User talk:Cassowary/2010

Coats of Arms question
Regarding your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, if Commons:Coats of Arms is accurate then it looks like it points the way fairly neatly here. In short: a coat of arms (CoA) downloaded from the web must be assumed to be under copyright unless otherwise indicated, because it may have been recently created. However, as you note, since it's not possible to copyright the blazon (or if it is, that copyright has long since expired), it's entirely possible to simply create a CoA based on that blazon, as long as it doesn't look like an obvious copy of a potentially copyrighted CoA. In other words, the specific CoA's you linked to probably are correctly tagged as copyrighted works. Hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kazakh
Felix the C., I've sent you an email about Kazakh phonology. I'd appreciate it if you can comment. Farnwell (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. User:Cassowary (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Calmer   Waters  07:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

John Madigan
According to the official election results website, he has been elected. Am I missing something? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a very quickly-asked question!
 * What page are you looking at? The AEC's webpage does not record any senate results as being declared yet, has only got about 90% of the enrolment counted (you'd expect more like 95% when everything is counted) and still has plenty of "unapportioned" votes, meaning that the AEC's computer does not know yet whether that particular vote was above or below the line. John Madigan may yet fail to be elected on the basis of below-the-line preferences.
 * Afaik, to date, media reports that Madigan has been elected have been on the basis of the ABC's estimate. The estimate is based on the currently counted vote (perhaps the votes which haven't been counted yet are entirely for Family First!) and assume everyone's voted above the line. The DLP won a seat and lost one on the basis of below-the-line votes in the 2006 Victorian state election, so I don't assume Madigan's up yet.
 * (19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm going by http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/svic-results.htm which shows him elected. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AS I've said, the ABC only gives an estimate. In writing my original reply I had assumed you were Australian, but now I check your user page I find you're proud to be an American. The ABC, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is just a publicly-owned media company. They don't have any special access to results any more than any media would have; they're a part of the executive branch of our government, although with a high degree of independence from the Government. The AEC, the Australian Electoral Commission, is a part of the judicial branch. Aside from appointments (which are for a specified time and non-political) it is almost wholly independent of the government (administration) of the day (they're also essentially independent of all other parts of the judicial branch). It is the AEC who runs elections, counts the votes, and officially declares results.
 * So the ABC does not have anything like official results. They simply have Antony Green on their staff, the very best Australian election analyst in the world, and he's made some very innovative tools for predicting results.
 * Because the ABC's "result" is only approximate and deliberately leaves out some information, there's every chance its wrong. You can't call Mr Madigan elected until the AEC declares it.
 * We probably won't know the results of the election till the end of this week at the very soonest. Mr Madigan's lead is pretty large and it would be a very large upset if he lost—almost as much of an upset as his win is at the moment. But it is very much possible even still.
 * I hope this makes sense. Wikipedia does have a good (at least: detailed) article on the Australian electoral system, so if it's not yet clear why the ABC's result is an unofficial approximation, please read it.
 * HTH. (20:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC))
 * I seem to have conflated the AEC and the ABC; sorry, mate. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User name
hello i like your username —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassowary Rider (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as long as you don't take it as an invitation to jump up on my back! :) (07:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

cross-posted question
You said in your piece on the Victorian AfD that you found a source which lists the UC/Ls, but did not indicate how to reach it. In the interests of good faith, could you share this with us? There are hundreds of errors in the Victorian file alone (I haven't even looked at the other states yet), I have spent more than half an hour trying to fix them and there's still probably 20+ to go. I honestly have no idea what the creator's rationale or source was. Orderinchaos 07:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I've replied in the AfD discussion. —Felix the Cassowary 10:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)