User talk:Adz/Archive2

The comments below from my User talk page were archived on 27 October 2006 and includes comments made up to that date.

Hazelton Airlines

Thanks for letting me know about the article!

Choi Kwang-Do & Jung Sin Yuk-Do Articles

It appears so far, that the Choi Kwang-Do Martial Arts International people do not like the fact that there's outsiders doing things that have evolved from their system. It's only natural and in human nature for someone to take some idea, concept or thing, and try to make it better, go faster, be bigger, smaller, etc. Taekwondo mentions that there are a few versions of the same thing, in a non-biased way.

I read the NPOV, and the bits about the Abortion debate, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler, and they make perfect sense in this concept of the martial arts.

In Choi Kwang-Do under Hybrid Styles, the CKDMAI people seem hell-bent on bringing them back to the rank that they think they should have in their system, which is in effect, completely irrelevant to their new "hybrid" styles, which have no current relevance to CKDMAI, except that they evolved from that system, and should be noted as same.

In Jung Sin Yuk-Do, the same user continualy adds the CKD ranking information back in. It's a new style, and doesn't even mention "Choi Kwang-Do" in the article, yet this user seems absolutely obsessed with keeping it about Choi kwang-Do and what they believe, for some reason. This is not neutral.

Hi. My name is Rod Cook, and I have just read reams of information about me, my martial art school and style, with MUCH interest. It appears, after doing a GOOGLE search, that I have been continually editing articles about myself, about my style "Jung Sin Yuk-Do" and about Choi Kwang-Do. This is simply not true. It's hilarious that people have attributed comments and things to me. I see, after looking that there's a history and discussion, and people have been adding and deleting information about me, my style and my school, with much fervour and energy. The funny thing is that they're all wasting their time. Don't they have anything better to do? If anyone wants any factual information about me, my style of Martial Art: Jung Sin Yuk-Do, Choi Professionals, IACP, ISKA, or anything else I am involved with, they can email me direct at info@choikwangdo.com.au and I will respond accordingly. Rod Cook

Vandal

Hi Adz. Thanks for the offer. Without admin capabilities, you won't be able to block anyone, however if you're keeping an eye on things, feel free to let the admins know of any vandalism we may miss. Non-admins can revert though and that's part of the cleaning up process as much as blocking is. Feel free to tag any user pages of the vandal accounts with sockpuppet notices so we can keep track of the accounts used to wreck havoc. He's quite prolific, and best stopped before being allowed to make too much of a mess. Team up, do what you can, as you can. It's all for the good of the place, and good deeds don't go unnoticed. -- Longhair 12:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes to self

• Local government areas on the tip of cape york penninsula.

Injinoo Shire, Umagico, New Mapoon, and Torres Strait Shire. Image:SEQ_map.gif South East Queensland

Re: Gold Coast suggestion and Brisbane

Sure. Seems there are a lot of overly-sensitive and snipey editors about at the moment (along with a few large-ish rows), so it's best to tread carefully. I've retreated back to my WikiProject Adelaide work. I'll have a look and get back to you.--cj | talk 06:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions at Talk:Brisbane. Hopefully my approach is to the liking of editors there (although I was tempted to be brutal and cut the excess info myself). --cj | talk 13:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I had fully intended to take up your suggestions about what to do about Brisbane, but circumstances have prevented my being able to do anything about it as yet. I am sorry that I was not obviously quick enough to satisfy you, and you mistakenly assumed that nobody was interested.

As far as the photo on the Toowong page is concerned, your comment on the discussion page for Toowong was tantamount to an invitation to other people to criticse and pan the photo, in order to be able to force the photo off the page. That was why I said that it was at your insistence - since you had originally deleted the pictture, and then virtually instructed me to remove the picture from the page, and also invited criticism of the picture from others. Figaro 10:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have not blanked out any of your messages. I have moved your letters to my letters archive, so that the talk page remains at a manageable size.

The problem with respect to how things happened with regard to the photo was a consequence of bitter past experience with other Wikipedia users. It would have been better to have discussed the matter quietly and tactfully in private, rather than posting to a more public forum. It was your placing the comments in the public forum which caused the problem.

