User talk:CJ/Archive 8

Add topic
Active discussions

Copernican federalism

References have been included in Copernican federalism. Could the "no references" tag be removed? --Flamboyant 03:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Great work by the way. If you have time, you might like to format your references per our citation guidelines. This isn't required, though. Thanks, --cj | talk 07:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Wikipediology Elections

Voting for the positon of Regent Ñ will begin on February 5th at the voting page. All candidates should list themselves there before then. Please take the time to vote, and become more active in the Wikipediology Institute. Thanks - Pureblade | Θ 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you blocked an IP indefinitely (User: I thought it wasn't allowed to block IPs indefinitely unless they are open proxies. Doesn't it say that on the block page? Latinus 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Latinus. While blocking IPs is generally limited to temporary periods, sock puppets of banned users are typically blocked indefinitely. In this case, User: was a sock puppet of banned User:Internodeuser (as stated in my block summary). Remember, blocks are reversible, so if any problems ever arise they can be swiftly dealt with. Happy editing, --cj | talk 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Most Internode users in SA get routed though the same IP as internode user. This IP shouldn't be blocked for any great length of time.--nixie 13:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Natalinasmpf has set the block to two months, anyways.--cj | talk 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

See MediaWiki talk:Anonnotice#Replaced wording --mav 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's bad faith to assume bad faith. I didn't ascribe to you any intent – I objected to what wording suggested. And again, lack of funds doesn't mean we'd – the community – consent to advertisements. --cj | talk 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Styles clarification

Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian as a native language

I have added the template user_en-au and use it on my user page. I though you might be interested since you have so much to do with Aussies on Wikipedia.

Bobby1011 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've modified it somewhat. Happy editing, --cj | talk 10:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Standardization of Featured content interface

(Cross posted to User talk:Solipsist, User talk:Jguk, and User talk:Cyberjunkie)

Hi Solipsist, Jguk, and Cyberjunkie. You are the go-to guys for the featured pictures, lists, and portals, respectively, so I'm crossposting this to each of your talk pages. I recently finished revamping the interface for the featured articles - see wikipedia:featured articles. All featured article-related pages now have a standard interface pane at the top-right (and most have the left pane as well), linking to all the other featured content, and all the relavant related pages directly underneath. Up until now, the featured content has (1) not been well integrated, and (2) has had a very balkanized interface. This changes that. So, starting very soon, I want to start converting all the other featured content pages to use this interface as well. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Standardization_of_Featured_content_interface Raul654 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Congrats on getting the Aussie portal to featured portal standard.

What do you think it would take for the NZ portal to similarly succeed? I think it would need:

  • Provide a link to the Selected picture archive from the selected picture pane - easily done.
  • Lighten the frame colour so the edit links are more easily visible, or move the edit links into the frame as in the Australian portal - easily done
  • Pay more attention to the ITN section; try to update it more frequently.
  • Get more contributors - at present it's largely me with a bit of help from User:Brian New Zealand. User:Grutness helped in the early days, but his recent contributions have only been to restock the DYK facts. You have worked on the overall layout, but haven't had much to do with the content.

Thanks for setting up the NZ portal in the first place, and for your help to date.-gadfium 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've been very succesful with the NZ Portal - it'd probably be successful at WP:FPCAN straight away. Unfortunately, the Aussie Portal hasn't had much interest from anyone other than myself (although ITN is sometimes updated by others (which reminds me - thanks for updating that when I was on WikiBreak), and Clarkk helped some before he left). Now that you've implemented the queue system, you're pretty much set. ITN and DYK will be the primary concerns, but so long as they do not fall behind more than 2-3 months (per criteria), all should be fine. I'd happily help maintain if others neglect to (but I doubt I'd need to, given P:NZ is more frequently updated than P:AU). As for the edit link, I prefer them to be discrete (and am fine with how they presently appear). But I wouldn't have a problem with you changing the header colour, or repostioning the edit link (like on P:AU). The link to the picture archive is probably necessary too.
Other than that, you might consider arranging a topic list like that on P:AU or P:L. I'll set up an Associated Wikimedia box as well. Good luck.--cj | talk 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I was considering setting up a Portal:Oceania as a link between P:AU and P:NZ and Portal:Geography. Would you be interested? --cj | talk 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the topic list adds anything much to the existing Categories section.
I'd certainly add occasional ITN items to Portal:Oceania, but I wouldn't want to take primary responsibility for it. I'd like for the Current events in Australia and New Zealand to include more Pacific Island news, although renaming it Current events in Oceania would probably lose some Aussies and Kiwis who don't identify with that term.-gadfium 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
My statement above is no longer accurate.-gadfium 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Time

Do you think It's Time is still eligible to be ACOTF, or is it too big to qualify now? --Scott Davis Talk 10:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking this myself. It is larger than what would usually be eligible for ACOTF, but it would be a shame to not go ahead after so many indicated they'd be willing to co-operate. Perhaps this question should be posed to AWNB?--cj | talk 10:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Order of Australia is running second, and is also a fair size. Perhaps we have to aim for a real Featured Article out of the collaboration this time! --Scott Davis Talk 10:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, sorry about that. I created the It's Time article. I didn't realize that I should have waited until the vote was over to start working on it. I don't really see why those who expressed interest would not contribute just because it's not on the ACOTF. Bobby1011 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Panathinaikos article

Sorry for bothering you but I saw your previous intervention about Panathinaikos article. I know this whole story might sound silly but if we let fanatics dictate athletic articles in wikipedia, we only encourage fanatism that could spread to other articles as well. There is a specific user named user:green that is reverting every changes anybody makes because of his belief that panathinaikos is the biggest team. I tried to explain him that he should only write the facts in my talk window, in his talk window and at the article's talk window but there is never an answer. I am being characterized by him as a vandal for supporting the neutral point of view. Please if you have some time available take a look on this minor issue. Thank you.--Zito ta xania 13:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

Hi, why did you revert this? Non standard letters like that can't be seen by everyone and aren't in the normal alphabet. Also, automated reversions like that implicate that I'm a vandal, which I most certainly am not. / 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (User:Grillo not logged in)

AUES article

Hello, I was referred to you by Blnguyen with regards to the article I had written, for the Adelaide University Engineering Society. The page is an ongoing effort of mine to catalouge the history of the society for all to read, drawing most of my research from the societies yearbook, which dates back to 1950, and also from current and previous members, whom date back further than records kept in the year book :)

I am new to the wiki as far a contribution goes, however, I have made several minor edits over the past few years, and have used it for a long time.

