User talk:CJ/Archive 11

Add topic
Active discussions


Check out the Sydney history page. Do you think the editor that you and i have both reverted today is Jackp?? ie, Actually, his one week ban should have expired now. --Merbabu 10:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi, if you've got time could you tell me if you think this article I have on FAC is clear about why the guy was important- I think it is, but them I wrote it. :) --Peta 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya Peta. The article certainly does make clear his notability (even if some parts went over my head :)). However, I do get a sense that for the most part the article is describing his publications and some of the arguments therein without discussing, significantly, their affect. Nevertheless, in various points throughout the article it is made clear, to me at least, that his contribution to science was the foundations for the study of plant evolutionary biology. --cj | talk 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm glad about the latter and will work on the former.--Peta 07:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


I fixed the things you criticised as much as possible, so if you want to have another look... Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biology Cheers. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Light's Vision

Hi Cyberjunkie. Obviously "generally accepted" was too strong. I read Chris Bowe's well-referenced article from the Adelaide Review, and the day-by-day account of events (from the research of Langmead and Johnson) appears hard to refute - always assuming the sources are accurate. The view of Kingston's competence or otherwise is of course an opinion. It is tempered by the apparent fact that he based his plan on that of Pietro Cataneo, as already implemented in the founding of several other cities (by other people) - i.e., he did nothing original, but kept with a plan that had worked before. All he actually had to do was draw up a plan based on pre-existing work (which he apparently did in London), and then travel with Light to help him find the best site to build it. Anyway, there seems to be a good story here, and it seems a shame to lose it in favour of a cearly simplistic legend. Pingku 07:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tassie Prehistory

I think I'll regret inserting the prehistory into that art! Anyway, thanks. As for place names issue, I suppose we wtch that spce? :) SatuSuro 06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Who is generating these enormous Talk page boxes? They are very ugly, intimidating and not very useful. Adam 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems Thefourdotelipsis (talk · contribs) is the culprit. I hadn't realised he was instituting the format en masse. I've dropped him a note requesting he stop. --cj | talk 07:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


What are you refering to?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thefourdotelipsis (talkcontribs) 17:03, 31 July 2006.

This, for example.--cj | talk 07:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with that? It provides a neat spot for future archiving, always places the TOC at the start of the page, and makes the talkheaders smaller! It's from the Jimbo Wales page. How can it be troublesome to editors? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, other editors. Meaning Adam Carr. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There is quite a difference between what you are rolling out and what is present on Jimbo's talk page, noticably a huge and intimidating grey box. Simply, though, what's the point? It's absolutely un-necessary. So, please stop. Thanks, --cj | talk 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, it is neater, and smaller than what would be there if it wasn't there. You do realise that, don't you? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate you asking nicely and all, but, though you are an admin, I'm going to wait until I get a few more complaints to stop doing something that I believe in. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
How so? I'm no stranger to formatting on Wikipedia (and elsewhere), and it strikes me as user unfriendly. Aim to keep things simple, and consistent.--cj | talk 08:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
My being an admin shouldn't have any bearing on my request. I feel my experience should, however. --cj | talk 08:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Take [[1]]. Remove my formatting, and see what you have. A long list of talkheaders, then FOLLOWED by a lenghthy TOC. With my changes, however, with the TOC next to the headers, the whole deal is far more compact, resulting in the head of the talk page taking up far less space. The same rule applies to an article that may have archives. By placing them in the spot I have assigned, it is also far more compact, and easy to access. I'm open to tweaking, but not to removal ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
More compact, yes, but any more logical? I don't think so. I think if you really want to pursue this, you should perhaps make at the Village Pump. The point about consistency shouldn't be ignored: this will likely throw off many users expecting a certain format. Is it really worth it?--cj | talk 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I do really want to pursue this, so I am taking it to the Pump. Thanks for the advice, and thanks also for being curteous about the whole matter. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don Dunstan

Thanks for that intensive copy-edit. michael talk 06:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Moderate Libertarianism