Like you, I would be happy to leave this episode behind us, and start afresh.

I do not have as much time as I would like to work on the Brisbane page at the moment, but I would be interested in joining in a joint project when I have more time available. Figaro 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Far North Queensland

Thanks about the map and Arrgh! cant believe I messed up the states, it should be alright now. I really liked the way you expanded the article, I made a pretty crappy start - couldnt find any official info on the regions. It looks alot better now. I'll see what I can do about adding the cities -- Astrokey44|talk 12:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! that was a nice suprise :) I put the cities you asked for on the map, hope I got Mt Isa and Toowoomba right - they were on the edge of the regions, wasnt exactly sure which one they were in. The talk page link you can add to your signature in preferences - tick raw signatures and add the signature you want to the nickname field. For instance mine I added this: [[User:Astrokey44|Astrokey44]]<small>|[[User talk:Astrokey44|talk]]</small> Hope that helps -- Astrokey44|talk 14:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar (my very first), I will treasure it and polish it every day. ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 08:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Adz 08:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit conflict

Not at all. I often double up welcome messages (but only when I have something special to say) :) --cj | talk 09:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

signature

ok, just thought Id tell you that youre signature talk link works but your name has been replaced by mine! you have to replace my name in the text I wrote before with yours :) -- Astrokey44|talk 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

no worries its no big deal -- Astrokey44|talk 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Parliaments

I'm still not quite sure what you're intending to do here - do you mean having seperate categories for parliaments and legislatures, something different, or something broader? :) Ambi 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me either. Perhaps if you would answer these questions:

1. Is Parliament of Western Australia a parliament, a house of parliament or a legislature?
2. Is Western Australian Legislative Assembly a parliament, a house of parliament or a legislature?
3. Is Western Australian Legislative Council a parliament, a house of parliament or a legislature?
4. Is Members_of_the_Western_Australian_Legislative_Assembly,_2005-2009 a parliament, a house of parliament, or a legislature?

My best guess is that 1 is a parliament and I suppose it might be a legislature too; 2 is a house of parliament and a legislature; 3 is a house of parliament, but I don't know if it is a legislature or not considering it is a house of review rather than an initiator of legislation; and 4 is a parliament, but in a very different sense to 1. As you can see, the current state of my understanding doesn't really lead to a solution. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I began typing to try to make sense of it all and came up with a lot of text, so I have transferred it to User talk:Adz/Parliaments. I think I may have come up with a solution. (although I think it might be similar to what I originally proposed. If anybody else has been following this conversation and thinks they have a sollution (or even if you want to be constructively critical) then please join in. -- Adz|talk 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Members of Parliament lists and categories

Adam Adz and Ambi,

Category:Members of the Australian Senate contains article on Senators, but article Members of the Australian Senate contains lists of Senators for each Parliament, and is not even a member of the category that shares its name. This is counterintuitive and I don't like it. Once category Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives is populated it will have the same problem. And the problem occurs for Category:Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly versus article Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, and the same for the Legislative Council category and article, and probably also for the other states.

My proposal for fixing this is

1. rename articles Members of the Whatever to List of Members of the Whatever;
2. rename articles Members of the Whatever, 2000-2005 to List of Members of the Whatever, 2005-2005;
3. rename Category:Australian parliaments to Category:Lists of Members of Australian Parliaments (Adam, there is a proposal to recycle Category:Australian parliaments into a category that would hold Parliament of Western Australia, Parliament of Queensland, etc, under discussion at User talk:Adz/Parliaments)

I realise that Ambi has written a lot of Members of the Whatever articles and that it would take a while to fix it. If you are happy with this proposal, I am happy to do the work. Alternatively, are there any counterproposals?

