User talk:Bjenks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 2 3 4

Disambiguation link notification for January 25[edit]

...when you edited Caldicot Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman...DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now fixed Bjenks (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

...when you edited Hanno the Elder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Silanus ... DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's now fixed. Bjenks (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5[edit]

...when you edited Edward Thomas Heron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queens Park ... DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's now fixed. Bjenks (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Curtain the novel by Agatha Christie[edit]

Bjenks, I reverted one change you made to the lead (lede) for the article on the novel Curtain by Agathe Christie. There is a sort of consistency to the leads for her novels, to include the first UK and first US publication dates. Some of her novels were first published in the US. The price in the UK and in the US are also included. This is not something I started, to be sure, but encountered when I began to read these articles on her novels. It seems fine enough information to include, when her stories were first published and by whom, no harm done. The source for the American editions shows a photo of the first edition cover and includes the price in the US, and is on line. The source for the prices in the UK seems to be a printed book, one I have not seen, so I cannot fill in missing UK prices. One good thing about it is the extra documentation of the first edition and first publication from this approach to introducing the articles. Unlike the translated titles, which anyone can toss in, with no source or ISBN number or other proof of the translation. Hope that is okay with you. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the communication. Not being a habitual contributor to this sort of 'owned' biblio tradition, I noted that the information was appropriately spelled out in a following section (but without the price). I took the view that such trivia (however much valued by an enthusiastic minority) does not help the lead para, which is encyclopedically aimed at the general reader. I won't be changing my view, but nor will I interfere with your good-faith reversion. There are more important things to do elsewhere! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that plot information is a bit more interesting in the lead for a novel. I do not know how the tradition got started for Agatha Christie novels. Someone prior to me had the lead very long, trying to put the whole story of the novel being written during WWII, put in a bank vault, published in the 1970s, and meant to close the Poirot series, with lots of books being written after the war and before Curtain was released for publication. My effort was to get that out, make a new section in the article to discuss that situation, and the speculation of what year is the story set? Usually her books are set when published, or soon before (one notable exception). So I wanted the lead to look more like the other Agatha Christie novels. So far, no one reverted my new section on when it was written versus when it was published. BTW, thanks for showing me that whole huge article on the television adaptations. I was not aware of it, and will make more links to it now I know it exists. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Catalp1152 lg.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The file has been uploaded to Commons, but with a different name because I stuffed up on entering the description info! Bjenks (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Opera House[edit]

Thanks for your edits to Sydney Opera House. One edit that I don't agree with though is the section heading change from "1990s–2000s: Reconciliation with Utzon and building refurbishment" to "Reconciliation with Utzon". The heading was changed because Pigsonthewing just won't accept that the section is about the 1990s reconciliation in the leadup to the internal reconstructions. We shouldn't have to make the heading so verbose but, as you can see by his restoration of the tag, the short heading is problematic. --AussieLegend () 17:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AussieLegend. I noted the over-lengthy squabble on the talk page but could not see how any one person's pov could justify perpetuation of an unacceptable edit war and unnecessary fact tag. So I'll be happy enough if my contribution contributes to a circuit break. If not, I would be arguing for admin intervention. The 1990s and later dates are clearly specified in the section's text, therefore don't need to be re-emphasised in the section head. What I saw developing was a series of dated headings which could progress as a mechanical timelist into the indefinite future, whereas it is surely more encyclopedic to limit section heads to matters of substance. Anyway, I've given my considered input and do not intend to enlist in a tit-for-tat exchange. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you about the heading. I always thought it was obvious until Pigsonthewing restored the irrelevant edits and then just would not get the point. I thought changing the heading would help him get the point. --AussieLegend () 04:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's been four days since last comment. I'm tempted to remove the tag again but, in the event that it's restored, I'm not sure of the best way forward. ANI seems to be the best place as it's not really a content dispute, it's really more the disruptive addition of a tag with no reasonable attempt to resolve the issue. --AussieLegend () 03:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think enough time has expired. What about removing the tag together with a talk-page warning that its restoration will result in a request for admin. intervention aimed at ending the disruptive, unconstructive behaviour. There's now more than ample justification. Bjenks (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I decided to give Pigsonthewing some more time but I have now removed the tag, after leaving an appropriate note on the talk page.[1] We'll see what happens next. --AussieLegend () 14:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I fully support your action. Bjenks (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
He's reverted the removal.[2] --AussieLegend () 16:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have commenced action here and here. Bjenks (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I've drafted an ANI report. --AussieLegend () 05:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing at Sydney Opera House. Thank you. AussieLegend () 15:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

...when you edited Stamford Raffles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kraton. DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's now fixed. Bjenks (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

...when you edited Western Australia Police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AAP. DPL bot (talk), 08:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now fixed.

