User talk:Mqst north

Appreciation!
Appreciate your work on writing a nice prose for the seats on the 2015 Election page. Of course, it's not my style as I don't like reading blocks and blocks of text but it's really good. DestinationAlan (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate, thank YOU for the feedback. Mqst north (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ratings
You can ask for new ratings at the bottom of the WikiProject Australia/Assessment page, although few people check this page. I have rerated 2 of the articles as "C", but I don't think that County of Cumberland planning scheme quite reaches this mark, because it it is not particularly comprehensive, it is short of sources and has no illustrations. I have rerated it as of mid importance, although I don't usually think these ratings are very significant and normally rate all new articles as low importance.--Grahame (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Will see what I can do about improvements to the Cumberland article. Mqst north (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Myzone
On what basis do you say that it will not be part of Myzon? While Opal does not use zones, in the the unlikely event that single paper tickets are still available when the station opens, then Myzone should still apply.Fleet Lists (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is actually the other way – it would be impossible to provide a citation demonstrating that it will be part of the MyZone zone scheme. In any case, the zones refer to MyMulti, and the last MyMulti tickets will be sold three years before the station opens. Check the website. Mqst north (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect - single and return Myzone tickets will continue to be sold and there is no date set on which they will no longer be sold. So Myzone will continue to be used until not only a date is set on which they will not be sold but also a further date on which they can no lnger be used.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The continued availability of paper tickets in 2019 is a prediction you're making. In any case, "zones" apply to MyMulti only – not single and return fares. And MyMulti is abolished as of next year. Mqst north (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A bit of free advice
Whether deliberately or otherwise (suspect the latter) you seem to have been coming into conflict with a number of editors on NSW transport pages. Obviously your editing style is ultimately your business, but thought would give a bit advice as to maybe how I think this can be minimised. You are obviously a knowledgeable editor with much to offer and ideas that are worthy of consideration.

The cornerstone of Wikipedia is gaining consensus. Unfortunately this doesn’t always align with what every editor considers to be the right way. You are making bold edits which is fine and actually encouraged by WP:BRD policy, but when challenged it is important to engage (which you have been doing) and seek a resolution. But this does require seeing it through to its conclusion, rather than just making your case and then reinstating, to do so can be viewed as a bit arrogant. As in life, sometimes you will be in the majority, sometimes in the minority. Sometimes in the interests of the greater good, everyone just has to cede a point regardless how passionately they believe in their case.

It’s a bit like starting a new job, you can have the best ideas in the world but unless you can work with your peers and bring them on board it will count for nought. You can put what is the best case possible for change, but if you can't gain consensus then it probably won't stand.

I agree with your point that consensus is not reached as soon as one view goes 2 to 1 up, it needs to run for a reasonable period to maximise potential views. It's more like a half-time score. That said, it's advisable to hold fire on rolling out further pending this process coming to a conclusion. Removing station codes from Albion Park Rail being an example, best to wait until the Article for Deletion process has run its course rather than pre-empting the result. Again it comes across as arrogant.

How much of this you chose to take any of this on board is obviously your call, but here endeth the lesson, so back to business.

Regarding infoboxes the reason to retain all the fields is to allow editors in the future to populate this information as it becomes available. Yes they could refer back to the infobox template and add but cumbersome and thus less likely to happen. In an attempt to gain a broader range of opinions, I will put up for discussion.

