Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 11

Australian Greens
I am requesting for Australian wikipedians to look at Australian Greens and Talk:Australian Greens and comment on whether you believe that the link to a page critical of the greens, run by family first and with full references on that page should be linked or not. Xtra 12:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks fair to me. It's clearly labelled that it's the opinion of another party. What I wondered reading the list of links is where are the Liberal and Labor positions? --ScottDavis 13:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's particularly extreme - we don't link to Resistance's opinions of the Liberal Party on their article either. We have a criticism page run by the Democrats; I'd not object to one by the Liberals or Labor either. What I do object to is this particularly extremist stuff, which verges well into the realm of POV pushing (as shown by the support of the article so strongly rebuked by the Press Council. Ambi 13:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually the link to the website critical of the Greens is not run by the Democrats. The site creator states this quite explicity on this page. The website is not authorised or advocated (at least officially) by any political party. It is the work of a one time Democrats candidate. The claim that it is "run by the Democrats" should be removed.--Cyberjunkie 14:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of the stuff on the link Xtra wants is misquoted extracts from green sites, hansard, one particularly infamous conservative Herald Sun columnist (Andrew Bolt) and one dead site (capitalr.org). It's all "think of the children" type fundie stuff about how the greens are going to force your kids to have LSD for breakfast, as opposed to constructive criticism. It's an extreme view. I found another more moderate link, but he's insistent that this link in particular should be placed there. He's put this link there 5 times now. Jgritz 15:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I only re-inserted it because you would not give a proper answer to why it does not belong there and I was of the belief that you were just trolling. Xtra 02:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe a web page link to an individual's point of view about a political party should be linked. I am more than happy for that stance to apply to any political party. I would be happy for an official party view of another registered party to be linked, for example the Democrat's views of the Greens or the Family First's views of the Greens. Family First is a registered party. The link currently on the article is to a web site of an individual not a party and would not meet my criteria..--AYArktos 21:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In the interests of NPOV it's worth having other parties views about the Greens, as is done with the Libs, ALP etc. The link in question is not so much the views of FF as it is a collection of links to other sources, many of which have now been discredited. I think a better source would be a speech or statement by someone from FF actually talking about the Greens directly. This would be a better way to portray FF's views. --bainer (talk) 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:203.166.96.237
What are peoples opinions of the blocking of 203.166.96.237 for 1 week for vandalism? The user page clearly states the ip address belongs to an Australian school proxy. Not that I'm a supporter of vandalism as such, however the scope of the problem compared to the length of the block is somewhat severe. Not being an administrator myself I don't face the issue of whether or not to block users, so perhaps I'm mistaken and this is usual par for course. One can always expect some kind of immaturity from students, but it's not like this ip address has caused a constant flood of problems. Opinions? -- Longhair | Talk 02:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you haven't forgotten that Internodeuser edited from publicly owned IPs - I can't remember whether any of those IPs were blocked at all though. In those sorts of cases it probably would be worth blocking, even if one or two decent contributors couldn't edit for a while. --bainer (talk) 03:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to unblock if you think the length of block is excessive, but please check the edit history of these guys. Every time they're unblocked, a group of kids from adjacent IPs come back on for another vandalism spree.  This has been going on for quite a while now.  See the discussion at   Antandrus  (talk)  03:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just unblocked them. Let's see if the problem has abated.  Antandrus  (talk)  03:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Julia Fetherstone
Definately needs cleanup and a notability check. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 08:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * After seeing Claudia Newman I think we have ourselves a troll. -- Longhair | Talk 08:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a hoax. There's no "Females First" party, she wasn't a candidate for the ACT LA . Although the bit about her reading MacKinnon to rape victims in Uganda made me chuckle. --bainer (talk) 08:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * They're making articles about actual non-notable people (ANU uni students), and then filling them with complete nonsense (I know several of the people mentioned). Although I do believe that may be the only time Woroni ever gets a mention in Wikipedia, and the MacKinnon thing was pretty funny. Ambi 09:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is spreading - can someone start VFDing these? We have Julia Fetherstone, Claudia Newman, Sarah Lynch, Mathew Kenneally (already VFDd), Tobias Halligan, Marija Taflaga (a substub about a "journalist" by one of the IPs that turns up nothing on Google), Clam Commune, Peter Rajic, Blue Orchid Scandal, James H. Robertson, James Higgins and Tim Caddey - I think that's it. Now this is just getting annoying - this is all complete and utter crap. IPs include User:203.129.37.120, User:203.129.47.85, User:203.129.37.38, User:203.129.37.55, User:203.129.47.230, User:203.54.191.219 and the account User:JoJo. Ambi 09:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Mostly listed on Vfd. They're all hoaxes? -- Longhair | Talk 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Each and every one. I'm pretty sure they're all just random uni students - I know at least five of them are. Ambi 10:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If they're notable, you're going to be the most hated/wanted person on campus :) I'm trusting, and listing them all on VfD. I think they're all there now. I don't see a point listing them here on the noticeboard. -- Longhair | Talk 10:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried keeping up with them but it all got too much. I enlisted help here if anyone wants to follow it up. -- Longhair | Talk 14:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I speedied a bunch of these as nonsense beofre I left work, when the article is patently false I don't see why these weren't listed for speedy deletion.--nixie 14:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia
After diligent editing by a number of Australians, Australia is now listed at Featured article candidates, please support if you think its worthy :) --nixie 05:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calling all Australian photographers, could anyone with some good photos that show the iconic Australia of tourist brochures or multicultural Australia (chinatowns, multicultural festivals?) please upload some and drop me a line, so far the only criticism of the article is that the pictures are boring. Also if there are any keep map makers amongst you, a map more like that in South Africa would be appreciated. Thanks --nixie 05:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Boys High School
This article is looking allright for possible feature article submission so if anybody with some spare time and knowledge about the school could help refining the article it would be most welcome. Whats needed: Mainly a bit more facts about the school