Since I've posted this message on three talk pages, I'll post it on my talk page too, and I suggest we hold this discussion there. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It has ocurred to me that the process I followed wasn't the best in that I could have created the discussion page somewhere outside my user space and invited people on WP:AWNB to take part. The reason I invited the two of you is because you were the only people who expressed an interest when I first raised the matter. Do you think we should post the final proposal somewhere where others can comment - either at the Cat talk page, or at WP:AWNB, or somewhere else? -- Adz|talk 11:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. We're in no great rush, it might result in a better proposal, and it might avoid getting other people's noses out of joint. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 11:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't worry too much. Chuq and I drew up the politicians-by-party categorisation scheme between ourselves on IRC, and I mass added it to several hundred articles that night - no one has complained much since. :) (and thanks for the note on my talk page - I've dropped that user a note). Ambi 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I think I agree with Drew. It won't hurt, if nobody comments then nobody comments, but at least people won't get their noses out of joint. And they may have something valuable to contribute. I think when we've agreed on what it should look like, we should put a nte up at AWNB and the politics Wikiproject as Drew suggested refering them to the talk page where it is all outlined. -- Adz|talk 01:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tent embassy

Hi Adz. I use to walk to work past the tent embassy in the early to mid nineties and I am sure that on a number of occasions in the middle of winter that there was noone on the site early in the morning as all the fires were out and there was very little camping then so it was kind of obvious. Occupation certainly wasn't sporadic but I recall discussion at the time about how the prevaling weather conditions seemed to challenge the resolve of the Aborigines. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd read it somewhere and have been trying to find the reference however I think I may have just read the line in Aboriginal Tent Embassy which says "The embassy has existed intermittently since then, and permanently since 1992". I can see how being in existence does not equate to being occupied. Perhaps the section in the Canberra article should be re-written. -- Adz|talk 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Eric Ripper

Not at all. I'm just tweaking (as is my wont these days), and I'm done for now :P. Please edit as much as you'd like. Slac speak up! 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane

There would appear to be no point in my attempting to edit the Brisbane article. It would appear that my editing does not meet with the approval of Cyberjunkie and Petaholmes who look certain to revert any attempts that I make to modify the page. I had expected to work on the page in a group effort. Obviously, that is not going to happen. I am sorry not be able to join in any project on the page, as I had intended to do. Figaro 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am reattempting to edit the Brisbane article, to see if I can finish the job. Figaro 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't be able to do anything about Brisbane for about a week. I will check up on the Culture when I have a chance. Figaro 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal

Hi, I notice you have discussed the community portal changes before. I have noticed in the last couple of days that the Policy and Guidelines section has been removed from the community portal. I am a bit concered there seem to be some editors making changes to the community portal without first finding out if people are using the links they are removing. --Martyman-(talk) 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd

Please WP:AGF. Titoxd was not "baiting" TydeNet, as an admin he was warning TydeNet not to make further personal attacks. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:19 UTC (2006-03-22)

Thanks. Even if I assume good faith, it still leaves the fact that both Titoxd and yourself were admims involved in editing the parts of the article in question which, a) throws up the question of whether either of you should have blocked TydeNet (as opposed to seeking an independent admin), and (b) whether Titoxd's 'warning' constituted an actual warning or a veiled threat. You also haven't responded to my concerns about your removal of user comments concerning your actions from your talk page. Then going on to remove my comments and declaring that you will delete whatever you want constitutes an unwillingness to discuss your actions as an admin and to be accountable for them - whioch I find very concerning. I would have also posted this on your talk page however you have protected it. I will email you when I am able to. Once again, I ask that you exercise your privileges responsibly. -- Adz|talk 08:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I've just found out that this entire discussion involves me, here's my opinion. It was just a warning: a stern warning that personal attacks will not be tolerated in Wikipedia, but a warning after all. If you look at the examples at WP:NPA, you can see that the attacks on Cuivienen were so extreme that they could actually become examples for that page. However, while I do have an extremely dim view of uncivil editors, if I had any reason to doubt my impartiality, I would not have blocked him myself, as I just don't block editors who are involved in a dispute with me, even though my involvement in the entire dispute was just asking for a source to satisfy the verifiability policy.

