User talk:Rangasyd/Archive 8

William Street, Sydney copyright concern

I have removed content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/kings_cross, a copyright web page. While many of the pages on that website are released under a comptatible license, this particular page is not. The contnet will have to be re-written in your own words please. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of copy/paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Dunghutti People a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Dunghutti. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution

It appears that you have added material to the article Office of Environment and Heritage (New South Wales) using content from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/whoweare/structure.htm. While you are welcome to re-use licensed content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original author(s). When copying from other compatibly-licensed web pages, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. It's also a good idea to place a note on the article along with your citation. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied licensed material before, even if it was a long time ago, please go back and provide attribution. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Bonzle, use as as reference

My impresssion about 5 to 6 years ago was that Bonzle was looked upon as a not usable and blacklisted - any thoughts? JarrahTree

Dare I ask, any references to such a claim? Rangasyd (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

thing is nobody checks anything anymore in the oz project you could almost create a whole subject with pages and the chances of getting away with it ..

If you cannot find it yourself by a simple search dont believe me :) JarrahTree 04:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a quick look at both {{WP Australia}} and WP:WikiProject Australian places and there was no (black)listing. A Google search is inconclusive. Hence, my question to provide me with a link to the blacklisting. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking - I remember there were some edit clashes with a south african editor of usage with western and south australian railway items - but that is maybe even as long as 7 or 8 years ago - so best to ignore my concern at this stage, I do not think it would be easy to find. Maybe it didnt become a fixed blacklist item. sorry to have bothered. JarrahTree 07:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A pleasure. If you find it, please let me know. Happy editing. Rangasyd (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My problem - as I say to billinhurst - subjective response to an editor getting carried away with usage some years back - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billinghurst#vague_memory - no specific listing found... JarrahTree 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Bonzle looks like an unsuitable reference. I try to find something else whenever I can, but have referenced it occasionally when it had info I believed to be true but couldn't find anything better. I think I've found things in it sometimes that are wrong or doubtful, but don't have specific examples ready to hand. There are a few sites like that - OzRoads comes to mind, and several of the reference sites for closed railways seem to be railfan sites but contain info that isn't collated anywhere else. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Where I can, I try and supplement Bonzle with other reference sources, however, its not always possible. For example, looking South Australia in particular, there is no good SA Government source about rivers, whether it be quality, supply, etc. While I can see the similarity with OzRoads, which is basically a one-person attempt to provide an encyclopaedia on roads, Bonzle has some real depth to it and, while it's not perfect, its the best we have as a secondary source. Rangasyd (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Rivers

Thank you for the work you are doing on navboxes and so forth on rivers. I am curious why you are replacing {{Infobox river}} with {{Geobox}} though? {{Geobox/doc}} says

This general, multi-purpose geobox template duplicates features contained in various other, more specific geography and place infobox templates (like

Rangasyd/Archive 8

for settlements, and

{{{name}}}

for protected areas. In general, editors should not change from one to the other without good reason or broad consensus.

Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks. My approach is to develop consistency across all rivers in Australia. While I have not completed all rivers in Australia, South Australia is one of the few states that have not adopted the {{Geobox}}, relying instead on {{Infobox river}}; whereas most other states have used the Geobox. Hence, it seems logical and a good reason to maintain consistency within Australia. While the parameters between the two templates are similar, the Geobxo does allow a little more flexibility. Re {{Infobox settlement}}, in Australia we prefer to use {{Infobox Australian place}} and, where applicable, use the type=protected parameter. I'm happy if this discussion is moved elsewhere is order to gain broad consensus. Rangasyd (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rangasyd, I have two comments. Firstly, I particularly like the selection of geobox over 'infobox river' because it has a map while the infobox for reasons unknown does not. Secondly, can you have a read of Talk:Onkaparinga River in respect to use of Mid North and Adelaide Plains - please comment on that page if you want to? Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed on Light River (South Australia) that the tributaries "magically" change from black text to blue links if there is a page with the corresponding name. They can be disambiguated with a normal piped wikilink. Is there a way to force them to be black text? I have made Pine Creek and Julia Creek red links for now, as the locality Pine Creek seems to be too far north to have a tributary of the Light River and there isn't an article yet for the SA Julia Creek locality (which is not the creek anyway). The creeks are unlikely to ever be significant enough for articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Scott Davis, Try using the {{Nowiki}} template. Rangasyd (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The template didn't work, but the more basic XML tags did. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

