as vandalism. It is retained here for historical record. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image:Brisbane 2008.jpg in Brisbane article

Apologies, Twinkle should have tagged but didn't. Fixed now. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Australia edit

I'm not questioning Wikipedia Verifiability policy, but the information I contributed to the Australia article is as truthful as the sky is blue, yet I need to cite that the sky is blue, it is widespread, easily verifiable knowledge. I am adding references as we speak. Nick carson (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I must add that prior to attaining certain knowledge regarding Indigenous Australians I had no idea that Australia was not settled peacefully. It is a shameful history I don't deny, and it makes me wish I could live sustainably as indigenous Australians once did. But it is fact, it is history, and history can no longer be written by the winners. I apologise if you already understand this, many people don't. Cheers. Nick carson (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you've been living under a rock, or perhaps watch nothing but commercial television, the First Australians documentary is by no means obscure, it is the culmination of 7 years research and I don't think there would be many on-line resources that could match it. It is also the most relevent to the particular centence in question. The culmination has a website also if you feel that would be a better reference than the documentary itself. Nick carson (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because people may be naive to a fact, doesn't make that fact any less of a fact, in many cases rather, it does moreso. Need I comment that most on-line resources, particularly media sources, as subject to high levels of bias. I'll take a closer look at the website and see if it does reference it, but it is by no means a substitute for the documentary itself. Also a word on policies; they're designed to be progressive, particularly those on wikipedia, we must always be pushing them, amending them, evolving them, so that we can continuously improve upon them. I'm not trying to disobey policy, rather improve upon it. Nick carson (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Debby Ryan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Where is the proof her first name is Deborah. We know Debby is her name please cite where you found deborah. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

For a start, I didn't add unsourced information, I reverted your edits,[1] which were unsourced.[2] Regarding your question, I could ask the same of you. Where is the proof that she was born "Debby"? Debby is the commonly used shortened form of "Deborah", which was what was in the article before you changed it. People born as "Deborah" usually use "Debby" as their common name. People aren't usually born "Debby". Following on from this, where is your proof that she is also known as "Debbie"? I searched and couldn't find anything supporting that claim of yours. As I have pointed out to you on several occasions now, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to provide evidence in support of additions you made to the article. It is not my responsibility to provide evidence in support of information that is already in the article. Since you chose not to provide evidence, your additions were reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:DebbyRyan.jpg

Okay, image has been restored. Just let me know when you are finished with your investigation, and I'll remove it again. Regarding this specific image, since the Flickr image is copyright, this image should certainly be deleted both here and at Commons. Let me know if I can help in any way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no way to selectively disable image-upload rights and there is no "school" we can send editors to. You may consider compiling significant evidence regarding this user and presenting it at WP:AN for additional eyes to consider the matter. If it is determined that this user is intentionally and persistently misrepresenting image rights, it may be grounds for a block. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry, I didn't know. Thanks for telling me :D. Thanks, :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Page

Welll, the article was up for deletion, and I didn't know how to delete tha page so I blanked the page. Those no use for it I guess so I put the contents on the Disney Channel Wikipedia Page. That part of the section was on in the Disney CHannel page before it got too long. That's why it has it's own page. If the page is going to get deleted, then where else would it go? PLEASE reply back. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the schedule important? I mean, it tells you when exacty when a sertain series will come on TV so people know when to tune the TV in. As far as i've been on wikipedia, the schedule has been in the Disney CHannel page before the Summer 2008 Schedule came out, then it got moved to it's own page. The schedule is on other Disney Channel world countries to teel people who might be visiting that country to see when a n episode will come on. Shouldn't we keep it for "References" to other countries who might want to come to the US and would like to know when their favorite show will come on? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the page you just sent me stating "(such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." Which means is can be acceptable.... - Alec2011 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Thanks - Alec2011 (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of my image (Fixed!)

Hello, i fixed the copyright from my image. (doesn't had one) But i found the image and where it was taken. Rogerchocodiles (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Rogerchocodiles

Windows XP

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Encyclopedia77 (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not continue to edit war on Windows XP. If you do, I will request you be blocked without further warning. --Encyclopedia77 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above a rather puerile response to a warning that I placed on User talk:Encyclopedia77 as the result of his continually reverting edits made by other editors. As policy I do not remove such warnings from my talk page. Rather I retain them and archive them so that there is always evidence of such handiwork. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF?!??

are u tryin to bully me?

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Encyclopedia77 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of multiple changes

Hi AussieLegend. I've undone your reversion to Template:Largest cities of Australia, as it reverted multiple changes to get one small change according to the summary. For more background, please read the summaries in the history. Some past discussion also took place at User talk:GarrieFerron #Reversion of multiple changes and User talk:Zigger #Largest Australian Cities template. --Zigger «º» 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows XP

Surprising, your illiterate self has once again, proven...illiterate. Your section on Windows XP's talk page contained a simple misspelled word, even though trying to look formal. Once again, you have failed...Aussie. --Encyclopedia77 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral?

Maybe the "Criticisms" section on Windows XP should be removed. Wikipedia wants a NPOV. Criticizing (or hailing) it is NOT neutral. --Encyclopedia77 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Encyclopedia77's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Encyclopedia77 Talk 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

breach of policy

so...you changed my words by reverting my edit on my talk page...wow. wow. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're making absolutely no sense. You changed my words. They were never your words to change. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

Encyclopedia77 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

let us forget all about it. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

When you convince me that you can act as a responsible editor should I'll consider it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

How did I know you added the TFD notice? You stalker. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is good to keep an eye on users that tend to delete discussions. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And being an admitted vandal doesn't help. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you?

Why don't you:
A) Stop reverting all of my edits
B) Stop AfD, TfD, or IfD-ing everything I create.
C) Stop stalking me!