That said, one aspect of the responsibilities of an Administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users, and I behaved following past precedents that state that "name calling should be dealt severely with". Personal attacks are disruptive, and they are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, as they damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a "bunker mentality"). Cuivienen has been extremely helpful in articles relating to tropical cyclones, so any damage done there would have been terrible. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Larry

I appreciate your comments. I wasn't criticizing their age, but it does seem to be a factor; indeed it is their youth that would temper my judgement regarding their illogical tenacity to have the page their way in spite of the facts.--Jeffro77 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Might I note that even talking about age playing a part could be misconstrued, and has in the past been misconstrued, as a personal attack (due to the key line comment on content, not contributor). Just noting. And if either of you really need to get in touch over the Larry article or my actions, please email me as I'm going to attempt a wikibreak. Good day to you two. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:42 UTC (2006-03-22)

In reply to NSLE's comment, why would I want to provide my e-mail address to someone who a) misused admin powers by inappropriately blocking, b) accused of a personal attack in spite of AGF, c) made a veiled threat (just noting), d) removed unfavourable comments from their talk page, and e) made it impossible to post comments on their talk page in response to a conflict they initiated? My comment of applying youth as a defense is retracted. If NSLE feels this comment is inappropriate, it should be adjudicated by an impartial admin.--Jeffro77 13:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re TydeNet's blocking

Copied from my talk page:

I looked, and did find Tydenet's comments to be personal attacks. You are not making a mountain out of a molehill, I was also concerned that NSLE had been involved in the conversation. As far as I could tell, none of Tydenet's comments were directed towards NSLE, so I considered it was (borderline) OK that NSLE had made the block, although I found 31 hours to be surprisingly long for a first offence. I'm not familiar with the usual blocks for WP:NPA and didn't look at the timespan of the comments to see if 31 hours was deliberately calculated in some way. I was also surprised the warning was only on the article talk page, as I would have put a warning on the user's talk page before blocking him. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adz. I've briefly read over the relevant comments at Talk:Cyclone Larry and the various user talk pages and considered your concerns. Like Scott above, I don't think you're over-reacting – there was conduct that would raise eyebrows. While TydeNet's were certainly personal attacks, I believe the overall manner on that talk page was un-necessarily confrontational. Without focusing on the specifics of what individuals said, I do think that the users involved did not carefully consider their words nor did they bite their tongues where necessary - ultimately only escalating the conflict. However, considering that the initial attacks were relatively minor I do believe the response was disproportionate - especially considering that WP:NPA really only advocates blocking as a last resort or in severe cases. Clearly, neither applied. Nevertheless, I don't think this could be labeled "admin abuse", which seems a catch-cry these days. I don't think there was malice behind NLSE's response. Nor was it resolutely inappropriate to have performed the block himself. Having been part of the discussion, I expect he wasn't fully impartial, and to that extent it was very unwise, but not being the subject of the attack he was still entitled to moderate - at least technically.

What does concern me is his conduct at his own talk page. The above surely warranted an explanation if not a caution to be more prudent. That he didn't acknowledge the concerns, and in fact rolled them back, is poor behavior for an admin – though I understand that he may have felt encircled.

This comes down basically to a question of where one draws the line. I think the tendency of late is for admins to be tougher on uncivil editors, and this may just be a manifestation of that. With regards to the blanking of complaints, this also depends on ones opinion of the autonomy of user pages. Generally speaking, they can be edited as the user sees fit. However, Wikipedia does not extend a carte blanche and blanking is frowned-upon, sometimes punishable, practice. In fact, a candidate for adminship would struggle to succeed if they were known to blank or conceal unfavorable messages.

How you decide to proceed is up to you. I think this is relatively minor, and somewhat moot given NLSE's wikibreak. But if you are unsatisfied with the response you have received, then Wikipedia:Requests for comment is your best bet.--cj | talk 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Larry's Talk Page

I don't blame you for anyone else's actions, and if it seemed that I was tarring you with a broad brush, I must apologize for being unclear. I myself was uncertain about the appropriateness of NSLE's block, though I do think he was sufficiently distanced from the debate for the block to be allowable under WP:BP. In any case, it was not my intent to further that debate or to drag you into the other. Thank you for keeping a cool head. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 24 March 2006 @ 23:53 (UTC)

Gardens Point, Brisbane

Thank you for asking. I have just been working on the page, including adding a photo of mangroves at the Q.U.T. ferry terminal at Gardens Point. I have put most of the photos into a gallery.