Bob R., Catherine B. Ron B. and John S. territory[edit]

The crappy little stub is still small and under-explored... but a small start. satusuro 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bravo—it's starting to shape up. I dipped into some anthrop in the dark past, and in Sydney; and one of my daughters is a UWA graduate in anthrop, but I really knew nothing of the Berndts. Became curious when a lost MS about Rev John Smithies hit my coffee table, with impressive foreword by Prof Berndt. Be good to do 'em some justice. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Wife and I before our meeting each other had been doing anthro under both of em them... They are mountains on which their followers hardly get to first camp. satusuro 02:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2 Kinnaird Street 1960.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:2 Kinnaird Street 1960.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The image was uploaded and posted here for only short-term discussion purposes. Therefore there is no objection to its deletion after 7 days. Bjenks (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Mitchell House (Melbourne, Victoria)[edit]

Hello. Thank you for creating Mitchell House (Melbourne, Victoria). I have added an infobox and category. I was wondering if you would consider expanding the page please? It may also be good to know who the former and current tenants have been. Please reply on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I'm a non-Melbournian decophile without access to the details you mention, though I created the Mitchell House stub using my opportunistic 2013 photograph. It's now up to other interested editors to carry the ball further, eh? Bjenks (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. Let me know if you come across some good books about the architecture of Melbourne--there may be some. Is there another city where you'd be able to focus on buildings more?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really. I prefer to spend time on other interests. Bjenks (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


It's obviously verifiable that the motto is in the book, but I accept that it's no more than an interesting factoid, so no big deal, thanks (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Done last week. Bjenks (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit on John Anderson[edit]

Hello Bjenk,

this message concerns a revert you've made to a "good faith" edit of mine in the article on the philosopher John Anderson.

The sentence in question, as it appeared originally in the article, reads:

"He asserted that there is no supernatural god and that there are no non-natural realms along the lines of Platonic ideals".

In other words, Anderson was both an Atheist and a Nominalist.

However, the sentence contains an unfortunate typo which I corrected, namely "Platonic ideals" instead of "Platonic ideas".

"Platonic ideas" is a technical term philosophers use for what are otherwise ("in North America", as David Armstrong, a student of Anderson's, jokingly liked to say) also called Abstract Entities. Examples are things like Justice or Roundness, considered as distinct from the particular objects which are just or round. In full-blown Platonism, Platonic ideas are supposed to exist seperately in a non-natural realm, as rightly said in the sentence in question.

For more about Platonic ideas, see here:

It is true, however, that a subset of Platonic ideas are also what one might call "ideals" (e.g., Courage, Democracy, etc) but this is irrelevant to the philosophical position of nominalism as attributed to Anderson. Best wishes, Collini (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Collini. Yes, your edit appeared to me to be an arbitrary wording change from the previous 'ideals' to 'ideas'. However, no citation has been provided for either version. I take it that your justification of 'ideas' rests upon a North American usage which, you say, was jokingly referred to by Armstrong. Personally, I prefer 'ideals' as an English transcript for (Platonic) forms, and understand that term to be more in accord with Australian (and Andersonian) usage than 'ideas'. However, the point seems to be a fine one. The way to settle it is to find a reliable citation, and perhaps we could both try to do that. Bjenks (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for shouting[edit]

Sorry about that. I always try to follow the rules and follow the sources. In the case of cricket's name, perhaps all the Middle Dutch sentences could be consolidated next to each other? Abductive (reasoning) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Pls relax—we all get worked up ocasionally! By all means roll the three MDutches together (and avoid the two successive sentences beginning "Another poss..."). I promise to stay away.(:)) Bjenks (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5[edit]

When you edited William Hosking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian. DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's now fixed.

BNA access[edit]

Hello, Bjenks. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

...When you edited Scrotal Recall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chlamydia. DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, now fixed, thanks