User talk:CJ/Archive 9

Note
I hope you read my last message before you archived. : ) - √αʑʑρεɾ 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes.--cj | talk 07:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And you like my award? √αʑʑρεɾ 07:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I trust you recieved and read my email, : ) √αʑʑρεɾ 09:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes.--cj | talk 09:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You truly are currently a man of few words lol, √αʑʑρεɾ 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

News portal on John Howard
John Howard is not the first PM to face a judicial inquiry. Bob Hawke also faced one. Thanks, Andjam 12:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling on Userpage
Couldn't help but notice that "welcoming committee" on your userpage is missing the "c" in welcoming. I would have changed it myself but you don't seem to like people playing with your userpage (quite understandably). So I thought I'd leave you a message instead. Witty lama 02:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Telstra Football Anytime
It was a press release, so it’s hardly copyrighted material. Put it back now please, so it can be worked on if need be. --Executive.koala 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still copyright Ek unless you obtain permission to license it under the GFDL. But even then, doesn't it occur to you that the text of press release will almost always be inconsistent with Wikipedia policies? The text you posted was not only copyright, but also POV. You're welcome to write an article for Telstra Football Anytime in your own words from what you deduce from external sources, but please don't copy those sources themselves.--cj | talk 03:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Fpopages
Template:Fpopages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (I am telling you because you have edited it). Batmanand | Talk 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry rush of blood to head. Ignore it. No longer listed. Batmanand | Talk 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

portal
I have a question regarding Portal:Fashion. Why was it taken off the main page of portals? It's of the same quality as Portal:Rock and Roll, yet that hasn't been taken off. --Osbus 15:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perth population density source
It looks like you were the one who added the infobox on Perth on 2005-10-12. Part of this infobox is a figure for the population density of Perth.

The population figure has since been updated and referenced, but I cannot find the source for the density figure. I suspect it needs to be updated to reflect the population increase. Could you please advise where you found this statistic? LX 09:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that I refered to the Perth Statistical District of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. You'll find it in the AusStats section of the ABS website.--cj | talk 10:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It appears you calculated the density based on the Statistical District area as given in the 2001 census. I have updated the density figure based on the same area and commented accordingly on the talk page. Case closed. LX 13:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian Wikipedians' notice board?
Hi Cyberjunkie,

Are you aware that the notice board is still on walkabout? Andjam 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's finished now. It took a while to go through - the interface isn't really helpful for selective deletions; you have to check each individual edit you want restored. And there were nearly 4000 edits to AWNB. Thanks, --cj | talk 07:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I assumed it'd only take a few minutes. Sorry about that, and thanks for your work. Andjam 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured content
Hello Cyberjunkie, I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. You might want to voice your opinion on the matter. Shyam ( T / C ) 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

CSIRO is ACOTF
Hi. You voted for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as Australian Collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve this article in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Viagra spamming
Thanks for blocking the spammer; unfortunately, they seemed to have moved to this IP:.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't recall blocking anyone for viagra spamming, so this must be incidental.--cj | talk 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Freemasons
Hi. Why did you delete my sourced sentence that John Gorton was a freemason? It was sourced correctly, and yet no reason was given for its deletion. Please respond promptly. Rcm 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Me again. Robert Menzies and Edmund Barton are also Freemasons. The source - from the freemasons - says so. No reason was given yet again, and yet you say you were merely "reverting in-text link spam"...This is not the case. It is sourced to be true. It is a legitimate fact to be known. Censoring this fact does little for the noble goals of Wikipedia. Here's the source: | Famous australian freemasons from freemsonryaust dot org dot auRcm 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've responded here. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Offer to help
Hi... I'm Gifford. Wondering if there is anything I can do with regard to the development of the Web Portal section? What sort of content would you like to see? We make and sell portal software. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.90.147 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 April 2006
 * Work as you wish within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I haven't any particular plans for the article you mention.--cj | talk 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Review
Just wondering if you might be able to take a look at History of Burnside for me and offer any advice on how to improve it before I put it up as a featured article candidate! Thanks, michael talk 11:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Time permitting, I'd be happy to. It looks fairly good from a glance over. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/66.246.218.169
Perhaps you could clean these up as well? Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

