User talk:CJ/Archive 3

Add topic
Active discussions


First, thanks for all the copyediting you've been going on the article. I've just addressed the first peer review comments on the article, making it... longer, I'm actually getting worried about the article getting too bloated since after all it is just an overview. Do you see any areas that could use a good prune without reducing the useful content? I'm thinking that a lot of the discovery info could get cut, the history section really is a bit too focussed on the deep dark past. --nixie 02:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

When I first joined Wikipedia, articles becoming too long was one of my primary concerns. Now, I don't tend to worry about length so much. Relevancy is more of a consideration. So although I don't see the article as being too long (I was actually going to ask whether the Kiwi migration info could be re-added) I suppose there are areas where trimming is possible - so long as information removed finds home elsewhere. The history section, as you say, is a perfect place to cut down. What about (extremely half-hearted proposal) removing the second paragraph and (more enthusiastically) trimming and merging the third and forth paragraphs so they appear as follows:
Portuguese explorer Cristóvão de Mendonça is believed to have first discovered the land in 1522, but it was only in the 17th century that the island continent became the subject of European exploration, with several expeditions sighting Terra Australis. The first English explorers were William Dampier on the west coast of the continent in 1688, and Lieutenant James Cook who, in 1770, claimed the eastern two-thirds of the continent for Britain, despite orders from King George III to first conclude a treaty with the indigenous population. His report to London that Australia was unowned land (see Terra nullius) provided impetus for the establishment of a penal colony there following the loss of the American colonies.
Once again, I must thank you for the tremendous effort you have made to the article. You have single handedly advanced it to a stage that would otherwise not have been reached for many years. I'm confident that feature status is not far off.--Cyberjunkie 17:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave it as is, address anything else that comes up in peer review or when I move it to FAC, I'd mostly just like to keep the article under 50kb, thats why I was looking at shortening something. The section on Kiwis moving to Australia was comparatively long and not really relevant since the other migration plans weren't also discussed in the article. The Australian immigration article is quite good and it makes a nice addition there, mabye we should add a more overt link to the immigration article to the Australia article. --nixie 03:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

About your comment on Australias foreign aid, I'm not sure how it came to be decribed as modest, the section now reads,

maintains an international aid program, under which some 60 countries receive assistance. The 2005–06 budget provides $2.5 billion for development assistance[1], as a precentage of GDP this contribution is below that suggested as a UN Millennium Development Goal.

I'm pretty satisfied with the artile as it stands, I certainly don't want to cut anything else or add anything in particular and will probably move it to FAC this weekend since it is comparable to the other featured countries. Once again thanks for the copyedits--nixie 07:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I saw your reword. Thanks for that. I think it has a good chance of achieving Feature Status. The Politics section is the only one I would still like to do anything to. If I have enough time, I might attempt to change it a bit - it just strikes me as less comprehensive than that of other countries. Thanks again for your efforts.--Cyberjunkie 07:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Also the only things we might get asked to add are food and transport, transport I think we can dismiss since like any developed country it has a developed transport infrastructure, nothing sepcial there. Food could go into culture but I really don't know what to say beyond the cusine of Austraila is diverse...--nixie 07:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that a transport section would be un-necessary. As for cuisine, I'll have a look around. I agree that the Culture section would be the place for it to. Actually, I know Clarkk has been involved with the Cuisine of Australia article, so maybe he might have some ideas.--Cyberjunkie 07:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I saw Clarkk's response. Looking back over the history of Cusine of Australia is see that the edits were really only copy-editing and formatting - oops! I just remember seeing his name on a few cuisine pages. I'll try to formalate a short paragraph detailing Australia's cuisine moving from Anglo-Saxon to Modern Australian (fusion cuisine) and a few unique foodstuffs (vegemite, tim-tams, Anzac Biscuits, Pavlova (sorry NZ!)), if time permits. That's what I think such a paragraph could include anyway.--Cyberjunkie 08:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm waiting for a picture from Tannin and once I have that I'll put the article up as a FAC, are you still thinking about working on the politics section?--nixie 03:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have the picture from Tannin, go ahead and put it up for FAC. The section, as it is, is fine - I would still like to work on the politics section in the future, but I haven't enough time to make substantial edits at the moment (for the next month, at least). --Cyberjunkie 06:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

received a warning about wikispam

how should i contact wiki users about the project then?

Try using Wikipedia community pages such as the Community Portal or the Village Pump. You might even like to contact Wikipedia mailing lists or even the Wikipedia Signpost. Also, when posting comments, sign with four tildes (~~~~).--Cyberjunkie 09:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Rundle Mall images (threaded)

Why are these images {{fairuse}}? Did you not take them, or is that to do with copyright issues over the sculptures? Alphax τεχ 09:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.