And anything else you find can be added here User:Protarion

WikiProject Australian politics
A WikiProject Australian politics has been created to co-ordinate efforts at improving the many articles relating to Australian politics and government. This is an important topic area that is ever-growing and in great need of attention. Editors concerned with Australian politics are encouraged to participate and help develop the Project. Suggestions and queries can also be made at the Project's talk page. Thanks, -- Cyberjunkie   TALK  10:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New
From me: Petrov Affair (complete rewrite), Ted Hill, Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) (rewrite), Laurie Aarons Adam 29 June 2005 13:09 (UTC)

Eddie Mabo
I may have missed something here but after having contributed to the Eddie Mabo article and recalling it to be of fairly decent length and quality, I was surprised to see that the article now redirects to a court case. Does anyone know the reasoning for this? --Roisterer 8 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)


 * No, but it's fixed now. Slac speak up!  8 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Non-free images
The images of all the Governors-General of Australia and all the Prime Ministers of Australia have been deleted already or are about to be deleted. Would the people who originally uploaded them be able to add the appropriate copyright status tag to them so they can stay, or alternatively find another image to use which can be freely used before it's too late? --bainer (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The images of all the Members of the House of Representatives and Senators have been slowly getting deleted for months, too, with the exception of the handful Adam took himself. We've really got to work out how we can handle this - do we have any recourse under copyright law? Otherwise, we really need to get a major email campaign going so we can try and get free images in as many cases as possible. Ambi 07:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying (intermittently) for months to get a ruling from AusPic on the copyright status of the official parliamentary images, both current and historical. I don't think they know themselves. I will try again when I am next in Canberra (spring sittings start 8 August I think). It may be that Wikipedia as an entity will have to seek permission to use them, with an appropriate acknowledgement tag. Adam 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sports articles - help!
I've just been contemplating finishing articles on the Commonwealth Bank Trophy teams - a project which I started ages ago. But I've been finding that there isn't much in the way of local examples to go on - most of the Australian sporting team articles aren't in great shape, and even those that are lack things like infoboxes.

It strikes me that it might be useful to try and tackle sports issues from a national level - all the team sports, be they AFL, rugby of either code, soccer, netball or basketball all share similar issues with infoboxes and templates. Someone created WikiProject Australian sports a while ago, but it never really saw any use.