English varieties
I recieved your message about the different uses of English and I was wondering if that was meant to be applied to how I changed the spelling of "civilisation" to "civilization" in the Wolf Creek article. If this is the case, then I'm not sure why you left the comment. I originally wrote the synopsis for the film with the spelling "civilization", and you changed it to "civilisation". I merely changed it back to the way I orginally wrote it. So, I dont see exactly what the issue with the spelling variation is. But please tell me if what I did was still wrong. -Lindsey8417 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Lindsey. The golden rule for which variety of English to use in a particular article is consistency. Wolf Creek (film) is not only an Australian topic, but it was and is primarily written in Australian English. Thus, subsequent edits are expected to conform with this variety. It might have helped if I was clear from the beginning. Happy editing, --cj | talk 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A favor please
Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates
I am ready to change the side balks elections-small and ideology-small after my holidays in bottom-templates. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did it allready. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Burnside
Thanks for the copyedit! I've addressed the citations and have removed the reference to the Norwood muncipality for now. When I stumble upon it again (19th century english is not fun!), I'll add it in. Again, thanks. michael talk

Brown Hill, Mitcham
For my future reference, can you explain why this page name needed to be changed? There are four gazetted hills named Brown Hill in SA, so the Mitcham is needed. Fine. However, there is more than one Mitcham in Australia and the world. I guess the others are unlikely to have hills named Brown Hill, but shouldn't the page name avoid possible ambiguity. E.g. Why doesn't Mitcham in the UK need to be qualified but Mitcham, Victoria does? (there is no page for Mitcham, SA yet). Thanks Ian 22:26, 3 May 2006
 * Hi Ian. Place names are governed by Wikipedia naming conventions. For Australian locations, these dictate that any city (excluding the capitals), town or suburb be claused regardless of uniqueness: thus Town, Jurisdiction. Somewhat oddly, there are different conventions for other areas. United States and Canadian places are always Town, Jurisdiction. United Kingdom places, on the other hand, are never claused unless an ambiguity exists. In this case, the naming conventions do not technically cover the article. Therefore, disambiguation is only employed where necessary. I specifically moved the article to Brown Hill, Mitcham because a double clause was not necessary - there were no other Brown Hill, Mitcham's published on Wikipedia, thus that is the extent of the disambiguation of Brown Hill. I realise I haven't explained this particularly well, so if you need further clarification, please ask. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, got the drift. Ian 22:20, 4 May 2006

I find your lack of faith... disturbing. (joke)
Dear Cyberjunkie,
 * Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M   o   P-_  22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

About the edit
Sorry about the edit, it was unintentional while I was experimenting with the code for the meter thing. It was not meant to be vandalism, I didn't realize that it posted on your page. Sorry for the trouble. User:Gundam785 04:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

portal formatting
Thanks for taking a look; I figured out a way to fix Portal:History of science, but the same issue appears in a lot of other portals. I think the problem is with Portal:Box-header; I left a note about the specific issue (I think) on that talk page.--ragesoss 05:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found it elsewhere. And I just saw your comment there.--cj | talk 05:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why "no thumbs" for the portal content box?--ragesoss 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they conflict with portal box backgrounds when substituted on the portal page.--cj | talk 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way? They look fine on Portal:History of science.--ragesoss 05:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For some reason they cause the colour of portal namespace pages to show around the thumbnail in the portal box; essentially, the portal box background fails to appear. On Portal:History of science, the differance between the namespace colour and the box background is subtle, but the fault is still present in both IE and Gecko-based browsers. It appears more pronounced in portals with lighter or darker backgrounds.--cj | talk 05:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, and your support for plunging ahead with the trial-and-error method of fixing things.--ragesoss 06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what the exact namespace color is? For things that are only used on the history of science portal, I think the best thing will be to just match them.--ragesoss 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't, but you should be able to find out from one of the MediaWiki pages.--cj | talk 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:South Australia
Hello Cyberjunkie. Would it be correct if I started a portal along this lines, as I think that there would be enough diversity and amount of content which it can link together and also I have seen Portal:Kerala on the Indian state which is in a similar situation as being a subset/subportal of another portal? I think it meets the guidelines for creation. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * At this stage, I'm personally not enthusiastic about such a portal - but not necessarily opposed. There are number of portals for subnational entities (aside cities), of which Portal:Kerala is probably the best maintained. I do think there is a fair amount of quality South Australian content, but not enough of it to avoid repeats. My biggest concern would be maintenance; if Portal:Australia essentially has only me to maintain it (aside P:AU/N, which has gained patronage since I transcluded it WP:AWNB), how will portals for the states and territories manage? And although you only propose Portal:South Australia (which would have at least you and myself), it would be precedent to the others. I think if such portals were created the best option would be to make them navigation-oriented, like Portal:Europe. --cj | talk 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that you've made me think about it, I'm warming to the idea.--cj | talk 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Eltham North Soccer Club
Cyberjunkie, could you delete this repost of speedied content (random suburban team) and protect it form editing please. The creator keeps on putting hangon on the grounds "this group needs more exposure" and it is probably confusing some of the non-Australian admins. Thanks.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --cj | talk 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
Thankyou! michael talk 08:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Username change
I'd had a change of username request going for a while, so I could get rid of some of the baggage attached to the old username, but I was bored this afternoon and finally pestered Tim Starling into doing the necessary groundwork. :) Ambi 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This is your third nick, right – three times a Wikipedian? I like it :P—cj | talk 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

