User talk:Jamessugrono/TalkArchive/2008/January

Oldest public high school
Please tell me why you think the statement is inaccurate. The school clearly claims this (refer to the cited general references for the article), a list of schools from the Dept of Ed confirms it. If you dispute the accuracy of the statement, you will need to show some verifiable evidence for it. Specifically, evidence of another school being founded earlier would be helpful. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Twain
Why did you revert everything I had done to Mark Twain and what are your intentions now? Please reply on the article talkpage so everyone can see. BrainyBabe 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All those years in radio
Hi, I'm the one creating those "xxxx in radio" articles. And yes, I plan on going somewhere with them, though this will take a little time. Hope you can bear with me. --Fightingirish 08:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested to Fightingirish if he is going to set up all these pages and add details asap he needs to use the underconstruction tag so other editors know his intentions ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Talk"? 08:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes well he shouldn't really be creating completely empty pages -technically it is a straight speedy. But I see they have potential and they correspond to the years in film and tv etc -so I've added the under construction tag as he appears to have the intention to add details as soon as possible. -I would hope he uses this tag in future to let us known what he is up to. I still think its best he actually adds something in them though. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Talk"? 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mirakel Musik
5 mins must be a new record for tagging an article for deletion. I can't research and write an article that fast. How about slowing down. Artlondon 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know a lot of rubbish does get added; and importance is sometimes hard to judge, it may be worth being more considerate in tagging for deletion. Check out links, editor etc. Artlondon 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 04:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, getting told off by a bot... what next? James-SugronoContributions
 * Indeed. I'd be interested in which edit it's referring to... - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your watchlist has my user page doesn't it?
Looks like someone chose to make a page on their own editing guidelines after i did... æt'ə' rnal 'ðrAعon' 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello James, you might want to look at the essay I did on RAYE. I could propose it to become a guideline on Wikipedia. æt'ə' rnal 'ðrAعon' 11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fort Street High School
Hi. I've had another look at the article and, while it shows significant improvement, it still needs to show more research from independent sources to merit an assessment higher than a Start. Some specific suggestions are:


 * 1) Source debatable facts such as "Established in 1849, it is the oldest government high school in Australia"
 * 2) Try to remove the advertisement quality of the prose. Sentences using: "wide range", "excellent" are the most obvious appearances
 * 3) Cut down the alumni list.
 * 4) Make sure that there is independent confirmation (citation) for each alumni that doesn't have a wikipedia article.
 * 5) Clean up the curriculum section
 * 6) Add to the history section

Hope that helps! This is close to a B despite my suggestions but given some work it could be a viable GA candidate. Adam McCormick 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Very quick James, I admire the fact that you want to increase your post count with this very easy technique lol :) Hello to you aswell. Mrdun 10:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick Note
Just though I should mention: my edit to your page was to remove some vandalism. Thanks.-- Neo  Nerd  12:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Education in Australia
Ive noticed your work on Fort Street High School and thought you might like to join WikiProject Education in Australia, which covers all schools and education related topic in Australia. If you wish to join, just add your name to the participants list. Twenty Years 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion about works in progress
Entirely up to you, of course, but may I suggest writing your draft on a user subpage (say User:Jamessugrono/Fort Street) rather than placing construction signs on the actual article? I find user subpages useful for drafting major edits - see, for example, my User:PalaceGuard008/Forbidden City. Construction signs, like your notice about conflicting information, detracts from the readability of the encyclopaedia article.

Just a suggestion - again, entirely up to you. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still have my Maroon & Silver (which counts as "independent" =D)- and I'd love to help - once I finish getting slaughtered by my exams in 2 weeks time.
 * And when we finish with this, I'd like to make some points to the guys at Wikiproject Schools about their importance rating system: seriously, Newington College as "high" and Fort Street as "mid"?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC on A. R. Rahman
Thank you for your reply to the RFC on A. R. Rahman's talk page. I agree for the most part, but the edit in question is utter nonsense added by a user who is behaving like a persistent vandal. In fact, he has just deleted the RFC section from the talk page of the article altogether following your reply. What next? I think his edits, which are in violation of WP:SPS and numerous other policies should be removed immediately. Clubover 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
Have taken your advice, and also quoted you here. Thanks. Vizjim 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) A couple of things
The vote symbols script specifically avoids article space; there are no symbols on keep. In other namespaces, it looks for bolded comments like keep to place symbols before; there are a few false positives but nothing very distracting or inappropriate.

