User talk:Thewinchester/Archive/2007/May

Scotch College, Perth
I understand that its a book on the school, and therefore referenced alot, if you look at the references section - it takes up references, 4 to 13 - yet it is all on the same book - 3 of them do state pages, but the other 7 dont - its somewhat confusing? it just like "doesnt seem correct" what do u think? Twenty Years 10:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Casathious Jones
You could assume good faith in regards to the comments I left at Talk:Universal Life Church. When I had posted that note, no one except me and one other, who were regular Wikipedia contributors, had added anything to the debate. I was trying to generate more feedback. GreenJoe 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterian Ladies' College, Perth
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my changes to Presbyterian Ladies' College, Perth and was wondering why?? There was a researched and referenced notable alumni that you completely deleted, yet you left all the unsourced ones. Just a bit confused. Loopla 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey, just a note to inform you that you have a barnstar on your barnstar page. Ive just noticed that youre doing some pretty fine work of late - and felt you deserved the recognition. Twenty Years 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ali K comments
Is Ali K's illness of interfering into other peoples business contageous? I don't appreciate your comments, you have absolutely no idea of the whole situation between me and ali k, so do NOT butt in where you are not required to! Mind your own business, or is your life that boring that all you have in it is wikipedia?! BTW, I was not abusing ali k i was simply responding and defending myself against unwanted and untrue allegations!(210.49.216.231 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
 * IP blocked as sock of blocked user Bradles 01. Hesperian 01:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers Hesp. Got to love these users who say they're done with WP, leave, but strangely keep infecting the place with their one sided mindless abusive banter -- Thewinchester (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell you some interesting stories about that at the meetup ;( SatuSuro 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah. Just strolling past on other business. Wasn't aware that you were in WA until a few months ago. /me watches your page ;) --Ali K 08:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that I'm stalking you
It was good to meetup and chat. Thanks (and nice wrap-up BTW) &mdash;Moondyne 03:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Meetup
Hi. It was great to meet you. I really should get around to joining the Wikiproject at some stage :) Even though I always seem to have too much to do as it is, it would be useful so I'd find out about meetups like this more readily. - Mark 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Meetup
I too have worked in public service situations and occasionally some publicservant speak creeps into others talk pages - but have no fear I will challenge the issue when it seeems fit (10 paras for two sentences) - it was good meeting you at last - will keep you posted SatuSuro 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia-related AfDs
Hi there. I note you've recently nominated a number of articles for deletion at AfD. Looking through some of them they appear to be unlikely to be contested. You may wish to consider prodding any similar articles in future by adding prod to them. This is a quicker and more straightforward alternative to the AfD process that can be tried for articles which are likely to be deleted uncontroversially. If the prod is contested then you should then take the issue to AfD. Please accept my apologies if you considered prodding them and decided it wasn't appropriate in these cases. Regards. Adambro 11:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

article deletions
Most of those articles should be tagged with either prod or speedy tags, I've speedy deleted the worst ones those that I left deserve an afd 1st, ASX listing for companies is generally enough to establish notability. Gnangarra 11:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
You're up late tonight! Thanks so much for the Durand Line efforts today....I've been away on a trip for work for 10 days and just got back to take a look. All the more important to keep all of the "Govt. in Exile of Baluchistan" non NPOV, totally non-sourced diatribes out of there with the current higher profile of that line and involvement at the head of state level: (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=357306&rel_no=1) Thanks again. DLinth 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FlyBuys
Hi, just keen to discuss why you categorised the FlyBuys (Australia) page as a stub. In my view, the article currently contains the essential encyclopaedic information about the topic and I would think that significant expansion of the topic could well be to the detriment of the concise nature of the info it currently contains. So I'm keen to understand your rationale in inviting expansion. Thanks Murtoa 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt feedback. Totally agree with the changes re Companies of Australia. Agree with your comments about finding sufficient citations and references not from the article's subject. Also thanks for feedback about need for infobox. I'd be keen to get your feedback on elements that read like an advertisement since among my contributions to the topic I've attempted for that not to be the case, by sticking to facts and including appropriate criticism. Apologies for any offence with the above comments and can appreciate how they came across as defensive. They were really made in the spirit of seeking guidance from a more experienced Wikipedian. Appreciate the "be even bolder" sentiment. Murtoa 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to the infobox, I've checked out a few entries on other major loyalty programs and not seen an infobox for them. Do you suggest I take say the company infobox template and modify it appropriately?  (eg. add "no. members", delete "revenue")?  I'd value your suggestion. Murtoa 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have added infobox Murtoa 12:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Template:Infobox Company
Hi Thewinchester,
 * ''I noticed that you made some significant changes to the template... ...I please ask that you go through this template in full to ensure that all the changes you have made work correctly...