List of science ministers

Hi Rangasyd, Well done on the compilation of science ministers. I'm undertaking discourse analysis on public policy and management in the science arena, and I'd love to know the sources you used for your list of science ministers. DaveNorthcoastnobes (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Here are a few sources: archive.industry.gov.au, archive.minister.industry.gov.au, and Administrative Arrangement Orders, with the latter detailing changes in the structure of government departments and agencies. Let me know if you need more information. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rangasyd. Much appreciated. (I'll have to remember to check in more often :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northcoastnobes (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The George Institute for Global Health

Hi there, I disclose I am an employee of The George Institute for Global Health. I see on your profile page that you're interested in reviewing Australian medical research institute pages. I was trying to update our page last year in compliance with the COI editing rules but had some issues - the suggested changes are still on the talk page. If I put forward a proposed revision, would you be able to review? In the meantime I've made a few changes that I believe meet the definition of uncontroversial edits. They were: updating the logo, URL, number of staff as of 2017, amount of money raised as of 2017, and university affiliates. I believe these are within the rules but happy to discuss if there are any concerns. For the sake of transparency I left a note on the talk page. Thanks Ktr183 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

See reply at The George, talk page. Rangasyd (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you! List of Tasmanian Mountains

Hi Rangasyd, as the editor who did a lot of work on the above list i have a question, having a look at the list, i see at no, 38 there is a "Barrow Mountain" (red linked) and at no. 44 there is Mount Barrow, are these the same mountain (List of highest mountains of Tasmania only has the redlinked Barrow Mountain)? thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Coolabahapple. Thanks for that. I was working off an old list and progressively updating each peak as I got to them. Thanks for the pick up. I've updated this list to now reflect the references contained in the Mount Barrow article. Cheers and meow!. Rangasyd (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Strategy Cycle 2

As the strategy discussion draws to an end - any thoughts or feedback? please feel free to email me or message on talk page if - whichever you wish - as to how you feel about the 5 themes and the general ambience of the strategy programme JarrahTree 11:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

TheFamouspeople.com

Hi Rangasyd. I've been doing some quick cleanup of TheFamouspeople.com links, investigating if a large-scale might be helpful. Generally, it is not considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_207#www.thefamouspeople.com). In the process I noticed your recent addition here. What's your thoughts about it's reliability and use as a source, especially in BLPs? --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Ronz. I was doing a clean up of UNSW alumni and Kelley's BLP claimed that she was an alumnus. TheFamouspeople.com was the only source that I was able to locate verifying same. Assuming that TheFamouspeople.com is unreliable, I would prefer to remove the source and the reference that she is an alumnus. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Rangasyd (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Beyond International production credits

Why are you replacing Category:Television series by Beyond Television Productions with Category:Beyond International production credits? The latter category is orphaned, and a bit ambiguously named, while the former category is entirely accurate and part of an existing category tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

See below. :-) Rangasyd (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Beyond International production credits

The article Category:Beyond International production credits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Contents have been merged into Television series by Beyond Television Productions

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rangasyd (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ten Tunnels

I think the heritage people are smoking something, I google earth line measured the two routes and roughly, they are the same length, a bit over 7 miles either way. Lemme grab Langdon's book for a read through to see what he says. Dave Rave (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

the note 3 for the nsw act, page two, says the deviation is five miles long, not that it saves five miles. Dave Rave (talk)

I emailed them a note to see, today. Dave Rave (talk)

Wollongong Breakwater Lighthouse

The lighthouse is a part of the precinct which is NSW heritage listed. The ref entry you deleted, for item 2700710, is a local listing but it doesn't show on a search for Wollongong. The newer lighthouse shows under 2700653.Dave Rave (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what point you're trying to make. The two lighthouses can be found by searching the local register, but they are not on the state heritage register. You rightly point out that the precinct is on the state register as well as on the Register of the National Estate. Rangasyd (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

oh me, yep, had to search the other name, Lighthouse not Wollongong. They don't make it easy. Dave Rave (talk)

