User talk:CJ/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

WP Australia sub-menu problem

Are you able to determine what's causing the sub-menu of {{WP Australia}} template to default to hide, when in fact the sub-menu is already hidden? -- Longhair\^talk 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

By sub-menu, do you mean the to-do list? If so, I'm not sure what problem you're referring to. The only thing I know to effect the default of show/hide is display: none or display: yes.--cj | talk 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the todo item list. On my monitor, the default "button" is hide, however as the todo list is already hidden, the logical default option is show. Something of late has changed, and broken this item. -- Longhair\^talk 03:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I've noticed this fault in several other places. I don't know what causes it or how to specifically correct it, but I believe it's now fixed on the banner. I looked around and saw that WP:MILHIST's banner was still working, and copied their formatting over to ours.--cj | talk 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon you mentioning it, I did notice it wasn't just the Australian banner affected. Regardless of that, you've managed to fix the problem :) Many thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin page edit

Why did you undo my edit to Steve Irwin's page? I've seen findagrave.com links on other pages. One can follow the link and pay respects to the deceased. So what's wrong with that? Phoenix Flower 16:32, 30 December 2006 (ACDT)

Hi Phoenix. Firstly, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking the signature button in the tool bar above the edit box. This leaves your user name and a timestamp.

With regards to the findagrave links you added to Steve Irwin and several other articles: I removed these as inconsistent with our external links guideline. Please avoid adding links to a commercial website to multiple articles: such behaviour may be viewed as spamming. Thanks,--cj | talk 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat Trees

Have seen your Adelaide and Victoria ones - I'm only on for a short time now - maybe not back till tommorrow (Happy New Year btw)- might have question re Maritime - but from quick look - very impressed - even WOW! SatuSuro 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Same as what?

At intermodal passenger transport, you rewrote the initial sentence so that it says this:

Intermodal passenger transport applies the same concept to moving people.

The SAME as WHAT?? No context is given. This was the VERY FIRST sentence, so there's nothing mentioned earlier that this could be the same as. (I've rewritten it.) Michael Hardy 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why capitalisation is necessary. I didn't rewrite anything (review my edit). I simply removed the preceding sentence, which explained a separate concept. I did, however, make the mistake of overlooking its connection to the sentence you quote. Thank you for clarifying that sentence. Regards, --cj | talk 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of Portal:Disasters

Hi Cyberjunkie, I think the promotion of Portal:Disasters have been made earlier by seeing the ongoing discussion. I had left a point for having Selected anniversary section to the portal. Maintainer and nominator of the portal, Nishkid64, also did agree with that point. The portal does not have anniversary section till now, so I was little surprised. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to continue that discussion on the portal's talk page. However, I consider all actionable objections adequately addressed and consensus reached. Thanks, --cj | talk 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Architecture

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates#Portal:Architecture I've responded on the page. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Trinity Church, Adelaide

Holy Trinity Church, Adelaide is subject to a concerted attack, the deletion of items of notability is problematic. The new criticism may be OK but I have reverted 3 times. Paul foord 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think criticism section was a good addition; in addition to neutrality concerns, it appeared to be original research. I have removed it until sources are provided. Thanks for the heads up, --cj | talk 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

other places of worship than churches is nonsequitur?

That seems rather unfair. I'm refering to taking out " though there are many Islamic, Bahá'í, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish places of worship.[1]" from Adelaide#Culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smkolins (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Not really. Noting that Adelaide is known as a City of Churches does not discount the fact that there are many other places of worship. That sort of of novel observation was inappropriate, IMHO. Thanks, --cj | talk 15:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