The page was put up as Afd by Blnguyen, based on the criteria that it was non-notable, and several users agreed that it was WP:VSCA. Other users noted that the page seemed to be mostly about pubcrawls, and should be reduced to a note in the YbAdelaide University article. I believe this is false, and would go so far as to reccomend removal of references to the pubcrawls from the page if others feel that their inclusion is reason for deletion.

The society has had several notable members, such as Derek Abbott, who is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (along with his B.Sc (HONS), Ph.D, CEng, CPhys, FInstP), and also astronauts for NASA. These things are a big deal, especially for one who has spent any amount of time in academia.

While I did mention above that I would remove references to pubcrawls if it ment keeping the article, I believe that the pub crawls enhance the validity of the page. For one, the society claims to be the biggest in the southern hemisphere, coming in at over 800 offical participants, which cannot be disputed by any evidence found thru wikipedia, nor google for that matter. Secondly, and I only mention this because Blnguyen suggested that major hi jinx add to validity of a subject, students have removed objects such as entire hot water systems from pubs, during their crawl.

After doing extensive research throughout the wiki, I believe that the article is a valuable addition to the wiki due to all of the above, plus many gems yet to be discovered as I plough through the society's yearbook archive.

Regards, Shenki 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy Shenki. Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've noted your intention to participate in the WikiProject Adelaide – I hope your experience with AfD doesn't deter you from being bold and creating articles about Adelaide. Secondly, I'm probably not the best person to ask about the deletion processes (I'm one of many who sees AfD to be deeply unhealthy). If you'd like know more about AfD, Capitalistroadster might be a better person to ask (who I see you've already posted a comment to). With regards to Adelaide University Engineering Society: although I could be persuaded as to its notability, it's a close call. The article itself, though you've improved it greatly, retains a promotional tone. Its focus on pub crawls and alike detracts from whatever encyclopædic merit the article may have. I'll keep watch and may in time change my stance. Happy editing, --cj | talk 10:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I wasn't blanking, I was in the process of answering it on your page... I didn't spam anyone. The persons I contacted couldn't see the deletion notice because it was hidden on a subpage, and checking the templates which operate invisibly in the background is not a routine operation, so they would have been caught totally off-guard, which would not be fair to them. So in fairness, I informed them of something they would want to have known about a page they constantly relied upon. And as it was an act of courtesy, and a correction of an impediment to fair notice, I don't think it will be frowned upon at all. Though can you honestly say that you weren't aware of the fact that the notices resided on subpages which in all likelihood would not have been noticed by me nor by the others who used them? Being as experienced a nesting template user as you are, that is a detail that most would find hard to believe that you missed, for you even had to go to multiple subpages to post them. How is that not a sneak attack? --Go for it! 11:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(You did blank the comment, however.) I am not obligated to notify anyone. One can assume that the interested parties are those who are actually watching the pages in question – the notice, by necessity, had to be non-included. And I don't believe that the Portal:Box-header-round was chosen especially for all the portals that use it either; rather, it was used in some cases as a consequence of editors not knowing of the other options. By the way, you continue to use the word "attack", which needlessly escalates the situation. It is a debate, not a battlefield (nor a poll).
I still consider your copy-and-pasted comments spam. I do not object, nor would I expect others to object, to the users posted to being let known about the deletion discussions. What I do object to, and what has been opposed by the community in several instances, is the biased solicitation of "votes" to manipulate an outcome. Such actions are detrimental to Wikipedia and ultimately troublesome for offending users (if you recall the "Catholic Church of Wikipedia" or Userbox sagas). I'm not alleging that what you did is on a par with those incidents, but just remember it's a sliding slope.--cj | talk 12:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

ACT redirect

Hi. User:TAOW has redirected ACT to some the american college entry test. I thinkt hey are wrong and it should be either the Australian Capital Territory or a disambiguation page. --Martyman-(talk) 02:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've re-redirected the page and left comments at Talk:ACT (disambiguation) and User talk:TAOW. I let him know about when not to use revert (since he wiped out a clean-up I made to the article).--cj | talk 02:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Please see my thoughts about this proposed portal at Portal talk:Oceania.-gadfium 05:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting discussion on this. I'll comment as time allows (I'm presently without home internet access after moving). Regards, --cj | talk 15:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Goulburn River National Park

Why are you removing the animals? Jakken 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

User page award

Congratulations, CJ/Archive 8! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

  • Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
  • Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
  • Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
  • General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