I know there's a few people individually working on various sports - is there any interest in giving the WikiProject another go? It'd be nice to see articles on Australian sports catch up with the English - we still have a very, very long way to go at the moment. Ambi 11:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help out where I can. My particular interest is Australian rules football and I created an infobox for that some time ago, currently used on pages such as Michael Voss.  I'm sure it could be adapted for other purposes.--The Brain of Morbius 01:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just added a new infobox template for Australian sports clubs which you can see in action at Collingwood Football Club. It's designed for use for all sports.  Any comments, anyone? --The Brain of Morbius 06:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking for images, again
Does anyone have a photo of a Tasmanian Devil with babies that they'd be able to upload for use in the Tasmanina Devil article?--nixie 23:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power plants in Australia
In the article and section, List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons, I found the statement, Curiously for an industrialized nation that is also a major uranium supplier, Australia has no nuclear power plants.. I am aware of the Lucas Heights reactor, so thought the statement in the article was false - but is this purely a research reactor, and not a power plant? -- Chuq 05:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. J.K. 08:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Research and production of medical (and possibly other scientific-use) isotopes not readily produced by the adjacent particle accelerator. It does not generate electricity. We apparently almost had a nuclear power station in the Jervis Bay Territory. --ScottDavis 09:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * HIFAR produces both medical and industrial radioisotopes, as well as being used for a variety of research activities, notably neutron diffraction investigation of crystal lattices. OPAL will do the same. There has also been some use of the spent fuel pool for gamma irradiation both for medical sterilisation and to stop potatoes sprouting, but this is more of a by-product and I don't know whether it is continuing currently or planned for OPAL. The Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant got as far as some site works and environmental studies, tenders were called and recalled and a tender was chosen, but federal cabinet decided not to proceed. Andrewa 01:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS While there is a particle accelerator at Lucas Heights (home of HIFAR and OPAL) it doesn't produce radioisotopes for radiopharmeceuticals AFAIK. That's done at the National Medical Cyclotron, another particle accelerator also run by ANSTO but sited at RPA Hospital.


 * There's also another use of HIFAR that I'd forgotten... neutron activation analysis particularly for forensic work. Andrewa 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I recall hearing about the production of technetium there for radiopharmaceuticals, but of course, I could have heard wrong... Dysprosia 12:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are quite right that Technetium-99m is produced at Lucas Heights, but wrong to conclude that it's produced using the accelerator. It is not currently produced by particle accelerators anywhere in the world, and this is the focus of intense research, as it is one of the most useful of all medical radioisotopes. Actually, it's not produced directly from the reactor, as it has such a short half-life (one reason it's so useful), but rather it's extracted (often closer to the site of use) chemically from material containing Molybdenum-99, see this external link. We really should have an article on this but I can't find one.


 * Perhaps somewhere along your information conduit, there is someone has swallowed the anti-nuke lie that reactors are really useless? That's not really a criticism, as such misinformation is very widely believed and by many citable authorities, see Helen Caldicott last Saturday in the SMH. Andrewa 20:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, no. I mentioned the bit about Tc in response to your "it doesn't produce radioisotopes" thing. I remember hearing the bit about Tc straight from the horses mouth at ANSTO itself ;) I am not anti-nuclear-technology. Dysprosia 22:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Didn't say you were. You seem to have misuderstood me in several ways. When I said While there is a particle accelerator at Lucas Heights (home of HIFAR and OPAL) it doesn't produce radioisotopes for radiopharmeceuticals AFAIK, the it was supposed to refer to the particle accelerator. When I worked for the AAEC we had two accelerators at Lucas Heights, neither of them used for radioisotope production. I don't even know whether the electron accelerator is still there, but the larger Van de Graaff proton accelerator has been upgraded to a tandem, and that's the one I had in mind. Any clearer? Andrewa 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries; it looks like we are in "violent agreement" :) Dysprosia 08:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I think I just discovered another relevant anti-nuke tactic. See this Green Left article: Australia's only nuclear facility at Lucas Heights... caught my eye. I can't see a date on this article, but it's about a report commissioned in November 1992, and the National Medical Cyclotron opened in March 1992. I'd guess we're going to see attempts at excluding nuclear medicine from the nuclear industry, much as we already see fusion power excluded from it. Of course, if there's no other nuclear facility, then all radioisotopes must be made at Lucas Heights, which would lead to the (false) conclusion that proton-rich nuclides were being made on ANTARES, which is presumably the adjacent particle accelerator referred to by Scott Davis above. I don't accuse him of being anti either, just BTW, I'm just trying to unravel the chains of misinformation a little. Andrewa 16:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Curiously for an industrialized nation that is also a major uranium supplier, Australia has no nuclear power plants. ... Australia is noted in many articles as a country which renounced nuclear energy. I try to expand about Australia's (nuclear) energy politics in nuclear power phase-out. --Ben T/C 02:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Renounced is not AFAIK accurate, so I'd change that. It sounds like blatant propaganda to me. Even rejected is at least bordering on POV, but it could be argued either way. We haven't adopted nuclear power, after all. We did call for tenders, twice, but didn't accept any. Neither major party opposes nuclear power and both have supported uranium mining, but neither is wholeheartedly pro-nuclear either, and one ALP faction is opposed, plus the Greens, and so the local councils they control have put up some rather misleading signage.