Register of the National Estate

I just noticed your edit on Talgai Homestead. Do we really want designations to a defunct register? The plan in shutting down the RNE was that the sites in it would be moved into other registers and I believe that pretty much all of the RNE is now in the various extant national and state registers, so it's a lot of duplication to include the RNE designation and I think a bit misleading for anyone who doesn't know it's a defunct register. For myself, I would only use the RNE as a designation if there was no other heritage register that included the site. I guess I am also concerned about a precedent of including multiple designations in what is already a fairly long infobox. For example, all 500-600 sites on the Queensland Heritage Register that are in Brisbane are also on the Brisbane Heritage Register and it's a fair bet that many of the other sites on the QHR appear in the other local heritage registers (every LGA in Qld is supposed to have one) so again there's potential for massive duplication if we go down that path. Maybe this is a conversation to be had with a wider audience, but I thought I'd start here to understand why you are wanting to add the NRE. Kerry (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for all your great work on the QHR. Your attention to detail is quite interesting to observe, although I'm unsure that I agree with the approach adopted (but I disgress). Some weeks ago I noticed that the various Australian and all other state heritage registers were not on the list of approved designations; so as a first step, I sought to address this issue and invited discussion. At that time the RNE designation was proposed and there was minimal input from others. That being said, I understand your point of multiple listings and the status of the RNE as a defunct register. However, I feel that if a property has international, national and state significance, all three should be listed (think of the Sydney Opera House or the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia as practical examples). Your point re local government registers is impractical and dismissed (establishing the Brisbane register would mean that every local government register (globally) would need to be added to the list of approved designations). So, my view is that the heart of your question is: If a property has multiple listings on current international, national, and/or state heritage registers, what level of detail should be included in the infobox and in the article? I thank you for focusing discussion here prior to wider input and look forward to your feedback. Once again, well done re the QHR. Rangasyd (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my main concern intellectually is that the NRE is defunct. My concern about multiple designations overloading the infobox is more pragmatic as it make it hard to include photos in the early sections, but I am not too worried about the handful of cases that are registered at bth national and state level (e.g. Sydney Opera House). We do have Wikipedia articles for places on Australian local heritage registers but, to date, they haven't sought to use designations. Kerry (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Aside, I am not sure what you meant by my attention to detail, but the history of the QHR articles is that their format was discussed to death on the Australian Wikipedian's noticeboard when I started the project so what you see is the consensus of those discussions. Also the first draft of a QHR article is machine-generated, so what may appear to be my attention to detail may just be the mindless enthusiasm of software. I am quite happy to discuss the QHR articles because of my observation that the NSW Heritage Register is now CC-BY opening up the possibility of generating Wikipedia articles from the NSW register, so it's timely to look at the QHR articles and consider what worked well and what didn't. Kerry (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, great re machine generated. I'm trying to work through the NSW SHR and it's a big project. I wasn't aware of the earlier and lengthy discussion re QHR and my initial observations were that some of it appears as copy/paste. Sorry, no offence was intended. I was doing some work on NSW railway stations when I realised that many stations are SHR-listed, but their listing was not included in the articles. So, I started adding them to a category with the aim of getting back to them. At the same time, I also found some rail tunnels and bridges in the same situation. Then I went to Category:New South Wales State Heritage Register and starting cleaning up those items that were already listed. I'll need to review those completed and remove the RNE listing. I'd really value your help and input on your learnings re the QHR that may be relevant to NSW SHR. How do you suggest we communicate? I have reverted RNE listing at Talgai Homestead. Thanks for the update re CC-BY. Rangasyd (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rangasyd. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kerry (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

where is this topic with relation to the Australian National Heritage List and instead of removing the RNE entries shouldn't we rename the RNE entry in the designation template to point to the ANHL ? Dave Rave (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Although the RNE Wikipedia article says that it replaced by two national registers, I think that is not the case, although when you read the citation, it's sufficiently public-service-speak that it's hard to know what it means. But the numbers do not add up, as there were about 13,000 entries on the RNE, but the Australian National Heritage List has only about 100 and the Commonwealth Heritage List has about 300 entries, so where did the other 12000+ go? The answer appears to be the state heritage registers based on checking a few examples. But definitely the ANHL is not the successor of the RNE; it was created as part of the RNE closure but that's not quite the same thing. My informal understanding was that the Commonwealth got sick of having all the arguments over heritage come to them, so they decided to make it the states' problem apart from the small number of properties that they retained on the ANHL and the CHL. Kerry (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been continued at Talk:Register of the National Estate#Designations and abolition of the register. Please continue your discussion there. With thanks, Rangasyd (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A question regarding attribution