If you say you aren't, why nominate my 2 templates? Why reply to my questions on other people's talk pages? Read the guidelines, and stop, or you'll see your name up in WP:LONG. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to revert your edits if they are faulty, as many are. I will contnue to list redundant images or templates as necessary. The fact that such listings have gained support from other editors clearly demonstrates that such action is justified. I think you need to understand that you don't own Wikipedia and other editors are quite free to list anything you've created for deletion or revert any changes you've made if they are justified in doing so. You can't just have everything the way you want it and you can't expect somebody to be blocked just because they don't agree with you. You should have gotten that hint when Lucas refused to block me after you asked him to.[3] If anyone needs to read policy, it's you. You've made a number of errors recently and you're just going to get yourself in trouble again. You claim to have put your vandalising days behind you but you're still doing the same things. You don't even understand the purpose of WP:LONG. You'll never become an admin if you don't change. You're more likely to end up blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AN discussion about you,

Hello, AussieLegend. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard regarding your edits. The discussion is about the topic AussieLegend. Thank you..— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You really are not helping yourself, posting frivolous and unjustified warnings on the talk pages of other editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten sooo sick

I've gotten sooooo sick of your Bull**** that I am quitting wikipedia, stalker. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah

i did know that {{test5}} was nominated for deletion.

XP SP4

Why is pointless my contribution? I think it's very interesting to know that there will be an SP4--Sotcr (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution doesn't mention that there will be an SP4. Neither does the citation that you provided. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But in the citation it becomes clear that this is expecting a new update, which may be an SP3 R1 or SP4, I believe that this information is important--Sotcr (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The citation says nothing of the sort. "To be determined" simply means that it hasn't as yet been determined when there will be an upgrade or even if there will be one. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand :) Thanks 4 ur attention ;) --Sotcr (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How did I know?

How did I know you would nominate a valid template for deletion? What a stalker! It saves typing! --Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a useful template, as another editor has already indicated and it doesn't save typing. It saves only 3 keystrokes. Please think a bit more before creating yet another silly template. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not silly. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do to get you off my back? --Encyclopedia77 Talk 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So far everyone else disagrees with you. The consensus is overwhelmingly "delete". As I have previously stated, you need to start editing responsibly. Don't create inappropriate articles, don't place inappropriate warnings on user pages, and don't nominate articles for deletion as revenge. A little growing up wouldn't hurt either. Nominating articles as revenge is rather childish. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Suburbs of Port Stephens

Template:Suburbs of Port Stephens has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Encyclopedia77 Talk 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Listing of User:Encyclopedia77 at WP:AN

The following is a draft of a proposed listing at WP:AN. Constructive criticism is appreciated.

Note: Draft removed. Now listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Encyclopedia77 & User:Encyclopedia76 --AussieLegend (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this message refers to this warning for one of his deletions of Talk:Windows XP#Recent edits by User:Encyclopedia77 ([4], [5]), which I think should be mentioned. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That appears to be the mysterious post [22] above.

As stated above, I've now listed this user at WP:AN --AussieLegend (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lucasbfr

The {{minnow}} placed on Lucasbfr's talk was a joke, as he and I are..."friends", you could say. Ever heard of a joke? --Encyclopedia77 Talk 19:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a very good joke. He didn't seem to get it. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of Showfax.com as a reference

This site is a planning site for casting parts and consists of tentative show names, descriptions of episode, roles and schedules, all of which can change between casting and final production. Also it is a pay site and beyond the directory information available to all people, details require a paid subscription. I like to check for copyright copy and paste violations and can't do that if people are using paid for information that I can't see. Far out future episodes are not that important to be in a list of episodes page and the reliable information from scheduling sources like TV Guide should be sufficient for our needs. --NrDg 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I was of the same opinion as you about paid subscription sites until I enquired some time ago at WP:RSN and the response that I received was that they are generally acceptable as sources. The reasoning was that paid subscription sites are just like a book that you've had to purchase. The book is no less a reliable source just because you've had to pay for it. That said, I agree with all of your other comments about Showfax and if you want to delete anything that relies on Showfax as a source I have no intentions of disagreeing. This edit resulted from the contents of the Showfax citation there changing so that it no longer supported episodes that it had previously supported. It's definitely not a good source. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have problems with pay sites in general when needed as much as I have with trust of the people using them to support something. I have seen too much blatant copyright violations with the episode articles by people who don't understand what copyright means with respect to wiki, also when checking references this population of editors will a lot of times add a reference that does not confirm what they add or the interpretation of the reference is inaccurate. If the article is stable and a pay site is the only place that supports something and the person who adds the reference is well established and has a reputation for accuracy, I have no problem with accepting their word that the reference supports what they say. I am assuming good faith, I am not assuming competence. The episode articles will have the episodes broadcast at some point, we are not in any great hurry to add stuff to articles, so I don't see a need to use dodgy references added by people who don't have an established reputation for accuracy. --NrDg 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To add, as I might have implied something I didn't mean to. I do consider you a established editor whose references I would normally trust as being accurate. My comments were general, not specific to Showfax which we agree is not a good source. --NrDg 15:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Stfu

I meant 1 week. I am not blaming anyone, and wondering if you are a responsible editor. I believe you are not. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 16:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I see nothing but excuses from you. One week is seven days. From the time of your request to be blocked until the time you requested to be unblocked was only 4 days, not a week. As for the title of this section, please be civil. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re;January 2009

I'm not new to wikis or a newbie so yea. And I forgot put my found ;( I'll add it later it's 3:51 AM so ok--CoolPikachu! 11:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I don't where you're from, but Jacopo Sarno is an Italian singer who stars in Disney Channel Italy Quelli dell'Intervallo known as "As the Bell Rings" in English speaking countries.--CoolPikachu! 12:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--CoolPikachu! 12:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MaitlandMercurymasthead.jpg)

You've uploaded File:MaitlandMercurymasthead.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image has been replaced by png version so there's no need to keep this jpg version. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia77

Hi Aussie, I just wanted to leave you a quick note about this guy. I see you keeping removing your name from his "retirement comments", and I would suggest that if he adds it again, just leave it. Nobody who reads it and looks into it is going to agree that you "made his life miserable". All you're doing by reverting him is giving him the attention he's clearly here for, bear in mind that he "retired" before Christmas, and yet has done 40+ edits since then, most to his talk page, including this rather sad attempt at getting attention, User:Encyclopedia77/Comeback. Basically, this essay applies really well here, Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas, except for the long-time/established user part. My advice, just unwatch his page and forget him--Jac16888 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use images on user pages