 * The main problem with nuclear power in Australia is simply that it can't compete with local coal economically. Even under the Kyoto Protocol, we'd get very favourable treatment and have no real need for nuclear power. That's unless we're worried about emissions on genuine environmental grounds, which I for one think we should be. Andrewa 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Two issues
Firstly, List of Australia-related topics is in dire need of some help - it's very incomplete and very disorganised. On the other hand, it seems that these lists can be quite useful if organised properly - List of Ireland-related topics would be a really good example to follow, I think. Anyone interested in fixing this up?

Secondly, I'm thinking of starting to write articles about the individual campuses of some of the larger universities, such as Monash. I'm not sure about how one might name a campus article, though - any suggestions? Ambi 08:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The style Monash uses is Monash University Clayton campus, Monash University Gippsland campus , Monash University London Centre etc. For some reason the University of Melbourne capitalises the word Campus in all except the Parkville campus . The McMillan campus is in three different locations which will need disambigging. I would imagine that sort of style would be common for all the unis, it's probably good enough to use. --bainer (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks - sounds good to me. Ambi 13:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Colonial and maritime history
Is anyone else into colonial era and/or maritime history? I see a lot of gaps in WP's coverage of these areas of Australian history, which I've been filling in in places, but if anyone else is interested, drop me a note and perhaps we can team up. Some of my recent stuff: Edward Wollstonecraft, Lady Nelson, Loch Ard (ship). --Skud 02:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

announced wikibreak
hi folks, just letting you know that I'm taking an indefinite, but temporary, wikibreak for work-related reasons (nothing to do with wikipedia). got some major non-wikipedia tasks to do and need no distractions, so hopefully be back when I can free up some more time. clarkk 08:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope your break will be pleasant and not too stressful. I look forward to your return (and hope you can manage to get back soon!). Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

City infobox
I've been thinking about getting some Australian cities up to featured status. One thing that we need is a uniform infobox for cities, would anyone keen on templates like to have a crack at making one?--nixie 07:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we need an infobox for cities? I notice that Sarajevo, which is arguably the benchmark featured article for cities, does not have one. Ambi 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There's the one I've used at Geelong, Victoria, though I admit I'm not liking it much. It isnt easily customised and could do with some further tweaks. -- Longhair | Talk 22:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Mumbai, which is also frequently invoked as a benchmark for city articles (it's the product of WikiProject Cities), uses an infobox. I've been using an attractive, but unobtrusive infobox in some city articles I've worked on. I've been meaning to turn it into a parameterised template for a while now. It's currently deployed in the Adelaide, Darwin and Mount Gambier articles (with Port Lincoln to come). I'm not pushing this one, however. I'd like to see an infobox used and it may be that one like that used for U.S. cities (or indeed, that used in Mumbai) would be best suited for the task. I'll have a perousal through city articles to check our options.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the infobox, it keeps nasty things like longitude and latitude out of the lead and it provides a quick overview of the city. The one Cyberjunkie has made looks pretty good, I'd forgotten I've seen it on Darwin, I'd probably switch the crest for a dot map and tweak the colouring. The box on Geelong has a bit too much white space. --nixie 12:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was created by Aaronhill for the Adelaide article. I've just been using it. I'd definately like to see a map in whatever infobox is eventually used. I wouldn't necessarily discard the crest. One of the problems we have for Australian city articles (and Australian geography articles) is a lack of maps in general. I've been looking/hoping for maps of the regions in the various states (sort of like this).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Cities maintains an infobox, Infobox City, which is in the same vein as the Infobox Country. The infobox is already used on a bunch of pages, such as New York City. The usage Los Angeles, California shows how custom information can be added at the bottom. At the moment though, it's almost exclusively used by cities in the United States, and also Puerto Rico for some reason. --bainer (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Because Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory :). I don't mind the Infobox City option (I pointed to Boston, which uses it). It might require some customisation though. It corresponds with the Australian state and territory infobox as well. The only drawback is that it is much larger and therefore more obtrusive - which I think some object to?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Infobox City templete is way too big, the Australian state and territory is OK for the states but I don't like it for cities--nixie 13:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What about India capital infobox (as seen in Mumbai, Gangtok etc)? It's similar to Infobox city, yet narrower and more basic. The infobox used in Mexico City is also similar, yet aesthetically nicer. Then there is Paris infobox, a reformatted version, and Johannesburg infobox. I dislike the Canadian City template. Manchester's is comprehensive and more suited to LGA's. Amsterdam's is unobtrusive, simple and pretty and could be adapted for our needs. Stockholm's (Infobox Kommun) is peculiar, but suits the expressed desire for both map and crest. I think I've thrown enough out there for the time being. I know many more that I can suggest. Have a look through those mentioned and see if there are any you like.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Indian one is nice, probably without the code section. A field for flag and crest could be added quite easily.--nixie 14:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Australia-related article on FAC
Since this article may be of interest to Australian editors, I am directing you all to the Tasmanian Devil FAC. It's another great article from nixie that deserves recognition as one of our best.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Postcode lists
There seems to be no consistency for our state-based postcode lists: As these are a series, they should have similar appearance and style. Is there a guideline I should follow to make them all fit some standard? A quick sample shows at least our lists look complete - some US states have incomplete lists. Most other lists like this are sorted numerically. Should we split into list of postcodes (sorted numerically and fully linked with piped links) and list of cities and towns (sorted alphabetically, also fully linked, same list of placenames) for each state? Ideally, cities and towns should filter out the suburbs if there's a clear definition of which is which. There are some places not listed in either List of cities and towns in South Australia or List of Adelaide suburbs. In time, I can probably do they work, but I'd like to know I'm aiming for an agreed standard. --ScottDavis 06:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory - divided into "main" (with links) and "other" (without). Not all links are qualified by ", Australian Capital Territory".
 * List of postcodes in New South Wales - alphabetic, three subpages, few links
 * List of postcodes in the Northern Territory - alphabetic, bold, no links
 * List of postcodes in Queensland - alphabetic, few links, each line includes "QLD" in case we forget.
 * List of postcodes in South Australia - alphabetic, links to town/suburb names all with ", South Australia" as piped links, similar to List of cities and towns in South Australia
 * List of postcodes in Tasmania - alphabetic, bold, no links
 * List of postcodes in Victoria - alphabetic, each row says "VIC", fully linked with ", Victoria" visible
 * List of postcodes in Western Australia - alphabetic, rows contain "WA", no links