My page got nominated, but it's really your design, so I declined and nominated you for the award in that slot in the competition. Good luck! --Go for it! 12:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering if we have a "Featured Portal Director" (like Raul654 for FA candidates) who is responsible for promoting portals and such. I thought you may know or even be said person. Rlevse 16:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Something just happened to the Scouting portal. Only part of the intro section comes up with no edit, talk page or nothing. I think some is working on it, there's a problem with wiki, or (hopefully not) a case of vandalism. Right now I can't do anything with it. 17:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing formal as with featured articles, but I informally fulfil the same function as does Raul. I established featured portals and help keep it running. I'll have a look at the Scouting Portal and see if I can spot any faults. --cj | talk 00:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Just checking. My portal started working again. I have no idea what happened to it. Rlevse 02:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Portal:Northern Ireland/Related portals page. I did some heavy editing to create it, and I'm sure I probably missed some other things! Cheers. --Mal 11:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My sources

Jakken 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Regarding Deletion

I was curious as to why the entry for the Orchard Valley Ceramics Art Guild was deleted. Someone mentioned to me that it existed, yet when I went to look it was not there, just a note that it was 'deleted by Cyberjunkie' on 1/26/06, so I have no idea what it contained (or did not contain) that might have warrented its existance being terminated. -- Hpedersen, 27 February 2006

Here's another request for information regarding the deletion of OVCAG. Is there a particular reason why this worthwhile nonprofit organization for clay artists would be removed? -- JEnright, 3/3/06

Sorry - I didn't notice this message until now because you didn't follow my talk page instructions (messages go beneath those pre-existing). Orchard valley ceramic arts guild was tagged as CSD by Tvaughn05 and deleted by me as having no context when clearing out the backlog. The article content was:

Located in [[Sunnyvale, California]], the [ Orchard Valley Ceramic Arts Guild] was formed in 1999 to foster a creative, innovative and supportive environment for the education of students, professionals and the public in the ceramic arts. The Guild organizes ceramics exhibitions, workshops and sales, and provides scholarships for students in ceramic arts. The website features a [ calendar] of ceramics related events in the SF Bay area.
The Guild is a California non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation.
==External links==
*[ Orchard Valley Ceramic Arts Guild]

Please see the criteria for speedy deletion for further information. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Goodwood, South Australia

Hi there cj. Just patrolling the recent changes to Suburbs of Adelaide, and I'm wondering why you reverted the anon edit. It is a rather goofy addition, but is it vandalism? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

It wasn't vandalism, but that doesn't mean the revert wasn't called for. Wikipedia recieves far too many goofy edits to so many articles that it's best to simply stop them in their tracks before they build up. Thus, I will usually revert degenerative edits (ie, non-improvements). In addition, if I recall the incident correctly, the revert was warranted on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV grounds. Thanks, --cj | talk 08:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Because of your recent edits you are hereby invited to a discussion of portal box titles at Portal talk:Stargate. Dan, the CowMan 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have there responded.--cj | talk 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


You are a wanker. There is no need to delete this template.

Rowlan 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps after revising our policies regarding personal attacks and civility, you may care to retract that comment.--cj | talk 06:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You Have Frustrated me to an extent that would normally make me feel like making a personal attack on said offender, but after a careful reminding of policy, code, ethics, and standards I shall refrain from such childish lashings and state my case in simple, understandable, non-offensive terms: There is no need to delete this template. Rowlan 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing to aggravate you. And if you had paid due attention to the TfD you'd have noticed that there is indeed reason to delete this template; there was no need for one in the first place, hence subst then delete.--cj | talk 03:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship (despite not always sharing my views :-) ). I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Portals browsebar listing

Why do you continue to remove a link to the Portal:Religion at {{Browsebar graphic}}? What does "remember the horrors of wrapping" mean? Since there are 12 religion portals and at best 2 philosophy-related portals, the current layout that omits a link to this is simply unjustifiable. I realise that some people may consider religion to merely be a sub-branch of philosophy, but this area is so large that it deserves its own link. I'm assuming good faith, and I'd ask that if having an extra link to religion causes "horrors with wrapping", that you act to somehow rectify this (such as making the icon sizes or text size smaller) rather than merely delete the link on sight. Or, perhaps you can remove a different category with fewer sub-portals. Brisvegas 10:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider Relegion to merely anything, but it is a branch of Philosophy all the same. Any efforts to enhance access to Relegion portals should be concentrated on Portal:Philosophy (although I understand any hesitation given that portal's peculiar layout). The "horrors of wrapping" statement referred to the fact the Wikipedia is accessed by all manner of screen resolutions, and to add religion to the already quite large bar will cause it to wrap (ie, split across lines) in even average resolutions. I doubt the bar could be reformatted to avoid wrapping without completely abandonning the aesthetic.--cj | talk 10:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, I happened across an interesting conversation. I tried expanding the browsebar too (with Health), but it really is at its capacity now with ten topics (because People was replaced with Biography). The wrapping problem is that once the bar gets too long, a word gets shoved down to the next line. It doesn't look good, and pushes the content of the rest of the page down, so you see less of it on the initial screen. And this bar design is on many pages. On Wikipedia's topic categorization scheme, religion falls under philosophy. --Go for it! 11:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Featured Content Portal

Considering that the content of featured articles and such belong in the main namespace, as do lists of links to content in the main namespace, why have you moved the Featured Content Portal to the Wikipedia namespace? It seemed perfect as a Portal. It might be "featured" which is self-referential (being project-based), but it is also encyclopedic content. And since Portals include references to both project-based and encyclopedic material, it seemed like the perfect venue for this material. I'm curious as to what your reasons are, in case I agree with you. Though I've never seen actual articles nor article lists in the Wikipedia namespace before. --11:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to respond fully later, but you might be able to get the gist of the reasons for the move from Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Featured content.--cj | talk 11:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I see now how it fits in with the theme of the Featured content projects, all of which are in the Wikipedia namespace. Therefore, I agree with you that it should remain in Wikipedia namespace, and I agree with CBDunkerson that it is a portal and should be renamed accordingly. Wikipedia:Featured Content Portal. --Go for it! 13:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the move to Wikipedia:Featured content (which I was considering proposing myself). Upon creating a page at that title (before learning that the portal existed), I posted a request (on the WikiProject Fact and Reference Check talk page) to reassign the WP:FC shortcut, and no one objected, so that shouldn't be a problem.