This particular page is meant to be an example of a new layout for the List of Indian inventions page. It's obviously a linked user page. As such it really does need to have those particular images for a few days so that the interested parties can view the page the way it would look if the new layout was adopted. They are NOT there to glorify me or to make my user page look nice. Considering it is only temporary and that the page in question DOES have permission to use the images can we get around the rule for a couple of days? Mdw0 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read this

this and this --Encyclopedia77 Talk 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hill and stuff

How come I'm not surprised to see you come along and work on a page and sort out some issues I had with information on the page. Nice work AussieLegend. I'm glad I am on your side. You seem to know of every Newcastle page and when it gets edited. Oh BTW I now have a photo of the other side of the Beacon tower. I'll let you decide which one is more appropriate for the title box image. Also did you by any chance notice my argument with myself on the [railway station]? Macr237 (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:File:DebRyan.jpg

Thanks for putting the image up for deletion. I did find it at a couple other urls (fansites) and was about to put it up for deletion but my computer froze on me, so i couldn't put it up for deletion. --Edgehead5150 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fort Wallace coords

Hi Aussie legend. I was wondering if you could provide me with some coordinates that may lead me to fort Wallace on Google Maps. I may an article about it and even try and take some pics similar to this image if possible. Is there much out there. Cheers. Adam (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right about here, but I wouldn't really call it photogenic and highly unlikely to have tunnels. Macr237 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AussieLegend and Macr237 for the directions. Ive just checked it out and from the air it looks pretty good to me and possibly explorable but its hard to tell from the air. I will check this out one day and possible write an article if I am not beaten to it. If you want to find out about something similar in Sydney check this template out Template:Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts in Sydney‎. I wrote quite a few articles in it and took a lot of the pics as well. Cheers. Adam (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, I have one of the most spectacular shots of Fort Scratchley at night. I really must get it scanned and take a day photo or three for the entry. Macr237 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty good idea. Also talking about tank traps this place is full of them. The gray building in the background has an excellent military museum as well, full of guns and crap. When I first walked in the place was unattended and a large machine gun there for the taking. But heap of surveillance cameras. Check it out one day if possible. Cheers. Adam (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fort Wallace has some of those down the side of the place. Now that I think about it, I remember from years ago of there allegedly being a tunnel or bunker at Wallace, but I thought it was hearsay. Macr237 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Back in about 1976 I was part of a group from 21FLT Air Training Corps (Newcastle Boys High School) involved in the making of a film at Fort Scratchley. There we met a man who had extensive knowledge of the tunnel systems. He took us right through some tunnels that are sealed now. Several years ago I was able to identify the bricked up entrance of one of these tunnels near a shell lift but I wasn't able to locate another that headed down towards the harbour. That tunnel had lots of steps and was flooded at the bottom. The same man also took us through the tunnel system at the top of King Edward Park, near the Shepherd's Hill gun emplacement. At the time there was a pill box and an entrance to the tunnel system at the top of the hill. Both had been bricked up but the pillbox bricks were constantly being removed by people to gain access to the extensive tunnel system below. Eventually the pillbox roof was removed and the pillbox filled in, and the entrance doorway was demolished and filled in. The man who showed us the tunnels had maps showing that the network was more extensive than any of the records that I've been able to find in the 30 years since. He also had plans of of a tunnel system at Fort Wallace so, based on what I've seen on the Newcastle side of the harbour, I have no doubt that the tunnel system at Fort Wallace exists, even though I haven't actually seen it. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Road past Wallace today and there is some underground buildings. Whether, that is all there is or a tunnel system, I cannot tell. If I remember on Friday, I'll take my camera and see if I can get a photo. Macr237 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Serial spammer

Hi I just noticed you reverting some spam links. I checked out the contribs for this user and he has spammed quite a few articles with the same link [6]. If I had more time I would remove some for you as well. Cheers. Adam (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you too. I think we got them all. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Notify me if you find this serial spammer doing anything again, or if vandalism associated with this user or links is found. thank you --Redsred (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Zero Emissions

A couple of points. Firstly, don't restore speedy deletion tags. They can be legitimately removed by anyone except the article creator, at which point they should not be restored, especially by the editor who added them initially. At that point, you really need to proceed to WP:AFD. Secondly, even before noticing that, I turned down the speedy anyways. It was hovering around the border of A7, but a bit of an internet searches suggests that, at the very least, a case can be made for inclusion, so I added a couple of sources and whatnot. As it stands, it's hard to guess how an AFD might go and you might still wish to pursue that path. Cheers, WilyD 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And please WP:DONTBITE the newcomers. Thanks. MuffledThud (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: You comment on my talk page.

You could have just said that in your reason for editing.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In my reversion of your first edit[7] I did point that out so, when you restored the same information[8], the warning on your talk page became necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I didn't realize that "copyvio" was short for "Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing."Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, copyvio is just short for "copyright violation". The message I left on your page is a standard message. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend, please help me to unblock my account and regain my rights as a contributor. I am Tasos90 and have learnt my lesson concerning copyright, it was a msitake and i have shown no similar activity since the day i was caught. Please take this off me, and give me a chance or explain to me how i issue for an unblock. Thank You, --124.191.177.53 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Suite Life on Deck Episodes

I do not want to fight over this or anything, so I offer the following compromise. Would you be opposed to me creating a box that states which characters from the original series (stars and recurring guest stars) reprised their roles and in what episodes they did so? This would include Brian Stepanek, Robert Torti, Sophia Oda, Charlie Stewart, and Brittany Curran. If you do oppose any of that, I would urge you to at least offer some sort of other compromise that can satisfy both of us. I would hope we can work together instead of fight. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From your edit summaries I was under the impression that you opposed doing that. Isn't that why you reverted the inclusion of Brian Stepanek? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do oppose listing recurring guest stars from the original series in that list as I think it is only necessary to list regular stars from the original series. However, I understand your point regarding consensus and I wanted to offer something that could possibly please both parties because the reason for my opposition is consistency. If we are listing stars from the original series, then only list the stars (which is my preference), however if people disagree with me and want to list Brian, then I think for consistency's sake we should list all returning recurring guest stars from the original series. So, even though I don't think it's necessary to list returning recurring guest stars (notice the term 'special guest star' is only used for Kim Rhodes and Ashley Tisdale because they were stars of the original series), I think if the consensus is to list Brian then we should also list other returning recurring guest stars to remain consistent and I would be fine with that. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, Brian Stepanek was in more episodes, was more important to the plot than other recurring characters, had episodes named after his character and in which his character was the major plot item, and he was going to be the star of a spin-off. This gives him enough notability to include. The others don't even come close to that. There's no justification to include them while there is more than enough to justify his inclusion. Justifying inclusion based on notability is being consistent. Including people just because they were recurring characters isn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...and Brian is still not billed or listed as a special guest star as Kim Rhodes and Ashley Tisdale are. He is simply a guest star. I think that holds some weight unlike the fact that they almost, but never did, a spin-off with him as the star. He also probably appeared more and had more story lines than Ashley Tisdale in season three, but we don't take away her notability from season three given she was still listed as a star. Look, we don't have to agree, but nothing so far is pleasing you. Is there anything you feel can be a middle ground? I'm just trying to discuss here, not fight. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be billed or listed as a special guest star to make the fact that he reprised his role true. As for arguing, at the moment he isn't even in the article and you have stated that you oppose listing recurring guest stars from the original series so I'm not evn sure what the point of this discussion is. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, dicussion over. I didn't realize you were okay with Brian not being listed even if you disagreed. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for keeping an eye on Millere08. Johnfos (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Singing Bridge