Hi there. Regarding this edit. As the editor who wrote it I think I'd know if it was "based on the South Head Signal Station, listed [sic] on the "New South Wales State Heritage Register". In fact, I'm not sure I was even aware of that listing (which is a shame, might have taken it to WP:GA). Looking at the article now, the article still does not seem to be "based on" the listing, but on the original sources I used. The only usage of the listing is the quote you very recently added to the lead. I removed the notice since it seems misleading. Your thoughts? --Muhandes (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Muhandes: Hi there. Attribution when use of NSW SHR content is required. Perhaps an alternative to the attribution could be: Content in this Wikipedia article was based on the..... . Thoughts? Rangasyd (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but there is no need to invent the wheel. I believe what you want is {{CC-notice}}, which has built-in support for CC-BY 3.0 AU already. I think maybe:

{{CC-notice|cc=by3au|url=http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5051353|author=[[New South Wales State Heritage Register]]}}

 This article incorporates text by New South Wales State Heritage Register available under the CC BY 3.0 AU licence.

You might even use it as part of the citation itself if it is only one citation used.

Another alternative, which actually makes more sense now that I think about it, is to create {{attribute NSW SHR}} to accompany {{Cite NSW SHR}} which you created (I suppose the similarity to my own {{Cite AHPI}} and {{Cite AHD}} isn't coincidental ). You don't seem to need my help, but I'd be happy to assist. --Muhandes (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Muhandes: Thanks. I wasn't aware of the {{CC-notice}} template. I'll use it from now on. Thanks. I'm not going create {{attribute NSW SHR}}, but more than happy for you to do so. Seems we have some common interests. Heritage listings in Australia are a mess. Only Qld is exceptional. BTW, feel free to enter this discussion. Rangasyd (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Right now I'm only watching my old articles. Back in 2010-2012 I worked on lighthouses in Australia, and used the heritage listings quite a bit, which led to interest in citation templates (which led to {{Cite certification}} for instance). I was away from Wikipedia for five years and now pursuing other interests, but I'm always happy to help (and maybe find new interests). --Muhandes (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the CC-notice template (which is why it isn't used on the Queensland Heritage Register articles) is that it is way too simplistic. The only way to identify the source is by URL and author. What about accessdate? What if it's not an online source, what if it has a publisher rather than an author, or it has an archived version (which is very important for an online source) or ... (insert all the other reasons that the cite templates have so many parameters). It really needs to be a wrapper around an arbitrary citation. Nor does it make provision for any distinction on the extent or nature of the use of the CC material. For example, I compute geocoordinates for the QHR articles from a CC-BY licensed SHAPE file which provides a list of coords of the heritage boundary; I cannot say I am "including text" from the source because there is no text in the SHAPE file which matches what I add to the article. Then there is the problem of dealing with the situation where the CC license is NOT on the original URL but off on some other webpage (which agains needs accessdates, archived versions and so forth). This is why I ended up having to do it all manually, e.g.

Attribution

This Wikipedia article was originally based on "The Queensland heritage register" published by the State of Queensland under CC-BY 3.0 AU license (accessed on 7 July 2014, archived on 8 October 2014). The geo-coordinates were originally computed from the "Queensland heritage register boundaries" published by the State of Queensland under CC-BY 3.0 AU license (accessed on 5 September 2014, archived on 15 October 2014).

I wish there *was* a better way. One of the problems I have is that people come along and decide they can shorten/simplify the attribution and, in doing so, misrepresent what reuse I made of the material or fail to attribute as requested (e.g. QHR explictly asks for attribution to "State of Queensland" but people think they can reduce this to simply "Queensland"). Indeed, I really think that we should invisibly "sign" these attributions so only the original contributor can update it, because only the original contributor knows the actual use made of the material. Others are just speculating. Kerry (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: While I would not edit an attribution message someone else made unless it is strictly misleading (like using "article based on" when only one sentence was taken from the source), I think you are massively overdoing it. The only reason we provide attribution is to satisfy CC-BY. The only requirement CC-BY makes is "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made". You are not required to state the exact url, access date, archive or anything else. {{CC-notice}} is more than adequate in 99% of the cases. --Muhandes (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Upper Canal System

nice. saved me getting my act together ;) User:Dave Rave/sandbox6 Dave Rave (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Rave: Thanks. Any chance you can source an image.... then we can up its classification. Additional references would be good, too. Rangasyd (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