I'm wondering, however, why CBDunkerson's rotating content system has been abandoned. To me, it makes more sense to display featured content from the past than it does to duplicate the items from the main page. When I have the free time, I intend to begin creating {{POTD row}} versions of all of the featured pictures. —David Levy 12:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems sensible, I support the notion. Though I hope you can figure out how to use a bot to copy all those pages into the new format, because there are hundreds of them. --Go for it! 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quality Edits

I have battled you on the topic of the Portal:Rugby header, and will probably continue to disagree. I have posted some recent comments on this topic. However, I would like to say to you that I do appreciate the quality edits you have made to the portals on union and league. Thank you,

Rowlan 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your review. I've made some changes already, see my responses. Pls explain thumb mark up, I don't know what you mean. Rlevse 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried a second new background color. Is this one okay? Rlevse 12:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've addressed everything but the access format of Europe/ConLang. Can you look it over at this point and let me know if you're okay with it so far before I tackle the access format issue? Thanks. Rlevse 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The portal has been promoted (though I made a final suggestion on its nom page). Congratulations, --cj | talk 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I am planning to make a box on Scouting by region and I'll add 1-2 more DYKs per months. Rlevse 21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Did the above, added region box and a DYK, I'll have at least two DYKs a month. Rlevse 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured portal candidates

How long does a portal have to be in WP:FPCAN before it is promoted or rejected? I'm asking you because you seem to be the one who promotes. I note that you promoted Portal:Australia after slightly less than three weeks, and Portal:Tropical cyclones after three and a half weeks. I do understand that as with other Featured X Candidates pages, a nomination may be extended if there are objections which are actively addressed, but Portal:New Zealand has been a candidate for over a calendar month with only one objection, which has been addressed, and others have been candidates for even longer. It looks to me as if all objections to Portal:Scouting and Portal:Christianity have also been addressed, and/or the objections withdrawn. With Portal:Aviation, I'm not entirely clear whether all objections have been addressed, or only some of them. This should not prevent later nominations from progressing.-gadfium 01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a backlog at WP:FPCAN. I've had only haphazard access to Wikipedia over the last month and thus have fallen behind. I'll try to clear them through this afternoon.--cj | talk 03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some mop and bucket stuff for you

from WP:VPT:

Where is this?


I've looked in MediaWiki:Common.css, and it is not there.

Does anyone know where I can find the definition for this class?
--Go for it! 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not finding it anywhere on Monobook. If you want to take a look, Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes has a list of all the stylesheets used by all the skins. --cesarb 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find it with a quick grep through the skin directories in CVS. Where did you see this class referenced? Rob Church (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The class is used on the Main Page, and the Main Page redesign draft. I'm beginning to think they are code remnants referring to a class that no longer exists. --Go for it! 05:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like it's the case. Rob Church (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie, I don't have access to protected pages, so will you handle this please? --Go for it! 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what it is you would like me to do.--cj | talk 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Class="MainPageBG" doesn't exist. I removed it from the Main Page alternates' source text, and its removal had no effect on the pages' display, so it is safe to remove. It's cruft, and needs to be removed from the Main Page's source, and the Main Page Redesign's source, so that others don't waste time trying to find it to learn what its formatting parameters are, like I did. Cheers, mate. --Go for it! 10:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Portal page

On this page, there are 9 FPs. Seven are bolded and two are not. What is the difference? There is no explanation at the top. Rlevse 11:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a clarification to Wikipedia:Featured portals.--cj | talk 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there a page where we can see what the Portal of the Week was before and will be in the near future? Rlevse 12:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Football (soccer) in Australia

I like your edit much better - it smacked of POV to say things like "in spite of" and "claim the word football". The FFA never did these things, they only said that they would refer to the game as football rather than soccer, and that they would stop calling the team "Socceroos" but not force people to adopt the change if they didn't want. I remember seeing a press release about this, I'll try and dig it out and hopefully that should settle the issue once and for all (in terms of who was claiming what and so on). Cursive 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Cyberjunkie, Belated thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia. Your kind words were (and are) appreciated. I was wondering whether you could tell me where I can find links like you have on your user page (like the Australian English box etc.) Thanks in advanceadamm 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

Thanks for uploading Image:Brisbaneairport1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


You voted for Rum Rebellion. It has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration. Please help to improve the article. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 12:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Do we still need Wikipedia:Portal/Directory/Temp? People are adding portals to it. Steve block talk 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One person has added a portal, and another removed himself from listing - not that much of a problem. I don't want to delete it yet as it still lists detail that can be used to complete the new directory. I'll make it clearer to those who happen upon it that it is of historical interest and should not be edited.--cj | talk 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Good to see you're back in action! michael talk 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

Thanks for uploading Image:Adelaidefromabove.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Nice job on the rewrite! I've just started researching to get that article to featured status (inspired by the weekend's election success!), but that'll take me aaaaages at the rate I'm going. Ambi 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to find more information (and specific sources, but theres nothing in the way of literature (well, for now at least) and I can't get onto Factiva! Good luck with the effort regardless. I'd be happy to help if I can.--cj | talk 07:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How come you can't get onto Factiva? I'm starting from the very beginning and going through just about everything (as I always do with these things), but I'm only up to March 1998 at this point, so I think I'll be here for a while yet! Ambi 07:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think my uni's subscription only allows one person access to it at a time, and I'm unfortunately not that person at the moment.--cj | talk 07:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think ANU lets about four people. Most of the time, it's not an issue - it doesn't seem to have too many users here, thankfully. Still a nuisance when there are too many, though. Ambi 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