Thank you very much for cleaning up the article. I am not entirely sure that Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest Bridge is the official name of the bridge. The 1973-74 documents call it this way as well as Myall River Bridge. The Bulahdelah pacific highway bridge, however, is also sometimes referred to as Myall River Bridge. The newer documents of NSW authorities as well as the locals all call it the Singing Bridge. I'm fine with all names, just wanted to raise the point. --Quartl (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes

I like what you did for the general cleanup of references. I am not sure about removing the specific reference for future episodes though. I like to check the future stuff and like to see indications that the editor adding them has actually looked them up in a reliable source. Right now the edit notice says that future eps need to be referenced - I can easily change what it says but as of now there is a bit of a conflict. Thoughts? --NrDg 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was "Oooops!!!" because I forgot to fix up the cites for those episodes. They're fixed now. I think we need to continue to insist on citations for future episodes. The edit notice should remain as is, unless you can get it to reach out to people who ignore it and slap them about a bit. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wish I could. I'm still trying to figure out how to craft an effective notice for the few list of episodes articles I have added one to. I don't want it too long or it gets a "to-long-to-read" reaction. I think the editors that ignore it just don't care or are just obstinate about doing what they want. I think it has cut back a bit on unreferenced future stuff - just not as much as I'd hoped. --NrDg 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop doing vandalistic reverts

Your recent behaviour is not productive or constructive, and the sign of an immature editor. Please cease immediately. Vandalism of anonymous edits is not more acceptable than for signed in editors. Please consider yourself reported. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you could see quite clearly that the History of NSW page needed to be created to enable the redirect. It is queued awaiting creating. It would have been productive of you to have created it. It was unproductive of you to delete the redirect in the History of New South Wales page! Please be helpful, not the opposite. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and practices before you continue editing in the rather aggressive and uncivil manner that you have been. One of those practices is to create redirect pages before you add templates to articles claiming that this or that page redirects here when that is not the case. I don't know what you mean when you say that the History of NSW page "is queued awaiting creating". It doesn't need to be queued. Just create the article. You don't need to add the template to History of New South Wales. There's no need to create a disambiguation page so the template that you've chosen is pointless. Also, when you made this reversion of my repair, not only did you re-add a useless template, you re-added a link that went to a redirect page rather than to the intended article. The correct way of linking "Australian" since there is no article of that name is to write [[Australia]]n. The link will be displayed as Australian but will directly link to Australia. Australian is a redirect and redirects should be avoided in article space where possible.

As for "reporting" me (for editing properly), perhaps you aren't aware but everyone can see your edit history so making such threats and not following through just makes you look silly. It is probably best to avoid doing so in the future. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were as experienced as you claim, you would know that anonymous editors cannot create new pages. If you had looked you would have seen that I had to submit it to the Wikipedia:Articles for Creation department and it is pending review. However you could have created it. Why don't you do that right now? That would be helpful and begin to change my opinion of you. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know that anonymous editors can't create new pages and the implication should have been obvious - Create an account so you can. Not that you need to now as I created the page before I saw your message. As for why I hadn't, why didn't you bother asking, rather than making idle threats, reverting valid edits and arguing that excessive linking isn't excessive. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for creating the page and fixing the dangling links. It would have begun to change my opinion of you, except you chose to remark that you did it before you saw my message, and then decided to restate your very shaky case. You've proved yourself an unreasonable person. Please stay out of my way. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stay out of mine. I expect I'll be here longer. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Be very careful - that sounds like a threat. I've been editing here for far longer than you seem to think, under various IP addresses. I don't feel the vain need to create some kind of "AussieLegend" identity to do so. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a threat but from your aggressive style I suspect you just won't fit in. Is that the reason you've used multiple addresses? --AussieLegend (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Walka

Thanks for the update on the things I had missed and the template I had forgotten existed. What's your opinion on using the sign board as a reference as I actually couldn't find any online references and haven't gone to the library to find any printed ones yet. I think I might need some sort of in print one to get past the DYK selectors. Reply on my talk page please. Nomadtales (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

KCA

• The official name used in their press releases: "Nickelodeon's 22nd Annual Kids' Choice Awards". I was there Sir and will post pics. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, the official website uses "Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards" and "Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards 2009". The Press Kit is called the "Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Press Kit". The logo, as displayed in the article, is an abbreviation of that, ie "Kids' Choice Awards 2009". Even the Host Release, which does use "22nd" calls it the "Nickelodeon's 22nd Annual Kids' Choice Awards". Nowhere do I see "2009 22nd Kids' Choice Awards" so until such time as you can provide a citation for a reliable source that supports the use of "2009 22nd Kids' Choice Awards", the "22nd" should stay out of the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonders never cease!

You've performed an edit I agree with and support! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you agreed with it, why didn't you fix it, especially since the MoS specifies that his version was wrong? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question, or a request for me to tell you my thought & reasoning processes?

I'm happy to answer your question if you are really interested in my answer.

But my past experience is that you really couldn't care less what my motivations are, and I don't see a lot of point in going to the effort of answering your question if you don't care what my answer is ...

Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mary Scheer in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody

Here's the evidence of Mary Scheer's credit in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episode "The Summer of our Discontent." ----DanTD (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. The copy of the epiosde that I have, and checked before reverting the addition, doesn't show any of those three credited but that's obviously a scene from that episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

CIA

Thanks for these edits. (I don't remember why I linked them - it probably "seemed like a good idea at the time" ... ) --Pdfpdf (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you thought Millere08 was going to expand Brindabella Business Park beyond the climate change slanted stub about one building that he created into something that was actually an encyclopaedic article about the whole of BBP. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, now that you mention it, I remember that I did have something like that in mind. (Though I think it was more a case that I thought I might expand it, not Millere08!) I guess I got distracted ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Is this edit appropriate? Thanks. --Pdfpdf (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, yes, although "superstar" shouldn't be capitalised and "long awaited" is a bit POV. The wikilink needs to be fixed because it goes to a redirect. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(If it makes you feel any better, I also thought you'd fixed it.)

Those were some of the issues I had in mind, but my first reaction was that it seems like advertising.

I suppose it is not always obvious where data stops being information and becomes advertising.

Your thoughts? --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing topic, where does one look to find information on things like %E2%80%A6?

(And how do I get "%E2%80%A6" to appear as something like "..."?) --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really only the "long awaited" that pmakes it seem like advertising, although "superstar" is probably a bit OTT. Regarding the codes, I'm not sure. I have a list of ASCII codes around here somewhere but i'm not sure of the online reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pdfpdf (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2toy mora

I see you have left a message for this user on their page. I was hoping to get some advice. I undid several red linked image edits and wanted to make sure that was the correct thing to do. At first, I did not think the edits were in bad faith (even though the images didn't display...you'd think the editor would catch on after the sixth try). I removed the links simply as a clean-up, but I would like to know if there would be a more pressing reason. Thanks for any help. Tiderolls 14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You definitely did the right thing. I stated doing that myself, around the same time you did. There was an earlier instance of the editor doing the same thing.[9] Like you I try to assume good faith but the editor has made a number of questionable edits, such as removing portal links from several articles and a link to Tibet (a sometimes controversial subject) from one template, all without explanation. Some other edits seem quite valid so I'm not sure what's going on. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

icarly

these episodes are being produced for season 2 iGet Caught (iMeet Connor)iHave A New Best Friend (iReunite With Missy)iMust Have Locker #239 iWanna Gold Medal iHide A Star (REGULAR EPISODE) iTake on Vicki (1) iTake on Vicki (2) iCarly Awards iDid That first iThink They Kissed iCook iHave My Principles iSpeed Date iFix Ginger Fox]] also There are 12 more episodes being written for season 2. why do you keep dealting them on the list. they have been confired by http://iicarlyy.blogspot.com/, http://nathankressfansite.ning.com/, and http://www.tv.com/icarly/show/71399/the-upcoming-episodes-thread/topic/85277-1195437/msgs.html?page=14. please respond Ffaadstrbdetete (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC) thanks

Removal of the upcoming episode list here, here and here was justified. Information added to Wikipedia should be supported by citations from reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Blogs, forums and fansites are not generally accepted as reliable sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

fetch

why did you delate season 5 in the [edit] Series overview secation of fetch. season 5 is already happening and will air in 2010. please respond thanks Ffaadstrbdetete (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated in the edit summary,[10] the addition is uncited. I've explained to you just above this entry and on your talk page that information added to Wikipedia needs to be cited. In addition to the fact that the edit was uncited, it is of no use without some firm dates, as I also indicated in the edit summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your use of rollback

Hi. Your use of rollback here was not appropriate, as the edit in question was not vandalism. Please revert only vandalism with rollback in future or it may get removed. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot that rollback functionality isn't the same in IE as it is in Firefox with Twinkle. IE just rolls back, Twinkle gives you the opportunity to add an edit summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

HM

Why can't you leave anything alone on the HM S3 page? You have repeatedly taken off what needs to be changed. I have asked the person who CREATED the tables, and he said I could edit them. The tables are a lot thinner with the abbreviations (and YES you can still tell it's Ep. # and Ser. #). Also the episode was changed to a Sunday as the promo on DC was aired (If you even watch that channel for upcoming episodes). TV Guide can take up to one week or more to update their information, so it shouldn't be counted as a reliable source anyway. PLUS it's been announced on the official DC Press Site also. Maybe you could ease off just a little. - Alec2011 (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to seek permission from the person who created the tables und it's not up to him to give you permission to edit them. He doesn't own the tables. Anyone can edit any article without seeking permission. It was my opinion that the column widths were fine. As for changing the episode date, the problem here is verifiability, which is a core policy. When somebody changes a date and the cited source says that the change is wrong, then there is an obligation to revert the change, especially when ediors don't use episode summaries to justify their changes.[11] If the change has been announced on the DC press site, as you claim, then you should have added a citation when you made the change to support your claim. Without a citation or edit summary there is no choice but to revert to the cited version. Regarding reliable sources, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the policy because TV Guide clearly fits the criteria for a reliable source.

As a final note, you should have noticed that I'm not the only person reverting uncited changes.[12] There's a reason for that. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I should probably add that the date change from April 17 to April 19 also seemed unlikely because, by the time you made the change the episode had aired somewhere and was already available for download on many torrent sites. This was not a factor in making the decision top revert, but it did give me confidence that the reversion was valid. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why would the TV Guides say that the episode was going to air when It clearly didn't anyway? Also havn't you ever heard of DisneyOnDemand? They release episodes one week prior to the episodes airdate. Alsong with that, oceanUP released the episode on their website, which is why the episode has been release on Torrent sites. And The current HM page is for AMERICAN release dates anyway. If it has aired in other countries then there would be a little not in te episode description sayin git premiered in that country anyway. The episode is airing on April 19 in the US as you probably don't pay attention to that anyway. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but none of this is any justification for not complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability. As I said, if it is stated on the DC press site that the episode would air on another date, add that as a citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, but I'm chaging the episode summaries for ALL the episodes as they are way to long and give to much info than what is needed. I hope you don't mind, ans it's getting to way out of hand. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what's wrong with the summaries as they satnd. A few are excessive but certainly not all of them. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Suburbs of the Hunter region

Hi, AussieLegend. Just a question on the above category. Classing Bulahdelah as a "suburb" seems a strange definition of the word "suburb". Surely it is a town in its own right and not a suburb of any city? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn it! I had a reply typed out and my PC decided to reboot just before I finished. Oh well, here it goes again.....