Cjunkie - you locked my article (Moderate Libertarianism) and redirected it to Libertarianism a while back. I did not have the text of the latest version saved anywhere but wikipedia and now cannot get to it. Would there be someway to access it? Jhaven 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. What's up with removing philosophy from the browsebar? That's a pretty bold maneuver without concensus. Philosophy has been on there for nearly a year, and you want to remove it on an impulse without discussion. And after all the lectures you've given me about building consensus, being too bold, etc. You didn't even contact those who have an interest in the matter, like the guys over at the philosophy project. Not cool. Let's get those guys in on the discussion. Do we have to dredge up the discussions concerning why philosophy has been there all this time, and the discussion from the last removal attempt? Philosophy is as big in scope as Science if not bigger, as it encompasses all major academic fields (Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mathematics, etc.) Philosophy preceded Science, and philosophy covers most everything that science does not, and it provides the foundation of scientific inquiry itself (which is a philosophical issue). Philosophy's coverage on Wikipedia is probably the most comprehensive treatment of philosophy on the internet, and its lists and indices rival if not exceed the size and complexity of the other topics on the bar. Philosophy is also one of the highest quality collections of articles on Wikipedia. Please leave the philosophy portal on the bar. Thanks, I appreciate it. --Go for it 03:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related matter, where's the discussion concerning the removal of the reference page links from the browsebar? There's nothing about that in the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 11#Template:Browsebar discussion. You seem to have done that all on your own. The concensus was to keep the browsebar, not chop it in half. I've restored it. We should contact the people involved in the AfD discussion concerning the content of the browsebar before deviating from the consensus of that discussion again. --Go for it 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, really.--cj | talk 03:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

Australian military history taskforce

Hi, i noticed you are a member of WikiProject ADF. I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the Australian military history task force. Regards Hossen27 11:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm only vaguely a member. I noticed a movement towards a walled garden, and my membership there is due largely to my intention to monitor developments.--cj | talk 06:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA

Meetup on 24th August 2006

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note explaining my circumstance.--cj | talk 06:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mawson Plateau

Hi Cyberjunkie Re: Your edits of the Mawson Plateau article, I don't think the protected areas category should be on the Mawson Plateau page. The plateau is not a national park, conservation park, etc, it is just a small part of a pastoral lease. It doesn't have any legislated protection other than that given to all pastoral leases. Regards, Steve Reynolds CR | talk Monday, 2006-08-14 00:51 UTC

Have recategorised under Category:Geography of South Australia. Thanks, --cj | talk 06:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


CJ, User:Aussieguy = User:Pnatt. He's been creating socks all day (that's why the Australia and Macquarie Dictionary articles have been sprotected). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly blocked. He had violated 3RR in any event. Happy editing, --cj | talk 06:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou, and for blocking User:Addictedtowikipedia. He's been doing this since this morning. When he gets blocked, he's back minutes later going at the same articles until they get sprotected. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A Portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello cj!

I noticed you removed the links from the intro box on the portal which you think are unnecessary. I inserted them earlier after this discussion with NCurse. You'll find some of the reasons why I created these links there. If you'd like to argument why you think it's not a good idea, please do so on that page, maybe it is better without them, then we will certainly remove them. Your input is very much apreciated!

grtz, --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Have one on me :)

Hi cj, thanks so much for the review. It meant a lot, especially since you were the first user to welcome me :) I have taken part in one or two FAC discussions, and an FPC discussion; that aspect of Wikipedia does interest me more than deletion debates, so I like your suggestion. I feel I already have a fairly good handle on policy – and AfDs bring me down ;) Anyway, thank you very much for taking the time out to write down your thoughts. Oh, and by the way... when I first registered, we had a discussion on the Flinders talkpage, and I promised to take some photographs... didn't realise it was this bloody cold in Adelaide during July, so that plan kinda went bust! I'll see if I can do something about it in the coming months. Hope you have a productive time at the Adelaide Wikimeetup, too, if you're going. Cheers! riana_dzastatceER • 12:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

