User talk:AYArktos~enwiki/Archive03

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 2005 and January 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.) --A Y  Arktos 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos
Hi, I don't suppose you've been down to Namadgi and taken some pictures of the rock art? When I tried to get some I got hailed on and didn't make it to the Yankee Hat shelter. If you do they'd be great for the history of the ACT article.--nixie 12:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thanks for getting rid of that embarassingly unsourced and probably inaccurate text from the Canberra article too. I had the same problem with the Nellie Hamilton info too, she clearly was a real person, but what evidence is there to suggest that she was the "last full-blood aboriginal"- as it still reads in the History of Canberra article.--nixie 23:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. If you want to change the licensing, then please do so. User:Expatkiwi 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Centrelink
The text inserted is on behalf of Centrelink. Replaced text holds a lot of inaccurate information on payments and eligibility. The text added to the site is to generalise payments and services Centrelink delivers. For details, people are directed to Centrelink's website. Considering that contributions on Wikipedia can be accessed and altered by anyone, there is no need to elaborate on payments and services as long as there is a link to the official website of the department. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kennis (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Another dead child
Hi,

Since your defense was crucial to the preservation of Ashley Burns at AfD earlier this year, I thought you might be interested to know that a similar case of a UK schoolchild is up for deletion in similar circumstances, in case you wished to contribute to the discussion. See Joseph Lister. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wahlenbergia sp. photo
Hi, I don't believe your photo is a W. gloriosa, more likely a W. stricta. Reasons: a) the habit is wrong, W. gloriosa forms a mat with short flower stalks, W. stricta forms a mound with talk flower spikes. b) the colour is wrong. Yes, W. gloriosa is hard to photograph, but the colour should still be darker c) I think the 'style' should be 1 or two lobes rather than 3. d) the vegetation is wrong, in all the places I've seen it in the wild it is growing with either alpine poas (such as fawcettae or heimata) or in shaded mountain forest on rock faces. e) the petals are flattened rather than tubular.

and the killer: f) Red Hill is way to dry and hot for gloriosa :-(

It's nice photo, perhaps you should start the Wahlenbergia stricta page? njh 11:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ianblair23's RfA
G'day AYArktos, I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Woops...
...my bad on William Evan Allan's centennarian category. Forgot to take my dyslexia medicine. wknight94 15:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

aboriginal flag
why was the aboriginal flag a copyvio? Astrokey44 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to make some legal assertion. I am not sure of the details of the court case you mention, but I doubt it was about displaying the flag and expect there must be some sort of commerical element involved. The question of copyright over a flag rests on it usage. If this Aboriginal Flag is used as a national flag, and is widely flown in Australia, then it is doubtful that any copyright is enforceable (at least for display purposes). Making a flag subject to copyright defeats the purpose of having a flag. Astrotrain 20:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Photos again
Hi, have you got any photos of Lanyon or Tuggeranong homesteads? They'd be a good addition of the ACT hisotry article.--nixie 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tracking down those images, I was hoping for something in colour- since there are already lots of black and white images in the article. I'm going to try and get some colour shots soon- I just didn't want to make duplicates if someone already had some.--nixie 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Invertebrate stubs
Hi there. What exactly were you trying to do with the above category. Perhaps I can be of assistance? --TheParanoidOne 23:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Canberra suburbs map source info.
Hi AYA. I've replied to your question on the suburb info page. Here is what I wrote: The exact words on the map are "Date of First settlement". I suspect that perhaps the date refers to the date the first suburban development appeared after the suburb was gazetted or declared a suburb, but I didn't put the map together. To make double sure, perhaps you could contact the Land Information Centre who published the map. The ACT Planning and Land Authority logo also appears above the Land Info Centre name, so I'd start there. The name of the publication is the 'Map of Canberra by Suburbs' and it is a series of suburb maps with block and section info and comes in a ring binder. -- Adz 11:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A while ago I said that I would double check the dates that I supplied on my suburb info page. I've checked the dates for the inner north and inner south and they are correct. I think that the dates supplied are the dates of first suburban settlement, as opposed to dates of first settlement... ... or dates first settled with the intention of becoming a suburb of Canberra. Not very helpful for the history article, but there you go. I would be interested to know if you find out nay more about it. -- Adz 01:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Old Parliament House Photo
With all respect, I strongly disagree with you that the old photo is a better one. I know it's pretty biased coming from me, but my photo is higher res, much sharper and IMO is shot from a much better angle - showing Mt. Ainslie, and the War Memorial not to mention a nice flag flying. If you still disagree I propose putting it to the vote of a few people. --Fir0002 09:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake AYArktos, I didn't realize my photo showed the back of the building. Even so I think it would be a usefull photo somewhere on the canberra article because it clearly shows three prominent landmarks. BTW this is the view from the new Parliament House towards the old - on our Canberra camp we didn't get to visit the old one :-( --Fir0002 01:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Tilba
An article without any text is a clear speedy deletion candidate. If someone only wants to add pictures, they should be adding them to commons or to existing articles. This has now been remedied, but please don't attack me for cleaning up his mess, when I was acting well within the rules. Ambi 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be too quick to assume total good faith from fir0002 in this recent matter. I contacted him on his talk page and directed him to the Canberra wikiproject. He continued adding his photos without entering the discussion, he didn't comment until his photos started being removed from articles. This demonstrates some level of bad faith if you ask me. --Martyman- (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi AYArktos, thanks for expanding the article on Tilba, that's exactly what I hoped would happen when I started the page - some good wikipedia would notice it and add a little text (not my talent) thus starting an article. It's good to see that there are some Wikipedians who would rather expand than delete. Thanks for the compliments as always Martyman. --Fir0002 04:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wahlenbergia
Ok I just did a quick check on google image search and it does seem its Wahlenbergia stricta. I changed the photo on floral emblem to the new glorosia one Astrokey44 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Bredbo
Hi AYArktos - thanks for your welcoming notes - as you seem to be an ACT/Monaro resident can you have a look at the Bredbo article pls? - doesn't seem right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzznut (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 December 2005   (UTC)

