User talk:Cruickshanks

False positive
When endeavouring to fix punctuation of a list I didn't notice that I had double-pasted (a case of too many thumbs). I immediately went to undo my edit, but ClueBot had already jumped in. Due to the double-undoing by both me and ClueBot it seemed less complicated to leave the audit trail as it is (below), and start afresh. I have resubmitted the updated information with the punctuation fix.

I had previewed the main edit three or four times before committing it. The minor few fullstop to semi-colon changes were my undoing.

Cruickshanks (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to City of Adelaide (1864), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: City of Adelaide (1864) was changed by Cruickshanks (u) (t) deleting 18968 characters on 2009-12-05T05:45:30+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent News on City of Adelaide - December 15, 2009
Final pleas as deadline looms on the City of Adelaide's fate deadline-looms-on-migrant-ships-fate Gavin Lower,From: The Australian, December 15, 2009 12:00AM

This is obviously of interest to you. I have been meaning to update the City of Adelaide's article, but other mattters have kept me away. Use this reference as you see fit. Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Anniversary. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr Rubins,


 * I have spent a good part of a day expanding the page on Anniversary particlarly relating to the use of Roman fractions. I am disappointed that you reverted those changes within 30 minutes of me having made them.


 * Prior to me making edits on this page it had already been marked as original research. This related to discussion already on the page relating to use of multiplication of Latin terms, which another editor was clearly already questioning.  While there was some merit in the proposition as already put on the page, it was not pertinent to the use of Roman fractions.


 * The page as it was, also proposed that pure multiplication of root terms was used for developing all Latin numerical terms - the page gave several examples (which I left intact for comparison) of how other numerals are derived - for example it suggested that 350 was derived in Latin as half of 700 - Semiseptcentennial: semi- (half) x sept(7) x cen(t)- (100) x centennial (350 years). While at face value it seemed a reasonable proposition, to develop other numbers like 925 based on this thesis would require developing Latin terms for half of 1850, or a quarter (half of a half) of 3700!


 * There are multiple existing sources on Wiki pages that identify how the Romans treated fractions. For example, 350 years is 3-½ centuries or in Latin terms is ½ century on the way between 3 and 4 centuries.  For another example, 925 years is a quarter century more than 9 centuries.


 * A good description of Roman fractions is found on the Roman numerals page. This is supported by Wiki pages on other situtaions where the Romans had to deal with fractions - coins, areas, lengths, weights, etc:


 * Dodrans - three-quarters - or more correctly a whole less a quarter.
 * Doðrantur http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do%C3%B0rantur
 * Uncia (coin)
 * Uncia (length)
 * Sestertius (originally semis-tertius) means "2 ½", the coin's original value in asses, and is a combination of semis "half" and tertius "third", that is, "the third half" (0 ½ being the first half and 1 ½ the second half) or "half the third" (two units plus half the third unit, or halfway between the second unit and the third).
 * Quartus http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quartus#Latin


 * Therefore, most of the substantiating references were sourced from within Wikipedia, with multiple links added, and are robust discussions that are highly cross-referenced. I had not used external references as the internal pages were well constructed and extensively cross-referenced.


 * I also converted the text list to a table to make the alternatives easier to compare and assess. This meant that the derivations were not lost in the Notes sections at the bottom of the page, making critical review easier.  I did not remove any of the alternative derivations of previous authors/editors and placed the Roman fraction versions directly alongside the old propositions to enable the reader to compare and form their own opinion.  The only proposition that I removed was the discussion made that pure multiplication was the means to implement Latin terms and which had attracted the concern of a past editor.  Even then, I did recylcle the previous author's comments and highlighted that the reader just needs to be careful when they are multiplying, adding or subtracting.


 * I have endeavoured to highlight alternative Latin terms that might also be applicable, and have also indicated where one term was derived based on another documented example. The important issue was highlighting the way that Roman fractions were treated rather than the old discussion suggesting that multiplication was the only appropriate method.  Therefore leaving the page as is was giving defective information. Your action in reverting the page to the erroneous information was therefore disappointing as was the suggestion that the information that I added was original research and not referenced. Cruickshanks (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize; I misinterpreted what you did. It makes the original research more obvious, but you didn't add any.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mr Rubins. I do hope my contribution on the Roman fractions is helpful to the community.  I hope other editors with greater skills in Latin will assist in refining the "best" Latin alternative for the derived anniversaries relating to fractions of centuries. Cruickshanks (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Devitt and Moore House flag.svg
Thank you for uploading File:Devitt and Moore House flag.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tag added Cruickshanks (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:City of Adelaide Coat of Arms.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:City of Adelaide Coat of Arms.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Image Screening Bot (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bot marked image for deletion for being an orphan while I was still editting article it was to go on to! I finished the article and reverted orphan status on image. Cruickshanks (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I had to textify this image on User:Cruickshanks/Sandbox because fair use files are not permitted outside of mainspace, per WP:NFCC.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

City of Adelaide
I don't know the answer to your question, but my instinct is that the flag is correct. I've copied your question across to WT:SHIPS for others to answer definitively. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * New infobox on article talk page, comments there please. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've done some good work expanding this. I think we may have the makings of a GA if you're interested in pushing it a bit further. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mjroots. Since the article receieved B-rating, I was inspired to try to get the article up the ladder.  I am very new to this but have read the guidelines and think I have a reasonable handle on the content requirements, but am cloudy on the nomination/review process.  I gather that anyone might end up being the reviewer rather than WikiProject Ships member (I am not sure on this).  Anyway onwards and upwards!--Cruickshanks (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:City_of_Adelaide_being_raised_at_Govan_in_1991.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:City_of_Adelaide_being_raised_at_Govan_in_1991.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:City_of_Adelaide_as_RNVR_club_rooms_on_Clyde.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:City_of_Adelaide_as_RNVR_club_rooms_on_Clyde.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * email with evidence sent to .Cruickshanks (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Cruickshanks, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Cruickshanks/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:City of Adelaide as RNVR club rooms on Clyde.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:City of Adelaide as RNVR club rooms on Clyde.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ended up giving up on this. On several occasions I forwarded email to  from the photographer duly (using Wikipedia guideline words) authorising the use of the image, but could not get any action out of Administrators before the file was deleted. This greatly dampened my enthusiasm for Wikipedia - why bother!!! Cruickshanks (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

PS Hero
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of PS Hero, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.hero.net.au/history.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully now rectified. Cruickshanks (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the page. It's still borderline, see explanation on talk page. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Southern Ocean
Hi Cruickshanks. Thanks for the message. I have a quick look at the upgraded Southern Ocean article. This looks good. The only part that I do not like is the ‘History of exploration’ section which reads a bit like the description of the ‘bottle’ rather of the ‘wine’. At this point in time, I am not sure how this can be improved; I need to read it again and reflect on it. Incidentally, I also do like the image as this illustrates in much less than 1000 words the recent evolution of the concept of the Southern Ocean. Cowdy001 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Nomination for deletion of Template:Surviving ocean going ships
Template:Surviving ocean going ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of surviving ocean going ships


Hello, Cruickshanks. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of surviving ocean going ships".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit  14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Boxroo1.gif


The file File:Boxroo1.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused anywhere apart from an unused Userbox design, and redundant to the jpg version on Commons."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Felix QW (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)