O I was really hoping you weren't going to say that. Do you think members of Christian communities in largely Muslim countries would welcome being included by being as part of the Mosque list? In other areas Australia has a well earned respectful multi-faith approach (I'm thinking of Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau. I think we need more such respect, not less. Cases of interfaith disrespect seem to be growing everyday. --Smkolins 01:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you're getting at? --cj | talk 01:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The only place in the article religion is mentioned is here in the "City of Churches" reference and below where there is see also list of christian churches, which btw does not list any other religion (and I've already mentioned issues listing other religions there.) So there is no reference to any other religion or its cultural presence in the community in the article. Including it somehow is only natural and appropriate. Rather than build a whole other article and link to it I added a phrase and reference. We can differ on style - I'm not particularly attached to how its done as long as it is respectful - but to deny it, particularly as a nonsequitur is unfair.--Smkolins 13:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It says "Early Adelaide was shaped by religious freedom and a commitment to political progressivism and civil liberties" and now the single brief mention of any other religion than implied by "church" is "non-sequitur". Hmmm--Smkolins 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You mistake my position. I do not oppose in the slightest mentioning other religions; indeed, such information is legitimate. My point was that your addition did not correlate to the sentence it was appended to, except in a way that seemed to being making a point. In other words, "though there are many Islamic, Bahá'í, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish places of worship" does not follow from "Adelaide is sometimes referred to as the 'City of Churches'", where the intent is simply to note a traditional soubriquet. Thanks,--cj | talk 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. To me it was just a natural form of the language and was not meant to be offensive but ok. Mea culpa. Then why not amend the contribution or create a suitable alternative instead of just deleting it? Be bold--Smkolins 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Vancouver

The Portal:Vancouver is currently a featured portal candidate. I have let the situation escalate to where I am taking it too personally. I do not want to ruin the portal's chances solely because of my responses on the review. I feel that I make a response in justifying why I think the portal should keep a section being objected about, all of which are on other featured portals, and I get a worse response. It keep going to the point where the objections are only objections for the sake of them, and I don't know what to do. I have no where else to turn, and I hope you may be able to help me. I was thinking about a way to resolve this problem is to put the portal up for a new review. Perhaps if the others agree, this new review will be let to continue with out the people involved in the current review. This way a fair and removed reviewed may occur. I will even consent to not taking part in the new review. Mkdw^talk 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that the candidacy was upsetting for you. In any case, this is now a moot point. Thanks,--cj | talk 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

South Australian timeline

Thanks for the info regarding editing things. I am a former South Australia, originally from Port Pirie, and have actually added some more dates to the timeline from some other wiki entries. Lynx Raven Raide 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I am seriously concerned at how the promoter of Portal:Vancouver and his associates have been gaming the system, such as here and here as the most obvious examples. I consider the portal nomination and promotion process to have been violated by these and related actions. Rfrisbie^talk 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to let the promotion stand. See my comment to Selmo here. I don't think the above diffs prove gaming, but I must say that I find canvassing such as this disappointing (even when it amounts to little, as here).--cj | talk 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Promotion

Okay, I've gotta keep Wikiquette in mind. I was going to finish the job, though the session on the public computer I was on expired. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bris notice

Haha, I see you beat me to it (I did all the Melbourne ones). I'll have to find out about AWB someday. Orderinchaos78 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's quite a ride! I've also phased out {{WPAL}}, {{AusSportsNotice}} and {{WPANotice}}. {{WP Geelong notice}}, {{WP Adelaide notice}} have also been deprecated. There's still {{afl-project}} and {{NBL-project}} to go. More tricky are {{WPGoldCoast}}, {{WP Australian crime}}, {{WPFootballinAus}}, {{Australian Baseball-WikiProject}} and {{WP Banksia}}, which may require discussion before deprecation. Thanks, --cj | talk 12:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool - yeah most of those need to go. The banksia one, though, is one of those strange cases where it's a project which falls broadly within WP Australia but has its own separate boundaries (and rating system). Thankfully Perth never created a deprecatable template (although we did have the infamous Template:Perth Suburb in mainspace which spawned off several others... all of which are now gone thanks to WP:IAP :)) Orderinchaos78 12:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy to let Banksia stand, though I do think we could satisfy any objections to its removal with changes to {{WP Australia}} (perhaps in the collaborative fashion of WP:IAP).--cj | talk 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Aa the Banksia (Banksia dentata} is also found outside of Australia I does need to be a seperate box Gnangarra 13:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ARCH

I've updated the news section now to deal with current events. Would you have another look? Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Solicitation

Please stop canvassing support for Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Turkey/archive1 immediately. This portal has already been failed, and in light of this campaigning, will not be allowed to resubmit until such a time has passed that an unbiased review can occur. Thanks,--cj | talk 12:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But the voting is not finish i thing. Beceuse the first vote in 27 december. Ok some user say oppose bu some user didn't give vote. So it can be I thing.--Absar 12:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to make an effort to be more coherent here – I can't make much sense of what you said. The candidate was closed early yes, because it was filed incorrectly and appeared to have little chance of success in that state. Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates, as everything on Wikipedia, is not a ballot. Thanks,--cj | talk 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok the voting is finsh now. But how can we start new voting ?--Absar 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany portal without new article section