As for a collapsible box-type thing, see NavFrame and Collapsible tables for two different ways to do this; there is also hidden that automates the use of these techniques.

An example using NavFrame divs (some hidden text)

Hope that helps! --ais523 10:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration
Thank you for your recent edit to Template:EIA Collaboration. I feel that your edits were appropriate and I won't be reverting you there! Auroranorth (!) 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

neutrality project
If you need to check I'm still there, consider me checked and note it wherever's needed :)

Best,

FT2 (Talk 07:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject World Heritage Sites
Hey, thanks for the invite. Sounds like a great idea, I've started work immediately on the page for the project in my sandbox. You might wanna check it out. Thanks, æt'ə' rnal ðrAعon 10:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites banner
Just for clarification, the banner is already equipped for importance assessments, they just aren't displayed. I'm assuming you're questioning in particular the importance of a lot of the articles about the Great Barrier Reef, and I won't argue that, but it would be good to know if what you're specifically asking for is to have the importance displayed in the banner itself. If I don't get an answer within the next several hours, I'll try to adjust to make the importance appear anyway. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project
Thank you for the reminder about the Neutrality Project. I have re-entered my name as you suggested. If you have anything you wish to discuss with me, please use my user talk page. Watchdog07 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Calophyllum inophyllum
''Yeah, I was wondering about that &mdash; it didn't seem like a world heritage site, perhaps it was put there by accident. I'll unwatch that now. Jame§ugrono 12:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that Calophyllum inophyllum belongs to Category:Flora of the Coral Sea Islands Territory, a subcategory of Category:Coral Sea Islands, a subcategory of Category:Great Barrier Reef, a subcategory of Category:World Heritage Sites in Australia, a subcategory of Category:World Heritage Sites. Someone must have gone through and mindlessly tagged the entire World Heritage Sites category tree, hence the error. Hesperian 12:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I presume that when the World Heritage Sites wikiproject started up, there was a need to claim a hell of a lot of articles for the project. To do so, the tagger generated a list of all the articles within the Category:World Heritage Sites subtree, and started tagging the talk pages one by one. With so many pages to tag, the tagger eventually dissolved into a mindless stupor, a state of mind in which one cannot tell the difference between a plant and a place. :-) Hesperian 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't exactly "mindless", but intentional. Most of the articles in the GBR category are about individual islands, etc, and as those islands are at least apparently included in the World Heritage Site, it seemed to make sense to tag them as well, as they are at least part of that site. Having said that, I myself was less sure about including the various flora and fauna. I ultimately only did include them because it struck me that the unique lifeforms of the GBR are one of the reasons for its World Heritage Site status. Having said that, the sheer weight of other demands causes me to basically wind up not finishing half of what I start quickly. I still haven't finished the updated version of the Project Directory, and actually, I'm ashamed to admit, forgot it completely. Right now, that does seem to be a bit more of a priority. If, of course, you want to remove the banner from any articles, regarding this or any other subject, I encourage people to do so. Categorization is one of the biggest problems we have, and unfortunately a lot of projects tag on the basis of inclusion in a category. That doesn't mean that they're always accurately included, though. Sorry for any difficulties it may have presented. For what it's worth, I'm considering asking a bot to tag for many of the assessing projects in the near future. If that is done, then I'll try to go through them all later and remove those which clearly aren't relevant. Unfortunately, about half the articles in wikipedia haven't been tagged at all yet, so personally, at this point, I still kind of prefer having an artile assessed for a marginally appropriate project than not assessed at all. Again, though, feel free to remove any banners you think inappropriate. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Great Barrier Reef
I mean I just use my judgment on importance assessment. If you think otherwise, then you are welcome to change it. I mean, all I want to do is to add the template. Chris! ct 00:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Världsarv.png

 * Originally posted at commons:User talk:Putnik

"Hey. Sorry about that." Putnik said that he is too lazy and too tired to write the complete answer to your questions, so I decided to do this with his permisson. "I was in a rush modifying it to work in a WikiProject template..." So much that you've probably forgot that this is a logo. And therefore, until a permisson from UNESCO is received, it falls under copyright law and can be used on Commons under no circumstances.