removing photos
I noticed you removed several pictures from Mount Gambier, South Australia, with a comment of Infobox (which you also added). I was partway through putting the best two back when I realised they were screenshots uploaded by you. Is the removal due to a change or better understanding of copyright policy? Will I notice you removing screenshots from other articles too? --Scott Davis Talk 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been progressively removing them as I come across them or where I notice that free-use images can replace them. The reason for this being that I no longer assert that screenshots count as fair use. --cj | talk 07:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate
Since only the original one will do... Glad we'll be working with you on Aussie places WikiProject. &mdash; Донама 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly! It's nice to be appreciated ;-)--cj | talk 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hi, could you work out why the flag and CoA captions aren't showing up correctly in the Solomon Islands article. Thanks.--Peta 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed that and a few other faults. For "common_name" a "the Solomon Islands" was required. Happy editing, --cj | talk 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Peta 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also something wrong with the box on Nauru, could you take a look?--Peta 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!
Thank you for your vote in my RfA! The nomination failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination - it's been a good learning experience. - Amgine 17:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories
Thanks for fixing that paragraph. That was the major inaccuracy I noticed, but I'm not qualified to know if the rest is accurate, and I'm not sure that someone who gets the names of the state parliaments wrong is either, so I figured it needs a second look.

As for the overarching electoral systems in Australia, I'm not too sure how it would differ from the present, and what we might break that down into that wouldn't fit in the legislature articles themselves - the problem being that a lot of Australian electoral system could basically be copy/pasted into state articles, as there's very little difference. Perhaps you could explain it in a little more detail. :) Ambi 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other inaccuracies, yes. I'm not sure of the exact rules in each state, so I don't want to touch those just yet.
 * It wouldn't differ significantly from the existing article; the change would essentially mean renaming the article; covering the Commonwealth; and condensing it overall as a summary article with forks for each system. It just seems more logical the current circumstance. You're right that most of this could and probably should be covered in the actual legislature articles, though. So perhaps instead of separate articles, we just utilise the "parliament of X" articles.--cj | talk 03:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jazzper
FYI: User_talk:60.227.174.236. Snottygobble 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've stopped replying to his emails also. He's had his chances.--cj | talk 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