History Portal

I noticed you have continually changed "civilizations" back into "civilisations" in the history portal (in fact, about 10 times). I want to ask if you have any specific reason to do this, because Wikipedia generally prefers the word "civilizations", e.g. see article Civilization (while Civilisation redirects there). I have changed it to Civilization again. Hope you don't mind. Aranherunar 11:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your discussion with MAURY in his talk page. I could not agree with you on this one, because both civilization and civilisation are actually British English (if I am not mistaken). However, civilization had a far larger use than civilisation, perhaps proved by the fact that the number of hits for 'civilization' had 5 times the number of hits for 'civilisation'. That alone is not really important, as we cannot ask everyone which they prefer, but the article civilization itself uses "civilization", which will make it quite confusing if we use a variant, especially because the Portal can be reached by a simple click from the main page, and is certain to be read by a lot of people, some that are not familiar with Wikipedia. Lastly, it appears that most of our contributors are supporting the word "civilization". It's very likely that many more will find this article and change the word into "civilization" again. I understand Wikipedia policies that changing a form of an English word into another form is not necessary, but reverting them (lots of times) is just as unnecessary. We might as well make some random contributions rather than wasting our time on the difference between 's' and 'z', which I believe doesn't really matter because most people would have the sense to realize, or realise, that they're the same. Aranherunar 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What nonsense. Wikipedia does not prefer any form of English over another. It simply defers to the spelling employed by the original author. This is long standing convention and is explained under our Manual of Style. Thanks, --cj | talk 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly because it does not prefer any form of English over another, I would suggest you to stop reverting the same edit for about ten times. If everyone else wants to use the spelling "civilization", why bother? They do not have the necessity to change it, but neither do you have the necessity to revert it. They are not probably correct when they are changing it from "civilisation" to "civilization", but reverting it for ten times is useless, and pathetic.
I'm afraid you have totally got me wrong, and please do not judge it to be nonsense when I am pretty certain I'm alive and sensitive. They are not two different "forms" of English as you understood. In fact, they are both British English, as I mentioned above. "Civilisation" is a less popular variant of "Civilization", and is very scarcely used (again, explained above). I would not mind if you like reading in somewhat strange English (and I mean no offence to those who prefer "Civilisation"), but quite a large number of editors (in fact, all except you) have found the need to change it from "Civilisation" to "Civilization". I do not find these users, some very established contributors, to be "nonsense". When we print the works of Shakespeare now, do we print "To be or not to be, I there's the point", or "To be or not to be, that is the question"? The latter, because that's what makes sense to us, of course. I, speaking for myself, do not find a certain 'dislike' in the word "civilisation", but keep changing it to this form, in my opinion, is really not very contributive, especially when there is a direct link to the article "civilization".
In fact, when the policy says "the original author", it refers to the current version (Not the "first" version. It is impossible to "follow" the first version because most of the times the article starts with a stubs. The more complex words come later on and it is impossible to keep track of them and use their "form" of English). By changing the current version, from "civilization" to "civilisation", you are not following the policy as well. The policy simply means that there is no need to change from one to another, because it will simply become an edit war - which is what I see in the history portal now. The policy therefore does not justify your edit, and I suggest you to refrain from such edits from this moment (nor am I going to make that edit again). If another user comes to change it again, simply leave a note in his talk page about the policy AND DO NOT CHANGE IT BACK, because it's utterly meaningless edit war. Hope it's all clear to you now.Aranherunar 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply to your points specifically at a later time, although I note the issue seems to have been resolved.--cj | talk 07:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My two bob's worth. I come from Australia and have grown up with s being used virtually all the time when there is an option for a z. I must admit Wikipedia does sometimes offend my Antipodean sensitivities when z or other purported US spellings are used. I seem to remember reading an article that states both forms are viable, but s is the most preferred option in the UK and certainly here in Australia (I work for a school and even though this does not give me absolute authority, s is preferred by my peers). Ozdaren 11:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy

Get well and take it easy! SatuSuro 08:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Get well soon cj. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Featured portal candidates

Sure thing; I'll keep an eye on them. Hope you get better soon! :-) Kirill Lokshin 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Please see the following request:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your oppose to CC

I don't dispute your vote or reasoning. I just wanted to be sure you caught the American counter-cultural reference.--Kchase T 06:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the reference, just not with the emoticon.--cj | talk 06:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments on my rfA, in the end I did manage to become an admin. Please let me know of anything I do that you've got an issue with! Thanks/wangi 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use on Portal:Australia/Intro

Cyberjunkie, you reverted my removal of a fair use image from Portal:Australia/Intro [2] without commentary. I reverted you [3]. We've also done the same to each other at {{Infobox Australia}}.

The reason I removed the image is because Image:Aust Coat of Arms (large).jpg is tagged with {{symbol}} and {{Non-free fair use in}}. Both of these tags are fair use tags. Per terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted. This includes templates. I grant that there is some grey area with regards to portals and have begun a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Fair_use_criteria_and_portals.