My proposed policy position is this:

  • That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.
  • That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
  • Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


I have screenshots (from news coverage) of the sentencing, that I will upload and provide for use if anyone thinks them necessary.--Cyberjunkie 08:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Sadly, the "used with permission" pictures we have aren't under Wikipedia's guidelines anymore. -- user:zanimum

HTML comments

Please do not use HTML comments for... anything at all. See Talk:Schapelle Corby#HTML_comments. I'll argue it there if you're not willing to take my word for it. I'm referring to edits such as this: [2] -- Tim Starling 19:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware that using comments was frowned upon, and the occassion to which you refer is only the second time I have ever used them. Why is it that they are disapproved of? I do usually excise text to the associated talk page - but after seeing others use the HTML technique, I assumed it was acceptable.--Cyberjunkie 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, you can tell the others not to do it as well. Some pages have an HTML comment at the top warning editors not to edit them, and pages with complicated or counter-intuitive markup may have comments explaining them, I'm OK with both of those uses. But leaving deleted text in comments does two things: it clutters up the article, and it makes the excised text difficult to read and comment on. You shouldn't have to click the "edit" link in order to read things. Anyway, if you say you've only done it twice, then I've probably missed my target: I found 7 comments in the Corby article and removed them, then yours was added. -- Tim Starling 06:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Nightlark

Hi Cyberjunkie —

Unfortunately, the wording of the template I used on Nightlark's talk page, {{test4}}, makes it sound like I have admin powers, which I don't. You have better options, though, than going to an admin. You should first talk to Nightlark to make sure that the edit wasn't some kind of mistake, unless you already have a history with the user. If you do have a history, or s/he continues, you could consider writing up a Request for comment. If Nightlark is an obvious vandal, you could also list him/her at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.

You really must talk to Nightlark first, though, as the above suggestions are only applicable to users who are obviously distrupting wikipedia. "Hi" isn't a particularly egregious piece of vandalism, so it's perfectly possibly that Nightlark meant that to go on your talk page. If further vandalisms of your user pages happen, though, I'll be happy to help you in sorting this out.

Asbestos | Talk 10:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it wasn't a malicious edit, but it was nonsense nevertheless. I have no history with Nightlark, nor have I edited any of the articles s/he has. I suspect Nightlark came across my sub-page at Recent changes. Discussion doesn’t appear to be an option either, given s/he has just blanked their talk page and my comments posted on it. However, this isn't an issue I am going to pursue with any great fervour.
Thank you for responding, and for providing the above options. For now, I may just monitor Nightlark.--Cyberjunkie 10:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre

Hi! This is a note to let you know that I have just established WikiProject Theatre. Please come and join us in building up Wiipedia’s articles relating to theatre! Ganymead 17:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

I'd like your comments on this hamfisted attempt to send me a rude and anonymous message. As can be plainly seen, you were editing Wikipedians/Australia and New Zealandwhen you decided to log out and send me a piece of ASCII art. Unable to get the line breaks right, you then sent a new version. You then forgot that you had logged out and went back to editing the same article! Pete 06:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, check the dates[3]. I created the page in the first week of my registration, and have not edited it since. It is not even on my watchlist. Please note, I will be archiving my talk page over the weekend - understand this is not an attempt to "bury" your comment.--Cyberjunkie 07:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. I'll accept that you weren't editing the page at the time you logged out and sent me an "anonymous" comment. But you did so immediately afterwards. You may also wish to check other edits made using that same IP range, because I have. This one, for example. Pete 18:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your eagerness to pin this on me suggests that you have sustained some hurt from one of the two comments I’ve made about you (one of which was indirect). If this is so, than I apologise. Nevertheless, your actions are unimpressive and distasteful, and I wish no further interaction with you. --  Cyberjunkie TALK 8 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

New User

I certainly can help you out with the Adelaide page. I have some good pictures and good information. Also I like to add more info on Adelaide O-Bhan page. Andreasu

The salt of the earth

No offense, but please be more careful with the Nonsense tag. That article was in no way patent nonsense and should not have been marked as such. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd debate its worthiness, but yes, perhaps a nonsense tag was inappropriate. I did write a comment, but there was edit conflict with the move. I was going to suggest moving it to Salt of the Earth (as opposed to Salt of the earth).--Cyberjunkie 03:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Why did you try to speedy this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because it seemed a hoax and, if factual, was hardly notable. --Cyberjunkie 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your greetings

Thank you for the greeting and the various links--Marc pasquin 17:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Adelaide

Wikipedia will thankyou for the amount of effort you're putting into the Aussie articles! One tiny negative comment tho - this justified text is HARDER to read. Cheers Lisa 07:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey Lisa. To which justified text do you refer? Do you mean on my user-pages? I have formatted my user-pages to always appear in justified text because, in my opinion, that looks nicer. I've always disliked the disorder of normal, left-aligned text. But I didn't know that justified text is harder for some to read - books are written like that, aren't they? I might look at changing that format. About forgetting to log in, (if I am understanding you correctly) you can, when logging in, tell Wikipedia to "remember me". So long as your "Cookies" are enabled, each time you visit the Wikipedia website, you will be automatically logged in. At least that's what I do. It is also possible to have those edits you made whilst not logged in reattributed to your user name. But I understand that takes a while, and depends upon a Developers' help - plus, I think the service is presently disabled. Nice to know you're looking to participate in WP Adelaide.--Cyberjunkie 08:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
yes I meant on your user page - personal preference I guess... I think it's extra difficult when reading from a screen since the little serifs aren't as effective... Lisa 08:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian politics

