User talk:Bidgee/Archive (May 2008 - July 2008)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re: Telstra Article

Hello. I am new to Wiki but thought I had read the T&Cs fairly well. I am surprised at the number of citations you are demanding for my edit to the Telstra mobile page. Many of the facts you are seeing citations for are indesputible engineering realities and hence you wont find a seperate statement from someone claiming same (although you may find news paper articles backing some of the claims). The points made about 850 having superior coverage to 2100 cant be disputed and I would ask since that being the case, what sort of citation should I be looking for to back up the statement?

I accept referencing Whirlpool for carrier customer numbers is a bit slack. The only reason I did that was that in that discussion thread was a neatly pulled together list of each carriers end of year reports showing their customer base - which highlighted the point that Telstra is the largest carrier by subscriber base at this time. Considering that it is not appropriate to reference a forum thread, how can I best reference this to Wikipedia's satisfaction?

I also note that you removed the citations that pointed back to Telstra.com. The third party aspect of your requirement there is almost not appropriate when you are refering to direct history or a Telstra product reference on the topic. Specifically, the references to Telstra having the first automated mobile network are hard to find anywhere else but on Telstra's media pages - because quite frankly no other operator is going to want to talk about it, and no other Australian source of any repute exists on the internet that would be bothered backing up such claims that I have been able to find (again I dont like quoting news papers because there is no traceability as to the reliability of their sources in the first place - an encyclopedia based on newspapers is a sure way to enshrine into history some editors' warped viewpoint which may or may not be right, but someone reading something and seeing a reference pointing at a news paper may not recognise as simply being another editors point of view.

Please, can you outline how I can more effectively cite elements of my contribution and to an extent justify your requirements for citations where I have not yet been able to find any suitable meaningful references? Wildrider99 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if you have checked out Wikipedia:Reliable sources which also links to many other wiki policies. If there is a few lines in the article which is in a source you can cite it more then once using <ref name="citename">[cite information here]</ref> once then adding <ref name="citename"/> on the other sentences with in the article.

Whirlpool isn't a reliable source but other if it links to a source you could use that source instead but as long as it's reliable source and a third party source.

Websites Telstra and any company it owns isn't a third party source which can be seen a bias and can be seen as a point of view which it way we use third party sources (See Self-published sources).

Newspapers can be used whether or not it's a website or you can just reference the title of the article, name of the paper, page, date it was printed and who the story was written by, As you can trace Newspapers who's stories may not be online or the story was before the internet was around. I hope this helps. Bidgee (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

But I already tried the talk page, and rather than discussing the issue there, user: Ryulong opted to revert. I notice only I'm accused of edit warring. Does war require two parties, or are you just supporting the use of Wikipedia for spam and fighting hard for it? --Blechnic (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. Admins are warned and blocked for edit warring, just like non-admins. It's not a special privilege account to edit war. Admins can be blocked also. But, I see where the writing on this wall is. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I did err on the long side, apologies. MBisanz ^talk 11:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me? Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldve been one more section down. Your were right, a 48 hour block was too long per policy and I'm sorry for overdoing it. MBisanz ^talk 11:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly happy about the 48 hour ban, I'm pretty upset ATM. Unfortunately this has made up my mind to stop improving/creating articles and leave the Wikipedia project. I've put a lot of time and money (In terms of travel to get books and photography) only to get people walking all over me. I wasn't here to make money or to become an Admin (Never was aiming or want to be one) I was here to help improve articles. Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My final edit. User:Blechnic is unhappy about the apology and has posted this [1]. Bidgee (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MBisanz ^talk 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

.

{{unblock|48 hours for a first time block isn't right or fair if other first timers get 24 hours Wikipedia:3RR#Enforcement. I was reverting edit by a user which was claiming the source wasn't creditable when it was Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor's personal blog and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Shrew.27s_fiddle}} Bidgee (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a fair point. As you clearly acting in good faith, I have reduced the block duration to 24 hours from the original block. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Bidgee (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|09:33 UTC has passed but I'm still blocked with a new time of 20:08 UTC? Why has it been extended?}} Bidgee (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock removed. Request handled by: Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your revisions and also your highly intellectual philosophy. Thank You! Buddha24 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

DMR

Got no idea sorry. Never heard of them :( -- Longhair\^talk 11:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noticed this message and thought I would but in. Department of Main Roads ->

