User talk:Gracchus250

Welcome
G'day Gracchus250, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email [mailto:help@wikimedia.org.au?subject=Help+me+please!&body=Please+tell+us+your+Wikipedia+username+and+the+article+you+are+trying+to+change+and+what+the+problem+is help@wikimedia.org.au].

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location-based notices, you can add location userboxes to your userpage.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Article titles
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! JarrahTree 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Image sizes
Your maps are really fantastic and add a lot to the articles, so thank you :)

I just wanted to draw your attention to WP:IMAGESIZE, which says that Except with very good reason, do not use px, which forces a fixed image width. I don't think there is a "very good reason" in most of these cases, and 400px fixed width is really not great on narrower screens like my iPad, or indeed even my laptop.

There might be a case for some full-width maps but text wrapping really needs to be avoided in those cases. We can hash those out when we get to them. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No problem, I was just resizing them in the visual editor, so I was assuming Wikipedia was making them dynamic (i.e. scaling with the responsive design). Please feel free to alter any too-large sizes you come across! I'll try and go through all the images I've added.


 * It's very Wikipedia to have a default option in the editor be against the recommended style guide.


 * I do think 220px width is an antiquated size based on very old display resolutions, but I agree all images should be responsive too, otherwise it becomes a mess on smaller screens. I hope they revisit the default way images are displayed one day to responsively scale by default. I'll have a look at the upscaling/upright feature, though I'm not sure how well it works looking at it now.


 * That said, I do feel strongly that maps should be full-width without text wrapping, and from looking at lots of international articles (particularly PT articles), this seems pretty common.Gracchus250 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good grief, I should have know VE would be the culprit. Thanks for taking a look. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A2, DD and flat wagons articles
Hi,

Fair point re referencing on the loco pages, I do need to improve that. The tables are collapsible intentionally, to make sure they don't take up too much space and when viewed, they can be sorted or ctrl+f'd very quickly. I've reworded to remove the numbering speculation from the DD article and I'm working on better sources for the Austral Otis bit, not sure what else needs fixing? Could you do a sandbox version of either/both pages indicating what you have in mind, so we can come to some sort of compromise?

For the flat wagon page, it is mostly based on reliable published sources - the wagon books by Vincent et al - and supported by enthusiast websites, particularly photos that demonstrate particular configurations. While it is possible that the photos were altered, I think it is highly unlikely. Also, since Vincent/Bray/Gregory are published authors, the Wiki policy from memory automatically makes their (verified and on-topic) websites and social-media posts a semi-reliable source. The page style is based on the open / boxcar / louvre / etc VR wagon articles, though I consider this one the best of the lot and the standard I aim for when modifying the others, because it has a development narrative and, with ctrl+f, makes almost any relevant information easy to find. Again, I'd be interested to see what sort of template you'd use for this sort of page, via a sandbox version. Anothersignalman (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not familiar with what you have written, and I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to go through and edit the articles, hence why I have added templates so they can be addressed in the future. Generally, I'm afraid that forums and social media posts are not reliable sources even if they are posts by published authors, the information that relies on those sources should be removed from those tables and elsewhere in the articles. Remember, if there isn't a secondary source that has bothered to write about something, then it's probably not notable enough to be included in wikipedia. That's also why I flagged the direct references to images, those references are primary source analysis and are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia that is supposed to only catalogue already published, secondary sources and information. The occasional reference like this is okay but these articles seem to be mostly original research. This original research may be interested and well-researched, but perhaps it needs a different outlet. There is also still significant sections completely unsourced in the articles I've flagged. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Re websites/forums/social media posts, if we assume for sake of discussion that the author of 'x' can be verified to be the same person who published 'y', then that seems to fall under Verifiability which states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Part of the problem is that Wiki really should have a register somewhere of authorised "expert sources for subject X", with inclusion/exclusion discussions centralised to that page for each topic. There was no mechanism in place for this as of a few years ago and I haven't had time to follow up. As for PRIMARY, I am drawing from the secondary sources of the published texts on the topic, with photos/etc linked as evidence or providing further minor details. Lastly, this is not the first time someone has said that a different outlet should be investigated for this topic, but so far I haven't been able to create a consensus within the enthusiast field as to what that outlet might be. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've tried to wikilawyer this point repeatedly at your talk page, on the talk pages of articles, at WT:V, at WP:RSN and half a dozen other venues over several years. Without fail consensus clearly emerges that Facebook posts, forum posts, self-published websites like pjv101 and other similar sources are not reliable and cannot form the basis on Wikipedia articles. I don't know how to put it more clearly, but as said two years ago, railfans who are well regarded in the railfan community do not meet this requirement of being important and reliable academic sources. If information can only be sourced to this stuff, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Period. End of. By all means collate it on Wikia or elsewhere, but there is no compelling argument for it to be retained here. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, you win. I've started the process of migrating across to a new host. Anothersignalman (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Melbourne map
G'day, I've just noticed your version of File:Melbrail former present proposed.svg is missing the Williamstown line. Any chance you could take a look? Triptothecottage (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Well spotted, I have updated it, let me know if you find something else. There's a slight quirk where sometimes when I upload that svg file it doesn't display the dotted Metro Tunnel line on the smaller image sizes, and it's driving me crazy. Gracchus250 (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Melbourne Railway map
Can you please upload your redesign of File:Melbrail former present proposed.svg as a new file, prefereable with a CC0, Cc-by-4.0 or Cc-by-sa-4.0 tag? For free files, overwriting should only be done for minor uncontroversial adjustments of the original. Otherwise permission, license and attribution become difficult to track.