The short answer is that the category caters for towns as well as suburbs. It also caters for localities but I didn't mention that in the category introduction because it's been a source of confusion in the past. I had considered naming it something else but "Suburbs of" seemed consistent with other similar categories. The long answer is that, aside from the unincorporated areas in the west of the state, almost every place in NSW is considered by the government departments that deal with NSW land to be a "suburb" of one or more LGAs, whether or not that LGA is a city and whether or not the place is within the definition of what "city people" think a suburb to be. This is fairly consistent throughout most departments, the exception being the ABS. As far as Bulahdelah goes, you're correct that Bulahdelah is a town, but the town is also part of a "suburb" of Great Lakes Council called Bulahdelah, which is the case for most towns in the state. One example of how this is applied is Raymond Terrace. On the Geographical Names Register (GNR) it's listed as both a suburb and a town, with the town being listed as a variant of the suburb. The town has a population of ~12,200 and covers an area of ~29.4km². The suburb covers the town and an extra 10.3km² and has a population ~12,600 (400 more than the town). Despite what the GNR says, the town is actually only part of the suburb. Anna Bay and the adjoining suburb of Fishermans Bay has a population of 2,638. Like Raymond Terrace, Anna Bay is also listed both as a suburb and a town. The town itself is rather tiny.[13] The suburb covers an area of 23.1km². The areas outside of the towns of Anna Bay and Raymond Terrace are low density semi-rural residential areas and farms. Anna Bay has some commercial properties along the three major roads through the area but the areas outside the towns definitely do not fit the definition of "a bounded area within the landscape that has an 'Urban' Character" as used by the Geographical Names Board in its definition of "suburb".[14] However, if you look at the NSW Department of Lands maps, you'll see that all three of the towns are just a part of a suburb of the same name.[15][16][17] Bulahdelah is listed on the GNR as both a town and a locality.[18][19] According to the Glossary of designation values in the Geographical Names Register a locality is "a bounded area within the landscape that has a 'Rural' Character", that is it's the rural equivalent of a city suburb. One category called "Suburbs of the Hunter Region" seems less confusing and more easily manageable than having 3 separate categories, one each for suburb, town and locality because the three terms are really interchangeable. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very thorough reply. I am even more impressed that you have typed it all out twice! I believe I understand your logic and the reasons why you have made this decision. However, I still don't think it is the right path to go down. This is for three main reasons:

1. The naming conventions for "towns, suburbs and localities" for the Hunter region are now different from the rest of NSW and there is no logical reason for this to be the case as your argument above could apply statewide. I feel any naming convention is best applied statewide so that Category:Towns in New South Wales and its regional subcats are consistent throughout NSW.
2. The naming convention you are using is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the word "suburb" in Australian English. I can't find an online Australian dictionary but I would suggest that most Australians would give the meaning of the word something like "A (usually residential) contiguous district of an urban area". By using the word "suburb" to mean something different to this, we risk misleading readers. The residents of the town I live in would never consider themselves as living in a suburb of the LGA, I can't imagine that residents of Bulahdelah (let's say) would feel differently. I am not sure why terms used for the convenience of State Government bureaucrats should take precedence over the ordinary vernacular meanings.
3. There is a real difference between "suburbs" and "towns" and lumping them in together strips meaning from the category structure. To use an example closer to home, the City of Wagga Wagga covers quite a large area and many outlying towns. There is a difference between suburbs of Wagga Wagga like Turvey Park and outlying towns like Tarcutta, New South Wales and this should be reflected in the category structure. Turvey Park is included in Category:Suburbs of Wagga Wagga, New South Wales and not in Category:Towns in the Riverina. For Tarcutta, this is reversed. The LGA template {{Wagga Wagga City}} also reflects this. Also, suburbs of Wagga (and Albury and Griffith) are not included in {{Riverina}}.

I am aware my preferred method requires editors to make judgement calls about the appropriate term to be used and these has been some discussion from editors in our part of the world about the appropriate term for places like Kapooka and Forest Hill. I know very little about the N.S.W part of New South Wales (Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong) and perhaps there are reasons why these judgement calls are more difficult to make in those areas. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we lose something when we ignore the very real differences between what are called in the Australian vernacular "suburbs" and "towns". If one term had to be used to cover all these places, I would use the term "locality". Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 01:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick response for now. I've been busy most of the day and need to catch up on patrolling as well as mull over some of the very valid points you've raised.

Firstly, don't be too impressed at my previous reply, it took forever to remember what I'd said without making it look like the rantings of a mad man.... Secondly, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say that the naming conventions for the Hunter are different. I haven't changed any names. All I did was create some categories that seem consistent with existing categories to link all of the Hunter region articles. I then added those categories to the existing articles. Buhladelah, and the other towns within the region, are still in Category:Towns in New South Wales, as they should be. The Hunter Region suburbs category was created to get towns, suburbs and localities off the main category page. What you've said does bear thinking about so I won't respond in depth now but if you have some specific suggestions as to how to improve the category structure, please elaborate. If you do respond before I get back here, you'll notice some commented out text. Please ignore it as I'm rethinking it. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the delay but I've been a tad busy, having been forced to spend too much time on pointless exercises like working out what percentage of monkeys ate oranges at Talk:Australia.[20] Continuing on from what I've said above....