I do not quite understand what Zondor was doing on Australia. Also his addition to Ambi's userpage are making me wonder what he is up to. I don't understand why a regular contributor would make such edits. Xtra 10:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was completely out of the loop about his behaviour towards Ambi, which, reading up on it, was entirely inappropriate. It was also odd that he didn't simply revert the vandalism by User:ThePrankster to Australia, but I assume he may have just been confused about whether it was a hack or vandalism. However, the two incidents are unrelated except to the extent that he mightn't be as experienced with Wikipedia as others. --cj | talk 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


If you dont mind me asking, how did you get the headings of each section on the New Zealand portal to be blue? Im trying to help someone with making a portal and it would really improve the appearance if i knew how to change the color. Tutmosis 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tutmosis. The way most portal colours are set is through a box-header sub-page. The New Zealand Portal colours can be edited from Portal:New Zealand/box-header. Thus, for the portal you are trying to create, you need to create a box-header. There are instructions at Wikipedia:Portal.--cj | talk 14:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for responding to my question. Your help is greatly appreciated. Im sorry I wasted your time. Tutmosis 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't do that. I'm happy to help. Out of curiosity, what portal are you working on?--cj | talk 00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Dont think Im doing all the work for this portal but im trying to help out with Portal:Hip hop. Because of your help I improved the appearance of the page today. The colors right now are blend and probably temporary but in my opinion they beat default. Its very hard, atleast for me to pick out good color combination. Im still looking for different color tones. Tutmosis 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Need To Lock A Page!

Hey, Ive been a major contributor to the Resident Evil: Extinction and Resident Evil 4 (film) pages and currently it's recieving alot of vandalism mostly prompted from an Imdb forum, I was just wondering if you could revert the edits and lock the page for a while? Thanks alot Empty2005 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. here is a link providing the forum with the vandals [1]

Hi Empty2005. I don't think either page warrants protection at this time. See the protection policy for further information about the circumstances in which protection can be employed by admins. If you feel that protection is justifiable, the quickest way to seek remedy is through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - which is watched by several sysops. Happy editing, --cj | talk 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For That! Cheers Empty2005 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at something?

Hi Cyberjunkie. I was wondering whether you could take a look at a recent block/edits and provide some advice or if you don't have time, suggest another admin to refer it to. There has recently been some debate at Cyclone Larry as to whether or not the cyclone should be classified as a category 3 or 4 according to an American classification scale. On the talk page under the heading Talk:Cyclone Larry#Cat 3, NSLE blocked TydeNet for 31 hours. TydeNet had made some personal attacks, and was (sort of) warned by Titoxd. I say sort of because Titoxd was involved in the debate, and on reading the comments Titoxd had made, I felt that they were cheeky and provocative. NSLE had been involved in the discussion putting a view contrary to the one TydeNet was arguing (also under the heading 'Category' further up the page) and was involved in editing the article. NSLE didn't post a warning on TydeNet's user page before blocking him. User:PH34R then posted messages on NSLE's talk page (which has now been archived)expressing concern about the block. NSLE then blanked the messages. I went to NSLE's talk page to express similar concerns, but then also expressed my concerns about NSLE reverting their own user page. (I recognise that users can do what they like with their talk pages, but I raised concerns about admins needing to be accountable. read my message to see what I said). My message also got blanked. Soon after it was replaced with a message in bold to the effect of 'I reserve the right to remove any messages if need be'. At more or less the same time, NSLE also blocked User:Jeffro77 for alleged disruption, which I personally thought was very loose interpretation of disruption. In any case, even if it was disruption, NSLE was involved in the debate over the edits concerned and should have asked another admin to look at the issue. I am concerned that NSLE is misusing their admin privileges. Specifically I'm concerned that administrators shouldn't be blocking people as a result of disputes they are engaged in, administrators should be accountable and shouldn't blank criticisms on their talk pages while not providing explanations for their actions, and that in certain cases, admins should give warnings before blocking, especially if they have been a party to the dispute. Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill or do I have a legitimate concern, and if I do, what it the best way to do something about it? Thanks for your time. -- Adz|talk 12:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adz. I've briefly read over the relevant comments at Talk:Cyclone Larry and the various user talk pages and considered your concerns. Like Scott above, I don't think you're over-reacting – there was conduct that would raise eyebrows. While TydeNet's were certainly personal attacks, I believe the overall manner on that talk page was un-necessarily confrontational. Without focusing on the specifics of what individuals said, I do think that the users involved did not carefully consider their words nor did they bite their tongues where necessary - ultimately only escalating the conflict. However, considering that the initial attacks were relatively minor I do believe the response was disproportionate - especially considering that WP:NPA really only advocates blocking as a last resort or in severe cases. Clearly, neither applied. Nevertheless, I don't think this could be labeled "admin abuse", which seems a catch-cry these days. I don't think there was malice behind NLSE's response. Nor was it resolutely inappropriate to have performed the block himself. Having been part of the discussion, I expect he wasn't fully impartial, and to that extent it was very unwise, but not being the subject of the attack he was still entitled to moderate - at least technically.
What does concern me is his conduct at his own talk page. The above surely warranted an explanation if not a caution to be more prudent. That he didn't acknowledge the concerns, and in fact rolled them back, is poor behavior for an admin – though I understand that he may have felt encircled.
This comes down basically to a question of where one draws the line. I think the tendency of late is for admins to be tougher on uncivil editors, and this may just be a manifestation of that. With regards to the blanking of complaints, this also depends on ones opinion of the autonomy of user pages. Generally speaking, they can be edited as the user sees fit. However, Wikipedia does not extend a carte blanche and blanking is frowned-upon, sometimes punishable, practice. In fact, a candidate for adminship would struggle to succeed if they were known to blank or conceal unfavorable messages.
How you decide to proceed is up to you. I think this is relatively minor, and somewhat moot given NLSE's wikibreak. But if you are unsatisfied with the response you have received, then Wikipedia:Requests for comment is your best bet.--cj | talk 16:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've sent an email alerting NSLE to the couple of messages I've posted on my talk page and on the Cyclone Larry page and will see what he comes back with. I'm mindful that a few other people have chimed in with comments on the Cyclone larry talk page and NSLE might feel under seige so I will try to go easy. Hopefully we'll be able to put this issue to rest. I'm reluctant to turn it into something bigger than it needs to be. Will wait to see what happens. Thanks again. -- Adz|talk 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Esperanza