Hi,

I am thinking about removing the new article section of the Germany portal, as I am getting too lazy to maintain it and it is not very pretty anyway. Can you take a look at Portal:Germany/Test and comment at Portal talk:Germany? Thanks, Kusma (討論) 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing all those eidits by MissoulaMT. Much appreciated. Cheers Geologyguy 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Subproject statistics

Thanks for that. Certainly looks interesting. I'll review what they've done and see if we can adapt their progress for our needs. Enjoy your PC hygiene break. I'm taking off for a few days soon myself ;) -- Longhair\^talk 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Horse-racing links

Why should links to Australian horse records be edited out?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The judge and jury (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 January 2007.

Hi. Firstly, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking the signature button in the tool bar above the edit box. This leaves your user name and a timestamp.

I reverted your addition of external links because they were incorrectly formatted and it is usually inappropriate to link a single site more than once. Thanks,--cj | talk 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Featured portal candidates

Okay, will try; hopefully things won't get too out of hand. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

History merge

Here there cj, hope you're enjoying Europe. I was enquiring as to whether you have the ability to merge histories; I need the history of my draft article on Playford merged with the actual one. Any help would be appreciated. michael ^talk 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Secession

Snap! Edit conflict when I tried to make the exact same change. Regards, Fred 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessments

I've look over what the military history guys are doing, and like what I see, but I haven't yet looked into how they're doing it (whether the bulk of the work is automated or not). WP India is also another project which has a similar task up and running. I've got a head full of ideas, but have also been a little busier here than normal around home with all the recent rain we've had (finally!).

I'm about to leave town for a few days shortly but when I get back I'll keep all other projects free and delve into it head first to see what we can come up with. Getting an idea off the ground would be a good thing before too much replication occurs. If you want to help out when things begin to move, let me know and I'll make a note to work with you to make it happen. Your templating skills are always handy to have on hand. -- Longhair\^talk 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I heard about the downpours in SA and Victoria. I've had my own problems with snow (finally! also – I was beginning to think I'd be home before it finally fell in any significant quantity). I am very interested in helping out, and should be available to do so until at least mid-February, so drop me a note when you're ready. I'll be focusing on tagging/assessments in the mean time, as soon as I've finished catching up on the last few weeks.--cj | talk 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Former PMs on high rating

You'd better fix up John McEwen, Ben Chifley, Frank Forde, Arthur Fadden, Earle Page, Joseph Lyons, James Scullin, Stanley Bruce, Joseph Cook, Andrew Fisher, George Reid, Chris Watson, and indeed Edmund Barton then :P Timeshift 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ack! I must have mis-remembered a discussion on the assessment pages long ago about what to do with politicians then – I was sure we were putting PMs in High. I've reverted back to your amendment, though I don't think rating as High is incorrect. Thanks, --cj | talk 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mount Lofty Photo

Thanks for the compliment. I almost froze trying to take that photo! Maggas 23:40, 6 Feb 2007 (ACDST)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Beachouse logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beachouse logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal Australia problem

Hi. Portal:Australia looks a bit sad at the moment - both the featured picture and article are red links. I'm not sure how to fix them, or where the list is to get the next one. Sorry. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I neglected this. There's a stomach bug going around Stockholm, and I had the misfortune of catching it, so I was late to updating. Thanks,--cj | talk 13:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems - is there a "how to..." page somewhere I should have read? If not, perhaps that's a suggestion, probably linked from Portal talk:Australia. Thanks and I hope you feel better now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple arrangement actually and essentially the same as on the Main Page. All new selections are added to the next empty link at either Portal:Australia/Featured article/2007 or Portal:Australia/Featured picture/2007.--cj | talk 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