USMC Portal
So before discussing with anyone who has been actively working on the USMC Portal for close to two months now any ideas or thoughts you may have on how to change it you go directly to proposing its removal. That is a bad way of doing business. I believe you would be hard pressed to find many portals that are as actively kept as the USMC one. I believe your suggestion that Portal:Military would be appropriate is also off base. There is no way that one portal would be sufficient to do any justice to the enormous amount of military info/history that is already on Wikipedia and still needs to be created. Why not propose we get rid of Portal:Baseball and merge it into Portal:Sport? Because then you would never hear about baseball again amid such a broad topic. The Marine Corps already has a large amount of info on Wikipedia and there are still thousands of articles that need to be created. It is a robust topic and more than deserves a Portal. Before going after a good portal like ours you should concentrate your efforts on portals such as Portal:NATO or Portal:Philadelphia which are stagnant and have not been updated in ages.--Looper5920 05:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that it is a proposal; it had to be made before it could be discussed. Portal/Proposals is the appropriate forum for that to take place.
 * Whether USMC is actively maintained or not in question; what is is its scope and usefulness. One of the fundamental objectives of a portal is usefulness and it has been established that this is best-accomplished with broad subject areas. Moreover, portals are intended to promote only good content from those areas. A portal on military is appropriate because it is a broad subject area; because of that, it can draw on a sufficient number of quality articles. And note that I mean quality; thousands of articles mean nothing if they are in majority stubs.
 * The strawman you put about Baseball completely ignores the point. USMC is a minor branch of a broader force; baseball is a sport in its own right and thus a broad subject area. Portal:Sports and games exists as an over-arching parent portal from which baseball descends. USMC exists without any structure. Essentially, what should occur is a trickle down - Portal:Military is created as the subject and if a division of that subject, say, navy, should require a separate portal, then one is created. Even still, USMC would probably not be eligible for its own portal because of its inherent limitations.
 * You state that I should concern myself with other, more inept portals. Believe me that I am getting there; the sheer numbers of sub-standard portals means it will take considerable time. Most of the processes aimed at improving portals were established by me: I wrote Portal and its subpages; I direct Featured portals; and I initiated Portal/Proposals. So you needn't worry that I am not working to improve portals. Portal:United States Marine Corps and Portal:Military of Australia are just the latest I've encountered.--cj | talk 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you are well intentioned in trying to improve all of the Portals on wikipedia and we all thank you but just because you have contributed so much to the Portals area does not make you the sole determiner of what stays and goes. This is a large encyclopedia and I truly believe that you do not understand the the scope of the USMC articles on wikipedia.  We all have our little corner of Wikipedia that we look after.  Yours is Australia and mine is the USMC.  Both are substantial topics and both deserve their own portals.  --Looper5920 12:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't any never have assumed that I am the "sole determiner"; hence Portal/Proposals. USMC is not a substantial topic and it is laughable to even attempt to place it equal to a country. I think that the reason you don't accept my argument is precisely because USMC is your focus on Wikipedia. I appreciate that you and like-minded editors are working to make coverage on USMC comprehensive but that does not change the fact that it is inherently constrained by its specificity. It is but a subset of a broader subject a portal for which would duly cover it. Thanks, —cj | talk 12:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. We'll just have to agree to disagree and let the votes fall where they may.--Looper5920 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Centauri
He keeps on removing a warning that I posted for his reverting here and here. He has also engaged in name calling against me and has generally been discourteous. He also posted a 3rr warning on my page after removing the one from his own, even though I only reverted twice, just for the sake of getting back at me. Xtra 08:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Xtra appears unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing policies as they relate to user talk pages. Posting a 3RR warning on my talk page when there was no abuse of the 3RR is misplaced and constitutes incivility on his part. As a misplaced warning I removed it. I was wrong to add a 3RR warning to his page and will remove it immediately. --Centauri 08:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Centauri did revert 3 times. Hence my warning to him was valid. I am aware of editting policies and one is that you are not suposed to remove warnings from your talkpage unless you are archiving. Xtra 09:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've previously noted Xtra's apparent unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and the above comments are further evidence of this. As I limited my reverts to the 3 per 24-hours alowed by the 3RR, his posting of a 3RR warning was obviously misplaced, so I was therefore entirely justified in removing it from my talk page, in accordance with the policies pertaining to editors editing their own talk page. --Centauri 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no strict violation of the three-revert rule by either party. Whilst Centauri did make three reversions, the latter two affected different content to the first. The posting of 3RR to Centauri was not necessary but neither was it misplaced; the warning does not allege infringement, but cautions against it. The same would also apply to Centuari's posting to Xtra's page were it not tit-for-tat retaliation. However, the removal of that warning was highly inappropriate whether it was justified or not; aside from vandalism and personal attacks, the blanking of any comments to any talk page is frowned upon. If you dispute something, do so in words; to simply erase a warning reeks of a cover-up. And finally, I take issue with something Centauri has abovestated. Centauri: you stated you were "allowed" three-reverts by the 3RR. This is very much a dangerous perspective; 3RR does not permit or encourage reversions – it plainly proscribes any more than three in a day. The whole point of the policy is to discourage edit wars altogether, not to establish a framework in which they may take place. Xtra: I see no evidence of Centauri engaging in name calling. In any case, wise Peta has settled the matter. Happy editing, —cj | talk 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

portalpar
Deprecated? When did that happen? Kirill Lok s h in 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since portal made it redundant; it has optional parameters now.--cj | talk 13:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it; I hadn't noticed that portal had been changed. Kirill Lok s h in 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Manna
User:Mannaseejah is doing it again, this time under his anonymous URL. Can you block him again and/or ban him? 