Image:Australian aboriginal flag.png

 * Thanks AYArktos for your change regarding 100px|thumb|rigth|[[Songline]]. I did never notice such rendering. Best regards Gangleri | [ Th] | T 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lambing Flat riots
Hi AYArktos. Apologies for my latish reply. I'll remove the crime template from this article. When the template was intially created I went on a minor pasting effort to get the template out there and in use on articles related to Australian crime. I agree, it doesn't quite serve the intended purpose here. On my 17" monitor, moving the template down gives it no place to go as the current article content is approximately one page long as is. I'm happy to see it removed and have done so. -- Longhair 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

19xx in Australia
Please don't hate me for it, but I moved this page to the Wikipedia namespace, as it is a template rather than an actual article. Useful, though. :) Ambi 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Floriade
Thanks for your restoration of images in the Floriade article. Some articles lend themselves to having a higher proportion of images to text and this is one of them.

Some people seem keen to make wikipedia more like a law textbook but I much prefer a more multimedia experience. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
I appreciated your many edits on Albury, New South Wales. I checked your contributions and found that nearly every subject you contribute to is about Australia. Good on ya, mate! Blarneytherinosaur 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian Prohibition
Hi AYArktos-

Thank you for thoughtfully placing my comments in the Prohibition article. I noticed that earlier in the entry, Russia's prohibition is given different dates than I listed. My source for the 1916-1917 date is: Ewing, John A. and Rouse, Beatrice A. Drinks, Drinkers and Drinking. In Ewing, John A. and Rouse, Beatrice A. (Eds.) Drinking Alcohol in American Society - Issues and Current Research. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1976, pp. 5-30. Should I change the other dates given for Russia?David Justin 18:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi AYArktos-

I did some googling also and agree that the 1916-1917 date must be erroneous. Therefore, I deleted my mention of Russia for that reason as well as the fact that Russia is addressed in an earlier section.David Justin 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Moruya, New South Wales
I see you've been there. I went to high school there; my parents own a discount store on the main drag. :) I did a bit of the kind of research I think you did these last couple of days when I went to visit my grandparents at Thorpdale.

Small world huh?!

--pfctdayelise 10:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA?
Just wondering if you had ever considered getting a mop 'n bucket of your own? You would of course know your edit history better than I, but I believe you're a respected member of the wikicommunity. And actually I am sure there would be many existing admins who would leap to nominate you (rather than I, a mere fellow pleb). cheers, pfctdayelise 12:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The advice from my better-half is to stay away from talk pages and just edit! Hence my ambivalence - especially exposing myself on RfA - not least when considering the unkind things that have been sent in that forum - as a sensitive soul I am not sure I feel like opening myself up for that! Very good advice. I only thought of it because I saw that small Aboriginal flag image, and I thought "Why didn't ze delete it zirself?"