If you don't have the time, just say here that your new map can be licensed as CC0, Cc-by-4.0 or Cc-by-sa-4.0 and I'll take care of it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User: Alexis Jazz Thanks for this, but in future can you just raise it on my talk page prior to reverting so I can correct it? Then it doesn't end up with an out of date map on all those pages for a month because of something relatively unimportant like CC attribution, not great form.

Melbourne public transport map
Hello, Gracchus250, I'm responding to your remark in the summary at Railways in Melbourne: "Removed interactive map for now as it is not showing Mernda and Hurstbridge lines - if anyone knows how to fix, please help as I cannot work it out." I'm not familiar with Melbourne's railway lines, but I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that they are of recent construction. If so, wouldn't it be better to reinstate the map and include in the caption "as of [year before the later of the two was finished]; since then Mernda and Hurstbridge lines have been built". If not, an appropriate comparable caption. I suggest this because as you know Philip Mallis doesn't have an account by which you can contact him and he may not be watching the page. Regardless of the resolution you make, I strongly suggest that you reinstate the map now. Best wishes, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 00:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Simon, I was the original creator of the interactive map so it was my original work, not Philip Mallis (I didn't remove the geographic map in the infobox, it was a later wikimap showing the different services). Unfortunately Mernda and Hurstbridge (and also Frankston, as that is also not displaying) are not new, they used to be displayed on the map but now are not showing up. This is almost certainly something to do with their wikidata/open street map entries, unfortunately I don't know enough about open street map to understand the problem. I have kept copies on my sandbox so they can be reinstated if I can figure out what's wrong, but it's not worth keeping the map up as it's not useful and is misleading in its current form. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah! [Sound of open hand slapping forehead]. Got it. Sorry for wasting your time... :-/   PS: Your mapping is magnificent!  Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi Grachus, yes you're right I am Caltraser55. However, if you want to know the bs reason that account got banned was because when Russia invaded Ukraine I decided to replace the Moscow photomontage with an image of Ukraine's flag (in solidarity with Ukraine). Basically what happened next was a kangaroo court, a bunch of Russian-American wikipedia admins reported me for trolling, my account wasn't given a warning or temporary ban they just decided to permanently ban my account. I attempted to appeal it, and again was given to another Russian-American user who kept the ban in place. I don't accept the ban given because it was not trolling, it was in solidarity and entirely in good faith. And if you look at my past edits of that account I was an active contributor to the Wikipedia community, helping many Qld articles. So report me if you want to, but hope you know that the banned acount of why I made a sockpuppet was entirely unjustified. Thanks.--Ctrlqlder (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

