User talk:Sroc/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome, and good luck to your A-League editing especially. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Football as the Australian collaboration
Hi -- I recently nominated WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/To-do for the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight.

This WikiProject has been inactive for a long time and with the World Cup coming up, it would be good for football (soccer) articles to be in depth and comprehensive in Australia.

If you would like to support it, click here for the project page to cast your vote

Thanks! Australian Matt (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's Fairly Interesting
I see that you have created this as a redirect to That's Incredible!, but the latter article doesn't mention this New Zealand television program. It might be worth having an article on the rather obscure New Zealand program, if you can find some reliable sources describing it, but the redirect is not currently useful at all.- gadfium 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have now expanded That's Fairly Interesting into a separate article with what information I could gather. Hopefully others with a more personal knowledge of the program will be able to uncover additional sources and information.--Sroc (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work!- gadfium 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Sroc! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gabriel Rossi -

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gillard
Responded on talk page. On another note, thank you for your admirably civil response, especially when I was perhaps more heated than I needed to be. Frickeg (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Hard to convey civility in the limited space given for curt summaries.  Thanks for your considered response. —sroc (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Infobox election
Hey Sroc, hope you're doing well. Recently at the Help desk, a user brought up a problem: every article regarding United States presidential elections had a large amount of spacing at the beginning of it (e.g. United States presidential election, 1896). I was able to trace the problem back to an edit that you made yesterday to Template:Infobox election, specifically. For some odd reason, the template, after your edit, caused a rather large number of spacing to appear at the beginning of every article in which it is placed; as a result, I've undone your edit for now. I wanted to give you a heads up about the problem, in case you want to revisit it and fix it (because I have no clue how to). Thanks, ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note and for reverting my change. It was my first go working on templates and everything seemed to go well on the sandbox page so I'm not sure what happened!  I'll have another look at making it work better, or let someone else who is more proficient have a go.  Cheers.  —sroc (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me
We have had House of Reps for ages, it's a common way of saying it, you have no consensus, stop acting unilaterally from overseas, jesus christ. Timeshift (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, no need for blasphemy. Secondly, why do you assume I'm from overseas.  Thirdly, and most relevantly, where is the discussion that supports consensus?  Not every edit in Wikipedia requires a debate or nothing would ever evolve, so unless there has already been a meaningful discussion on the subject, I see no reason why "House of Reps" should be preferable to "House of Representatives", the latter of which is the correct title.  —sroc (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's been there for ages and I dispute it. Therefore you require consensus. Why don't you find something better to do than to come along when a hung parliament occurs and nitpick every last thing? Stop removing and criticising everything. Timeshift (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see using the correct name "House of Representative" in the title of a table as being an improvement over the abbreviation "House of Reps" because the former is formal, the latter is informal, and an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should prefer formal names unless there is a particular reason to do otherwise. Rather than "nitpick", I see my edit as trying to improve Wikipedia.  If you put forward a reason why the original was preferable, I might understand.  The only reason that you have given is uniformity.  Therefore, if the same change is applied to all instances, there will be uniformity, which would satisfy your concern about uniformity while also satisfying my desire to improve Wikipedia.  I do not understand why you are fighting over something that seems so obvious and trivial for no apparent reason than "status quo".  If we rely on "status quo", we might as well remove the [edit] button altogether.  Wikipedia relies on everyone contributing to make it a better encyclopedia, after all.  —sroc (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See also: Don't revert due to "no consensus". —sroc (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it" Timeshift (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're rather missing the point.
 * 'Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.'
 * You haven't pointed to any 'long-standing Wikipedia policy' on why "House of Reps" is used. You haven't 'explain[ed] why you personally disagree with the edit'.
 * 'Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being against it than for it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing.'
 * So if you have a reason, explain it. "If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it" is not an excuse for you to revert my (very simple and uncontroversial) edit without giving a reason.  Even if my edit were complicated and controversial and you couldn't 'find a way to incorporate the edit', the policy requires that if you revert it you must give a reason.
 * If you do not give a reason then I can no longer reason with you and I will go ahead with the edits. —sroc (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No non-consensus revert is reason-less. Timeshift (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was "reason-less", but you didn't give a reason when you brought it up here, and that is the point.
 * I see now that the discussion has boiled over to Talk:Australian federal election, 2010 so let's keep it there — and keep it civil. —sroc (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Proposal for consensus" results table
Two questions: a) Could you sandbox up the equivelent for the Senate? b) Would you be willing to invest the time upgrading *all* federal election lower and upper house result tables? Do not take this as agreement but rather attempting to see how a consensus could be formed. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * a) I assume that you mean to break up the Coalition (which is already grouped as a single party in the results table) to show in the same format? Will have a go.
 * b) I might if there was support for it. As I mentioned in my reasoning on the other page, I think that this election where there are four Coalition parties and a similarly-named non-Coalition party, it is more important than before to show the grouping, so it may be justified to to treat this one differently.  I would wait for a consensus on this before applying the table format across the board.  —sroc (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this?