Could you please check it out, and let me know what you think. Thanks. Figaro 06:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Brisbane tasks

Thanks for the feedback regarding my edits to the task list. I had hoped I wasn't being too bold. I am not sure about the impression a bunch of red links gives. Personally I don't think it is important about what impression it might give and I don't think you should worry about what a random visitor may or might not do. I think that most of the time I have been placing red links that have turned into stubs, into the photos wanted or needs improving section.

However your probably right about leaving links for longer so that people can track changes and so that it looks like there is some activity. If you want to remove some red links to the talk page then you should but I like the way it is now because it shows how much work is needed, its organised and up to date. I don't see clutter. Instead I think it shows the project is more comprehensive than the other city WikiProjects. I wonder what others think about the points we have made? - Shiftchange 11:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see now that facilitating collaborative editing within this WikiProject is important to you. This is what I would suggest. How about two new sections at the top Priority tasks: and Recent activity: The Priority Tasks could contain no more than 3 to 5 articles listed with a sentence or paragraph following, explaining what and how that part of project should proceed. I imagine these would cycle through in a matter of weeks, not staying in the section for many months. I would suggest these initially be minor, short tasks that result in turning the red links, blue.

Recent Activity could be for articles that have been edited with the last 3 months or so. If after this time they have no photo, they casually go in the Photo required: section and if they are still are a stub the either go into the Needs expansion: or a newly created Stub: section. These changes would show what is the focus of priority, near future edits and what has been recently edited at the same times as showing how much work which needs to be done. - Shiftchange 23:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up on a few thoughts. As a suggestion if we did a priority tasks on the project or talk page it could start with the following,

1. Emerald Tower - needs address
2. Brisbane Suburb infobox - template finalise
3. Hornibrook Bridge - remove info for Houghton Highway Bridge entry
4. Improve Project webpage - add a few nice photos, condense static smaller sections into single sentence, setup a suburb completed meter similar to those on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Perth page.

I wouldn't feel confident enough to list priority items without discussion because I don't read keep up with all the projects discussion and know the issues. I don't know all the related knowledge about editing policy, formatting, standards and code either. I prefer to learn as I plod along my own creative path.

While collaboration by defining more important tasks that we should work on together is a good idea, it does not suit everyone. I like to treat each entry as being equally important and am surprised when editors get criticised for editing valid entries on topics which they have been deemed less worthy of contributions. My editing approach is a little different. I don't like to commit to any particular set of articles beyond those listed on my userpage. I use the Wikiproject Brisbane page as a guide to its current scope and to then springboard into areas of interest with red links serving as inspiration. I think too much "We should" leads to political debates that waste time and effort. Maybe priority tasks should be listed on the project only after discussion and agreement on the talk page. Whichever way it happens, its all good, the projects got years of work ahead of it, keep it up!- Shiftchange 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unresolved questions

To put this simply, I'd rather not re-visit the situation and cause my wikistress to go back over the roof - it's still quite high. TydeNet's block was warranted, and I believe other admins have agreed about that, although the length of the block may have been disputed. He's since had his block expire, and is contributing well, so I don't see a problem there. I'm not willing to talk about anything else, or I may just find myself back on a wikibreak. Hope you understand. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:20 UTC (2006-03-29)

Brisbane WikiProject

Thanks for your kind works on my talk page. I am very interested in contributing, particular suburb articles and related things for suburbs around the northern fringe. I assume you see this project's purview extending into adjacent cities which are still part of the Brisbane metropolitan area (Pine Rivers, Redcliffe, and I guess places like Ipswich and Logan)? Lankiveil 15:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC).

Category:Dependency legislatures

Re [1] - Dependencies (or whatever people call them) are normally not subnational entities. — Instantnood 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject NBL

Hey Adz/Archive2

I noticed that you have made several edits in basketball, and I would like you to join WikiProject NBL. Please drop a line on my talk page and put your name on the participants list if interested.