In the particular case of Portal:Australia/Intro, I do not think a valid claim of fair use can be made. That intro article does not mention the coat of arms of Australia. As such, it is purely decorative in nature and I feel violates fair use. Thus, I reverted your removal.

In the particular case of {{Infobox Australia}}; this type of template stands contravention of our fair use policies where the use of such an infobox results in the use of a coat of arms that is used under fair use at Wikipedia. Contrast this infobox with say, {{MLB infobox}} which uses fair use images but in a way that does not place them on the template, but only on the main namespace article. For an example see Atlanta Braves and the use of {{MLB infobox}} there. I recognize that removing the coat of arms image from {{Infobox Australia}} appears to 'break' the template. But, the reality is the use of the template is what is improper in this case, not the removal of the coat of arms image. A different template should be created that does not involve violating our fair use policies, or perhaps {{Infobox Country}} could be used instead. Though, this came up in discussion at [4].

All the best, --Durin 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

the image is gonna have to go might as well be now.Geni 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Get well soon!

Hey cj, I Hope you get well soon! Jpe|ob 11:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cynna Kydd

Hi Cyberjunkie,

I've replied to your comments on Rebecca's talk page. While I disagree with what you've said, I welcome feedback on my conduct. Thanks, Andjam 10:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian Wine

Hi cj. I hope you get well soon. Anyway, Australian wine has been selected as the current Australian collaboration, so if you're up to it, any contributions would be welcome. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Thanks for your encouragement concerning my RfA. I hope you get better soon, for your own sake and so that we see you editing more! JPD (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that it has been successful (94/1/0), I'd like to say thanks again for your support. I hope to live up to the confidence you have shown in me, and the compliments in your comment. I also hope you do get better - it's sad to see that you are still ill. JPD (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of Terri Irwin

Stop reverting Terri Irwin. She is not the co-owner anymore pal, she is the owner. He was the other co owner now hes dead dead people cant own or co own anything so stop.--0000001 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, review my revert. I didn't revert your change – I reverted the two subsequent edits which added extraneous spacing. Thanks, --cj | talk 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bindi Irwin

Why did you put a Redirect on "Bindi Sue Irwin"? Currently, it is being thought out if it should be deleted or not. It should not be Redirected to her father, if it should, then why not Redirect it the the surviving parent? Either she's just a name on Wikipedia, no links no articles, or she has her own page. --Yancyfry jr 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a trivial issue. Redirects are often instituted on pages that might reasonably attract reader interest, but otherwise have no encyclopædic merit. As I said in my edit summary, any notability Bindi Sue Irwin possesses is directly contingent upon her father. Any discussion about her can be tended to there. However, it seems likely that this redirect will only be temporary, if she becomes a personality in her own right (ie, if production on her documentary series continues).--cj | talk 03:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


My change (A cut view of the "Speedhub" a 14-gear rear hub of a bicycle.) was for the sake of clarity. I'm curious why you discarded it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cakeandicecream (talkcontribs) 15:03, 5 September 2006.

I didn't find it any clearer.--cj | talk 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin Quote

Hi. I'm wondering why you felt that the quote by Steve Irwin on what he wanted to be remembered for, needed removing from the page? youcantryreachingme 01:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it as I consider epitaph's have no place in an encyclopædia. Try Wikiquote.--cj | talk 08:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

St Peter's College Rewrite

Hi, I've noted your rewrite of the SPSC page. I recently added a bit to the history section which was deleted. I don't want to have a go at you, because you clearly know your facts (eg the SPCK) and the edit's in good faith. I agree with the concept of limiting the size of articles, but I feel you have removed some important information. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and would appreciate some feedback. Cheers,--EDH 14:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Edwinski. My rewrite of St Peter's was largely performed out of a desire to see a more focused and neutral article. I'd be hesistant to myself claim sound knowledge of the subject, so I invite you to correct any inaccuracies resulting from my changes. I was unaware that I had deleted your additions to history – they were most likely overwritten when I saved (meaning I was editing an outdated revision).
I presume the information to which you refer was in the Extra-curricular activities section? I deleted most of it because I didn't feel it held any particular merit and because it appeared to be mostly advertorial. Moreover, I felt that the Exploration society and Exchange programme subsections were excessive. However, I don't object to the deleted topics being again covered so long as they are succinct and neutral. Thanks, --cj | talk 14:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ- I agree with you on the Extra Curricular section; that was added a few days ago and I was considering deleting or revising it myself. I think your edit is an improvement to the flow of the article, and certainly a better base to build on than before. --EDH 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding disambiguation