An interesting solution for this problem is proposed by German Wikipedia: since many of the logos (including this one) consist of very simple shapes, they are in public domain because they are trivial. However, these images (even vector ones) are uploaded to German Wikipedia itself, not to Commons, and they're used only in exceptional cases (with fair use-like restrictions, stated in templates like : "Usage of this logo is only allowed in encyclopedic purposes and in related articles only."). For example, they can't be used in templates, since it's considered a decorational purpose. "...which ended up being unused anyway. But the transparent background makes it more suitable for general use, and anyone who wants a different coloured background can modify it to be so." Sure. You made this image much better, and thank you for your work. But, as stated above, this is a logo. "I have included a description, as well as a link to the original uploader, who released it into the public domain. I thought that would have been apparent, given the comment in the upload history. I'm not sure what else I need to do, because I'm not quite experienced enough." If the original version was really free, I'd say that you've done all this right. But... see above. "The other thing that I would like to know is if it is possible to make inter-wiki redirects. I'm pretty sure it isn't, but if there is and I don't know about it, it's about time I found out." You can actually write something like, but this will only display the redirect arrow and interwiki, not forward you directly to the target page. The preferred way to do this is soft redirect. "Also, before you hit the button to reply to me, note that big, obnoxious banner at the top of my pages, and please talk to me on my english Wikipedia talk page." I'm replying where you've asked. Since I personally don't like these context-breaking practices, I've quoted your message there. Feel free to continue the discussion where you like to. "Sorry to have troubled you, first with my not-so-completed upload, then with these questions. Thanks for any help and/or guidance you can offer — Jamessugrono 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)" No problem for me.

— Kalan ? 16:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

L'Intruse
In the next couple of weeks, I will be working on pages for most of Maeterlinck's work, since there were so many links on his page leading to unwritten articles. I was amazed at how quickly you tagged this page. It will be expanded, as will the others. --AppaAliApsa (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fort Street
Hi James, good work! I am working overseas at the moment, but I should have some time after Christmas and before New Year. If I don't get much done then, I'll do more work after the summer break. Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
Hi James. I don't understand the deletion notice which has appeared on the article I have just written on Software compatibility. I do rather object, though this has never happened to me before. I accept that the article can be improved, in which case I hope that I, or others may wish to do so. It could be that you are objecting to the neutrality of the article, though I would claim that it is neutral, even though at present it does list one known (to me) incompatibility. I believe that a great deal of time can be wasted by software installers and other users because of software incompatibilities, and this is what I am trying to draw intention to. This is not intended as any criticism of particular vendor's/supplier's products, but simply is a hope that we can all benefit from knowing where incompatibilities may arise.

If essentially the same information is available elsewhere within Wikipedia, then I'd be happy to write there, or put in a link.

If the information which should be made public is available on external sites, then I'd be happy to link to external sites. The issue of software (in)compatibility is real, and should be included.

If you have any suggestions as to how this can be improved please let me know.

I also do not, myself, know how to remove or modify the deletion template. If you are willing to work with me on this I will be pleased to improve this and to work on the article. However if you are simply trying to suppress discussion of this topic, I will take other action. Please help me if you can. David Martland (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response
James

Thanks for your more constructive suggestions. I cannot act alone however, and as such I still think the article deserves a chance to survive, and could fulfil a very useful role. I take the point that under compatibilities I have in fact listed incompatibilities. This is easily rectified. Regarding the specific incompatibility I listed, this was "discovered" empirically by me, and is also noted during the installation process, and is separately documented in other third party sites. I am happy to write more and indicate how the incompatibilities can arise - but there are so many ways - such as deadlocks, bugs, etc. How many do you want before you'd be happy to see the article remain? I'd agree that Wikipedia is not just a directory, but I have not found the information anywhere else, so either it is not available, or is being deliberately suppressed. David Martland (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