 * I've now edited each postcode list to remove the state abbreviation from each line, and make every location a link with state name, piped to hide the state. They are all in alphabetical order still. Each line contains the postcode first, then the link. --ScottDavis | Talk 12:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship of Longhair
FYI - An Australian Wikipedian has been nominated for adminship: Requests for adminship/Longhair--AYArktos 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks to those who've supported my nomination. It's great to be considered valuable amongst my peers and to know my contributions are also valued. On another topic, I'm assuming User:Internodeuser is back (or perhaps never left), and currently editing from the ip address of User:203.26.206.130. See the recent edits to his Arbitration case and also comments to the footer of the user page of an ip address he's used in the past. Whilst the current friction seems low, it's worth keeping an eye on the accounts. There's already rants suggesting Wikipedia is breaking laws for those interested. -- Longhair | Talk 09:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Friction or no friction, Internodeuser is already banned. Feel free to shoot on sight. Ambi 12:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Can somebody block please? We've got friction now. -- Longhair | Talk 12:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the most recently used IPs for a month and left a notice for anyone else on that IP that may be affected. The counter on Internodeusers ban needs to be reset since he/she made legal threats from that IP today.--nixie 12:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to update Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested with info about the ban being reset. Ambi 12:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A block is no good there are too many other internode users. I have protected the user and talk pages of internode user. ANy Internodeuser edits should probably just be reverted on site.--nixie 07:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Australian music question
An anonymous user User:220.23.20.40) has just added some related Australian music articles, including


 * David Richardson
 * The Barbie Star Travellers
 * Maximillian

This smells like band vanity, especially since the David Richardson article mentions his living in Japan -- where the editor's IP is. However, I'm loathe to list on VfD just based on a feeling, so before I do, I gotta ask: has anyone here heard of these guys? --Calton | Talk 13:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope. Smells like vanity to me. Ambi 13:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Tried looking in the National Bibliographic Database via ?

Persistant vandal
currently editing HIH Insurance. Can an admin enforce a block please? -- Longhair | Talk 10:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reported the IP to Vandalism in progress. I would block if I could. But hey, by the looks of your RFA, you'll be able to block soon. If no admin comes forward here, go to the Administrators' noticeboard.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of Parliamentary photos
I have now obtained written permission from AUSPIC for the use at Wikipedia of photos of Members and Senators. Here is the correspondence.