What would the appropriate action be if the default entry, is not the one most people are looking for? If the two entries draw a roughly equal amount of traffic I would say just leave it but if one is significantly more popular then I think it should eventually be promoted to the default article. --User:RedHouse18 14:28, 12 September 2006

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If there is no primary meaning for a term or phrase which has multiple uses, then we employ a generic topic disambiguation. In such a case, the generic term becomes a disambiguation page.
I presume you are asking in regards to John Bishop? In this case, I certainly don't think the American economist is more notable than the Australian musician. Nevertheless, neither do I think the Australian musician is clearly the primary topic. As a compromise, and in accordance with the above disambiguation proceedure, we could move John Bishop to John Bishop (musician) and usurp John Bishop for a disambiguation page pointing to both the aforementioned article and John Bishop (economist). Or, we could just leave as is.--cj | talk 05:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Automat Pictures

I recently posted an entry under the name Automat Pictures, which was promptly deleted by you. I made every attempt to make sure it wasn't promotional, but I guess it didn't meet your standards. any explanation??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Automatpictures (talkcontribs) 01:25, 14 September 2006.


It appears to be alright now. I'm getting increasingly sick of these blocks, but alas, its the ISP I chose. Thanks for having a look for me. :) michael talk 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Glad to see you are feeling better. I was hoping you might get a chance to go over Flora of Australia for me, it is mostly finished (except the part on fungi). Thanks.--Peta 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Great job, by the way. --cj | talk 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably FAC it once I get motivated to finish it (that's why I aksed for the once over).--Peta 10:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I have another oz realted article that is closer to FAC, that could also use a going over if you get a chance. :) --Peta 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

St Kilda

Thanks for fixing St Kilda, Victoria. I was coming back shortly to give it some attention myself but you've hit the mark and done the job well :) Hope your recent illness has subsided, and you're back into life full swing. I'd give you a barnstar, but I reject them myself, so consider this a big thanks. Cheers. -- Longhair 08:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Aw, shucks... All I did was re-arrange it. I'll give it a copy-edit later on. And thanks for the well-wishes. --cj | talk 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Shucks not! ;) Living in Mildura brings me closer to Adelaide, one of my old home towns. Do you know if any local Wikimeets are occuring, or shall we get the ball rolling? -- Longhair 08:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
One's just happened (though I missed it because I was ill). I'd be happy to agitate for another before mid-November (as I'll be moving overseas for a while thereafter). --cj | talk 08:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty busy mate (my edits don't show that, I lie sometimes or fake attendance :-), but I'd love to meet some real life Wikiheads (Wikipedians sounds so, so, so, err, wrong?, Reminds me of an antipodean, a term I dislike). How far? How long are you going for? November sounds good. -- Longhair 08:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikiheads? That's one to add to Wikipedians, Wikipedists, Wikimedians or Wikians. I think the Wikimeets can be useful (and I imagine they'll be more frequent if Wikimedia Australia ever gets on its legs). As for me, I'm moving to Europe, but'll be staying predominately as far as you can get from Adelaide – Stockholm. How long? That's up in the air, but a few months is in the ball park. When I get time, I'll float the idea by the Adelaide folk. Mildura's only 3.5 hours away (if you speed :P). --cj | talk 09:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that div fix. I'm colourblind so don't push styles too much. Stolkholm hey? Hope you're single :) I'll see what I can do to make the next Wikimeet. Adelaide is part of my backyard mate ;) -- Longhair 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I saw your edit in the Portal:Indonesia/Indonesia news and your edit summary said about fmt. Are there any Wikipedia format guideline for news? If any, could you please tell me where I can read it? It just your edit makes the news unverifiable, because the source of the news are commented (not visible). Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Indon. In general, I've implemented the format utilised by the In the news section on the Main Page. This format is already followed by Portal:Australia, Portal:New Zealand, Portal:Oceania, Portal:United States and others. The news stories featured in Portal:Indonesia/Indonesia news are meant to be verifiable through corresponding entries on Portal:Current events/Southeast Asia. Happy editing, --cj | talk 10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'll modify the Portal:Indonesia news then. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