 * I understand your feelings about RfA. Personally, I don't think an editor should have to devote themselves to cleanup and vandalism fighting just to gain admin tools, if it truly is no big deal. But that's the way it seems to be. Ah well. If you reconsider, feel free to drop a line on my talk page or email me.


 * Happy editing, pfctdayelise 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anglica redirect to (East) Anglia
If you check the Anglica history, you will see that it was a lot more than a misspelling it was a full blown geo-stub of a nonexistent entity until I found it and changed it to a redirect. I am not sure whether East Anglia is the right destination though, I came from Anglicanism and the meaning of Anglia there is the Latin name for England the first definition on the Anglia page. Please review and let me know what you think, I may change it back to Anglia unless you have very good reasons why not. Dabbler 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anglia, is the Latin noun for England, East Anglia is a part of England (from the Angles, a people who moved to England after the Romans left) but when Anglia is used as another part of speech, the -c- is included to make it easier to say. Hence Anglican, anglicize. Anglica also occurs as a Latin adjective in soome places such as species names where it means Engish. There is no such place as Anglica, except when used by people trying to make a back-formation from an Anglic- word. By the way I could not see the religious site you referenced, it won't go through my company firewall. Dabbler 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have had a chance to look at what you were looking at and Polydore Vergil's Anglica Historia proves my point. It is Latin for English History not History of England, the latter would be genitive Historia Angliae. Dabbler 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Alas, poor High Range, I knew it well....
Sorry, couldn't resist. Your comment on High Range, NSW made me think; I've posted at Talk:Southern Highlands, New South Wales, please visit if you've a mind to.... Quill 20:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ABS flags
I have to ask - why do you think it is relevant to list a document that noone working on the page has read, and is not widely available in a list of additional references. I have referenced notes from the 1998 version in the notes list.

I have a suspicion that the list of references was probably cut and pasted from one of the external online sources (along with parts of the text which still need to be rewritten). Very few of the other sources listed in that section was in wide circulation. I plan to remove the whole section when I have fact checked and referenced the rest of the article.--nixie 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt the old version is significantly different from the 98 version, but the 98 discusses the flags approved since 1989. The purpose of a refernce section isn't to show everything ever written about a subject, its to show where the article was sourced from, and as I said, judging for the amount of cut and pasted copyvio material and common apperance of those sources on external site, I doubt they were ever consulted.--nixie 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See this diff for the genesis of the "reference" list.--nixie 23:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My main point is that we shouldn't be concerned with a list of refs that probably were never consulted to produce the text. What we should be working on is creating a good article (getting rid of the reamining copyvios in particular) with a list of references that were actaully consulted in the writing.--nixie 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

architecture article
Hi, I'll try to find time to look at the article, but I'm about to go into a seven-week work project that will allow me very limited time to log into WP. Tony 23:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Shrines of Remembrance - Melbourne and Brisbane
Thank you for inviting me to take part in your project. I had been intending to do so, but while Cyberjunkie is reverting what I have done, and while Cyberjunkie seems to be intent on removing as many references to the Shrine of Remembrance in Brisbane as he possibly can, I cannot see much point in participationg. I apologise for this, and hope that you will understand. Figaro 09:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not just that he moved the page to a disambiguation page. Cyberjunkie has been actively removing links to the Shrine of Remembrance, Brisbane, from various War Memorial pages.  The pages on which he has done this include Shrine and ANZAC War Memorial.  He also unnecessarily drew far greater attention to the Melbourne Shrine of Rememebrance on the Shrine of Remembrance (disambiguation) page than any other Shrine.  Figaro 10:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have modified the Shrine of Remembrance Melbourne article, and also modified the Shrine of Remembrance, Brisbane article, so that they go directly to each other in the same way that other Wikipedia pages of the same sort of title go to each other (e.g. Melbourne Airport).