Thanks for spotting. I think the error might be a missing pipe symbol; so I may test this, please let me know the page or (some of the) pages where you found the template malfunctioning – thanks! David Kernow (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a missing pipe symbol was one of the mistakes in company. You can see a list of the fixes i've made thusfar in this diff. You also forgot to depreciate company_slogan when you changed the field name. Thewinchester (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your repairs. I guess I should've looked at more than a couple of pages transcluding the template before moving on! I've just added a couple of s in order to show the name and type parameters on the template page; does all now seem in order with the template from where you are...?  David (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

re bwired group deletion
Hi Thewinchester, I am new at wikipedia and apologise if the page above wasnt correct, how do I go about getting to the source so I can complete it appropriately? Bwired 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) thanks...

Stubsensor
Hey, i'm a little concerned at your recent use of the StubSensor. You've been removing stubs from a number of Australian articles which are legitimate stubs and replacing them with section stubs. The main issue with this is that removing these stubs stops the articles being correctly classified and left in the relevant stub category for improvment and action by relevant persons. I'd appreciate it if you could get in touch with me on this, because while I can understand the need for stub cleanup - this process isn't necessarily helpful to anyone. Thanks Thewinchester (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello there, actually on this stubsensor project I don't think I've personally made any changes to articles, and if I did, it was a few months ago. The stubsensor cleanup project is powered by volunteers and they do certainly sometimes make mistakes. Unfortunately, the only way to combat that is to educate the volunteers and try to make the instructions as explicit as possible. Many people have complained about having the stub tag removed from articles before and usually it's because they believe their article needs more attention even though it is well beyond the definition of a stub; now I can't say whether or not that is happening in this specific case because I have no idea what articles you are refering to. Can you please give me a sample of the articles in question? I'm more than happy to review the actions of the volunteers and work to improve the instructions for the project. The whole point of the cleanup project is to increase the signal to noise ratio and make the stub system more effective, not less. Also, please respond on my talk page. Triddle 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Darwin
By any other name (heheh had fun withe the disambig of that one) thanks for your help with WP PNT SatuSuro 07:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like patience will be needed for some parts of the project :) SatuSuro 10:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup of the LP art - will need to have an off wiki versation on that one SatuSuro 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - my shorthand for the Lonely Planet article SatuSuro 15:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Its like the potential lemonade/coffee/wine/beer afternoon joke - I have tagged so many cats on the oz project that I cannot tell when to stop or something similar - yyup - sometime later reality seeps in and sleep descends SatuSuro 15:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My supposed vandalism
Look, your assertion that the reporting was incorrect is not supported by the evidence you've provided. In fact, it supports The West's reporting (and I'm not even really a fan of the paper).

For example, The West reports users complained of being overcharged when they failed to tag off. Your rebuttals are:

It is only in the case of rail travel where the default fare is charged at the four zone cash rate. This probably means that complainants used the rail system, doesn't it?

However, a number of participants in the control group constantly failed to tag off, and as a consequence the discount on default fares being applied was subsequently removed Which is exactly what those testers were complaining about. The article explicity says the criticism was from users who, for various reasons, failed to tag off.