I never like to do this, but it must be done.... Is this user a troll, or just an experienced new user in your opinion? I'm assuming all the good faith I can muster, but my patience is wearing thin I must admit. May I consult your wiki-experienced opinion on this thanks? -- Longhair 10:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I'd be reluctant to conclude "troll" at this point. I've just spent about ten minutes cleaning up some of the user's mess, and will continue to monitor his contributions. I'm operating on the assumption that he's a clueless newbie (who's happened to stike across our internal processes), but if he persists with frivolous actions in project space I'll caution him.--cj | talk 04:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey cj, thankyou for your very kind feedback and support during my recent RfA. I am thrilled that it passed with a final tally of 160/4/1. I feel completely humbled by the incredibly generous support I received from so many fantastic Australian administrators and editors. Thankyou. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, since you are skilled with templates, is there anything you could do to shorten/tighten this one, {{Politics of Australia sidebar}}, it's over a screen long now. Thanks. --Peta 06:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see it dead, but I'll attempt to minimise it when I get the time. User:Electionworld has proliferated many obtrusive templates, but this one has got out-of-hand.--cj | talk 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

Another editor has nominated two templates that you have created, {{Window}} and {{Window2}} for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated at [5]. Neil916 (Talk) 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rvt on the WP:P page?


Why did you delete my extra explanation of what a portal is? I think that it's rather helpful to give an outline of what a portal is in the extra detail that I provided. It's no where else in any of the portal explanation pages...

Hires an editor 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I didn't consider it an universal definition, which is what that section is intended to provide. Your explanation discussed things which are in fact variable amongst portals. In fact, what you wrote is probably more suitable to Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines.--cj | talk 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Day

I have seen some of your work, thanks for helping the pedia become better

  Wishing CJ/Archive 11 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Jeffklib 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  The Barnstar of National Merit
On your adminship anniversary, you are awarded this barnstar for your work in managing Australian related matter on Wikipedia, in particular, to AWNB, Portal, and various political and cultural articles related to Australia. And of course, to helping many Australians contribute more effectively to Wikipedia. User:Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's almost a year (20/10) since you welcomed me. You've helped me a lot to get established. Thankyou. User:Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the honour. I'm just realising now how time flies on the wiki...--cj | talk 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Day

I wish you a very happy adminship day anniversary. All the best in the coming months and years. --Bhadani 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Taichung City

I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Ta, cj, means a lot. It's all a bit tiring and confusing, but I'm thinking of it as a learning experience :) I love this place and the concepts, and the people, too. I'm still inclined to think of this guy as an innocent caught in the storm, even though it doesn't really look like that. riana_dzasta 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy adminship promotion day!

And I hope you have many more to come :) — Moe 19:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carr

The British Adam Carr is a real person (I have corresponded with him), not related to me, a moderately well known British artist and notable enough to have an article. Adam 11:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of the person's existence, but my own searches did not suggest notability.--cj | talk 07:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 05:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


I reverted the removal of the politics of australia template on the sa election page - each of the state and federal election pages have the template - it allows easy navigation between each of the elections. In regards to the revert of the SA template - what is it supposed to be consistent with? Some templates are one, some templates are the other, there doesn't seem to be a template consistency anywhere in particular. It also allows both templates to display at the same time. Is there a real valid reason for reverting? I think the benefits of showing both templates to the casual observer who don't realise they can click on show outweigh the negative of supposed inconsistency... Timeshift 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


I would like to become an admin. I'd appreciate your comments and/or suggestions.  The Transhumanist    (aka Go for it!) 11:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanket revert on Australia