 * Dear Mr West
 * I am writing to ask your permission to reproduce photographs of Members, Senators and Governors-General appearing in current and past editions of the Parliamentary Handbook. I would like to be able to reproduce these photos for use in Wikipedia, a non-profit online encyclopaedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) for which I write articles. Wikipedia require a written statement that the use of any photograph is not a violation of copyright. I would be happy to add a "used with kind permission of" tag to these photos if that is appropriate.
 * Regards
 * Dr Adam Carr


 * Dr Carr
 * Approval is granted to reproduce "Low Res" images nominated below on the Wikipedia website. Subsquent use by a third party will incur reproduction fees if use is of a commercial nature.  Copyright remain with AUSPIC.


 * Regards
 * Peter West
 * Director
 * AUSPIC
 * auspic@aph.gov.au

I suggest that images of Members, Senators and Governors-General be captioned "(Copyright AUSPIC)" after the name of the person in the photo. The copyright information should read. "This photo has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder, AUSPIC. It may not be reproduced for any commercial purpose."

Adam 00:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but since Jimbo declared that images that have a non-commnercial licence are incompatibe with the GFDL and should be deleted (bad for wikipedia, but good for the Foundation I guess), these images are technically still a problem. I would suggest that the information Adam has provided above be listed on the image page, and the image listed as fair use, the images should be pretty safe then.--nixie 01:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The reference for the changes concerning non-commercial tagging is at and the date of effect was 19 May 2005.
 * all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use".


 * It is very unfortunate that such images are still being uploaded _new_when we have not be happy about them for a long time. It is not fair to contributors who are working on such things, since we have no intention to keep them in the long run.


 * Therefore, these templates should be modified to warn people that these images are temporary only and will be deleted soon.
 * --AYArktos 01:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone will have to explain to me why an image whose copyright holder (in this case AUSPIC) has given explicit written permission to use it at Wikipedia cannot be used. Adam 01:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue is apparently one of Wikimedia Foundation policy. Perhaps we want to set up something like the Template:AlbertaCopyright--AYArktos 01:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Makng an AUSPIC template is a good suggestion. --nixie 02:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That isn't much of an explanation. Adam 03:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To elaborate everything on wikipedia is supposed to be compatible the GFDL. The GFDL is not a non-commercial use licence, people can use anyhing licenced under the GFDL for whatever purpose. So content that requires some sort of promise of non-commercial use is incompatible because the GFDL doesn't provide for those kind of exceptions. For instance those pics would appear on all the commercial wikipedia mirrors, which is clearly not the intention of AUSPIC who have specified that they are free for Wikipedia only.--nixie 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur absolutely here. A unilateral declaration made by Jimbo with the practical effect of hampering the quality and quantity of images on Wikipedia, all without any sort of legal/copyright benefit, has got to rank as the most monstrously stupid aspect of Wikipedia's development.  Slac  speak up!  03:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can accept that the issue is perhaps not quite black and white and you'd like a clue, here is some reading. -- Jeronim 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The arguments raised by supporters of the policy change consistently fail to address the arguments raised by the objectors. In particular,
 * The unilateral aspect of the policy change: Jimbo doesn't like copyright pictures of blinds being uploaded, so now we can't use Australian parliamentary photographs;
 * The lack of discussion that preceded the minimal-notification deletion of at least hundereds, if not thousands, of images, some of which will never be obtained from any other source;
 * The inconsistency in that fair use can be indiscriminately asserted with any number of copyright images, to not the slightest admonition, and they can be declared "free" (this whole "free" vs. "non-free" binary categorisation screams out at me as being over-simplistic), in a US-centric approach;
 * And finally, the (to me) completely baffling idea that we should bend over backwards to allow others to make money out of our volunteer-produced content. I thought I understood this place.


