User talk:Assize/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

West Australia Project
Hi, as a matter of courtesy - could you please alert fellow editors (?) of the launching of new templates at the WA Project page - (as you might not be aware - as you  seem to be single handedly re-arranging such articles for the whole of australia ) Most other states dont have state projects but we and tasmania have active projects - and such alerting would be appreciated -  Thanks SatuSuro 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Article creation
List of Western australian courts and tribunals needs a category - and if you touch western australian topics - its well worth seeing if they have wp australia wa=yes on their talk page - so we can keep track - specially if its an article you have created and no one else has seen - we dont need orphans. Also has anyone alerted you to the Australia Project New Articles and New Stubs list? That would be one way to come out of your closet - and have your work underscrutiny - whish is always needed when such a fine and wonderful arrray of articles are created -  no category and limited WP:V and WP:N may well see some of your started articles challenged - best to keep close tabs! SatuSuro 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note - Category talk pages are not articles - YOU MUST put class=NA within the phrase inside the stub tag framework otherwise it shows up as an article - which it is not. SatuSuro 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Class=NA means a reviewer isn't going to come along and rate it because it is not rateable. It applies only to metadata - ie. templates and categories fall into this group. Orderinchaos78 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Elections articles
Just wanted to say a fantastic job on the WA elections! Hope you don't mind but I used your basic template for the 2005 one when I was fixing that one. DanielT5 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation and capitalization
Assize, you've been doing an admirable job creating pages with substantial amounts of information on them. But you are extremely careless about using correct grammar. Leaving the whole "Magistrates/Magistrates'" thing aside, you created an article including the phrase "Western australian". There is no way you can justify the lack of capital letter there. Similarly, when you created a couple of coroner's court articles, the one you created for the A.C.T. you used an apostrophe in, and then for a couple of the states you left it out. The puncutation in the text throughout articles you have created is haphazard, with apostrophes in some instances of "coroner's" and no apostrophe in others. ("Coroner's" is correct, by the way.) I have corrected some of them, but I can't keep doing it forever. Why are you suddenly on the war path about apostrophes in magistrates' courts? What justification for "magistrates court" have you got except a typographical error in a circular?GSTQ 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I've checked the N.S.W. Coroners Act and there's no mention of the phrase "Coroner's Court" with or without apostrophe I can find. Nor, I'll bet, is there a reference to a magistrates' court in any N.T. Ordinance. Sure enough there's the "Coroners Court" (sic) in the Queensland Coroners Act but I'm not quite convinced you actually went through every relevant statute and found the relevantly punctuated form given that your own punctuation is haphazard throughout the articles. What statutes did you check? And why should an encyclopaedia take an erroneous puncuation as gospel just because it's in a statute? The statutes don't prohibit the courts in question being referred to in any other way (cf. the so-called magistrates' courts in the N.T.) than the name they are given by statute. Why should we not, in the articles about each court, correct an obvious error stemming from nothing other than ignorance of the rules on how to use an apostrophe in English? It wasn't a deliberate decision on the legislatures' part to create some heretofore-unknown entity different from all the magistrates' courts and coroner's courts that had ever existed before.GSTQ 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An apostrophe does not have to indicate possession; it can indicate any number of relationships of which possession is only one. Generally, if you can reverse the terms and put "of" in between then there should be an apostrophe indicating the genitive. Men do not generally own the toilets they use, but that doesn't mean they are not men's toilets. My friend does not own his father, but I still talk about my friend's father. "The magistrates' court" is another way of saying "the court of the magistrates"; "the coroner's court" is another way of saying "the court of the coroner". In neither case is the lack of an apostrophe anything but an error. All I had been hoping to do was to prevent any further propagation of what seems to be a peculiarly Australian apathy, and a fairly recent one too, as to apostrophes in courts' names.GSTQ 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Great work again. Keep it up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Another DYK!
Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Philip Whistler Street, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know where you can improve it if you see fit.

And here I was, thinking you were a newbie finishing up your first article! You need to start your User page -- but it looks like you haven't had time... ;-) MeegsC 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Afd comment
Hi, I wanted to respond to the points you raise on the Articles for deletion/Amir Butler. This is just food for thought...

You said "My comments about references was in respect of those quoted in the written article. I understand that it is practice that a "keeper" should update the article and include the relevant references if they really want to keep the article."

What you are describing there is a moderate degree of Deletionism. If that is what you think is right, you will find User:Elaragirl/Deletionism interesting. A problem with rabid deletionism is that it is easier to nominate an article for deletion or vote delete than it is to sufficiently improve the an article. Also, there is little benefit in fixing the article during an Afd, because there is about a 50% chance that the article will be deleted anyway, and the improvements will be sent to the bit bucket (i.e. throwing good money after bad). Stubs are routinely deleted because people didnt have time to fix the article. Also, often a person who votes keep has never seen the article before, and is only visiting the Afd because it has appeared on a WP:DELSORT list, such as WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia. As a result, often the people on an Afd are being taken away from their usual activities at the request of the Afd nominator who has often not tried to improve the article or discuss its future on the talk page.

My thinking is more along the lines of Eventualism, as stubs can serve as navigation aids, and I believe that Wikipedia has a number of systematic biases, some of which are enshrined in policy and guidelines. Finding two sources can be difficult for some topics, esp. when they can only be kept when a visitor to Afd who believes there is reason to keep needs to learn about a topic they know nothing about. see Kupari and its Afd where we learnt about a town on the other side of India by the same name (I suspect the names are actually different, but have been translated into the same Latin English letters). You will notice that a lot of ppl who come to Afds often dont put any real effort in either the vote to delete (checking the subject isnt likely to end up being a valuable article) or keep (fixing the article to demonstrate the usefulness of the article), articles are renominated after only a week, and people go on a rampage. I recommend reading a log of completed Afds (e.g. Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 21) to get a feel for how practise can differ from policy and guidelines, and how much work was done on the articles during the Afd.