James

Thank you for ensuring that the new article on software compatibility was deleted. I am now not very likely to bother to write any new articles for Wikipedia ever again. I think your attention, and that of others was very misguided. I understand that Wikipedia may have been suffering from some problems due to the apparent unverifiability of some of the articles, but until fairly recently this has not been thought to be a problem. Now I think that the whole resource is going to stagnate because of an attempt to turn it into an encyclopaedia. You and others appear to have an unquestioning approach to the rules, which themselves must have been devised in order to solve a problem. That I recognise, but it does not mean that the rules are sensible. I will save my time from now on and move into other areas. David Martland (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Briarrpb.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Briarrpb.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jamessugrono. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WNP: Tutorial
Is there a tutorial of some kind to help an editor who is interested to lend a hand to this project? Please, let me know. I may be able to work a bit there (at least when the balance is blatantly disrupted), and a hand with a little experience and a clear intention may be not be all too harmful. Many Wikiprojects seem to develop that way. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding
Please re-read my waterboarding issue. Its not exactly dispute resolution I am looking for. I am interested in getting some views on policy. It could be on my talk page if necessary. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Separate question: I see you use and emphasize "Overwhelming majority". I have seen this phrase often -- and did not always agree with it. Do you think that using that term is, itself, a loaded and not exactly NPOV thing?  This is just a private question. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologize
I apologize for my disruptive behaviour. Will not do again. Bharathwaaj 13:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the Author: False & Wrongful Accusation
I am NOT the author of the Howe Sim page. I have seen his work in magazines and his photography books, however, and I do not believe the entry should be deleted. Did you delete it? --Writedunes (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

D-Day Overload or whatever
Please note that I was actually not removing content, I was actually adding it back after this one user wanted to destroy it. I did explain this in my edit summary. I am now going to revert. Please state on my talk page if you have a problem again. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark up on articles etc.
James - Thanks for leaving the message on my Talk page in December re a deleted article. I have come back, but I don't visit Wikipedia as much as previously now, and I'm definitely not going to rush to create a new article if it's likely to be deleted within 5 days. I've started many articles before (dating back to around 2002), and some have become very large, some have been modified almost unrecognisably, but I'd never had one deleted before. Personally I still think that 5 days is too short a period, unless an article is offensive or blatantly wrong. Also I didn't manage to copy the article before it was deleted, but that's life!

I notice that quite a lot of Wikipedia is now annotated by comments - requests for more information etc., and maybe this is a good idea, but there are still major issues. We are not always sure that writers of articles are themselves knowledgeable experts and this is an issue, the same can also be said of those who put these annotation marks on articles. How is this going to improve quality? One argument might be that if an expert cannot write in a way which others can understand that this is a worthless exercise, but surely the desirable approach is to coax out of the expert/experts what they know, and if necessary reword the articles to make them more understandable.

There are still some articles which are not splattered with comments. For example, see "System Dynamics" - which is a reasonable enough article, but there is little or no justification for it that I can see. Ah - no - that's incorrect - there are references, but few citations within the text. Also there's no indication that largely this area was developed by Forrester - which surely should be important. Are the examples original, or are they based on a standard book (my suspicion!!)? Perhaps that could be given some editorial attention. Actually this is an interesting article, since it started in 2002 with a very basic stub. By around 2004/5 it has picked up the reference to Forrester's work - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=System_dynamics&oldid=25105987 However, by 2008 mention of Forrester has been removed from the main body of the text, yet we have real examples.

You might be amused by the article on Holly Valance, which I started in 2002 with a student. That was very much a stub, yet it evolved. After a few initial edits which didn't make much difference on 29th November, it was more than 6 months before it was changed again in June 2003. It started to expand in July 2003, and then in 2004 one or two people got carried away and substantially revised and expanded it. There could well have been grounds for deleting this article under the current policies when it was first put up.

BWS and a belated Happy New Year! David Martland (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)