User talk:Moondyne: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Moondyne, as the result of a gentle rollback I performed on the article Galah, Victoria a friendly discussion has ensued here. Whilst it may not ultimately be the best location for such a communication to fully develop, for now, if you have the time and/or interest, can you provide your thoughts also? With thanks. --VS ^talk 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which closed as successful a few hours ago. There's a million foolish newbie admin mistakes to make, but with role models like the Australian Admin Collective I can't go that far wrong. So thanks again and if you don't mind I might stop by with questions along the way. Euryalus (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a very close trawl here http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X?SEARCH=claremont+speedway&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D - should be inspiring - might have a few minutes before i go to check some stuff as well - relative of mine went to see it in 1929 (!) SatuSuro 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC) gmail reply to that SatuSuro 08:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Noticed the copyright note after the deletion of the treaty content. The individual articles were NOT a wholesale copy of the treaty, but a summarised and simplified version. Some of them include commentaries on controversies over the articles, with the relevant references. Surely they do not infringe the Commonwealth's copyright on the treaty text. Slleong (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your reply and explanation. I understand your concerns about misleading summaries. My approach to pages on treaties is that they should tell the reader a little more than just a brief one paragraph statement on what the treaty is about. I also feel that referring the reader to the original text of a treaty may not be ideal as ploughing through a treaty can be pretty tricky, which is why I believe Wikipedia articles should address and discuss the issues that a particular treaty covers. To address your concern of people mistaking the summary for the text proper, maybe it would be better for the article to be organised according the issues covered by the treaty, instead according to the article numbers. The summary description would then have footnotes with the relevant article number. As for discussions on particular articles bordering on POV, I have been as careful as possible to include all sides. Each argument has a footnote which refers to the source of a particular POV, usually legal articles, parliamentary submissions and NGO publications. I believe nuances should be written and explained to the reader, and this is the best manner in which to handle them ie. with proper references to sources and authorities. I am basing this on the structure my law school lecturers forced us to follow for our essays (I am no longer practicing, however). Anyway, it is the beauty of Wikipedia that any mistake/inaccuracy made in an article is quickly corrected by the community at large. I have redone the CMATS article in this manner. How do you feel about it? Slleong (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Will try not be too legalistic with my articles. Slleong (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Westernwarriorslogo.jpg. 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) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (was made redundant by another upload). –Moondyne 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moondyne,

I find what you wrote quite insulting. I will have you know that I have made tons of edits to Wikipedia and here is my back up for what I wrote (if people are blocked from making correct edits, then I am appaled):

a) See the talk page for proof that the number of hours of sport is 12

b) Sports for 12 hours a week is compulsory

I did not add the Wil Wheaton bit initially but such a person really does exist. Since my edits are not considered constructive, I can cease from editing that page provided that all of this is forgotten. However, I am completely serious in what I wrote about 12 hours of sport being compulsory. Sorry if what I wrote about the school focusing on very few areas of study is inaccurate. But please add that 12 hours of sport/week is compulsory.

Topology Expert (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you are an established editor and am therefore doubly disappointed that you do not seem to understand or are prepared to comply with the several policies which have been pointed out to you over the last few days, nor have you taken heed of the several warnings regarding edit warring. I refer to Original research and neutral point of view for a start. –Moondyne 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize for any incorrect claims that I have made and I won't repeat this in future. When I find some proper citations, can I add back what I wrote?

Topology Expert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]