 * I also modified the Shrine of Remembrance (disambiguation) page, so that all Shrines of Remembrance will now be given an equal footing. Figaro 03:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have decided not to have anything more to do with Shrine of Remembrance or Shrine of Remembrance (disambiguation). Apparently, Cyberjunkie was no happier when seeing your modification to the dismbiguation page than he was with mine, and he has once again reverted to his own preferred version of the disambiguation page. Figaro 09:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for the talk-page tip. I put it in. pfctdayelise 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

War Memorials
Thank you for your comment.

I have not seen the books you mentioned, but I will check for them at the library at the University, as well as at the State Library, to see if I can find them.

There are some monuments at Anzac Square in Brisbane, with respect to various wars, including the Second Boer War (1899-1902), World War I, World War II, the Korean war and the Vietnam War, among others. I have photos of the Second Boer War memorial, which I put onto the Anzac Square, Brisbane article. Would these also be okay to put onto your article page?

By the way. I have put your comments to me on their own archive page, so that the comments can be kept together. The page is User:Figaro/others. Regards. Figaro 11:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation of Australian Bridges
I gave my reasons in this edit. Having Category:Bridges in Melbourne a subcat of Category:Transport in Melbourne is why organic growth was not selected. As far as I can see I implemented the best categorisation system possible (through the eyes of the beholder etc). Although I'm happy to change it to whatever everyone else (or you) wants, just let me know what that is.--Commander Keane 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so we could put the 3 Melbourne bridges in Category:Transport in Melbourne, is that what you are suggesting? I guess that's messy, but ok. The reasons I haven't justified the excessive categorisation is that I don't why it is considered excessive. It's just been called "excessive" and "overkill", which aren't really explanations. I'm guessing it's excessive because:
 * Readers have to click through another layer of cats (which I don't mind, since the result is a sharper category, but others might mind it)
 * It is a burden on the servers (I don't think so, but maybe)
 * It's is annoying not to be able to view all, say, bridges in Victoria without purusing both the cat and it's subcat (this is a problem with the MediaWiki software, which should be resolved)
 * I can't justify something when I think it's better than every other option, unless the benefits of the other options are presented. Also, thanks for working through this problem with me. I'm not trying to bugger you around or anything.--Commander Keane 08:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
I've been lurking around Wikipedia for months and decided to help out whenever I can. I appreciate your message. One quick question--is there anything I should be doing that I'm not or vice versa? I'm just trying to do my best, so let me know if I've made a gaffe! Jbjalbrz 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Jbjalbrz

I've Been Everywhere
Thanks for this article. It's a great song from my past that I'd forgotten about :) -- Longhair 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your Navy point?
AYArktos - As an inclusionist I am missing your point in removal of Navy line from Wagga article especially as it is not vandalism and courtesy requires discussion before the type of action you are taking. The introduction into the article about Wagga attempts to provide a general overview of the town - Navy have been stationed as their own branch of the services in Wagga Wagga since World War II - personnel are posted to Wagga Wagga RAN not to the RAAF. If it is important enough to provide a general overview of the town in the lead paragraph that includes the presence of the services then the Navy is part of that fact which gives people a correct overall picture of this aspect of the town. It certainly does not belong in the body as a side-line. VirtualSteve 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look a little more carefully. Any check of Google or other search engine will reveal detail of RAN Wagga.  They have been there since World War II - Navy personnel are posted to Wagga Wagga as Navy.  They run their own race, wear their own uniform, report to their own superiors and conduct Navy business.  They have been mentioned in parliament and there was a ship called the HMAS WAGGA WAGGA.  Where they are housed is not the issue and a reference to Woolworths and Coles is very non-sequitir. Any way I see that you feel you own this article and have reverted again - your call AYArktos - your immediate support is what makes working on Wiki so good to so many.  Thank you. VirtualSteve 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (see previous chain of correspondence) Your comments are getting a little rude now. I am thanking you for your support - my additions are not insensible - I have never used the word 'Base' I have used the word 'presence' - since world war II the Navy has had it's own presence - as it's own entity - this is a fact.  And you should not paint all editors with the same brush - I am committed to wiki and do read the talk pages where a particular talk is relevant to my interest.  Now for sources try the first few hits to see Navy is it's own organisation and presence in Wagga Wagga, is mentioned in Parliament as it's own entity and of the fact of HMAS Wagga Wagga named for it's link to the town.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4521/topstories/story20.htm http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4518/topstories/story12.htm http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20000504091 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20030529041 Now to help me understand your point can you cite sources that the RAAF incorporates RAN as a part of their command - in other words that the Navy do not operate as their own group - as per wiki policy? VirtualSteve 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I had done a google search and had came up with the same references as you and hence my reversions and comments were based on that info. The first reference you gave states "Navy personnel based at RAAF Base Wagga". HMAS Wagga Wagga was as far as I can see a ship named no doubt for it connection to the town, but that isn't what the addition said. There is no base. HMAS Harman for example is an inland navy base. Without being a base as far as I can see it is not an "entity" at Wagga. It has a presence but not to my mind significant enough - hence my reference to Coles and Woolworths who have a more significant presence. If you want to assert significance do so, but in a meaningful way.--A Y  Arktos 23:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My intention is not to be rude. You asserted that "Any way I see that you feel you own this article".  I responded to that assertion - neither I nor anyone else "owns" articles on wikipedia.
 * (Important to keep the chain at it's commencement point so other people can also maintain the relevance - or perhaps you don't agree with that also?) Anyway I have come across this type of bludgeoning semantic rudeness before - the twisting the argument and not answering the question changing reference points and then when all else fails stating simply that what you (AYArktos) write is significant and what others write or post as pictures is not. You haven't answered my question - forget about nonsense of Woolworths/Coles - Navy have been a presence since the War - just as Army and Airforce have, but you don't think that is significant enough. Fair enough - you're the boss - don't worry about providing your source as I requested as per wiki policy use mine. Enjoy your day in Canberra with architecture and we'll leave Wagga Wagga somewhat unwritten.VirtualSteve 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh and of course the New South Wales Parliament (see my references) stating in Hansard, Honourable members may be surprised to learn that there is a Navy in Wagga Wagga - is not significant either!