Thank you for your help! Sparsefarce 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Bozboy
Thanks for the tidy up on my last immigration to Australia edit. I'd note though that I did include a reference to the UNHCR data on the Australian resettlement program in the reference list and mentioned it in the text. I've changed that back to the way it was, but if there is a special way that it should be cited I'd appreciate it if you let me know. (I'm on a different computer so will have a different IP address today). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.176.115 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 May 2006
 * Please see Citing sources. I have revert back to my citation request because you have incorrectly referenced the claims; the link you list does not corroborate the assertions - please point directly to such evidence. Thanks, --cj | talk 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my user page in the middle of the night. Since all later contributions from that user have been for vandalism, it makes me wonder if Mobile offshore base is a hoax. --Scott Davis Talk 06:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps put a prod on it?--cj | talk 08:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Talkheader
Please see Template talk:Talkheader, thanks/wangi 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have seen. Happy editing, --cj | talk 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi ,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  10:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian electorates
Hi Newhoggy. I caught your question to Bec and thought I'd point you in the right direction. WikiProject Australian politics/Electorates was set up to deal with Australian electorates. Happy editing, --cj | talk 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks cj -- Newhoggy | Talk 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Marion
Thanks for clearing that up for me, it is interesting to have someone of note editing / contacting wikipedia (I actually have her book sitting on my tv cabinet, it has been lying there, unread, for three weeks now). I study at Marden Senior College part time to up my TER; this will enable me entry into a university course I *really* want to do next year. michael talk 06:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox University
Hi, I just reverted your changes to the Infobox University template - you had changed the class from "infobox bordered" to "infobox," which inserted table gridlines between each data element. A variety of other infobox templates use the "infobox bordered" class, and I think it creates a much cleaner look (such as Template:Infobox Company). If you disagree can we first discuss the change on the template talk page? Thanks! &mdash;Jnk [ talk ] 12:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have this the wrong way round: I changed the class from "infobox" to "infobox bordered", a format which is more common among infoboxes and for the most part more attractive. I won't pursue the matter however. Happy editing, --cj | talk 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I wrote them in the wrong order there :). I don't particularly care for all of the table lines that infobox bordered introduces, but I am not particularly involved in that Template, I just watch a few pages that use it, and a large number that use the Template:Infobox Company that also uses plain 'infobox.' I prefer the simpler look without all the lines, but it's a personal aesthetic choice. If people prefer it the other way by all means. Thanks. &mdash;Jnk [ talk ] 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

ACOTF
I tried to add Australian National Heritage ListI feel this would be worthwhile, if I am not following the right procedures can you please help me to do the right thing. Ghostieguide 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the news - Fijian election
The report on Laisenia Qarase claiming victory may be premature. See and  for example of news reports which seem to make it clear that there is no victory yet. If you have a source which is better than these, repeat your post and I won't revert you. Please also add a post with source at Current events.-gadfium 09:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't seen these subsequent reports. My source is outdated, not premature – Qarase had claimed victory. --cj | talk 09:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:82.3.255.138
This user is adding advertisement links to city articles even after a warning. michael talk 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Civilisation/Civilization
Hi there, I respect whatever version of a word's spelling people use. I changed the CiviliSation portal's name because after searching for it in 2 dictionaries, I could not find this word. Thus, I thought that it wasn't a matter of different spelling between regions, but rather of being an actual typo.

It's only because of a google search for civiliSation that I kinda figured that perhaps it was an accepted alternate spelling. Alas, it was too late... Sorry! Beltz 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Titles in electorates
Hi,

Would you like to give feedback on the use of titles in electorates?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Electorates

-- Newhoggy | Talk 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up.--cj | talk 07:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

vandal 144.139.71.82 at Liberal Party of Australia
hi cj. Could you block this guy for me please. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, already done. Thanks.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I found ;-)--cj | talk 07:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your mail. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Classics Portal
Thanks for fixing the portals. Casual editers tend to mess it up, and i didn't have time to fully fix it. See you around the portal. Pydos 15:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Honest John
Honest John is in this article too, and in the intro.  I honestly think that people including your good self do not like this nickname for John Howard. It is not the fact that it is in the intro that is important. My reason for putting this in was that I thought it was valid... I note that you mentioned that you did not believe I had ulterior motives. By the way, I lived in Tusmore, and my daughter is a crow eater too, having being born there in Flinders Medical Center. I also personally knew David Tonkin and Don Dunstan. Good decent guys. I cannot believe that they are both now dead. Wallie 20:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal box
I've madea Fportal user box, list of Fportal submitters, category and template, akin to the FA submitter system. See my user page to check it out. The box is on the Wikipedia user box page. Rlevse 16:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping out. I'll add a reference for the multicultural statement that Canadians view multiculuralism as a key point. I don't recall when the inverse statement came in. -- Jeff3000 03:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you check the intro now, I've followed the style of Australia. -- Jeff3000 04:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Cyberjunkie. Today I've fixed a whole bunch of grammar recommendations by Tony.  Is that enough for you to change your oppose to support?  If not, can you please recommend some more changes?  Thanks. -- Jeff3000 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA
 Request for Adminship 