The Department of Main Roads (DMR) was created in November 1932. The DMR undertook a huge quantity of works across NSW; including maintenance of all major roads into Sydney, active continuous programs of road reconstruction, construction, upgrading and rerouting. The DMR was also responsible for numerous ferries and bridges across NSW. DMR offices were located throughout NSW in the Northern, Southern, Western, Southwestern, Hunter and Sydney Regions. In 1989, the Transport Administration Act (No. 109, 1989) amalgamated the DMR, the Department of Motor Transport (DMT) and the Traffic Authority to form the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA). The DMR and DMT offices across NSW were amalgamated into Motor Registries, Licensing Centres, Work Depots and Laboratories under the RTA.

from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=heritage.show&id=4305425 I too have noticed their plaque on lots of old bridges. Regards --Matilda ^talk 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Inspired to create Department of Main Roads (New South Wales) - Regards Matilda ^talk 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

DMR = Department of Main Roads (New South Wales). Doh! Of course I've heard of them (now :)). Thanks Matilda for filling in the blanks... -- Longhair\^talk 05:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Only came across it the other day and thought who was DMR. :) Bidgee (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Please don't perform copy-paste moves; use the move tab or ask at WP:RM if you cannot move it yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I did try the move via the tab and didn't know about the WP:RM, However I feel that your comment is a bit narky and could have been worded in more of a friendly way. Bidgee (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Those were not my intentions, but I apologize if it offended you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SBS-2008-Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SBS-2008-Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User and talk page

Thanks for the reversions. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Underbelly

Hey Bidgee, as a prominent editor on Underbelly, I was just wondering if you think there is anything we can do to get it to GA status. I can't find refs for the production section, could you spend just five mins to see if you can find any? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

underbelly

Hi, I have started a discussion in underbelly about the inclusion of faure and Brincat. I think that what the issue comes down to is whether wikipedia respects an Australian court order. Your dialogue and thoughts would be appreciated. --Nonaustraliancontributor3 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

IMAGE: Harvey Norman

Sorry, removed photo by accident! My apologies Murtoa (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Photography 101

Me again, please be objective when looking at these images.

This is a photo of a store

This is a photo of a tree

If you are trying to tell the viewer about the store, the first photo (Harvey Str.jpg) is better, if you are trying to tell the viewer about landscaping at a strip mall, the second photo (Harvey Norman.jpg) is better. Look at both photos quickly at this size. The one on the left you know instantly what it is trying to tell you, the one on the right does not say much. IP4240207xx (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IMAGE - Franklins Supermarket

Hola!

Hey Bidgee, do you think you could take another photo of BWS without the yellow parking sign? In this one, Image:Franklins Supermarket.jpg, the sign seems to be the subject. Anywho, maybe if you can if you haven't already left for Victoria, or maybe a BWS in Vic? Thanks from America! IP4240207xx (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Roads

Firstly look at List of highways in Tasmania and you will see that Bass Highway is listed twice, albeit from different sections, it is the one stretch of road. Looking at the NT page now, it is very hard to understand whether National Route 1 is actually part of the Stuart Highway, or is it Route 87, and whether Victoria Highway carries a route. Hence I will revert it and hope in good faith you will not revert this again!

Also, I mentioned earlier to someone else, but if you looked at the extensive range of road articles, the highway route logo, don't look like any of those found on Goldfields Highway. Again I will revert and hope in good faith you will not revert this again!

Thanks! --Rom rulz424 (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please look at List of highways in Tasmania. I'm emphasising the national route marker more, as oppose to the name of the highway. You will see that National Route 1 and A2 Bass Highway in Tasmania, are both linked and I believe there isn't an issue with it at all. If you believe that there shouldn't be two links for Stuart Highway then at least leave it with one hyperlinked, and one without.

Also, you say that A1 is a part of the Stuart Highway. I've been involved with this dilemma before in New South Wales, about clearly indicating that you in fact prove that the alphanumeric system has been funded (which it hasn't for numerous years). Could you please provide a document or article, which proves that the Northern Territory is changing to alphanumeric, and if so, I will be happy for you to change the route number for the Stuart Highway from National Route 1 to A1. Thanks! --Rom rulz424 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mean it should be listed twice as it's totally pointless for article with a map. Thats your POV that "which it hasn't for numerous years". Clearly the NT has moved to the alphanumeric. Bidgee (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence, a reference article, anything to prove that Alphanumeric Route Numbering is occurring in the Northern Territory. Otherwise I assume you are making up non-referential statements, and attempting to degrade the quality of Wikipedia's Australian Roads.