Thanks for getting that going - I've already got it on my watchlist. I'm a tad busy at the moment - one more exam (gah), but after that's done, I'll try and help in getting it going. Ambi 00:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you had any more thoughts about this? I tried to finish off the progress boxes the other day, and posted a couple of comments on the talk page. I'd like to get some sort of to-do list going in the next couple of days - can you think of any areas outside of MPs where there's a lot of articles needing help?
I'd also like to get some sort of running COTW-ish thing going. What I was thinking could work is having a section on the project page where each person could adopt an article each week, hopefully get some help on it as well, and then move onto another one the next week. Any thoughts? Ambi 11:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lost interest? Ambi 05:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry! I haven't lost interest, just my memory… I read your comments, intended to respond, but was then sidetracked. I've been half-revising for exams, and half-monitoring/editing Wikipedia - although I really shouldn't be. But back to the topic at hand, your suggestions (here and at the Project page) are sensible. It does seem ridiculous to have an article counter when the number of associated articles is ever-growing. I have doubts that a COTW would be maintained (look at the Australian one!), but the article adoption programme seems reasonable. I noticed that was a scheme used at the WikiProject Melbourne. Has that been successful? Also, would priority be given to certain articles, or would the adopter just choose? A COTW would probably be more successful (in drastically expanding articles), but it would require numerous dedicated editors (like you).
Additionally, we need to set the scope of the project and identify areas of particular need. This is something you’re going to know a lot more about than me – I’ve somewhat neglected my initial wish to edit Australian politics articles. I’ve just created an empty Open Tasks template for the Project. I’ll transfer my (related) comments to the Project talk-page, for further discussion there. After further modification of the Project page, I’ll “launch” it (place it on WikiProjects, the Wikiportal and AWNB).
Sorry again! --  Cyberjunkie TALK 05:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for that big welcome to WikiProject Adelaide! I appreciate everything. I'll join those Australian wiki things ASAP. I love your page! Seeya, Taylor 10:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prisons in Adelaide

I saw you drop the baton and was happy to pick it up :). The category is a good idea. I was puzzling myself how to get those messy undesirable places out of the otherwise innocent Adelaide category. Thanks. -- Longhair | Talk 03:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Sorry if you deemed my greetings before as vandalism, I apparently put them on the wrong page. I didn't mean to bother you, so please accept my apologies. Nightlark | Talk 01:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adminship JoJan

Thanks for your support and the kind words. JoJan 14:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Er - might have been late reverting it - The page was vandalised by being a gay park etc. this is in my book 'gayification vandalism' - should I use 'vandalised' instead: no sensibilities are involved. would also help block persistent vandals of this type User talk:Wiki alf

The preceding comment was posted by Wiki alf at 22:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I can accept that you saved your revert after I had edited (still, there should have been an "edit conflict", given two people had edited in the in-between). With regards to "gayification", I personally find it offensive, even if its use is benign. Perhaps you should stick with just "vandalism". By the way, please don't forget to sign comments you make with four tildes (that is, ~~~~). Thanks, --  Cyberjunkie TALK 13:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Living and working in Oxford-it's a neutral phrase in these parts, will stick to vandalised (although I'm not a proponent of binning words when they've become corrupted, prefer to 'benign re-instate' them). Thanks for the advice Alf 13:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (noob)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. It's nice to be working with editors from so many countries. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks for the advice on my talk page. I'm probably not going to be the most active of contributors, but it's nice to be welcomed! Cheers, Darobsta 1 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Copyedit Australian Peer review request

When you get back from your break could you take a look at Tasmanian Devil, I'm working it up for featured status, and you did such a good job on Australia. The section I'm calling cultural impact seems a bit weak, but I can't think of anything else to add. Thanks in advance. --nixie 1 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

Accidental deletion

Cyberjunkie, very kind of you to stop by. The probability of the deletion being accidental was very high, and I wasn't offended or anything. I merely couldn't be sure that it wasn't purposeful because of the way that one paragraph was cleanly deleted; the only reason I bothered writing an edit summary was that if it was puposeful, perhaps you might then have told me why :). Re the possibility of a bug, you're probably right. I've recently noticed a slew of very odd events, including one in which a diff appeared in "my contributions" over a post made by an editor I don't know about a subject I have no familiarity with in a section I had never visited (it was the huge TfD page). Come to think of it, it's similar to this occurence. I'm beginning to think Wikipedia is less "stable" than most people believe.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 07:14 (UTC)