refs are easy, the links at 8,9 are very comprehensive but for wiki they’d be OR as written by the Water board. Any trove refs would be easy but also just blurbs of data supplied by the Water board. Pics ... should be easy, they’d be out of copyright, technically.
do you think it needed a separate entry for the canal rather than a longer combined list the way I had it started ? The Scheme isn’t just the dams, it is the canals and prospect too. Dave Rave (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I take your point, clearly shown here. I think a seperate article on the canal system is warranted; in the say way that there is a seperate article on the reservoir. We can rewrite the Upper Nepean Scheme to widen scope to cover the three seperate pieces of infrastructure; viz. collection (dams Ca, Co, A, N), transport (canal system), and storage (Prospect). I was also looking at it from a NSW State Heritage Register perspective where each individual component of the infrastructure is listed as carrying heritage listing. This in turn is part of a bigger project to add to Wikipedia all items on the state register. But don't get me started on that! Rangasyd (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

of course ... same as the dams, one has an entry, the other three need one ... I'll keep expanding my sandbox entry until I'm happy with it and it can be a series of headings and links to articles. Dave Rave (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, re dams. Check out Upper Nepean Scheme now. Rangasyd (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO)

Hi Rangasyd! Per your edit [1] "Maria Fernandez" was the director of AGO "... from June 2012...", but from this source at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) she was already at DIBP on 27 April 2015 having left AGO.
I have been unable to source the current AGO director. 220 of ^Borg 06:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi 220 of ^Borg. Thanks for the correction. This source from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security grilling public servants on proposed expenditure lists Mr "Peter West" as Acting Director as of March 2016. I couldn't find a more recent source. Rangasyd (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I found a more recent reference from June 2017. Updating now. Thanks again. Rangasyd (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, IIRC I just stumbled on the discrepancy when I was looking at the Roman Quaedvlieg BLP (he's been a bit naughty, allegedly!), then looked at Australian Border Force, Googled her name etc, and realised Fernandez couldn't be in AGO and DIBP positions at once. This is apparently her photo here and Harvard 'bio' here, interesting lady. I have used your source to update Australian Signals Directorate with its last 2 directors, which were not even mentioned on the page. 220 of ^Borg 02:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Reflist

Cox, Refs= is not a bad idea ... Help:List-defined references, was there a reason ? Dave Rave (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Consistency, more than anything. Rangasyd (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Goulburn Court House

Please finish the Further reading.Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Rangasyd. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Rangasyd. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rangasyd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

iKeyMonitor

Hi! Rangasyd, thanks for your suggestions. Very helpful. Since I'm a new starter on Wikipedia. I have made the changes by following your guides. Kindly have a check IKeyMonitor again. Waiting for your furthermore suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudy Lamb (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rudy Lamb: Well done! You're a quick learner. The lead paragraph is really important. The language needs to be tight, contain little or no jargon, and only add links where required. You had iKeyMonitor is tagged as a brand of software..... Quite simply, iKeyMonitor is software... :-) Please note that function come before references, not after. And try and avoid lists of dates. Its much better for your sentences to flow. The other changes are cosmetic. Finally, have a look at the talk page and see how I've added tags. Please note that I added an {{infobox software}}. The infobox needs more content. Perhaps you should focus on making that box more complete... ? Cheers and happy editing. Rangasyd (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits

Hi, Rangasyd. Thank you for your edits. I would like to alert you to the fact that redundantly redundant intros that are already descriptive per our MOS do not need to be bolded or repeated. In this edit a lot of redundant redundancy is introduced and it contradicts our MOS. Furthermore, the coordinates are in decimal, not in degrees/minutes/seconds (dms). Somebody is going to pitch a fit about most of your edits. Soon. Take care. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Perhaps we can take this discussion to the talk page; however, I believe that MOS:BOLDTITLE is very clear and I have acted appropriately. I have reverted the coords. Although, they are somewhat over-precicise. Rangasyd (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rangasyd. It is not a big enough deal to discuss on the talk page. Previously I sort of did what you did, but without any repetition, and it got reverted. Basically, MOS tells us not to tool the intro to get all the words in a row, and not to repeat things. See the examples in the MOS. Personally, I like to have the article title bolded as closely as possible. I do think that it pops better. But, I do not care for redundancy to pull it off. You are free to reduce the precision of the coordinates. I simply copy and pasted them from Google Maps. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Rangasyd, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Rangasyd, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)