Basically, that entire paragraph does nothing but support the West's allegations. So I'm getting rid of it. Again. But don't accuse me of vandalism.

Hugs and Kisses, the lowly anonymous IP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.30.200 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Stoopid Monkey Logos
As you are probably aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.

I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.

I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).

This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.

I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT)
 * I appericate your opinion. As to the 48hr block, it had to do with another user and a totally different subject. - SVRTVDude (VT) 06:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seddon
Thanks for that - itwas an embarrasment to the project - very nice guy spoke to him a few times on the phone only SatuSuro 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

HRP
In the interests of making all information available to people who are interested, I believe the government letter should be added back on. Apart from this, I did not create the letter, It was already published on two places on the internet, so I am quite miffed that you are accusing me of creating a hoax, I just linked to it from the HRP page. If there is evidence that it is not real (which I was trying to ascertain) then we should not refer to it, but this is just the same as any information we refer to on wikipedia. Hiding information from people is never really a good idea, and just leads to people making up myths and stories, and there is already enough of those about HRP already Deathlibrarian 06:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Winchester, I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but I believe that the public have a right to see this document and will be fighting for them to do so. Your investigations in themselves are against Wikidpedia policy. At Wikipedia editors we do not do original research, and in any case I have no idea what Investigative qualifications or skills you have to do so. As the letter stands, it is published on two websites, and is referred to by a paper on secessionist states. As far as I'm concerned, it is a valid document, until authority states otherwise. Wikipedia does not employ forensic experts, we just look refer to where information is published. If there is something that is published that says the letter is not valid, then so be it, and if you can find it, then good. But at the moment it appears valid so I assume it stands. You certainly may have a point about the legality of the secrets part, but as it has already been published, and even referred to in an academic context it hardly seems a live issue. There are in fact, plenty of other "Austeo secret" letters published on the web. As for all Wikipedia going down just because they link to this letter I think that to be load of hysterical "bullocks" (as you so charmingly put it). In any case, if its a fake as you think it is, why are you worried? Additionally, Wikipedia is not publishing the letter, the page is just linking to it. As far as I'm concerned, this document should be available for the reader to view on the website, and for them to make up their own minds. If you have some proof that it is a hoax, please provide it, but until that time I will be going ahead with a third opinion dispute resolution to have it put back up where people can read it. Cheers Deathlibrarian 10:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the above user has misunderstood the original research policy - it is entirely reasonable to check the veracity of content, and this one is found highly wanting. This document does not constitute a reliable source, cannot be verified, and makes assertions WELL beyond its brief - a legal opinion on a matter involving the Commonwealth must come from the Solicitor General. That would, if the Solicitor General's office confirmed it, be capable of being a reliable source. However, this one is not. The issue with the number belonging to Rosemary Follett's office at the time of this alleged missive (and not a federal government department), together with the absence of any fax or telex numbers (which were institutional on Government letterhead in the 1980s) further suggests a problem to me. One final point - re "the public have a right to see this document" - maybe they do, but they can already do that quite easily at a number of locations - this seems to stray into WP:NOT territory. Orderinchaos 12:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aquinas Logo.png
Hello, Thewinchester. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Aquinas Logo.png) was found at the following location: User:Thewinchester/Sandbox/. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick speedy deletion
Hey, thanks for your kind words. Glad to be of service to you. The article could always be recreated unless someone salts it, which may be the next course of action should the recreation persist... All the best The Rambling Man 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick checking and rv of the Durand Line article!DLinth 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

template
I think that template would look great on Transport in Australia.. it should also link together the states and cities articles like Transport in New South Wales, Transport in Sydney etc. Hope you dont mind me editing it but I added them to see how it would look --Astrokey 44 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

JeffStryker
I can see your point - based on the link you sent about "Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person" not being the way to go. What do I do? - do you know if I can change it? Thanks for any advice you can give on that. JeffStryker 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is either JeffNotStryker or JeffreyStryker one that you think is acceptable to use on WP within that policy? JeffStryker 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)