Hi there cj. I noticed on the Esperanza members page that you had quit. Has someone done something to you to make you lose faith in the Esperanza/kindness campaign? Are you OK?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen. My reasons for leaving Esperanza are more to do with a changed perspective than any specific incidence, although I won't hesitate in saying that some participants are less than perfect. I suppose my change in thinking followed the userbox happenings when I re-evaluated what I wanted Wikipedia to be, and how that was best achieved. Though I think some mechanisms of Esperanza are worthwhile (the Stress Watch in particular), it hasn't followed the project overall hasn't followed the path I thought it would when I joined. I'm still part of the Kindness Campaign, but not in any active capacity. In fact, I've updated my userpage to state what my main activities are on Wikipedia at the time being. Happy editing, --cj | talk 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your work on portals in general and featured portals in particular, I award you this overdue Barnstar. Congrats! Brisvegas 10:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I'm flattered. Thanks sincerely, --cj | talk 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Cyberjunkie! User:Jackp, as well as doing all sorts of not necessarily helpful things to Sydney every couple of days, has created (or tried to create) a Sydney portal. I haven't had anythign to do with portals, so maybe you could have a look at it? JPD (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look at it.--cj | talk 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)



I don't like to make such requests, but I need an uninvolved administrator to get their hands dirty per my comment at User talk:Jimididit. I can provide further background if required.

If you don't wish to be involved, that's fine; let me know so I can ask someone else.

Snottygobble 23:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Aaron has offered to handle it. Snottygobble 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. I'm sorry I wasn't around to help. I hadn't realised just how far this "football" turf war extended. --cj | talk 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a football turf war. I have never edited Football or Talk:Football, and from memory I don't think I've ever edited Football (soccer), Rugby league or Rugby union. My only edits to Australian rules football were four redirect bypasses. The football turf war has nothing to do with me. This is not about football; it is about sockpuppets, trolls and vandals who like to disrupt editors and rip down admins. Snottygobble 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Pardon the aggressive tone; I've lost days that could have been spent in constructive editing because of this garbage, and I'm starting to get just a wee bit tense about it. Snottygobble 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Perfectly understandable. Quite clearly you are not engaged in any war; you attend the discussion as a rational Wikipedian. To my eyes, however, this entire problem arises from the fact that vested interests are fighting amongst themselves. These users are not behaving as Wikipedians - they are parochial, and should be dealt with harshly when they overstep the mark, as they did in attacking you.--cj | talk 06:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"Attend the discussion as a rational Wikipedian"? - not even that. I was unaware of the discussion until Grant65's user page was vandalised. My only actions in this affair have been to revert persistent vandalism of his user page, and to block said persistent vandal. Suggestions that I have adopted a position in, participated in, or could even care less about, the discussion are untrue. Gotta go offline before I get any louder. Snottygobble 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I misread the discussion page.--cj | talk 06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Portal

I was wondering two things

  1. What do you think are the chances that Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Wars/archive1 will become featured?
  2. Do you have any ideas of what can still be changed for the good on Portal:Star Wars?

Thanks! Jedi6-(need help?) 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Cyberjunkie. I've just seen your note on the Brisbane talk page. I have recently asked myself the same question and was planning on rewriting the section and moving the list to a separate article. I'm currently placing notes on people's talk pages trying to drum up some interest in the Brisbane WikiProject and was planning to start overhauling some of the sections on teh Brisbane page in the comming days in the hope that others might join in. It'd be great if you felt like pitching in and helping out. I recently created a template of suggested tasks on the Project page and a 'recent Activity' section on the project talk page which I hope will help focus people's attention. I think if a few editors to create some activity then others might be inclined to join in. Let me know if you have any other ideas. I was also intending to place a note at WP:AWNB. Cheers -- Adz|talk 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The seat of Mitchell has been, erm, being

Hey, I don't wanna edit the actual page, but the source I was using was the official site but I couldn't link directly to the result page, so I didn't bother with a link... well, she did win anyway. Anyway, now you've goshdarned infected me w/Userboxes... I hope you're happy! ZanderSchubert 09:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't encourage userboxes. The SEO's data is out-of-date. As reported in the media, Hanna eventually prevailed - but only just. Happy editing, --cj | talk 09:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you haven't slowed down. Therefore...