 * So, basically, I think this is one discussion where one side is very clearly in the right - more so especially since it was a discussion that never properly took place. In fact, I think I might right a rant to this effect.  In the meantime, I stress that the distinction is arbitrary, whimsical, and related primarily to a bush-lawyer interpretation of US copyright law.  I don't see why we should be bound by it.  Slac  speak up!  22:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To address your first point: the matter of whether the images are copyright or not is not the problem; all contributors to Wikipedia retain their copyright to their contributions, this extends toimages, and you are never asked to release your copyright. What is the problem is the license the images or contributors are released under. A "noncommercial" license is incompatible (whether or not Jimbo says so) because the GFDL permits commercial use of GFDL content.
 * In response to your final point: the provision in the GFDL for commercial use of the text is so that the authors can publish and sell their own work, presumably. In any case, if you disagree with the license that all of Wikipedia is under, you really shouldn't be adding material under such a license; alternatively you could signify you contribute under some GFDL-compatible license perhaps. Dysprosia 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally don't have any problem with any of my contributions being subject to commercial re-use. Other sources that we use (eg. photo libraries) quite legitimately do, and I believe that we should make some effort to accord legitimacy to their wishes, especially - and this point I stress - where this is the only way that important material will become available for us.  To state that certain specific issues about commercial use effectively designates their material as wholly and solely "non-free" and anathematic, is to my mind oversimplistic and undesirable.  Slac  speak up!  02:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's see.. there was actually very much discussion about it, but you didn't see it. You've absurdly reduced Jimbo's reasons for the pronouncement to something ridiculous. You complain as if people don't see any nuance beyond a simple free/non-free distinction, which is just rubbish.  There are good reasons for facilitating commercial re-use, but you haven't heard them.  You could try starting with the good assumption that you don't know what you're talking about, then ask some questions on, say, wikien-l.  Try to come across as capable of rationality though, so that people might take you seriously. -- Jeronim 23:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole deletion program was provoked by a single email by Jimbo to wikien-L, which I might point out, I read. This was the announcement of an enormous policy change, not a discussion of the pros and cons of the change before it occured.  I believe that the questions already asked on wikien-l, substantially the ones I would echo, were indeed quite capable of rationality, regardless of whether I am or not, and still the response given was unsatisfactory.


 * The point was raised in the discussion above that a copier of Wikipedia content would in effect have to re-assert the "free use" licence when they took such material from it. I have no idea why when it comes to "used with permission" images, they can't re-seek permission for use of the images from the original source that Wikipedia got them from in an analogical fashion.  That's for the copying source to worry about, since we have no control/responsibility for their content in the first place.


 * Jimbo states that other language editions are free to vary terms of release; he does not account for English-speaking jurisdictions that do not recognise fair use. Slac  speak up!  02:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see the problem, given that there is no restriction on people copying Wikipedia's contents into commercial imitations, which is a problem Wikipedia has created for itself. Adam 04:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to go to the trouble of scanning and uploading pictures unless I am assured that they will not be deleted. Can we get a ruling from somewhere on whether the arrangement suggested above by Nixie will be sufficient to prevent this? Adam 07:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Summarising the position
Merits of either camp aside, the fact remains that we will have trouble using the parliamentary images. Non-commercial images, or with-permission images are still not 'free', and will still be trouble. There is a discussion of fair use as applicable to WP at Fair use, and it seems to me (although IANAL, just a student) that these images can't possibly be fair use (even if fair use applied outside the United States), since fair use doesn't apply when there are alternatives. Here there are clearly alternatives - pictures of pollys are hardly unique. Ideological arguments aside, it's really not a good idea to use those parliamentary images. --bainer (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's true that they actually can't be claimed as fair use, I suggested if only because there is currently no decent mechanism for checking fair use claims, it's the deviant in me ;). From my experience on WP:CP unless an image is listed as a copyvio or is in a FAC people don't tend to notice bogus fair use claims. I tend to think that pics don't add that much to a short to medium length biography, do most parlimentarians have websites- could an external link to an individual or parlimentary website serve the same purpose?

Another option would be to go back to AUSPIC and ask them to licence the low res images for use under one of the creative commons licences or the GFDL, but all these options allow commercial reuse.--nixie 14:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, how can it be that the photo at Morris Iemma, which has clearly been lifted from an ABC website, is kosher while the parliamentary photos are not? This makes no sense to me. Adam 07:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That screenshot/photo (I can't tell which it is) should be listed as a copyvio according to the provisions for fiar use.--nixie 07:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

New Australian Stub category for schools
I have just proposed the stub, AUS-school-stub here. This will help sort through the 300+ stubs in Category:School stubs. -- Ianblair23 23:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The stub was passed under the name Australia-school-stub. Could everybody now use this stub for Australian schools. Thank you -- Ianblair23 11:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Category talk:Australian school stubs for discussion on criteria for minimum content for Australian school stubs and for destubbing--AYArktos 21:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On a similar topic, does anyone have any ideas on what to do over at Category:Australia geography stubs, which is huge and needs a serious sort. I propose a state based split. See the talk page if you have any other ideas. -- Longhair | Talk 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship of Lacrimosus
Another Australian has nominated for Adminship - see Requests for adminship/Lacrimosus --AYArktos 21:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