You may want to think again before reverting back 2 days worth of edits next time. I provided a reference for the one claim that I previously labelled as {{citation needed}}, however, that was not a reason to revert as was. The claim was almost totally correct. Ansell 05:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not reason enough to retain it. All changes which I reverted were of a specificity not suitable for a summary article. If all edits like these to Australia since it was featured were kept, it would have degenerated to a point where that status is dubious. I have re-reverted.--cj | talk 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
How is a simple sentence about the fact that Australia has a high voting percentage "not appropriate?" The summary style may be the way to go, but a referenced sentence is not going to make the page degenerate that much. Could you give me a specific reason why the Voting percentage sentence should not be there? Ansell 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Because it can be discussed elsewhere. It is not pertinent to a brief overview of Australia. You state "a referenced sentence [will not] make the page degenerate that much"; on the flipside, its absence harms nothing.--cj | talk 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Compared to most countries, the statement is a very remarkable one. Also Wikipedia is actually "about knowledge" and hence your POV that absence of information is not harming anything is by definition against the goals of the project. Ansell 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Will continue discussion at Talk:Australia.--cj | talk 01:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this is about your edit which actually made zero effect visibly, and contained exactly the same text, yet, you called it an addition... Thats a bit extreme really. Also, it was not inserted by a blanket revert, it was there when i removed your blanket revert, someone thought to expand the sentence for visibility to editors only... yet you revert it as an "addition" Ansell 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You're being a bit picky today, aren't you? I was referring to this statement.--cj | talk 02:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Doh, I so meant to delete that lucky country reference when i reverted the second time. I was really meaning just the commented out editors instructions, which, in terms of editor instructions are more readable as a multi-line comment. Ansell 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. But each line break takes up more space and increases the article size. --cj | talk 02:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically at a byte level, it does not increase the size of the article by a major amount (a few spaces at the start of the line will add perhaps 20 bytes to the article). More importantly I would think is the fact that the comments are invisible from the total length of article view and hence should not be worrying. Ansell 02:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering some object to the comments at all (which were retained from a larger campaign that was wound back), the minimalist approach is perhaps better. But, does it really matter?--cj | talk 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I do think it is really a difference, in style terms, the expanded version is easier to read/understand at a glance. I was not aware of the discussion about its existence at all. I thought it was typical that major articles had commonly known/consensus instructions like that in prominent article-side comments. Ansell 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If it bothers you so, change it. I was referring to the effort of "tagging" articles as belonging to particular dialects from mid last year. It was opposed and most comments were removed; editors of Australia kept them.--cj | talk 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ABC2 Infobox

Hi Cyberjunkie, I have noticed that you have reverted the ABC2 infobox back to a channel's infobox. Shouldn't ABC TV's infobox also be the same as ABC2's style infobox? As they are both channels, and not networks. - Stickeylabel 09:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stickeylabel. I would consider ABC TV to be a television network because it broadcasts to multiple television stations in various geographic areas – like the commercial networks, except it owns each station. ABC2 is not as clear-cut. However, I figure it is a television channel in the way of cable channels. --cj | talk 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cyberjunkie, I think your getting mixed up between ABC Television, the section of the ABC that manages TV broadcasting and TV transmitters, and ABC-TV the channel. ABC Television is a network that broadcasts two channels ABCTV and ABC2. The article ABC TV, is about the channel, and not ABC Television as a whole. I have spoken to the ABC themselves, and have researched this on the internet (See List of Australian television channels). I, and many other individuals who are in the industry believe that ABCTV is a channel. Please remember that it is ABC Television who operate the transmittters, and a state-based ABCTV and a national ABC2 are broadcast on it. ABC Television on analogue only broadcasts ABCTV, however on digital ABC Television broadcasts ABCTV, ABC2, ABCHD, and various radio stations. I think it's best to keep the channel seperate from the network. For instance, the Seven Network is a Network that broadcasts one primary channel, and that is Channel 7. However the ABC broadcasts more than one channel. Please reply soon.--Stickeylabel 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Feel free to change the articles concerned :).--cj | talk 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

House lacking Oz Politics sidebar

I was wondering why Template: Politics of Australia sidebar was removed from Australian House of Representatives. Kelvinc 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because {{Politics of Australia}} was already present. --cj | talk 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have time to look at this template again...