It is important to keep in mind WP:DP: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". John Vandenberg 09:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you like the Media Watch ref but what was wrong with the ABC Radio PM ref - ie * - or don't you approve of ABC radio, just ABC television? You seem to think that the fact parliamentarians mention him doesn't make him notable, even though one was a UK politiicain referencing him as an Australian commentator of note - why suddenly does an ABC television program tip the balance.--Golden Wattle  talk 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New South Wales Sentencing Council
Hi Assize. You are off to such a great start on the article New South Wales Sentencing Council that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris erskine
I have renominated this as I waited a month as asked, however I don't know how to make a 2nd AfD debate... I have already asked another Mod, but if you get there first can you please fix whatever I've done? cheers.JJJ999 04:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6
Hello, just here to inform you that the deletion of Wahroonga Public School has beenoverturned. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

is this number 23?

 * ...that after Anthony Kemp returned to England where he was questioned about his involvement in the overthrow of William Bligh as Governor of New South Wales he again went south and became known as the "father of Tasmania"? by Assize

OK? Victuallers 10:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Magistrates' vs. Magistrates
The inconsistency in Wikipedia is really getting to me. Just giving you a heads-up I've started a discussion on WikiProject Australian law/Policy, which I hope will involve a few more users than just you and me.GSTQ (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Jeffrey Miles, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
I have posted a question at Deletion review which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wahroonga
The article was in a woeful state, had been abandoned for many months, and contained several policy violations. As an admin, I was obliged per various policies to remove it in spite of the DRV several months earlier, which is not insurance against re-deletion if the article fails to meet appropriate standards (especially as the DRV was not advertised and only contained five votes, most of whom had voted Keep at the successful AfD two days before). Furthermore, there is no consensus on the wider project, established over numerous AfDs and community discussions, that primary schools are at all notable unless they fit some extraordinary category (which a few do) - local paper references to the loos stinking at the school do not quite cut it. Orderinchaos 08:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It failed any assertion of notability, which was the reason it was deleted, and the attempts to try and make it assert such (none of which had been made in the last 4 months of the article's existence) actually created an undue weight situation (see my example above). I'm particularly unimpressed with the end-running of process that sometimes seems to occur with some of these topics where DRV is used to get around an AfD outcome that a minority in the discussion don't like - the DRV process was therefore voided in my opinion and the AfD result stands. Orderinchaos 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The DRV does not stand as not one argument proposed that the closer had misread consensus. It was an attempt at AfD mark II, and was not sufficiently advertised that those with an interest either way in the topic knew of its existence. There was a clear consensus to delete at AfD. Orderinchaos 10:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick check over the AfD, and I see the following result:

9 delete (1 duplication, 8 does not assert notability, 5 lack of secondary sources) 2 merge - one of which argues no notability 7 keep (6 on principle (no reason given), 1 claims refs found justify keeping)

WP:DP clearly says "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." There were no grounds given to keep the article, and solid grounds given to delete it. The grounds given to delete it were protested but not challenged. The DRV did not even address them. Orderinchaos 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not wikilawyer. You know the outcome you want, and you're determined to get it even if it means undermining Wikipedia processes. Oddly enough, I have better things to be getting on with like improving the encyclopaedia, rather than arguing about whether a school whose loos allegedly stink is notable for an article. Somehow I think that you miss the entire point that the reason we have a notability policy is so that Wikipedia does not become a coatrack for obscure local grievances (not to mention the damage we potentially cause to the entities which are subject to them, and the legal risks we create for ourselves) - we're not the letters page for the Hornsby Advocate, we're trying to become a reliable source of information. Orderinchaos 11:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Endeavour is ACOTF
Hi. After far too long, I got round to updating the Australian Collaboration last night. Please help to update HM Bark Endeavour in any way you can. Thanks for your support. --Scott Davis Talk 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s
I wasn't referring to you when I said "an above comment gives the impression...", I was referring to RC-0722's comment "It appears to me that this is just a compilation list of other articles". I said an above comment, not the above comment. Anyway, I wasn't trying to say that one article should get priority over the other due to when it was created, I was simply clarifying. And I was explaining that because it was a nomination for deletion, one of them was going to go sooner or later. Personally, I think it should have been a merge discussion as well. Just clearing that up. ;)  Ss112  ( Talk here! ) 11:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK
And a third! Thanks,  Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

problem
There is a small hole in the bottom corner of my clipboard, it usually holds and I know I should get a new one. During my last load of the DYKs I found that Charlie Lynn had wriggled through that hole and into my bit bucket ... thanks for pointing it out. I have now stapled Charlie to DYK next update and warned him against any further misdemeanours. Thx for your understanding.... I will triumph over my own incompetence. I wil iwil Victuallers (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Helen Westwood
Thanks for your comments. Just that I could find no web citation that she actually worked as an advisor for McDonald. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NSW MPs
Just wanted to say nice work with finishing the NSW MLAs and MLCs. All those blue links on the tables are a lovely sight to see! Frickeg (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

John Robertson DYK query
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
Hi! I have started a discussion about the local interest clause in WP:ORG. You participated in the discussion that led to its conclusion. Your input into the discussion would be appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New South Wales Court of Appeal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Emmett. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Justice Andrew Bell in chambers (New South Wales).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Justice Andrew Bell in chambers (New South Wales).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)