Lollipop offer
It's really not fair of me to bring out the lollipop offer after your edits. If you want one (or any other snack I can get in Israel &mdash; a krembo, perhaps?), send me an e-mail with an address. Thanks for helping! --Mgreenbe 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The offer's not virtual: I'll really send you a lollipop! --Mgreenbe 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Schools
Hi, I know you've done quite a bit of work on Aussie schools, I'm currently working on the Sydney article and would like to add some info on schools similar to that which appears in the Canberra article. Would you be able to lend a hand, or point me in the direction of some information? Thanks.--nixie 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
Your last message has me baffled? What attack? VirtualSteve 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting! My page is a compilation of private editing tools and prompts. It is not an attack on you in the slightest and you should instruct your ego to not be offended or facilitated by it.  Now shouldn't you (we) be editing? VirtualSteve 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I only want to do this one more time AYArktos. Make yourself clear without using bludgeoning language tactics. How are you personally attacked? What is it that you are upset by? What is your problem exactly? Please I do not have time to be harassed by circular talk additions - indeed I would just like to edit - I promise I will leave any editing that you make to any edit anywhere on wiki alone - your edits are right, everything you say is correct! VirtualSteve 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor adjustment has been made - so you can take off the chain-mail shirt. Smile - We (you) are all so damn insignificant. Keep on editing! VirtualSteve 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Okay we are getting somewhere. Glad you laughed. Glad you understand you are a tyrant (and I assume that this is not because you are from Canberra - unless you are PM John H under a pseudonym) but - well no point putting in a prompt to myself unless I mean it - and I do - so I will leave Wagga Navy alone (I spent 12 years in Wagga Wagga) and know very well what it does there. I will also leave any edit you are involved in alone - at least until I feel that I am may get somewhere. I am moving on now. Cheers. Enjoy your editing. VirtualSteve 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Finally you make yourself clear.  One should be careful when one takes any word or phrase out of context don't you think?  The phrase in full is actually somewhat praising - in total it means, Silence, life is too short, let those who demand to be in charge have their way.  It is a prompt for me to remember that if you (and a couple of other users - yet to be added - that I have encountered) place any edit on an article - I am to let you and your methodology be - because it is a waste of time discussing such edits with you - you will always be right and everyone else will always be wrong. That is not a personal attack - it is a prompt to me. Now can I have your permission to edit? Please? VirtualSteve 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Waterfall
Much better. Giano | talk 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Observatory
Your article looks great, would you consider writing up a factoid for DYK? At the moment we're short on suggestions that aren't Polish or Russian. Thanks. --nixie 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)