 * I'm not sure where to pull the data from, and whether everyone would rather have the sub-totals shown beside Coalition or not, but you get the idea. —sroc (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where to pull the data from, and whether everyone would rather have the sub-totals shown beside Coalition or not, but you get the idea. —sroc (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
Please do not add unsourced trivia to articles. For something to be added to an "In popular culture" section, you must cite a third-party reliable source to establish the notability of the reference. See "In popular culture" content for detail. The media itself is not a reference. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are referring to the edits at Spartacus (1960 film). I understand the need to provide citations and note that you have added  tags, but was it really necessary to delete the additional references as well.  Shouldn't they also remain with  tags, so that others may be better able to add sources?  —sroc (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, another editor shortened and improved the list. You reverted that editor and I restored the edit, because it was an improvement. I also did a thorough Google book search. There is no evidence that any critic or film scholar considers the "I am Spartacus!" scene notable at all, and nobody lists "references" to it. I came up with no more than three usable mentions, and they were to "references" not listed. Given that that's the case, the shorter list is more in line with expectations. Someone may have print articles that aren't on Google, which is the only reason I haven't removed the whole bloody section. Yworo (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to get what's required. The script of the show doesn't establish notability of the reference. What's required is a third-party explicitly discussing the relation to the film Spartacus. Yworo (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation. I am trying to gather references for the significance of the scene generally and for each of the examples.  However, it is not particularly helpful when each edit is almost immediately reverted.  In particular, you are not only removing the references or adding  tags, but also removing detail that may be helpful for myself and others to find suitable references.  The notability of the "I am Spartacus!" is evident by the sheer number of examples in which it has been parodied, so it would be unwise to delete it without further discussion on the article's talk page, particularly as it has stood for some time.  If an independent  reference is needed to verify notabililty, then time should be given for someone to find one.  I respect your desire to maintain the verifiability of WP, but please Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.  —sroc (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there is no requirement that I leave that crap in while you try to find references that don't exist. See WP:V. The burden to provide references is on the person who adds the material. If it is removed, you may not restore it until you have a proper reference. The material is easily available in the article history. It doesn't have to be visible on the current page to be accessible. Yworo (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop. Youtube is not a reliable source. You clearly don't get what's required in the section you are editing and you need to stop edit warring over it. Persist and you might end up blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not reverted any edits except to add the references which you indicated were needed, albeit that you have not accepted that they were suitable references. I am not trying to edit-war here; I am only trying to build the article.  As you will see, I have now stopped editing the article.  I am instead working on a sandbox version to add in reliable references so that I have a stable environment to work in until I can get it to a stage where it is suitable for inclusion in the article.  —sroc (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, you can see the type of reference needed in the three examples I have added back to the article. You need reliable sources, such as the writings of film historians and critics, not links to youtube, scripts, or media associated with the reference itself. You should also be aware that bulleted lists and listing of excessive detail are discouraged for this sort of material. Yworo (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I broke the examples into bulleted lists because they were previously awkwardly grouped together in sentences and paragraphs without logical grouping or chronology that just made it awful to follow. I thought that the added detail would help to show the context for each example.  However, if you have any other ideas on how this should be presented, I'm all ears!  —sroc (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think we should present only a few major examples and refer the reader to sources where they can find more as I have done. If a bulleted list is needed, there are either too many examples being given and/or too much detail is being given for minor examples. If minor examples are to be included, they should just be listed, not explained. Please note that these sorts of sections are never intended to be a list of every possible reference ever made, but rather a list of the more notable examples of such references. The bulleted list style encourages people to come by and add yet another and another uncited trivial mention to the list thinking it is supposed to be comprehensive. That's why the bulleted style should not be used. Yworo (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. You will see that I have made a comment on the article's talk page linking to my sandbox revisions which include additional references that I could find, including several pertaining to notability of the "I am Spartacus!" scene itself.  I suggest that these (or at least of these) references would be worth including in the article, even if the examples are not.  —sroc (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem... those are not reliable sources. Online review sites are not reliable sources, blogs are not reliable sources. Everything2 is not a reliable source. IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Stringing together a bunch of unreliable sources and claiming that it means something significant is original research and also not permitted. Please actually read and try to understand what constitutes a reliable source. Typically, it means a published book, academic journal, mainstream magazine, or high-profile website (usually a corporate site such as The New York Times, Salon, etc.) You need to understand that the stuff you are coming up with using web searches doesn't qualify as reliable (roman-colloseum.info, dvdverdict.com, everything2.com, any wordpress blog, IMDB, tvtropes.com, etc. are all unusable). The Cuba, Southpark, and "Cyanide and Happiness" citations are primary sources, no third party is discussing the reference, which is required. The only properly and reliably sourced entry in your sandbox is the one for "I am Harry". Yworo (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying.