nuclear power phase-out
I would appreciate some help to extend the part of Australia in the new article about the nuclear power phase-out. I have the politics of several other countries covered, but Australia is still missing. Anybody interested? BTW, I need also reviews. Please post here. --Ben T/C 09:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go, but NPOV is a challenge to me in this area, so help would be appreciated. Andrewa 07:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure we all work together on this. I have really not much of an idea how the situation of nuclear power is in Australia. I just saw it mentioned in several articles and I read the articles about Australia that are cited in nuclear power phase-out. We have to try to balance it all together. There are many pro-/and anti- people here, so we should have no problem to get a discussion going about NPOV, no worries about that ;) just have it extended with all you know and remember to cite your sources. --Ben T/C 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but it cuts both ways. I'm fascinated to know what sources are cited by the many articles that you have read that say Australia has renounced nuclear power. As I said above, that strikes me as not just inaccurate, but blatant propaganda, and something that should be changed. Australia has done no such thing, nor has either major party ever supported such a policy.


 * My source is my daily reading of Australian newspapers since about 1960. As I say, I'm fascinated to know what their sources were, if indeed any were cited. Andrewa 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This was adressed already at the talk page there. Check again for the changes that have been made since. I moved a lot of stuff from the nuclear power phase-out article to nuclear energy policy. I am not completely sure whether the title for the new article is 100 % okay, but that's where the information about Australian energy policy is now. Contributions and corrections more than welcome. --Ben T/C 16:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, and be careful what you say. The article cites more sources than any other wikipedia article I have ever seen. And it says no such thing as that Australia was phasing out. That's obviously a misunderstanding on your side. --Ben T/C 16:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm? I was specifically questioning your statement above: Australia is noted in many articles as a country which renounced nuclear energy. Did any of these many articles cite a source for this claim? Have you corrected them all? If not, could we perhaps have a list so we can? Andrewa 17:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How can I or you "correct" third party sources? Just think. I saw it several times. I normally don't cite sources on talk pages when I report a personal observation. If you need a list just search for yourself (google). You just misread the article. What you allege was never there. Read it again. --Ben T/C 00:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * As for my observation, Australia is noted in many articles as a country which renounced nuclear energy, I want to note that statements for and against phase-outs or nuclear energy use, often basically say something like "these countries have many power plants and are pro nuclear" and "these countries are against nuclear energy." I saw Australia on negative (against) lists and remember statements like "Countries that renounced nuclear energy [include ... some countries ...] Australia." It was some environmental organizations probably. I just reported it here to emphasize the importance of Australian nuclear energy policy for phase-out arguments. I will search later for it if you think it's important. --Ben  T/C 03:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

New ACOTF
I finally got sick of looking at the Snowy Mountains Scheme. The new ACOTF is Snowtown murders with 7 votes listed. I haven't updated "needs X votes by Y" for other nominations as I couldn't work out what they should be. --Scott Davis Talk 14:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion list
Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know that there is a list of transcluded deletion debates on Australia-related articles. You can find it here: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia.

I see that you have a list of deletion debates on this page, so presumably this new transcluded list will be of use. Please help to keep the list up to date by archiving old items and adding new ones. Thanks!

By the way, new members are needed at WikiProject Deletion sorting. Hope to see you there!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 17:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions, again...
, a relatively new user, has moved a few regional cities (Townsville and Wagga Wagga are the one's I'm aware of). Instead of the "agreed" naming convention of "Town, State", they now reside at just "Town". I haven't yet raised this with Brisvegas, because I wanted to see if any reason could be offered to except these places from the rule. Thoughts? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I Think Brisvegas has stated the main reasons to use the short forms in his/her edit summaries (the other is a little less typing). The counter arguments include:
 * Naming conventions (city names)
 * Consistency - no harder for readers, easier for editors to not have to look up whether there is an alternative they've never heard of.
 * Sometimes, the popup over a link is enough to answer the vague "where's that?" when reading (eg biographies).
 * --Scott Davis Talk 13:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to revisit this. We've been over this before, and both articles are still easily accessible via the redirect from the undisambiguated name. Consistency is a good thing. Can someone please move these back to their proper names? - Ambi, disappearing back off into the sunset 16:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur that the agreed naming convention as recorded at Naming conventions (city names) and Naming_conventions_%28places%29should be adhered to for the resaons given by Scott Davis. I have left messages on the talk pages of Wagga Wagga and Townsville and User talk:Brisvegas.  --AYArktos 23:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wagga Wagga and Townsville have been moved back--AYArktos 00:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)