Also, I've posted several copies of this article to other Australian Fan Road users, who will see what you will see below. I hope in good faith, that you accept this, and let others decide, which format is more conventional.

Which do you prefer?

I have created the highways in importance of their highway status, and their route number. Little emphasis was put on street names, even if they were duplicated and hyperlinked on the same page. Apparently Bidgee has a problem with this, and I would like feedback on this page as to which looks smarter and easier to read.

Here are the options:

Option 1 (Your option)

• 
  • Stuart Highway
  • Victoria Highway
• Barkly Highway

OR

Option 2 (My option)

• 
  • Stuart Highway
  • Victoria Highway
• Barkly Highway
• Stuart Highway

Also view List of highways in Tasmania, and look at the National Route 1, Bass Highway, and A2 Bass Highway status to see that an emphasis was put on route numbers, as oppose to the name of the highway, as to which inspired me to change each Listing of highways in Australia, to this conventional format, as it is not only easier to read, but better to comprehend, and note the importance of the highways and their route markers.

--Rom rulz424 (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you recommend that National Route 1 be changed to National A1, or should it be left as is for the present moment. --Rom rulz424 (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is dragging out a bit and crowding my talk page - which i have also copied to the goldfields highwy art - you have an email SatuSuro 01:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I got your message to my talk page regarding the many reverts on road related articles. It appears all parties are willing to discuss their edits so I'll take a step back if that's ok. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not add templates based on your relationships to editors

If you wish to be fair add that template to her page too, as she was the first to not assume good faith and I have provided evidence for this in my comments left on her talk page. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks you for your concern Bidgee - I was not the first to fail to assume good faith. In fact TeePee has been failing to assume good faith quite consistently and has even been blocked for his actions on on the Chilean Australian article - for example calling aother editor there a liar .... --Matilda ^talk 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Bidgee you can quite clearly see from the comments I left on her page she was not assuming good faith. I have pointed them out for anyone who does not understand, and as you have not put the same warning template on her talkpage you a clearly biased in her favour. The fact you even became involved in this by sticking that template on my talkpage shows you have a previous relationship with Matilda without me even needing to research it. That is unless this user is not a sockpuppet, as this user has not even replied to me and instead Matilda has. Something smells fishy...TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you have finally replied, now address what I said in my first message as I know now you have a voice, so you are able to answer! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You needn't even read her comments as in my reply to her I showed you exactly how she was going against policy and guidlines but because of your biasing relationship to her you wacked me with that template. You would not have even done this if you read my comment to her and if it wasn't a template based on your relationship to her. Checkmate TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what would be cool, if you and Matilda posted an edit at the exact same time on the exact same day. I will check both of your contributions to see if this has ever been done before. I doubt it though. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

Bidgee ... your 3RR report on TeePee is not formatted correctly. You don't mind if I put the correct diffs into it do you? Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing and also that I don't think a 3RR breach has actually occurred yet. The version that you've marked as being reverted to is Matilda's The diffs, as I see them, are:

• Previous version reverted to: 03:01, 20 May 2008

• 1st revert: 03:45, 20 May 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:40, 20 May 2008
• 3rd revert: 04:56, 20 May 2008
• 4th revert: [ ]

• Diff of 3RR warning: 04:48, 20 May 2008

PelleSmith's also seems to be in error because he's not reverting to that version.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can remove it if you feel that it's incorrect. I'll be on later (Need to get some sleep as it's 6am in the morning) Bidgee (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity

Here is the version I put in as the one he is reverting to:

• The 2001 Australian Census recorded 23,370 Chile-born persons in Australia, although in the 2006 reference this number dropped slightly to 23,305.[2] The 2006 distribution of this population by major cities revealed the largest numbers were situated in Sydney with 10,909[9], followed by Melbourne with 6,530[10], Perth with 1,172[11] and Brisbane with 1,087[12]. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons.[7]

Here is the last in the series of 4 reverts done today:

• The 2001 Australian Census recorded 23,370 Chile-born persons in Australia, although in the 2006 reference this number dropped slightly to 23,305.[2] The 2006 distribution of this population by major cities revealed the largest numbers were situated in Sydney with 10,909[5], followed by Melbourne with 6,530[6], Perth with 1,172[7] and Brisbane with 1,087[8]. A 2001 estimate based on the 1996 Australian Census and including second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, estimates the total Chilean-Australian population to be around 40,000 persons.[3] Although a more recent estimate provided in 2006 based on the 2001 Australian Census reveals this number may have increased to 45,000 persons.[9]

The only real difference between these two versions is the addition of "A 2001 estimate based on the 1996 Australian Census and including second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, estimates the total Chilean-Australian population to be around 40,000 persons.[3]" Otherwise its still his version which does not mention the ABS ancestry figure, or the 2001 ABS birthplace breakdown by ancestry claimed (a significant piece of information). This was the language in the last non-TeePee version reverted back to (prior to a couple of more recent changes):

• According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries.[5] At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry.[6] The number of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation Chilean-Australians, could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer James Jupp.[3] One 2006 estimate of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation, is as high as 45,000.[7] The 2001 Australian Census recorded 23,370 Chile-born persons in Australia. [2] The largest Chilean Australian communities were in Sydney (10,909, 2006 Census result)[8] and Melbourne (6,530) [9].

Just because TeePee decided at some point in his edit warring to add in the Jupp statistic, does not change the essence of what he was doing. Also please note that a revert does not have to be of the exact same identical material. This is from the Wikipedia:Three revert rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." It further explains that "[a] revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors."PelleSmith (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matilda - cute ! --Matilda ^talk 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• He has been blocked for 1 week--Matilda ^talk 07:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo Island

I just rollbacked all the edits - as it by all apearances it was a repeat spam ed - and then your copyright tags arrive - it might be a bit confusing as I had reverted all edits - any thoughts where to next? SatuSuro 11:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your revert got reverted so I have chucked a 3RR warning On the barbie - b---- the prawns - SatuSuro 11:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well another and thats it :( SatuSuro 11:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - I had a look - it is not too bad but I guess language such as With the introduction by SeaLink of the Island Navigator, the fate of Island Seaway was sealed could be improved to make more encyclopaedic, more neutral, ... and I am not sure that that fact isn't syntesesised so I would say for that sentence something like Sealink introduced the Island Navigator in [date]. From [date] the Island Seaway service was discontinued. Sealink receives government subsidies to operate all freight services to and from the Island. [since when, how much - ref should be provided]. Have to go now so can't review any more but just take it bit by bit finding refs as necessary or requesting cites (gently and not too prolifically :-) best wishes --Matilda ^talk 07:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I will have a look again tomorrow

• I think this fact was relevant. --Matilda ^talk 07:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi me again - I think sea transport to and from Kangaroo Island is inextricably bound up with the ferry companies that service the island. I suspect that there were sea links before 1907 ;-) . I think interruptions to services, even though it smacks of recentism are encyclopaedic. Improvements could be to talk about what happened before 1907 - including did Indigenous Australians regularly travel to and from the island? I think some of the information could be abbreviated. Some scope could be expanded - for example when did subsidies start, who pays them (state or federal, how much are they?) Wiork on it slowly ans discuss on talk page if necessary. regards --Matilda ^talk 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Map of NSW Highways.png

Hi. I noticed that you've updated the map of highways in NSW. I don't want to appear picky but Bourke has been misspelled. If you're able to update the map, it'd be great if you could add the other roads that are presently in the list of highways but not on the map, such as Thunderbolts Way, Bucketts Way, Bylong Valley Way & Goulburn-Oberon Road. I'd look at converting it to .svg but I don't have any idea how... --Athol Mullen (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Great to see that you're still working on it. Hope you figure out why you can't save in .svg... --Athol Mullen (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

for this. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

eBay

eBay is not a reliable source for information regarding the policies on their website?? What other website other than the company that creates the policy would be a reliable source for information regarding the policies they create? I am pretty sure that a corporations policies, listed on thier corporate website, would qualify as a reliable source of information regarding the corporation.

