User talk:Beneaththelandslide/Archive2

'''This is inactive discussion. Please do not edit it.'''

bias
I think that it is natural, given the vast majority of Australian Editors are left wing. However, most are very even handed and go out of their way to do so. Given that, there are some articles, and sections of articles, that I am unhappy about. Xtra 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Damir
Haha, thanks mate. But I just started the article (wrote the bit at the top) - the quote and stuff were added by someone else, so I shouldn't take much of the credit :). Makes for great reading though doesn't it, the bloke is a character even if he's a strange unit. I was surprised there was no article on him until I made it.

Good to see another Oasis fan, that's probably my second fave after "Acquiesce". You into Aussie Rules at all? I've set up WikiProject AFL, which you might wanna take a look at. Cheers,  R o  gerthat  Talk  11:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Waterfall gully adelaide.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Waterfall gully adelaide.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Waterfall gully waterfall.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Waterfall gully waterfall.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Westfield marion.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Westfield marion.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Adelaide from foothills.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Adelaide from foothills.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As the image is also available on Commons, I've deleted it from the English Wikipedia. Thanks for your prompt reply. -- Longhair 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:New adelaide airport.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:New adelaide airport.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 21:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hazelwood Park history section
Have you seen this. Do you know where the Clark family and the Hazelwood estate fit in, im not sure if this was after the stuff that is there or what ... (If you look at the source look at for example Hazelwood Ave) ...maelgwntalk 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Marion wetlands.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Marion wetlands.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. BRossow 17:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hazelwood Park
Hey Beneaththelandslide, I just wanted to let you know your Hazelwood Park article is looking awesome! Keep up the good work. Dally Horton 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Info Source?
Howdy Beneaththelandslide, I've just seen the great info you've added to the Toorak Gardens article. Were are you finding this stuff? I searched for hours the other night and I'm struggling to find anything. I have got some more photos to upload though. I got stuck with Toorak Gardens, so I started on Dulwich. Same problem! Dally Horton 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Block
According to the block log you are not blocked. Xtra 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers for taking a look, but . michael talk 06:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I trouble you to add a word at Template talk:Repeat vandal. I'm having trouble persuading some people that there is a problem.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. 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 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Adelaide sources
Hey there. In response to your question about the sources I use for articles on South Australian history, I mainly use the following (although not exclusively):
 * The Flinders History of South Australia - The Political History (1986), ed. by Dean Jaensch and its sister companion The Flinders History of South Australia - The Social History (1986), ed. by Eric Richards.
 * The Australian Dictionary of Biography gives concise biographies of South Australians.
 * Depending on the time frame you wish to concentrate on, I have found books on Thomas Playford IV to be quite useful, as they tend to span the quarter of a century Playford served as Premier. If I recall correctly, Playford's South Australia: essays on the history of South Australia, 1933-1968, was quite good.

All these books should be readily available from Adelaide libraries. Hope this helps. --Roisterer 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Langman reserve.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Langman reserve.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 12:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Greg Sheridan
Hi there Michael. How is school going? I think you may be interested in this. I'm not sure it is encyclopedic to put commentaries of Sheridan's opinions here. It is supposed to be for the reader to work out if they think his opinions are justified in fact or not.Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only read the Australian because it has the best quality cartoons; The only columnist in Australia that I like is Peter Roebuck, the rest seem rather obsessed with their (perceived) intellect and repeat the same stuff each week, with very dubious reasoning. Still, I think that Sheridan, as well as anyone else, should be evaluated on what he says, without editors prodding the reader. As for Christianity in Australia, I've observed this Tarins guy for 2 months now, and it's pretty obvious he is here to insert Islamic POV at the expense of all other religions. The Christianity article was created in the same way as Rugs Galore, basically (were you aware of User:DarrenRay and his date with the ArbCom at Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence?). The "Islamic personalities" there is a list of notable islamic people, but Tarins only allows positive things about Islam (saying that terrorists (convicted and suspected) are "Australian criminals" not "muslims") while he previously stuck all these "jewish terrorist" tags around the place. See also the history of Keysar Trad and User talk:Gullivers travels for more.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been reverted again. See User:PatCheng and the contribution list to Falun Gong and make up your own mind.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Scripture Suggestion (Portal:Christianity)
Hi Michael. Thanks for your suggestion. I have replied to your suggestion here. As you can see from earlier examples, the "showcase scripture" must be longer than one verse long, so if you could suggest a longer passage that includes John 3:16 then by all means it can be included. Once you have done this, simply post it to the suggestions page and it will be used next month. Cheers, Brisvegas 01:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. I changed the colour scheme per your suggestion. How do you like it?

Grace Portolesi
What is in doubt? I'm happy to supply references if something is disputed. Ambi 11:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Specifics, boy, specifics. The tag is good for this purpose. Tagging claims you genuinely dispute is fair, and I'll source them if you'll go to the trouble of pointing them out. Tagging an article without specifics, however, is just being a pest. Ambi 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tracking down the three cites now, but Factiva is being a pest and timing out, so it might have to wait until the morning. In any case, though, there was no interpretation on any of them. It is, believe it or not, entirely possible for a sane person, particularly one on the other side of politics, to dislike the Family First Party. Ambi 11:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There now. Got it working. Ambi 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What else is disputed? Ambi 11:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben Gray
Is this guy really notable? I was about to nominate it for deletion, but then I saw that you'd written it. Ambi 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably not as he didn't get elected. I am not particularly concerned whether his article is removed or not - but I am tilting towards a keep. The particularly high vote for the Greens (15% from memory) in a traditionally conservative electorate (Bragg) is fairly notable - and Ben would have been a significant driving force behind that. michael talk 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My two cents are that he's not notable enough. I'd AfD it.--cj | talk 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, no worries. michael talk 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not too fussed either way. If it is 15%, it'd be a good claim to notability (but article should emphasise this), though the article at the moment says he polled 9%. Ambi 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and AfD'd it.--cj | talk 07:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock
You should be able to edit now. — Mar. 29, '06 [05:23] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

DaGizza's RfA


Hi, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. GizzaChat  &#169; 12:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oasis
I like your taste in music. That song was an absolute klassyk. Xtra 09:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Heya
We'll certainly give it a shot! Thanks for the kind message on my talk page Beneaththelandslide :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Associates of a certain user
There is not much I can do. I am not an admin and the vandalsim is being done by moving IP's. I have not yet found the website where these GMail accounts are being offered. But I have no doubt who is behind it. Perhaps Such Yourself Can However. Xtra 07:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi there Michael. Thanks for the barnstar. By the way, I was clearing out my watchlist and though that this article - Christian dating may be of interest of you. I put it on my list when I was doing Special:Newpages patrol once because it seemed strange and I couldn't think of anything to do with it - it hasn't been touched since. I have also been targetted for reverting vandalism to Xtra's talk page - all with a recurring theme. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion
I am about to remove from your talk page those edits with obscene edit summaries that libel Xtra. Snottygobble 05:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All done. Snottygobble 05:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Snottygobble 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)