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers

nominating a picture
Hi CJ. How do I nominate a picture for the Australian portal? I just found Image:Lake Hart.jpg and think it is a typical Australiana picture worthy of the portal page, but can't find how to nominate it. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Scott. Sorry for the delay in replying. There isn't any formal nomination procedure - simply raise it on the portal's talk page. I have been preparing to convert the selected picture to the queue system, and once I have done that, new pictures can be added simply to the next avaliable week. --cj | talk 09:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Urgent!!
Hello, Pl. have a look at User_talk:The_Tom - the messages there are intended for you, pl. do as suggested. I could have done what is required but I have to leave now, so pl. respond fast to either of the suggestions. TIA, --Gurubrahma 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Hello, Cyberjunkie! Just a friendly note regarding Image:Flag of East Timor.svg: you uploaded it properly and tagged it properly with c-uploaded, but you inadvertantly forgot to protect the image. I thought I'd just let you know for your information; I've protected it now. Also, images uploaded from Commons (those with c-uploaded) should also have the image information copied from the Commons page in order for people to know the proper licensing, etc. Finally, could I ask a favor from you? Would you mind uploading and protecting Image:European flag.svg, which will appear on the Main Page in tomorrow (in a few hours)? My computer can't save .svg files, so this would be appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine; thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jazzper
Cj, can you put your two cents in at User talk:60.227.174.236? I won't be offended if your two cents is "Snottygobble has rocks in his head". Snottygobble 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that, but I don't support unblocking Jasper at this time.--cj | talk 07:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm thinking that you may have saved me from a serious lapse of judgement. I was so pissed off when Aaron preferred not to take any action against FactoidKiller/JebusChrist/Jimididit/NSWelshman after he wielded an army of socks against me, just because the puppeteer was "making all the right noises" about reforming. And there I was proposing to do much the same thing for Jasper. Of course you are right that overturning his block is inappropriate. Jasper must bear the consequences of his actions. A time-limited block forces him to do so, while not denying the possibility of reform in the future. Snottygobble 07:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Timor-Leste
Please see my reponse at Talk:East Timor first. Thank you. And I would like to stress that the fact is people repeatedly making reverse edits to my amendments without properly responding to my justification. If they have the right to do it, I think as a Wikipedian with equal status, I have the same right to do the same. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 17:47 (UTC)
 * I have done. You do not have the right to steamroll changes, Pdytwong. Your "amendments" were not only degenerative (we do not cut-and-paste), they were un-supported. It is upon you to gain support. I will not be taking sides in the dispute.--cj | talk 17:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Australia Royal anthem
How does it have no status? God Save the Queen is the official Royal anthem of Australia and proclaimed to be in 1984. I think it should be included on the Australia page considering its historical significance to Australia and that Australia is a Commonwealth realm.

Medicine portal
Thanks a lot for the portal. Yesterday I made a lot of changes, but the template changes (reformat)... you know. So thanks again. :) Now in some days it could be featured portal. NCursework 18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism portal
The result of the debate was support for the creation! 84.146.213.64 13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I closed it. --cj | talk 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do beg your pardon. I was mistaken. There was no consensus to create the portal. 4 support to 3 non-supports does not constitute a consensus.--cj | talk 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

FPCAN Closing
Hi, I saw you have closed some FPCANs. Do you think that Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Free software/archive1 is ready yet? ~Linuxerist  02:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters 1911 Season
Sydney Roosters 1911 SeasonI'm not here to demand you change your vote, it just seems your reasoning behind deletion was not accurate when considering your decision.

Just to clear it up to you, the previous articles created were not replicas of the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season. They were based on different years and held the same structure, but different factual content.

Also, this article was created prior to the deletion of the other articles.

The other articles were put up for deletion when I had only created the basic content for the article. I added content while it was being debated for deletion and made a point of this, however no-one commented after I made that comment and it was disregarded. Also the argument brought forward in this debate was not put up in the previous ones, based on the argument by Athenaeum the articles existence is justified.

I must stress that the article was not re-posted after deletion.