2. Your suggested definition of "suburb" is supported by the GNB definition. However, perception of what a suburb is and application of the term seems to vary, in part because of distance. For example, across Newcastle, a densely populated area covering approximately 183km², a suburb is exactly as you've defined it. In my LGA, which covers 5 times the area with less than half the population of Newcastle, there's an obvious difference in perception and application across the LGA. Around the southern shores of Port Stephens, which is fairly densely populated, a suburb is as you've defined. Adjacent to these areas, Anna Bay and Bobs Farm are both seen as suburbs, and both are defined as such on the GNR.[21][22] While Anna Bay has a small township in the southern part of the suburb, from which the suburb's name originated, Bobs Farm does not. It falls under the GNB's definition of "locality". As you head further west, Duns Creek, which really falls under the GNB's definition of locality, is also listed on the GNR as a suburb,[23] but the residents don't see it as a suburb. All of these locations, despite being 50km apart are reasonably close to major population centres. But, head north to Karuah, which is 52km from Newcastle, and residents of the township there think that Karuah is just the town, despite the town only being less than 1% of the actual suburb's area. Head out further and, in places like Bulahdelah, the same opinion is prevalent. However, while there may actually be a village called Karuah and a town called Bulahdelah, they both form only part of a larger area that is a "suburb" of an LGA. Bulahdelah is actually a "locality" but, since the only difference between the two definitions is that one is urban and one is rural, the various departments have made a judgement call and lumped them all under the more commonly understood term, "suburb". We should be aiming to capture the whole state, not just tiny little portions of it, so the Bulahdelah article should include all of the locality, not just the town itself. Therefore, putting it in a category called "Suburbs of" seems appropriate.

3. Actually, the difference is not between suburbs and towns, it's betweens suburbs and localities. Most suburbs are, effectively, towns and many once were actually towns. Places like Newcastle, Sydney and Maitland were all once just areas containing several towns. The towns merged and expanded, then joined other towns and eventually merged into much bigger towns which continued expanding until they became cities. You can see this happening now in the city of Lake Macquarie. Suburbs and localities can both contain a town. Three examples of this are Anna Bay, Karuah and Bulahdelah. Regarding the examples that you've used, I notice that Tarcutta is listed as both a town and a suburb,[24][25] so it's in the same situation as Bulahdelah and Karuah, despite what the people there might think. ie people living outside the village still live in Tarcutta. I also noticed that Tarcutta is not captured in Category:Wagga Wagga Surely it should be? That it may be captured in Category:Towns in New South Wales is one thing, but that category is useless to somebody who may want to find towns in a particular region, such as an LGA. Category:Newcastle, New South Wales and Category:Lake Macquarie, the categories that I referred to when populating Category:Port Stephens Council, Category:Maitland, New South Wales and Category:Hunter Region, New South Wales, capture all towns, suburbs and localities in the area. Of the eleven towns listed in {{Wagga Wagga City}}, Collingullie, Ladysmith, New South Wales, Mangoplah and Uranquinty are the only towns listed in Category:Wagga Wagga. All but Humula, Ladysmith, Mangoplah, Tarcutta and Uranquinty are listed in Category:Towns in the Riverina. It may just be that Tarcutta is a victim of this apparent inconsistency. I'm not familiar with the area so I don't want to make any changes.

4. I agree that we need to make judgement calls, which is what I've done in creating the Hunter Region categories. Part of that was based on an understanding of how the government manages NSW land. I've had some issues with out of state editors regarding this, because they don't seem to understand the philosophy used, which is fairly logical if at times slightly confusing due to the necessity to incorporate previous decisions. e.g. the city of Cessnock, which isn't really a city by today's standards. As far as using the term "locality" to cover suburbs and towns, that's doing exactly what you've accused me of doing. The three have distinct definitions.[26]

• Town - "A commercial nucleus offering a wide range of services and a large number of shops, often several of the same type. Depending on size, the residential area can be relatively compact or (in addition) dispersed in clusters on the periphery."
• Suburb - "A bounded area within the landscape that has an ‘Urban’ Character"
• Locality - "A bounded area within the landscape that has a ‘Rural’ Character"

Because of the similarity between the two, the only difference being urban vs rural, you can use one term for both suburb and locality, which is probably why {{Infobox Australian Place}} doesn't differentiate between suburb and locality, but town has a different meaning. That said, it is possible for a large town to cover all, or most of, a single suburb or locality, but normally they don't, at least not outside Sydney. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Towns in the Hunter Region

I've now created Category:Towns in the Hunter Region, New South Wales and populated it, using the interpretation of town that seems prevalent in various articles and other similar categories. This category is a subcat of Category:Towns in New South Wales. Doing this immediately identified an issue. {{Infobox Australian Place}} automatically adds any article where "type = town" to Category:Towns in New South Wales meaning that articles where "type = town" are in both the child and parent category, resulting in unnecessary overpopulation of Category:Towns in New South Wales. The only way to get around tis is to change the infobox type to something else. ('city', 'suburb', 'lga' and 'region') Of these only "suburb" seems appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hell, I missed all the above! I should have watchlisted the page. Thanks again for the detailed reply. I don't think we are miles apart on the issues and perhaps I am caught up a bit on the terminology. Regarding the problems with IAP and categories, I did ask here for the Auto-categorisation to be removed for the same reasons as you suggest. I am not so sure now that it is a good idea. What region a (town, suburb, locality etc...) is in is often a matter of opinion but we are 100% sure what state each place is in (perhaps Mungindi, Queensland is the exception that proves the rule.) I tend to think that any sub-categorisation below the state level should be in addition to the state category, rather than instead of. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above was only added today so you haven't really missed anything. I was hoping you hadn't watchlisted the page as I wanted to complete my reply before you answered so everything worked out in the end. As far as regions go, in NSW the best guide is here. Official government sources are always the best place to start, even if they do make the occasional mistake or don't seem to fit community perceptions because the government generally bases everything on documented fact. Regions can certainly be confusing because they're not always managed at LGA level as they should be. For example, Mid North Coast (New South Wales) actually starts around Tuncurry, not at Seal Rocks as the article states. However, Port Stephens Council joined the Mid North Coast councils for economic reasons and we now have a "Welcome to the Mid North Coast" sign just north of the Hexham bridges, only 500m from the Hunter River and 120km south of where the article says the region starts. And by the way, the Hunter Valley is not the same thing as the Hunter Region, it's only part of it. It does get rather confusing.