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Is hereby awarded to Cyberjunkie for his great many contributions to, and ceaseless devotion to the improvement of, Wikipedia's portals. Go for it! 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Almost two years without any, then I get two in one week! Happy editing, --cj | talk 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi cj. Thanks for fixing up the portal that I am experimenting with. Did you know about this from my userpage? - I think I should put notices up more often. Thanks for all the help.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I first noticed it on Ian's talk page but followed the links from your user page. --cj | talk 07:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Cyberjunkie! It wasn't clear from your edit summary in this edit why you changed the otheruses text at the top of Sydney. As mentioned on the talk page, a few of us felt it would be helpful to make it clear that the article was not about the LGA City of Sydney. Do we need to use the otheruses template, or can we be more flexible? JPD (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there had been discussion on the matter. I didn't think it was necessary to disambiguate it, but if an ambiguity was causing problems than I suppose it's fine. The clarification could be made at the disambiguation page though.--cj | talk 09:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it would help to make it clear somewhere. I'd actually prefer to have a link in the intro, but I couldn't see a way of fitting it in nicely. JPD (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian flag in your signature

You use the Australian flag in your signature, right? If you do, you're going to start having to use Image:Flag of Australia.svg, as the one you use right now (which is a png) is considered redundant and is facing deletion. Don't worry about replacing all the usages of the png in your signatures, however, as my bot is handling that. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't use the flag in my signature. I used it briefly in the first half of last year, but grew quickly tired of it. However, as I edit prolifically, you've probably come across it quite a lot. Happy editing, --cj | talk 23:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Discovery of Australia Issue

Cyberjunkie, you recently deleted my article on "the Portuguese Discovery of Australia", deeming it original research. Much to the Contrary, i merely abridged all of the research i could find on the topic, and cited my sources in a bibliography. eAs you are an Australian, can't you see the importance of this page? It would be much appreciated if you could revert the page to my most recent edit. Please respond on my talk page.

sincerely, √αzzρεr 03:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the work was entirely a piece of original research or not, it was not properly verifiable. Moreover, that you listed yourself in the references as the "brains" did not instil confidence vis-à-vis the article's validity and, in fact, seemed to violate both WP:OWN and WP:NSR. I approach this article not as an Australian, but as a Wikipedian - or encyclopædist. Although it may seem to you that the theories surrounding Portuguese discovery are of great importance, they simply are not of such importance to justify a separate article (or fork, as the case may be). It is discussed, rightly, in the article about European exploration of Australia. Doing so was supported by consensus. So I do not support restoring your edit. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
i apologize for certain wikipolicies that you think i have breached. However i disagree that the topic does not deserve a page of its own. there are thousands of "stubs" on the wikipedia network that have a page of thier own, most of which are completely explained on other pages. This is a topic that is not touched on in more than a sentence anywhere else, and it needs it's own page. Please allow me to revise my contribution, sticking with all wikipolicies, and allow it to remain on a separate page to the European exploration of Australia page, which is nought but an overview of an extremely broad topic. What i don't understand is that there are individual pages on the Mahogany Ship, the Geelong Keys, and Dieppe maps, yet an overview of these topics in context is not allowed. please reply again
sincerely, √αzzρεr 04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
And to add, I have to say that I disagree about your policy on theories. Quite simply, the Big bang is a theory. Darwinism is a theory. Theories are essential to the human world of knowledge because they provide valid possibilities for topics that we can never be completly sure about
sincerely once again, √αzzρεr 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
We do not have a policy against theories: we have a policy prohibiting original research. The role of an encyclopædia is to document existing knowledge, not to publish original thought.--cj | talk 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I must stress that this IS NOT original thought. Everything that I expressed is put forth in the book The secret discovery of Australia by Gordon McIntyre, a renowned and respected Australian Historian.
cheers, √αzzρεr 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
KG McIntyre is neither renowned or respected, and his title as an historian is dubious at best. His book is not evidence.--cj | talk 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Famous Slaves


Although I agree with your opinion on the deletion of this thing, you did ask how it might be useful. Among other things, one feature I find theoretically interesting about a "famous slaves" portal is that no distinction regarding epoch and nationality. Hence, Frederick Douglass could be listed alongside Spartacus. I find this a captivating way to re-classify a topic as ancient as recorded history. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Hi Cyberjunkie! Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this

I didn't know whether you would have a use for this or not, but since it has a definite "portal" theme to it, I thought you might want to at least be made aware of it. --Go for it! 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't use it to represent portals. It might be good as portal-related award, though. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

CJ can you please see the discussion at the personal attacks intervention notice board, and on User talk:MartinRe and recent edits by user:PSYCH. If this were last month, I believe that PSYCH would be breaching his personal attack parole. Xtra 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To encourage centralised discussion, I will post a comment to WP:PAIN.--cj | talk 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Cyber, the rules state clearly, "comment on content, not on other users." How can Xtra be allowed to still, a year after an arb case, refer to the case and ti ne BY NAME when on User:Lefty on campus's page he was asked to remove a link to Xtra in the same manner Xtra isaplys now? Xtra is perpetuating the case, keeping it alive and rubbing it in, and you stand by and let it happen. The rules state, explicitly, not to "kick a person when they're down." How is including an expired link for all to see not kicking a person when they're down? If this is the type of hatred and claer homophobia that gos on on wikipedia, maybe it really isn't a place for me. I'll leave xtra to hate whoever he wants and get away with it with the support of his friends, greeat to see the rules still aplpy to eveyone but Xtra. |Swan Song| PSYCH 05:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting the policy. A personal attack implies a certain level of malice and incivility. At the time you lodged your complaint, Xtra's user page in no way attacked you. It linked to an arbitration case in which he was a key party and in which he ultimately successful. That you weren't is something you need accept and move on from. The "comment on content, not the contributor" aspect of the policy relates to content disputes, and does correlate to your objection. Xtra was not commenting on you nor were you and he disputing content. Lefty on campus, by contrast, did make a personal attack: he had slandered Xtra.
This has nothing to do with homophobia or conservatism and everything to do with misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't. It is not a place to push personal passions or settle scores. It is a place where we write an encyclopædia and work collaboratively. If we should have disputes with one another or behave badly, then we bite our tongues and get over it. Thanks, --cj | talk 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The line ""comment on content, not the contributor"" comes from the NPA [[Template:Npa}warning]], to quote
"Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users."
It does not refer to content disputes at all. So Xtra's actions would constitute a personal attack, but most people turn a blind eye to Xtra and his violation of wiki policy (like you just did, even in the face of wikipolicy). On Lefty's page, I'm referring to him being asked to remove a link "My Successful Block" by Mark. Again, same behaviour, different outcomes. Obviously not a nice environment when some people are above the law and others feel the full force. My last post, obviously not worth it, because no matter what anyone says, Xtra can do and say whatever he feels lke it, and there's always someone there to defend his attacks. 06:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (intentionally unsigned).