I'm not hear to demand you change your vote, I just wanted to make sure you understood the background behind it. Hopefully you'll reconsider and vote to keep it, but regardless I respect your opinion. Cheers, Sbryce858 07:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal creation
Thanks for your message on the talk page of Portal:Ice hockey; I was aware of the procedure by which one ought to recommend the creation of a portal, but inasmuch as I didn't think the ice hockey, tennis, and golf portals would be particularly controversial, inasmuch as the portal proposal page isn't particularly well-trafficked, and inasmuch as, IMHO, the portal proposal system seems to be repugnant to the nature of Wikipedia (or, in any event, properly to be subjugated to WP:IAR and WP:BOLD), I created the three portals absent community support. Even as I continue to look with disfavor on the portal proposal system, though, I recognize, in retrospect, that I ought to have sought support prior to acting; surely if the portals I created were important and appropriate, others would so have adjudged them. I was concerned about my contravention of WP:P's proviso that it is necessary to propose new portals so that their necessity can be ascertained with discussion, but I concluded that, in view of the existence of some gaming-specific portals, there would likely be no objection to the creation of the ice hockey, tennis, and golf portals. Of course, WP:SNOWBALL shouldn't be invoked when there's no discussion to which to apply it, and, as one who typically decries unilateral action here, I probably should have acted differently. I'll likely submit each portal for ex post review at the proposal page; in the meanwhile, thanks for your cordial note. :) Joe 18:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. There's no need to submit them to WP:P/P poste-haste, just so long as your aware of it next time around. Happy editing, --cj | talk 09:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Distance in Austsuburb
Listen, if you want to remove something, how about either 1) Talking to the author first and/or 2) Modifying those articles which USE the template you have just arbitrarily changed? Yes there is a way to substanciate the distance from the city, it comes from WhereIs and provides useful information for people wishing to know information about a suburb in telling them how far away it is by car to the nearest major city. You didn't even bother to modify either Northgate, South Australia or Waterfall Gully, South Australia which both have these suburbs. Why on earth would you think to revert a template which you are neither using or have any vested interest in???? Seems like a mild form of blatant vandalism to me. Enigmatical 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That would have to be the most impolite, bad faith message posted to me in a while. Enigmatical, please be aware of Wikipedia's civility and etiquette guidelines in your future postings. You seem to be under the misconception that because you created the template you therefore have authority over it: this isn't so. If you don't want your contributions to be "edited mercilessly", as the disclaimer says, do not submit them. There is no obligation upon me or any other editor to contact you before editing something you have done prior. The parameter was obscure: "distance from city" can mean a multitude of things. And there was no urgency for me to remove it from the articles either; it was simply redundant text. Furthermore, while one doesn't require a "vested interest" in order to edit any section of Wikipedia (an absurd suggestion), it highlights the presumptuousness of your comment to reveal that I was in fact involved in the development of the template you copied. Happy editing, -cj | talk 09:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it was impolite of you to make such changes yet leave the 2 templates which use it untouched. Notice how I only get a proper explaination as to why it was done after having to pull you up on it? If the parameter was obscure as you call it, then a simple addition of (in minutes by car) would have completely alleviated that obscurity wouldn't you say? Thus you obviously chose to remove it completely instead of fixing it. Sorry if it may sound harsh to you, I have no problem with people mercilessly editing something I have done... but when you have absolutely nothing at all to do with a template, no connecting article, and certainly no real care one way or the other if its there I dont see the point in removing it instead of fixing it. So let me ask you a simple question, do you think it is useful to know approximately how long it would take to travel from a suburb to the major city? I think that information is far more relevant than population or median house value. But I do appologise for my abruptness, shall take it on "good faith" and revert the edit by fixing the problem and alleviating the obscurity. Perhaps in future it may be worth noting that the fixing of a problem may be far more effective than the wholesale removal of it. Enigmatical 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've completely ignored my comment. I asked you to take heed of Wikiquette, and yet you still fail to assume good faith. I explained in my message last that nothing I did was outside of standard editing practice. It was not necessary to remove the deleted parameter from the articles transcluding the template because it was simply redundant text. It is not extraordinary at all for this redundant text to remain in articles when the template proper is amended, particularly in those that are widely transcluded. In any event, you've had both my and Michael's reasoning from the start: we both stated our positions in our edit summaries. I do not think it a worthwhile component – infoboxes are intended to offer only pertinent information, and distance from city is superfluous and highly variable (even though averaged). Given the parameter is opposed by two other editors, I find your revert highly inappropriate. It is upon you to argue its merits at Template talk:Infobox Australian Suburb and seek support rather than to disregard the dispute. It is very wrong, not to mention insulting, for you to consider me to have "no real care one way or the other" with regards to this template and suburb articles. I've been long involved with the writing of and standardising of articles about Adelaide, and as aforementioned, I was indeed involved with the development and distribution of the template. But it is important for me to once again point out that there is no requirement for an editor to have an involvement with something before he or she contributes to it. In fact, Wikipedia actively discourages such sectionalism. Happy editing, --cj | talk 12:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore your comments, I gave them the same level of scrutiny that you gave my original template. I did assume good faith, and that your modification was done because you felt it was in the best interest of the template. I also assumed in good faith that because you removed it without first arguing the merits of its removal (which you seem to want me to do to have something included to a template I created!!!) that it was an error on your part due to a lack of understanding. I tried to then tell you (in good faith) that it would be better to fix an obscurity rather than delete it... but it