In answer to your request that I focus on editing articles, I have done so. Have made a number of corrections to Cherrybrook and Victoria Cross e.g. construction starting in 2013 not 2011, removal of czar slang etc. Am aware that still exist in other articles, but took the view that it is better to iron out the issues in a small number of articles rather than over multiple articles. Turingway (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite writing in a tone I regard as patronising, I thank you for taking the time to put your case to me. Please respect that whatever your views on the nature of consensus and halftime scores, encyclopaedic content must be verifiable. Mqst north (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have taken that argument to the extreme. It has been accepted in the past that Platform Boxes and similar items do NOT require such references. In fact I believe you have destroyed many articles by making your changes. It is suggested you stop your one man campaign to change things. I will continue to revert any stations where you make such destructive changes.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know who in the past has "accepted" that there are exceptions to the requirement that encyclopaedic content must be verifiable, but that isn't how things work. I can only suggest that you both read Help:Introduction to referencing/1, including:
 * One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material. This also means that this is no place for original work, archival findings that have not been published, or evidence from any source that has not been published.
 * If you are adding such new content, it is your responsibility to add source information along with it. Material provided without a source may be removed from an article. Sometimes such material will be tagged first with the template to give editors time to find and add sources.
 * Hopefully this is of assistance to you both. Mqst north (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a world wide standard in railway stations that services in the infobox and platform boxes are not referenced. If you want to change this you will have to delete it from thousands of stations but it can not see that being accepted.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While there is a dispute the status quo with existing information should remain and NOT be deleted. I am quite happy for you to raise it as a dispute as you see fit provided the full history as documented here is shown. I am still considering what further action I will be taking. Fleet Lists (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Some apologies are in order
Notice that you have (albeit reluctantly) to have conceded that I am not a not a sockpuppet []. And you have been at it again, accusing more editors. [] which again has been debunked as a myth.

Seems you have a major inability to be able to accept when your views in the minority. At the very least you should have the common decency to be apologising to those who these baseless assertions have been made against. JCN217 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. I remain of the belief that you and the former user JRG are one and the same, but I am told that, even if true, this would not be an illegitimate use of secondary accounts. Certainly the two accounts have similarities in their uncivil tone. And you would have to admit that both your and User:Turingway's contribution histories give rise to reasonable suspicion. Mqst north (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Something you conveniently ignored to do when you accused me falsely of being a sockpuppet Fleet Lists (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Illawarra railway line
It would be appreciated if you would help fix some or all of the numerous articles which now have links to the Illawarra railway line disambiguation page, when before they were links to one specific article. I appreciate that your creating the disambiguation page was probably good, that making the distinctions possible is worthwhile. But I and most other wp:DPL editors working to fix ambiguous links in Wikipedia can't fix these. I am not familiar with the area. This is one of the top 2 or 3 current issues in the disambiguation world, in terms of having so many articles linking to one disambiguation page.

There are two handy tools you might not know about: the "dab fix list" and "DabSolver" which make it relatively easy for a knowledgeable person to fix articles easily. Try Dab fix list for Illawarra railway line. Hit the "Fix" option next to any article, which brings up "DabSolver" applied to the article. Click on the highlighted ambiguous term, then just select the right option from the drop down menu. That is easy if you know the places I hope. It's more important to do disambiguation right than fast though, so if in doubt, don't disambiguate without doing some research, checking maps or whatever, and figuring it out.

Whether you choose to engage in this or not is up to you. Hope you have a g'day ! :) cheers, -- do  ncr  am  00:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your helpful note at the Talk page, about your trying to disambiguate them. By the way, each day there's a report which usually shows new cases of disambiguation pages having more inbound links, which get fixed each day, then later in the day this one with 76 inbound links currently shows up as the top one needing to be addressed. Thanks for your willingness to address it!  sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  15:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In effect, I have restored the original redirect, as none of the articles on the created disambiguation page is linking to an article with the name "Illawarra railway line" so there will be no confusion. And yes, 63 links to disambiguation pages is a kind of a problem... The Banner talk 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC)
Good afternoon I am trying to locate the user who recently uploaded a new ARTC logo to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Rail_Track_Corporation I am not familiar with how this all works, but from what I can see, the logo was uploaded by you? Could you please advise whether this was your contribution, as the logo has been incorrectly uploaded, but as a new user I do not appear to have access to change it. Your assistance would be much appreciated. I apologise if this is not the correct forum to discuss this - I could not find another way to contact you. Thank you in advance, Lynne Hawkins Senior Administration Officer ARTC Artc1001 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I created the artwork by vectorising a PNG file on your website... not ideal, admittedly. If you're having trouble uploading a better version of the file, I'm happy to help. Mqst north (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have had to recreate my account to be able to edit the page, however as my account will not be valid for a few days, in the meantime if you can help me by uploading the correct image that would be appreciated. Is it possible to contact you via email so I can provide the correct file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhawar01 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I have tried to work out how to change the logo image without success. I would appreciate you contacting me to either give me advice on how to change the logo myself, or provide you the correct image file to use. Thanks again. Lhawar01 (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ARTC Logo
Please contact me to arrange replacement of the ARTC logo to its correct format. Thanks Lhawar01 (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Suburban bus routes in Sydney) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Suburban bus routes in Sydney, Mqst north!