If the issue lies with the reliability of the sources, then this could have been addressed by using the rs tag instead of just deleting them entirely: the examples may only supported by primary sources or secondary sources that are considered unreliable, but it is quite clear that they happened and others may have better sources, but some source is better than none. Also, I saw the Moving Wallpaper example myself so I know that it happened and it is very obviously a parody of the "I am Spartacus!" scene, but I don't have an independent reference so it deserves a cn tag so that others can find one. The examples are not libelous, BLP, vandalism or otherwise controversial so there should be no rush to delete them just because the sources are immediately lacking — that's what the tags are for.

If the issue lies with not wanting to include too many examples, then that is a separate issue worthy of wider discussion than just you and I. The merits of retaining the section have already been discussed on the article's talk page and that should be the most appropriate forum for the format of the discussion. I'm all in favour of keeping it as prose rather than bullet points, provided that it doesn't become as unkepmpt as the previous version. —sroc (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I also wanted to add: thank you for all of your effort and contributions in tidying this up and explaining your position. I wasn't trying to be a dick. —sroc (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Les Murray
My genuine apologies for labelling that post vandalism. My mistake. I should have simply reverted with a sensible edit comment to the effect that an article about association football/soccer in Australia must not simply refer to the game as football. The same applies to the other three games played professionally in Australia and also called football by their fans (or officially in the case of the AFL). HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have started a discussion on this at Talk:Les Murray (broadcaster).  Please feel free to comment on this there.  —sroc (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

blue sky, blue water
Hi Sroc,

In the article on blue I had changed the caption to say that water and the sky are often blue, rather than appear blue (which you've just changed back).

Here's why I'm changing it back to say "are" again: All the best, --Annielogue (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * according to most of what I've read on the colour of water, water is actually blue. A different mechanism to the usual, but blue nevertheless.
 * the sky appears blue most of the time (not sunsets or sunrises so much) because it bounces the 'blue' wavelengths sideways. But just because the colour is caused by the selective redirecting of some wavelengths, rather than by absorption or emission it doesn't mean it's not just as real. When something appears a colour it "is" that colour. Colour is only in appearance, and yet in normal parlance we say "the light is green", "the cup is red". As in the question "why is the sky blue?" So in my opinion we should keep it simple.


 * Hi, Annielogue,


 * Thanks for explaining the rationale. I stand corrected.  Perhaps a link from the word "water" in the caption to color of water would be helpful?  It hadn't occurred to me that such a detailed article existed.

—sroc (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea - I've added wikilinks to "sky" and "water" to give more context.


 * --Annielogue (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Future of WikiProject Association Football in Australia
There is a discussion on the future direction of WikiProject Association Football in Australia. To view the discussion see here. You have received this message because you are listed as a member of the WikiProject. Hack (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Australian federal election, 2010 (infobox).png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Australian federal election, 2010 (infobox).png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 00:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)