Cheers, Jasrocks 06:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Eponym of suburb Russell

Hi. You participated in a thread at Talk:Canberra on this subject. It was inconclusive, and so I've reignited it over at Talk:Russell, Australian Capital Territory. Cheers JackofOz 13:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cairns

Hi, re Cairns page, I see that you have a nice pic of the Daintree rainforest on there. With due respect, I don't think it should be on the Cairns page as it not necessarily in Cairns. I was wondering if you don't mind me deleting it as it already is rightly on the Daintree Rainforest page. Ta Frances76 04:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it for me :) Frances76 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the tips Adz, it's great guys like you that make Wikipedia so inviting in the first place and easy to settle into once you've signed up. Murphmeister 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

There is already a queensland-geo-stub, so there's no need to create a qld-geo-stub (abbreviations tend to be frowned upon anyway). Would you mind if I moved brisbane-suburb-stub to brisbane-geo-stub? This would put it in the standard format for stub categories of that type. Rebecca 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries about the fuss caused - this sort of thing happens every now and again, and there's very little work to be done since you haven't started using it. I think that - since you as creator of the template agreed to a rename - it's probably speediable, too, but we'd better wait a day or so to make sure there aren't any objections at WP:SFD. As to "what else needs to be done", it'll just be a case of deleting this template and making a new geo-stub template and giving it its own stub category (same as is done for the Melbourne ones). Sorry if I sounded annoyed (it's been a long day :) Grutness...wha? 08:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of separate stubs for national parks, but it's been done with the US... propose it at WP:WSS/P, see what they think there. Grutness...wha? 09:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for assesment on Australia Project

Re your request for an assessment of Reginald Miles Ansett - since it was a disputed rating, I've moved your question to the disputes section, in case you go looking for it. --Iorek85 10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A hand please?

Being as you're the only wikipedian I have a vague connection to (you gave me my welcome message), I was hoping I could ask you a question. The intro section to International Trombone Association is copied almost word for word from the ITA's website. Does this constitute a copyright violation, and if so, what should I do about it? I read through a fair few wikipedia pages on the subject of copyvios, but couldn't seem to find a solution to my problem (though perhaps I'm just blind). If you could give me a hand, it would be very helpful. Thankyou. --Byron Vickers 11:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Byron Vickers 12:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Teneriffe,Queensland1.JPG

Hi! You recently asked me about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Teneriffe,Queensland1.JPG and why it was deleted. Like you noticed, the deletion reason was "In category Images with unknown source as of 16 July 2006; not edited for 54 days". I apologize that the category "Images without unknown source..." have a confusing name as these categories include both files without proper source information and files without license information. And it is the latter reason why a bot put the image in the catetgory and why I later deleted it.

If you would like to tell me (on Commons) which license you agree, I'll restore the file. Regards, Samulili 07:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Boys

Thanks for deleting my edit concerning the movie Wonder Boys. Anonymous posts are wrong until it's proven they are right ? I watched the movie again, and detailled my edit. Hope you believe it this time ? 194.78.242.90 08:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, annonymous edits aren't wrong until proven right. Anybody can edit wikipedia and there isn't anything wrong with being annonymous. That said, annon IPs are sometimes used to vandalise articlies or make silly and inaccurate edits. In the case of your edit, the IP you used had no previous editing history, the change wasn't referenced or explained, and changing the word 'baseball' to 'Marilyn Monroe' appered a bit odd and could possibly have been done as a joke. Not having seen the film recently, I played it safe and reverted it. You may have noticed that I did say in the edit comment that it may have been a legitimate edit and was worth looking into. Rather than posting a sarcastic message on my talk page, you could have just explained the edit at Talk:Wonder Boys. (btw, I don't think there was a need for all the detail that you subsequently added. Marilyn Monroe would have been fine. It isn't exactly central to the plot). - cheers. - Adz|talk 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Depot

Gotta say that I agree, depot is one of those words, that on both sides of the pond (or australia) carries many, many meanings. I figured that Train station was the best amoung those avaliable, but I too am begining to reconsider. Train station, in the case that I was linking to meant just that, a small station amoung many others. Of course, a better defenition would be a hub, or storage location in which many trains are serviced/stored. I may have to start a few new entries to finish this project. HammerHeadHuman 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)