63 x 927 = 58401

Hi Cyberjunkie,

I would like to call your attention to the number-crazed user 63x927is58401. Besides for the fact that his user page looks a lot like spam, 63x927is58401's contributions reveal that all he does is add the day of the week for important dates in history (as well as other irrelevant, number-based edits).--MosheA 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried communicating with the user himself? Often, simply advising inexperienced users that their contributions aren't helping the encyclopædia (and I'd agree that many of this user's edits are trivial) is enough to get them to either stop or contribute more constructively. In addition to this, however, I'd note that the user isn't doing anything strictly disruptive – that is, they're not violating any policies. Thanks,--cj | talk 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Party Leader tables on NSW election page

Hi , I was hoping you might be able to offer your opinion for the MPL issue on this page or this page. Cheers. Timeshift 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I really wish you could assist me with this issue. I think Australian politics articles have come a long way recently and the MPL table is a big feature of a lot of the electoral pages, especially federal and in most state elections that have any substantial content. He wants to replace the MPL table alltogether with a simple lower house table which is already covered lower down. I've addressed aesthetic concerns by providing an alternative which is very light on colour. The images have a rationale which when they don't normally get taken down pretty quickly. As well as historical federal and some state elections, we have images for QLD, NSW, VIC, TAS, and SA. WA and the ACT don't have their own election pages, and NT isn't really covered by anyone, has some information but out of date. I don't understand why he has the right to remove them and have his way when I have engaged in lengthy discussion and providing alternatives and trying to address concerns raised. Nobody has agreed with him that they should be removed, simply that the aesthetics of the original design could be improved (which may I add the SA 2006 election passed FA with the MPL table) which I gave an alternative for. I feel I am trying to be reasonable by such actions, but he insists on plonking redundant information there rather than providing information on disputedly the two most important things in the election - the leaders. Your assistance would be highly appreciated. Timeshift 16:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on this dispute here.--cj | talk 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So he gets to revert the MPL boxes that are used as the standard on Australian elections in wikipedia? I would also like to point out that the 2006 SA election passed FA status after rigorous scrutiny with the MPL box, so I can hardly see how it warrants removal. Timeshift 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. At the initiation of the dispute, both Joestella and yourself should have immediately ceased editing Australian election articles. It appears you both now have, if after an edit war. I would also avoid pressing the point of SA election FAC too much, as FAC is not in fact a rigorous process and the overlooking of an issue there does not prohibit later discussion. Thanks, --cj | talk 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, what do you think of the compromise I have placed on to the NSW election page now? I think that is fair, how about you? Timeshift 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, I think editing the article at all was ill-advised and I must warn you to stop, else I may have to protect the article. Immediatism is not constructive in this instance, so please try to come to a resolution through discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics, which is where I will comment (as an editor) on the merits of your compromise proposal. Thanks,--cj | talk 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't mean it applies for all election pages does it? The SA election was passed as is as FA so I hope it can stay that way. Timeshift 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fastlane (album)

I noticed you first speedily deleted, then restored this article. What made you change your mind? The article on the artist, Young Hot Rod, was deleted and deletion was confirmed at deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember the instance, but I can't recall why I restored. From a brief look, the only reason I can think of is that I may have decided it was not a reposting. Hope this helps,--cj | talk 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. An editor is trying to rewrite the Young Hot Rod article. So depending on how that will turn out, ok if I speedy delete again? Seems like the issues of the AfD weren't addressed and the album is still only "rumored" to come out. ~ trialsanderrors 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No issues :)--cj | talk 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fulfillment House deleted

Why did you delete the article on "Fulfillment House" three times already? The google cache version does not appear to be any kind of spam, and I was actually looking for the information. --Earthman 09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Each revision (the final being a reposting of the second) existed to promote American Shipping Company. Thanks,--cj | talk 10:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I (more or less) put the google cache version from Jan 27th back, it doesn't mention American Shipping Company in any way. You can check it here. --Earthman 14:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Airlines of Tas

Truly a stub - but I am hoping to find the history on the earlier form (i used to commute between hobart and queenstown with them in the mid to late 70's ) eventually - :)...SatuSuro 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just running through the A's in Category:Unassessed Australia articles. I see you Sandgropers had a turn at the local institution – I hope y'all managed some encyclopædic discussion in amongst the rounds ;-).--cj | talk 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It was excellent - I had already met up with Moondyne and Gnangarra previously - but with the addition of the others - it was really great - some great no holds unbarred tales from hesperian about the old days :) SatuSuro 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)