Template:Infobox_Hospital could use some parserfunctions and cleanup, I tried to use it in Townsville General Hospital but apart from displaying empty parameters, the content was pushed to the right... Maybe it could resemble our great Template:Infobox Disease?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian Geographical Infobox Upheval

Hey, Template:Infobox Australian Place is the official name of the new universal template, discussion is at Template talk:Infobox Australian Place. Just letting you know. Also, while im here, could i reccomend to you the userbox User:TheJosh/ParserFunctions. TheJosh 09:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Australian

Hi. Over the last few weeks, the Lebanese Australian article has been the subject of a consistent revert war. At the centre of the issue is whether or not certain criminals and criminal suspects should be listed in the list of notable people. Some of us tried to discuss the issue on the talk page and reach a compromise, and I think we came close. I haven't had time to keep an eye on it recently but unfortunately the page went crazy again and has now been blocked without a tag at the top of the article saying that it is blocked and the subject of a dispute. Unfortunately, the block occurred after an edit which did not reflect the spirit of the compromise had been discussed. (Given the comment in the edit history, it might even be read as having been malicious). I am going away for several weeks and won't be able to keep an eye on it for a while, but was wondering whether at the very least, you could add a blocked/dispute tag to the article. If you're able to make sense of the discussion on the talk page and if it is within the rules, could you possibly also revert the article to a version that reflected something a little more neutral? I probably won't be able to get back to you for several weeks, but thanks in advance for whatever you're able to do. cheers. -- Adz|talk 14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

barnstar and request

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Good job! Sharkface217 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you find time, the United States-Australia relations page needs a little bit of updating, and as I have been doing most of it myself..... any help would be appreciated.

Bot for 'Infobox Australian Place'

Hey, I know you are not on the Bot Approvals group, but being an Admin, you must know some of them better than I do. Would you be able to put in a good word for the bot I am making for this project (User:TheJoshBot)? --TheJosh 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Very nice, just what I wanted. Cheers heaps :-) Timeshift

Cats and Dogs Portals

Hi, Cyberjunkie. If you can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats and Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 17:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Howell Hu

Pls action this. Page creator keeps removing the prod/afd tags from the page. I've re-marked it as {{db-attack}} just now, since it continually refers to him as Hanjian (Chinese equivalent to "race traitor"), has absolutely no sources whatsoever after 2 days, and presents large numbers of alleged quotes obviously designed solely to present the subject in a disparaging light. Thanks. cab 02:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a candidate for speedy deletion, so please do not tag it as such. The author has disputed the WP:PROD tag, so also do not return it. The only recourse now is WP:AFD, which has not yet been attempted by my revision of the article's history. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted Deletion

Hi Cyberjunkie, I made an edit to the Christian Democratic Party article, which you deleted within hours, but which I feel should have been retained. Paragraph 3 reads: 'It (the CDP) has little support among Catholics or outside NSW' to which I added '..although the party does enjoy a measure of support in Western Australia.' Perhaps this could be worded differently, but it is in fact true. I provide the comparative statistics below:

CDP Election Results

Australian Federal Election 2004

House of Representatives NSW - 1.22% WA - 2.25%

Senate NSW - 2.61% WA - 1.88%

NSW State Election 2003

Legislative Assembly - 1.73% Legislative Council - 3%

WA State Election 2005

Legislative Assembly - 2.93% Legislative Council - 2.28%

These results demonstrate that the CDP's progress in WA is comparable to that of NSW. It's true that their support in the rest of the country is significantly lower than in NSW or WA. The WA results are probably more impressive than in NSW given that a)The party's base and its leadership is centred in NSW. b) The party has an advantage in NSW given that it has elected representatives in Parliament, yet despite this it doesn't poll any better in NSW than WA. c) The only reason the CDP has managed to continually win seats in NSW but not WA, is the favourable electoral system in NSW (ie. Upper House quota in NSW - 4.55%, Upper House quota in WA ranges between 12.5% & 16.6% depending upon seat). --User:Mrodowicz 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was not deleted. I reverted your addition with a request for a citation to support the claim. I have no problem with the statement provided it is sourced. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


<sigh> I had been following a policy of simply resetting the one-year ban for each new misdemeanour, so as to hold out the possibility of him regaining access eventually. But the socks just keep coming, and they continue to vandalise and hoax. This was the last straw. Hesperian 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea what to do

I've just started my account and I'm wondering how to get my page as spiff as yours, rather than the plain background given as standard.

How do I get the user boxes that seem to go on forever?

How do the coulors of the of the background change?

Why is it so hard to write with all of these strange letters and rituals that have to be done so that the things that I write won't suddenly dissapear from cyberspace?

Hope you'll win the competition,

Some enraged farm animal 11:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't time time to assist in non-project related requests. You might be able to find the help you are looking for at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help.--cj | talk 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)