Why can I not edit information that has no reference yet is incorrect? How does that make any sense, the information that is currently there regarding feedback is not correct, it has no reference, but yet my information which is correct you are removing because I am providing the same 0 references as the original information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.228.6 (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Still would love an answer to my questions, or do you not care to answer them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.228.6 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Annoyance

If you consistently send me rubbish messages about next to nothing, such as the Highways in New South Wales, then I will report Wikipedia about this. It isn't the first time and hope in good faith that you will not repeat this action again. Thanks! --Rom rulz424 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The message was sent as a good faith comment incase you may have not been aware of the WP:MOS. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he's trying to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars :). Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 07:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a policy and if it was I would have followed it. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee is correct, its an essay, its not a guideline or policy. Even as an admin, I find templates are incredibly useful in making sure everyone is aware of a proposed action. And threatening to report a user for using our approved warning template system in the proper fashion really isn't cool. MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth here, Bidgee is in the right I feel with his intended message to Rom rulz424. Note my smiley above? Nobody suggested the template essay was policy. I make regular use of templates myself in situations where they convey what I want to say to another editor, however templates can and do at times frustrate regular editors when there's a dispute between parties. There's nothing wrong with putting into (your own) words what you really want to say to make a point. -- Longhair\^talk 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Witchetty Grub collaboration

Witchetty grub is the new Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. You supported its nomination, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks - --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: John Howard

Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Road markers

• Such markers were ubiquitous and were made redundant when Australia changed to metric distances. There is one or two surviving around Canberra too. Note the distance will be in miles. This is quite a good article on the history of metrication at http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm#australia From http://www.measurement.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=C4E7F12C-BCD6-81AC-1F733492AF7B3121 1970: The Metric Conversion Act was passed and received Royal Assent. The Metric Conversion Board was established and Australia commenced the change to metric units. We have an article at Metrication in Australia --Matilda ^talk 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi your caption to Image:Road distance marker.jpg is I think wrong. You have said it is indicating Junee is 24 km away but the marker is in Wagga and Wagga to Junee is about 34 km away as per www.ga.gov.au I think it is a 24 miles marker. Image:Road distance marker 1.jpg not sure if it is 2 km or 2 miles but based on the style of the marker it is probably 2 miles or 3.6 km - what do you think? Distance to Post office steps usually. regards --Matilda ^talk 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • If it is miles and the pictures are of the same marker then the distance between Wagga and Junee by that route is 24 + 2 miles = 26 miles then times 1.6 = 38.4 km which makes better sense in terms of the direct over the ground distance of 33.9km--Matilda ^talk 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio Barnstar

		The Audio Barnstar
		You're getting an Audio Barnstar for the recording and uploading of a clap of thunder. After all, an article about thunder needs the sound of thunder.  Channel ®   00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mount Kosciuszko

If you read the difference in edits you'll see that the change conveys almost exactly the same information in a clearer manner. The original reference still covers the edit's contents. I'm not married to keeping the edit but it would be good if you considered your reverts a little closer rather than a knee-jerk rejection of what is a superior re-write of the same information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.132.71 (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely true - technically the edit has nothing to do with exactly why it was renamed, it says that the alternative to the renaming of the two mountains was the re-education of the population as to the 'new' highest mountain in Australia. That is logically obvious - whether it was the sole reason for the renaming is irrelavant. But if you hate it that much then leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.132.71 (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was rather than re-educating the populace that the highest mountain was Mount Townsend which is clearly a point of view without a source since there could be many other reasons why it was renamed. Bidgee (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting it - the exact reasons are irrelevant. My edit says that the ALTERNATIVE is without doubt. Once it was found that Townsend was higher, you either transfer the names, or Townsend is higher and not Kosciouszko. It's one or the other. That's not a point of view, it's a logical fact. Of course my edit IMPLIES that this problem was at least part of the reason why the authorities chose to rename, but it certainly doesn't say that outright. Also, you say that there could be many other reasons why it was renamed. There are not 'many' reasons at all. The fact that this renaming was done at the exact same time as the discovery of Townsend being higher pretty much eliminates other reasons. Still, I didn't put that in the article because it's opinion. The fact that the alternative to renaming is reducation is not opinion - it is undeniable logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.132.71 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1989 Newcastle earthquake

Do you have any image to be used in this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gunnedah

Obviously you haven't seen the statistics from the 2006 cencus. Do not undo my updates on the gunnedah page as i am a citizen of the town and know it. I also get my facts and information from cencus and other sources. --Singthesorrow1 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

orderinchaos

Oh well Bidgee, I'm pretty sure orderinchaos will forgive me. It's pretty hard getting any unbiased research around these days, especially when it is the government money that powers the research institutions. Just look what happened to Dr Mees ;).Blackspurboys (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)