seems now it started as being irrelevant (which it clearly isn't), that reason changed to being obscure, then when I resolved that problem it is now being changed to superfluous?!? So which is it? If your reasons for removing it keep changing surely that means you do not genuinely have a reason for doing so? Either way, its a moot point now because as you say... two editors agree and as such it has been removed. Again in good faith (I still dont understand why you shove this in my face yet ignore it yourself... perhaps a preview of the Hypocrisy page may enlighten you), I say that many other pieces of information contained in the source where I got this from are just as obscure or superfluous as this one. How pertinent is the population of a suburb 5 years ago?. I also note that you have not complained to the author of Waterfall Gully, South Australia for their sectionalism in telling me what they had originally done in removing it. Or do you just pick and choose when you want to follow the rules? I find it the height of rudeness to constantly quote rules at people only to then ignore them when it suits you. This matter is closed, majority decision... Enigmatical 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear rather convinced of your own infallibility. You did ignore my comment, because you overlooked my clarifications and continued with the same accusations. Had good faith been assumed, these would never have surfaced. It is not your – or anyone's – template and you did not create anything new; it has existed for a long while in and out of template namespace. My understanding was not tainted nor has my reasoning change; I have always considered it irrelevant and have stated this consistently. It is plain obfuscation to play semantics. As I said, the infobox should contain information pertinent (read: directly related); whereas population and median property value (two elements you have criticised) are in direct reference to the subject of the article, distance from city relates to another subject (Adelaide). Sure it may be useful, but it isn't necessary. Anyways, as you said, matter is closed. I don't know how it's relevant to highlight flaws in the statistics of a particular article; as it's a template, I've been discussing in generally. I haven't made any presumptions with regards to your actions – I have responded to clear examples of bad faith in your postings to me. And you seem to have misunderstood my reference to systemic bias; I alluded to that to refute your view that people (namely me) should only edit things they have an interest in. It is fine for people to do that, but it isn't a requirement and Wikipedia tries to persuade them otherwise. On a final note, Enigmatical, your interactions with other users needn't be conflicts. If civility is adhered to, and attacks avoided, even the most contentious disputes (which this shouldn't have been in the slightest) can be worked out amicably (or at least with due respect). Thanks, --cj | talk 08:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed ownership, nor have I ever claimed that people cannot edit it. I simply didn't see how it was you felt compelled to modify the template without first "in good faith" trying to find out the purpose of the field. To decide off your own back it wasn't needed is in my opinion a little rude and certainly not considerate of other wikipedians. Secondly, you accuse me of being certain of my own infallibility yet you display this yourself... how hypocritical (guess you didn't go visit the link I gave you). "Surrounding Suburbs" talk specifically about something outside of the suburb itself, does that mean this section should also be removed because as you say it isn't pertinent to the area (same thing isn't it?). So please... before you start hurling stones at people and accusing them of things, take a good look at your own glass house... you might find there are no longer any windows left. I am just as fallable as the next person (hence my appology)... yet you seem to be teflon coated. Enigmatical 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * No worries! :) Enjoy. michael talk 08:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil Unions Act
I think it'd be a good article to create. Rodney Croome suggests that we might not have seen the last of it, which could be rather interesting. Rebecca 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It might also be a interesting article as it'd be good to look at the mechanics of Federal governments disallowing territory legislation, and how a house of parliament can reverse that. Andjam 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment on Rebecca's page talk struck a chord with me. When I heard Howard's sound-bite I was surprised that he didn't even bother to pretend to mount a rational argument. Snottygobble 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is remarkable that he and his ministers are so confident in their action that they don't even feel it incumbent upon them to offer an explanation. Sort of reminds me of Howard's most absurd comment a few years back that "homosexuals do nothing for the survival of the species"...--cj | talk 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't heard that one. I started to compose a response then realised there are so many obvious retorts that there's no point. It's just another emotive sound-bite with no rationale to prop it up. Snottygobble 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List Of Fictional Characters From Christmas Island
Hi. I see that you have preposed the List Of Fictional Characters From Christmas Island article for deletion.

This article was created because Oska objected to the inclusion of Sonic The Hedgehog in the Christmas Island article, which is where i wanted to put it first. I only created the article as a compromise.

So, could you please

A) Not delete the article,

or

B) Help me include the infomation in the Christmas Island article (maybe in the form of a trivia section?) without Oska taking it out just because he doesn't like it. Thank you very much. Mr Negotiator 12:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Ivory Coast:
You recently protected this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A bot for the purpose of telling an administrator how to administer? How silly.--cj | talk 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the contribs, you would see that it does more than that. Voice -of- All  09:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perth edits
I don't agree with how much you removed without discussion. Fyi I asked a question on the talk page as to other editors viewpoints. My opinion is that a lot of what you removed could have been improved without total deletion. At the very least the references that are now gone could have had selected links kept as external links. Just looking for a bit of consensus on the changes with my talk page post. Kind regards. SeanMack 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sean. I'll reply at Talk:Perth, Western Australia.--cj | talk 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal/Directory
Would you correct the formatting of the page? I've tried to find the bug, but I didn't. As you seem to correct it regularly, I decided to ask you. I also think that a message warning users to be careful with the layout would be great. Thanks. Afonso Silva 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)