I'm not sure I agree with subcats being in addition to the main category although it's not without merit. Categories that have 900 entries tend to be too large and unwieldy to be of any real use. The only towns that should be in Category:Towns in New South Wales should be those not captured by the subcats. I really think that WP:SUBCAT should apply unless there's a good reason not to and I think Category:Towns in New South Wales is a good example of where to apply it. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK

OK I changed it back to what I had before. I just added the name. Also the triple Crown of Comedy programming block is infact going to end on May 3 so I added that in, so please don't take it out. - Alec2011 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ausdwag

I'm pulling my hair out! User has now moved to the Public holidays in Australia article. I hope an Admin does something soon! I have class (TAFE and not so lucky to have a day off today) in 7 hours time. Bidgee (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits at that page and he has been blocked for 24 hours for his 3RR edits. You can go to bed and get some sleep. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that 27 April isn't a pupil free day in NSW. Tuesday is the pupil free day. Monday is a holiday for everyone but it's not listed as an alternative for Anzac Day.[27] I suspect it's actually an alternate for Easter Monday. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

About FETCH

Season 4 is gonna start September 28th That's what Ruff told me on Facebook he told me stay tuned Season 4 will premiere on September 28th. Wheeloffortune26 (talk) 23:40 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not good enough. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and anything that is likely to be challenged must be supported by citations from reliable sources. Facebook is not a reliable source and the additions that you made constitute original research, which is not permitted. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Roommmates

Are you sure those four episodes aired last week? all my listings only said one episode was airing last week. ---Shadow (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they aired last week because I watched them. They aired exactly as the citation in the episode article said.[28] The last four aired this week, also exactly as the citation said. It's interesting that IMDB and tv.com indicate that the episodes didn't air but I'm not sure why that is, especially when the msn guide supports tvguide.[29] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

False Wollumbin

Hello Aussie Legend,

We would appreciate your assistance to alter the false information on Wikipedia about Mt Warning. The name Wollumbin was stolen from my families Mountain and applied to Mt Warning as a false Dual name.

We have the anthropological studies from the Elders, 50 year old tapes, the 1977 NSW NPWS anthro study and the false transcripts used by national parks, dictionaries from the language speaking elders and hundreds of supporting documents, but cannot upload them to wiki and I am new to wiki. Apologies that references were not included but I am unsure how to include reference links. Professor Sharpes dictionary has the correct name for Mt Warning (Wulambiny) and is on the net. NSW Geo names board site shows that the name Wollumbin was stolen from Mt Wollumbin in 2005. We have the minutes from NSW GEO names board meetings where lie after lie was told to the board. The Elders are furious at this false info on Wikipedia.

Wollumbinmountain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

False Wikipedia Wollumbin

Hello AussieLegend,

The edit was "The official Geoscience Australia Placenames Registry shows the Mountain to the Northeast of Mt Warning is Mount Wollumbin."

That is the official registry for Australian Geospatial information.

The reference is beyond dispute, but has been removed repeatedly.

Wikipedia asked for reference, the statement is a reference.

(Wollumbinmountain (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Thats not a reference, It's just someones unsourced word. It's like me saying Kevin Rudd will force in the 2009 Budget that all unemployed people will be forced to join the Army, which is totally incorrect and unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As Bidgee has indicated, that's not a reference, it's simply a statement. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citing sources to gain an understanding of how to provide a reference. There are several examples on the page you've been changing. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

Hello, I was the editor who removed banned User:BumLawd's advertisement for his policy-violating and deleted article from Farrah Fawcett's talk page. I was going to post the following at that talk page, but in the interest of not drawing more attention to all of this there, thought it might be more respectful both of her and of you to address this more privately. That post, then, unposted as yet there:

Respectfully, AussieLegend, I am re-reading Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and am failing to discover a section that protects content such as that which I removed. Even if those guidelines were absolute imperatives, they do allow for removal of talk page content. Those guidelines also set a standard for talk page content, a standard which the material I removed did not meet. This fact is exemplified both in the fact that the user was identified as a sockpuppet—apparently one of three-hundred and ninety-nine sockpuppets of a single user, created to surreptitiously insert spurious, libelous, hateful and agenda-driven material—and banned, with both attempts to create the list in question deleted within hours. (All of that happened without any involvement on my part save for removing the material on this page. Afterward, I nominated this page for semi-protection, but by the time I submitted my request the list links were red and the ban was in effect.)

I will point out the policies on the pages you direct me to which support my action. This is a notable quote from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

"Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source."

You also link to Wikipedia is not censored, which states:

"Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed."

It may be a hair more complex and a good deal more time consuming than the work of the average vandal, yet the very point of this banned editor and his many sockpuppets have been precisely designed to insinuate vandalism and personal associations posing as relevancy in the hopes of making his point and having it survive "assume good faith" and notability/citability so his agenda might remain in Wikipedia. If it was clear enough in 24 hours from the time he opened the sockpuppet that he was to be banned and his contributions removed, it seems clear enough that his work was in violation of Wikipedia policy and advertisements for that work, even if to dead links, perpetuate the same violation.

Again, respectfully, I am going to be bold by re-deleting this, not in a combative edit-war spirit, but because I have taken your objection seriously, I have reviewed the material you indicate, I feel I understand the guidelines and I believe I have adequately explained and defended the reasons drawn from Wiki policy guidelines for removal of this content. If it is your wish to restore to the talk page of the biography of a living person this offensive and libelous conflation of rumor, innuendo, original research and synthesis, deemed an unacceptable suggestion by editors who found that the author was a notorious sockpuppeteer who was subsequently banned, I would request that you discuss it here first and carefully explain which section of the guideline of not removing an editor's talk page post you feel trumps the policies with regard to the germane issues I have raised.

I hope that perhaps the above here at your talk page can solve this problem, as my whole point is not to leave vestiges and/or specific discussion of this issue on that talk page. Thank you for your consideration, Abrazame (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the user was banned. There's no indication of that in the edit summary. Had there been I wouldn't have restored the content as the deletion of a banned user's edits is appropriate. I've re-deleted it and commented on the article talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said above, at the time I deleted the talk page bit, the list/article was still active as was the user account. I had simply visited the list and made the same judgment call as the editors who later nominated the list for deletion and the admins who ultimately banned the guy. A good few hours later when I returned home, I decided to nominate Fawcett's page for semi-protection due to this and other issues, and it was on previewing this nomination that I saw from the dead link that the list had been deleted and discovered the guy had been banned.

I wonder if you would consider editing your initial Fawcett talk page post to de-link the revision history page of my deletion, as providing this link is an invitation to click on it and discover the offensive post. I am not asking that you change a word of your post otherwise, merely that you remove the link directing traffic to the edit in question. Again, I appreciate your consideration thus far and in this matter. Best, Abrazame (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5