2026 Commonwealth Games
Good morning, how are you ? Despite being Brazilian and living here, I have been following the Commonwealth Games for many years and am writing an academic article about them. I am organizing the 2026 Commonwealth Games article and there is an interesting question, in what you say about disruptive edition. But, they are not... What I put is that coastal rowing, artistic gymnastics are disciplines respective international confederations are not independent sports and neither does the CGF treat them as such.That's why I'm putting them as disciplines, because they are in the umbrella of these federations,and this has been done in all other editions, just see Gold Coast 2018 and Birmingham 2022 articles. It is also worth noting that rowing returns to the program after 40 years through coastal rowing.Another thing, 3x3 basketball and virtually all cycling disciplines were kept in the program.The case of sport shooting is also the return of a sport, as he was not on the Birmingham 2022 program.Parasports events are also treated as disciplines of their respective original events, cases of athletics, swimming, cycling and so on.Along this, for the first time in history we will have paralympic events only in shooting and not in golf.This concludes with the fact that the only sport that really debuts in the Games is golf and the number of events is some sports don't changed as happened with the team sports and gymnastics.User:De Boni 2007 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gone into detail elsewhere about why your edits are disruptive. I have no problem with you adding select, accurate details like the coastal rowing or artistic gymnastic changes. The problem is where you write or rewrite large sections of text that are 1) poorly written with bad spelling, bad grammar and poor syntax and 2) seem often to be your own reflections and thoughts rather than coming from a source. This is bad because these changes have to be completely rewritten or reverted, and other editors cannot tell which bits are your own thoughts and which come from a source. So for example just recently you added "Due the low interest at the host country,among another reasons:judo" to the Commonwealth article. This is poorly written, it should be "Due to low interest in the host country" and you should use spaces after your punctuation. But also, this is just your speculation, the cited source does not say this so you're just assuming that's the reason. That is poor sourcing and effectively original content. That's why your edits have to be rewritten. Did you see how another editor had to come in and remove your line and rewrite it to be an appropriate tone for an encyclopaedia entry? In some cases you have gone through an article and rewritten extensive portions of it, which has fundamentally broken the article, making it almost unreadable. When you do this, the whole thing has to be reverted because you have made too many changes that it's unfair to expect another editor to come in, check each one and rewrite them. I (and many others) have tried to start a conversation with you about this multiple times on your talk page and you have ignored each one. I strongly suggest if you cannot edit constructively that you stop rewriting and adding written text and stick to minor changes, otherwise I will have to escalate it. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2026 Commonwealth Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T20. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editing, SYNTH and IDHT issues. Thank you. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 01:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You have done significant contributions without a barnstar here is one

 * Thank you! Gracchus250 (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, well deserved for the railway map work you have provided. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—MelbourneStar</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 03:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion
A current discussion may be of interest to you about merging the Melton railway line article with the Ballarat V/Line rail service article. View the discussion here. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

New Melbourne train network diagram
Well done on the new map... but you may need to double check the stations on the Cranbourne line -- <span style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color: rgb(0, 35, 102); text-align: center; text-decoration: underline #FFD700;">ThylacineHunter  (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for recommending CropTool!
This looks awesome. I used to have problems with montages for a while, trying to fit in images that were ideal but an impossible fit. I started using Photoshop in 2015, which is what I assume most montage creators use? but I no longer have access to Photoshop because it's on my old laptop which no longer works. So I'm eager to play around with this CropTool. Many thanks for the suggestion. I created the Adelaide infobox montage when I had photoshop years ago, and I believe it's still superior to the other ones cobbled together by other editors. However, there's a few things I'd like to update (School of Mines/UniSA Building image, and maybe the skyline image since it doesn't show the addition of newer buildings like the Adelaidean). Ashton 29 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries, the CropTool is great and allows you to easily create a montage using the photomontage template. This is so much easier than manually creating a montage in Photoshop and it means you can more easily switch out images, and also users can click on individual images to see them full size. I recommend cropping to a ratio rather a pixel size as it means images will fit side-by-side even if they are different resolutions. Gracchus250 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've ben using the ratio rather than pixel and it has worked like a charm. I've even updated the Adelaide montage for now. Cannot thank you enough for suggest it to me. Ashton 29 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