Wikipedia editor Prof tpms just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Very informative page"

To reply, leave a comment on Prof tpms's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Australian election infobox
Yes, I was happy to see your removal and wondered how long it would last. Unfortunately there was some half-arsed RfC a while ago that didn't result in a satisfactory outcome. I intend to launch another RFC after the election to get a better outcome. Tony  (talk)  13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Questionable entry
Is there any source anywhere that uses the phrase Newcastle Port Corporation to refer to the Port of Tyne? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's just another Newcastle port corporation. Happy for you to remove if you think it's out of place. Mqst north (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Askin
See the article talk page. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Country
Hi, back on August 2, you made an edit to Welcome to Country that included adding the following.
 * Travellers risked violent reprisal for crossing a clan or tribal boundary without permission. < /ref>

My copy of Flood's book does not say anything on p. 194 to support that. I read other pages, but did not see support elsewhere. For now, I have added a "Failed verification" template to the article.

Would you give a supporting quote from the book, or do you have another citation for support? FlagrantUsername (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Good pick-up – the reference only supports half the sentence. I'll need to go back and find the bit that supports the other. Mqst north (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Franklin dam proposal
I might be reading your edit summaries wrong, but hey, the Franklin proposal was a political controversy - and not a debate... JarrahTree 10:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was controversial, but that category was being used for political scandals as well as a limited selection of political debates. Since controversy is a pretty broad term, I narrowed the category to only include scandals. Mqst north (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * all very well but it was something that had far reaching consequences, just 'adjusting' a category and removing that to 'fit' a category simply now misrepresents controversies like that one. Better to create new categories and be inclusive than to extract for tightening some and then leaving out things that were of significant impact... JarrahTree 10:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand the nit picking (sorry) in separating scandal from controversy - and in effect I agree with that distinction - but there were indeed in Australian political history items that were controversies with lasting impact that werent what one might call scandals - I really think you need to work on that, otherwise you are skewing and misrepresenting parts of Australian political history. JarrahTree 10:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There are many events in Australia that had far-reaching consequences and were controversial in their day (European settlement, the Eureka Stockade, Federation, etc.) but to add them all to such a big category would add no value for readers. Better to classify them by year or subject-matter than by the mere fact there was a debate. Mqst north (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Twentieth century political controversies that were not scandals (it would be to your benefit and the readers if you qualify in the page as to what they entail) were and are substantial - your reaching back in history doe not help, I am talking about specific controversies in recent memory that were not specifically 'debates' or 'scandals', but were more substantial -  that need some thought as to how they are posited into categories that do not belittle the significant amount of time and catastrophe for particular parts of the population.  If you choose to argue with that fine, I will leave it, the editing population has shrunk so much, you probably will get away with your line of argument - but rather than take my word (or not) - I would strongly suggest that a trip to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics - ideally if you were actually interested in what others might think of this - it would be the best place to go.  JarrahTree 10:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Political controversies in Australia
It is WP:POINTy to remove articles from a category in order to nominate it for speedy deletion as empty, as you have done           & more. You are entitled to your point of view that the category is inappropriate, but the appropriate process for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge etc categories is Categories for discussion. Find bruce (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I see you've been adding articles to the defunct category without actually reading them, so you can prove a point about process. This does not add any value. Mqst north (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * user:Find bruce is correct. Oculi (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A category is not defunct until such time as there is consensus to delete. Thank you for listing the matter at categories for discussion & I will contribute to the discussion there. Find bruce (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Corrective Services New South Wales