Classical Civilisations portal

I note the concern, but draw your attention to the following, which is from the MOS; "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.". This portal is meant to be more specific than 'Portal:Ancient History', and i feel 'Portal:Classical antiquity' and 'Portal:Antiquity' just don't sound right. Note also that Classical Civilisation is the name of the course that most people take (or classics granted). [repeated on article talk page]. Pydos 15:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


My dear CJ, on a completely different note, i must thank you for your clean-up of the article i composed about Admiralty House in Sydney. As i lack certain intricate wiki code-editing skills, I was wondering if you could add one or few photographs from one of my internet references. I hope that this composition of mine shows you an example of my work that is reliable and completely referenced, and I would like to express that the portuguese discovery article is no less reliable than this. PLEASE rethink the assumptions you made about that particular article of mine. -√αzzρεr 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, if you can recall any other article to which you have listed yourself as the "brains", go to it and remove such reference or let me know so that I may do it for you. Wikipedia articles are open and collaborative works and no user can assert ownership to them. Contributions by individual users are recorded in article histories. As for the article itself, an expansion was well-justified. However, your expansion does need some further cleaning-up; some parts are not strictly relevant, others lack context or coherency. One can get quite easily addicted to Wikipedia, so you will probably pick up the standards and conventions of editing quickly. I'll confine discussion of the Portugals' discovery to Talk:Portuguese Discovery of Australia hereforth.--cj | talk 07:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

√αzzρεr, once again

Mr Cyberjunkie, understand what you are putting forth, and will revise what you see to be a near personal attack. I just simply ask of you to allow me publish a revised edition of my article about the Portuguese Discovery of Australia, and let it be. The new article would be completely free of all aspects which you have criticised over the past week. Please. Let me try again.
Here is a thought, may I somehow post a revised edition on your talk page, and if you deem it acceptable you can post it or tell me what needs to be changed?
Thanks mate. I know you have it in you. √αzzρεr 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Adelaide wiki worker project

Hi cyberjunkie I was wanting to start a wiki on SA local history. It seems possible that it would be fine instead to build content for wikipedia generally. I am applying for a grant for this work and would like to have advice from someone more experienced both in wikipedia and in editing the SA section of the site. Perhaps youd be interested in beling involved in the grant work which would mostly be training people in how to contribute. I am generally on #bettong or #technest or #sfd on irc on freenode.


I've adressed most of your objections on Portal:Food, though could you be more specific on the small font? --TBC ??? ??? ??? 04:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said "small font", I thought you were referring to a certain section of the portal, as some sections have different fonts than the others (such as the 'Things to do" section). Anyhow, I've increased the overall font, so take a look --TBC ??? ??? ??? 04:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Turn of the Tables?

From your good friend √αzzρεr again, I just thought that I would urge you to the talk page of our Portuguese discovery issue. You will find that the issue has grown from our two sided arguement into a large debate, and that there are many who support me. cheers once again, - √αzzρεr 06:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I posted a request to WP:AWNB for other editors to comment and invited Adam (one of the few actual experts on Wikipedia) to the discussion. I see you also invited users who had voted keep in the previous debate along. Due to recent difficulties regarding balance, when you wish to inform previous participants in a discussion of a renewed debate, it is best that you contact all involved lest you leave yourself open to accussations of solicitation and whatnot. Unfortunately, I was unable to further participate in the discussion due to unexpected travel which left me without access to the Internet. I am glad to see that an acceptable outcome was reached, though I would have argued against a separate aricle (or if that, one confined to dealing with McIntrye's book). --cj | talk 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


cj, I would like to ask you to reinstate that section. Chances are someone else will, but it offered an oppourtunity for something seemingly taboo (bringing user actions to attention) to be discussed. Nothing will be fixed if you destroy the debate to bring about a solution. Cheers, michael talk 12:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I was "destroying" anything valid. I presume you're hoping for a debate on how to deal with PSYCH, but that was not where it was heading nor is AWNB the appropriate forum (rather WP:AN would be). Nevertheless, since my action had no basis in practice, I have reverted per your objection. --cj | talk 12:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for reverting. Yes I am hoping for a debate to deal with the PSYCH issue, I couldn't care less about what given topic is caught up in it; moreso wishing for a community response to irritant vandals and then appropriate outcomes. Apologies if my words were a bit striking or heated, even. Cheers, michael talk 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not sure that the vandals can be dealt with sufficiently short of banning anonymous editing. Even then there could be a flood of username vandals. The sad fact is that if they are determined enough, vandals can evade blocks and bans. The upside is that they all eventually get bored or realise the errors of their ways.--cj | talk 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks cj, you are officially in the good books of √αʑʑρεɾ.

File:Jazzter.jpg The Jazzter of Righteousness
For adhering to moral principles, I award you this Jazzter. Congradulations, √αʑʑρεɾ

But on the sock-puppet issue, you should be interested to know that the Doobi18 account was created long prior to my account and has been inactive since I have been editing.

Have a good one, - √αʑʑρεɾ 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)