iStock photos
Hi there. I usually use Flickr to find appropriate images for Australian cities (buildings, streets, landmarks, cityscapes etc.) but it's not always easy because the license limits the amount of decent images. Anyway, to the point, lately I've noticed an advertisement from iStock on Flickr which says you can buy up to 10 photos for a certain amount of money (I think there was a 1-month subscription for $44). This, I assume, would give you the right to use it on a website such as Wikipedia. Have you any idea how it works or have you had any experience with it? I'm on a quest to find a good, updated image of the Adelaide skyline as it has changed somewhat since 2019 (the current skyline panorama in the montage I created is from way back in 2010, I believe!). Anyway, the website is here: https://www.istockphoto.com and this is what it says about purchasing their standard license: https://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses. Will be interested to hear what you think, as I know you said you're often looking for decent images particularly for Melbourne! Ashton 29 (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So I'm no copyright expert at all, but unfortunately I don't think this would work with Wikipedia. To transfer something over it must be originally published in a CC license (or be out of copyright). These licenses are not CC and still have a lot of restrictions, my reading of their standard license doesn't allow it anyway as it says the rights are not transferrable and that you cannot upload in a way that allows others to download it or redistribute. When you upload something to the Commons it's a full CC, so you're essentially waiving any rights over the photo.
 * The only thing I can suggest is if you follow photographers on Flickr or social media, you can always just message them and suggest they upload one or two photos to the Commons or put it under a CC license on Flickr, even if it's a B-roll or one of their less favoured shots. They give up exclusive rights to that photo but highly likely it'll get viewed more than it would otherwise if it's featured prominently on Wikipedia. Always funny to me how closely guarded many photographers are about their copyright when the end result is the photos sit on Flickr or Instagram and no one ever looks them again. Gracchus250 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, the tight copyright licenses are painful for us who want to illustrate articles and counterintuitive to those who want exposure (no pun intended!) I do tend to request a license change on Flickr sometimes, and often my request will go unacknowledged, but sometimes there's a kind and generous photographer who will happily oblige. I thought I struck gold with iStock, with their great collection of well composed photos, but perhaps it was too good to be true. Oh well. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't this aerial of Melbourne a beauty? If only it was under public domain or an acceptable Creative Commons license. I imagine it looking perfect as the main panorama in the infobox montage. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Railway interactive map requests
Thank you for your work on the interactive maps for every Melbourne train lines and it would be great if you could fix these problems

1. If you didn't already notice HoHo3143 has tried reaching out to you to make the map for the Flemington Racecourse railway line article

2. The Williamstown line map appears to be broken as the line isn't showing up, it would be great if you could fix it NotOrrio (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out, yeah I'm aware of these issues and unfortunately haven't worked out a solution yet. There's something wrong with the openstreetmap data the maps use to create these two lines, but I will take another look this weekend and see if I can find a fix. Gracchus250 (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting this @NotOrrio- much appreciated. @Gracchus250 as mentioned in another message, I'm not going to be able to move on to the Werribee line article till you do at least one of the diagrams for the Flemington Racecourse or the Werribee articles. Hopefully you can get this done this weekend so I can move on. Thanks in advance. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

NGV
Hey, your photo serves as the lead image for the National Gallery of Victoria page. I think the other one is good too since it captures more of the building and path to entrance. Well composed. We could agree to compromise here? - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the comment but I'm sorry I don't agree at all, the image is dark, with the building silhouetted on an overcast day, it's poorly composed and doesn't show the main entrance arch or the pond clearly. I genuinely struggle to see the issue you have with this image? I don't care if it's my image or someone else's, if you have one of comparable quality then use that, but don't replace with a clearly inferior image. I also checked and it doesn't bleed, there's plenty of text. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd wager pro photographers would deem the composition of the new image more compelling, with its curves and angles and contrasts. And there isn't a policy or guideline against overcast skies, lol. It's a reality of life in Melbourne. Personally I like Melbourne's temperamental weather. If the image is too dark, it can easily be brightened. I don't have any major gripes with your image, but I think a horizontal format better serves the temple-like structure, and would capture more interesting details. Also, on my laptop the vertical image bleeds into the Sports subheading, so I assumed it would bleed for other readers, given the range of devices people use now. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there's clouds in my photo too so you should enjoy it then! And thankfully you can actually clearly see the subject. I just don't really get your argument, you can see more interesting details in the newer, clearer image like the coat of arms, the arch, the glass detailing beneath the roof. You can see the fountain in yours but that's not exactly that interesting and you can barely see the moat.
 * And why would you bother brightening an old, dark image that shows the corner and not the main entrance when there's a better alternative available?
 * It would be great if you could post a screenshot of the bleeding, because I have tested it from full width down to phone size and cannot see it bleeding into the Sport section. Are you using the old look of Wikipedia?
 * You're usually the one arguing for illustrative clarity over compelling composition, but I don't see what's so compelling about the composition of the dark photo. I'm going to have to go out and take a landscape photo so you can't complain. Gracchus250 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am using the old version of Wikipedia. I guess some of my image preferences, and attempts to justify these preferences, can seem contradictory. I tend to consider how an image compliments those around it. Whether or not it harmonises. If you asked me to unpack this, I probably couldn't. It's more like a vibe. Good job expanding the "contemporary Melbourne" section, and I look forward to your landscape photo. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)