I hope you have time to solve the link to the disambiguation page Corrective Services New South Wales in Template:NewSouthWalesPrisons (hidden under State facilities). You have been moving around so many things, that I do not dare to do it myself. The Banner talk 21:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out – I thought the best way to fix this was to separate out the operators onto a separate line. Mqst north (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Moves
Please stop these moves to inaccurate titles and deletion of edits. Just because an agency no longer exists is no reason to change an article title or to remove information from the article. The only time we would put dates in parentheses is if there had been two agencies of the same name (and we use full dates in any case, incidentally, not abbreviated dates). And a territorial disambiguator is obviously required for such generic names as Department of Justice. Which Department of Justice? There are many of them around the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you don't agree with my approach, but please try to keep your comments civil and fact-based. The titles I put forward are not, as you claim, inaccurate. I don't think I've removed any information either, except where I've consolidated it on another page (or by accident?). My proposed titles would assist in (a) making immediately clear to the reader that the agency no longer exists and (b) allowing an article to cover an organisation's name changes over the years. As for the use of "territorial disambiguators", these are only required where there is actual ambiguity. If another jurisdiction had a Department of Juvenile Justice formed in 1991 and abolished in 2009, then obviously the title should include "New South Wales" as well. I realise you're probably not familiar with the content relating to things here in NSW, but a quick scan of Category:Government agencies of New South Wales would have shown you that "territorial disambiguators" are only used about half the time. Mqst north (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the relevant naming convention (Naming conventions (government and legislation)) and, unless there's additional material I was unable to find, the question of defunct government agencies is not addressed. (If there is something I've missed please tell me.) While it's not directly relevant, Naming conventions (political parties) shows how dates can be used for disambiguation, though I take your point about formatting date ranges. In future, please take greater care before telling less experienced editors (such as myself) what "we" do when you are in fact expressing a personal preference. Mqst north (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying how Wikipedia formats titles, not a personal preference. We simply do not add dates to a defunct organisation's title just because it's defunct. Never have done. Don't need to. Dates are only used for disambiguation purposes if there are two of the same name. Of course a territorial designator is necessary, either before the name or in parentheses after it, if there are multiple organisations in different territories of the same name. Again, this is standard Wikipedia procedure, not a personal preference. Disambiguators are chosen for ease of use. Who on earth is going to know that the Department of Juvenile Justice that existed from 1991 to 2009 was the NSW one? Add New South Wales and it's obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, so a defunct institution does not loose its notability. The Banner  talk 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp, there is no value in discussing your opinions on defunct NSW Government agencies until you have done some reading on the matter. Mqst north (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean by that statement. Defunct agencies are still notable and our naming procedures, applied to all articles of all countries, do not just change because you think they should. I am not questioning your knowledge of these institutions; I am merely questioning how you format their names on Wikipedia. A subject on which I have a lot of experience. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how you could know whether certain guidelines are relevant to a given page, when you are not remotely familiar with the subject-matter of that page? Mqst north (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For your information: the guideline is the rule to follow. The subjects have to adhere to that guideline. A specific case is not a reason to change a worldwide applied guideline, not even when you disagree with it. The Banner  talk 10:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Government departments in New South Wales are not a unique case. They are the same as government departments anywhere else. They divide, merge, change their names and get abolished, just like government departments in all countries. We apply standard guidelines to the formation of article titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:College of Law (Australia) logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:College of Law (Australia) logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)