User talk:Santwyne/Archive 1

Airports of the World
The article passed the requirements, and was accepted! Take a look. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.Rupert&#39;sscribe (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Diagrams
Hey there, cheers for editing my NSW Legislative Assembly diagram. I have to ask though, how did you do the one with an "arch" on the ACT Legislative Assembly and Bahamas one> DestinationAlan (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, no worries! Thanks for the lovely base :) The way I did those was to make rows of three or so squares in Illustrator, and rotate them to form one side of the arch. To make up the right number of seats I just moved things around in a very non-scientific way to make it look sort of right. As long as you reflect the sides symmetrically it works well. I found also that after making one I was able to make more very quickly, just adjusting the number of seats and parties each time. Hope that description helps! --Hshook (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, would you mind fixing up the current one for the end result? Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

NZ Parliament seats, 2014
Hi, I was wondering why you updated https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NZ_Parliament_seats,_2014.svg? Considering the previous version was more representative of the seat layout of the New Zealand parliament and also had a key to show which colours were representing the parties. I was going to revert it but decided it was best to ask as I don't like removing work folk might've put alot of effort into.

Regards, Humongous125 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there :) I updated it because I felt that a diagram like the ones used for Australia and India would suit the NZ parliament better. I think it's easier to see which party has more seats with my design rather than the one I replaced, especially with an awkward number like 121 seats. The grid allows any number of seats to be shown which would be an advantage at the next election if more overhang seats are added. And I felt the key was duplicating the information shown in the infobox below, and as with other similar diagrams the information is more clearly set out in text form rather than in the image itself. In addition I don't think that the shape of the parliament matters too much when photos of the chamber are in the article. So that's my rationale, but I'd love your feedback. Also, thank you for not just reverting it! That can be annoying if people do that haha Hshook (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, the reason I was also thinking of changing the image was because the previous new zealand election pages also have the image with the actual seat layout, so I felt continuity between the pages would be good. Also, the Norwegian, Quebec and Catalonian parliament seating diagram is showing the seats and parties as they are laid out in the actual parliament. However I can see your point as the New Zealand parliament, along with the Australian parliament is based off of the Westminster system, thus having the diagram as you have edited is appropriate. Therefore I've decided to leave it up to you, just ensure the colours are of similar shade that wikipedia uses to represent the appropriate parties and the New Zealand parliament infobox key shows which colour is for which party and who is in government and in opposition. Could help on that front if you needed assistance. Also, National is a minority government, therefore on the grid should it not be on it own with the supporting parties on the top grid?


 * However concerning other parliaments, I have noticed you've altered the indian parliament diagram which is not based off a westminster system seating arrangement but a european semi-circular one. Where parliaments that have that arrangement such as the Scottish, French and the US Congress have semi-circles to represent their seats. A semi-circle is just as effective in demonstrating the number of seats as the grid while also being sort of representative to the actual layout. Also India does not use overhang seats as it uses FPTP so the seat numbers will stay the same and considering the immense size of the governing party, a semi-circle would appear less cluttered. :) Humongous125 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that consistency is a good thing, but I think change is good too. I included the other parties in the minority government with the Nationals to show the government vs. opposition clearly, but perhaps I should show them on a crossbench like the Australian parliament under Gillard. And I edited the Indian diagram to show all parties, which took forever (!), but I didn't check what shape the actual chamber is. So I understand where you are coming from and will make some changes asap. Also the way I did it left a huge crossbench which I thought looked a bit odd but I was kind of over it so I left it haha. Hshook (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adam Guise


The article Adam Guise has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Created in good faith when many commentators called Lismore on election night - prematurely, as it turns out. Now a clear WP:POLITICIAN fail.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Frickeg (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. If he passes GNG outside of his candidacy he might still be notable, but I can't see the sources there myself. Frickeg (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"SOFIXIT"
You re-added your changes after my revert with the comment "SOFIXIT". Does that mean if I add the Nationals and CLP to your version of the infobox, you will not revert? --Surturz (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, but I can't guarantee someone else won't. Hshook (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Diagram
You should familiarise yourself with this policy. You were bold and introduced a different feature to the article and you were reverted. So take it to the talk page and work it out with the other editors of the page. Your diagram is inconsistent with canadian parliaments. The structure has no crossbench and it is physically set up differently than British or Australian parliaments. Your diagram is inconsistent with the 12 other provincial and terrotorial diagrams. In Canadian politics the houses are diagrammed with only two sides, and symetrically. Your last revert summary was "reverting vandalism" which is an extremely dishonest summary. Please put the diagram back to what it was an take this issue up on the talk page. I'm not going to get into an edit war over a diagram. Shabidoo | Talk 12:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have updated the image to your specifications, and left a message on the talk page. Thank you - Hshook (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Let us know at Slashme's talk page per the australian diagrams I and another user are proposing if you're interested. Shabidoo | Talk 16:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Hshook, I've made mock-ups on my google-drive if you want to take a look. Shabidoo | Talk 07:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing dispute tag
It is seriously uncool to remove a dispute tag as you have done. Please self-revert. --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no facts being disputed, nobody is saying the Nationals don't exist. The tag isn't relevant in this case - Hshook (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Senate ballot paper Victoria
Hi Hshook, re the senate ballot paper image you added here, the header (top left next to the coat of arms) say "Election of 6 Senators". Should be 12? Regards JennyOz (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Eagle-eyed. Fixed, thanks – Hshook (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Save the Planet


The article Save the Planet has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Very minor party, never registered, no third-party sources"

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Frickeg (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Save the Planet logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Save the Planet 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) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)