User talk:Luxure

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

Weatherboxes[edit]

Why do we need separate weatherbox templates when they are only used in one article each? What's wrong with simply adding the weatherbox to the article, as was the case before creation of the templates? Single-use templates rarely survive TfD. --AussieLegend () 13:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by TfD, but it does reduce the size of the article and should it be vandalised the weather stats are harder to change. Luxure (talk)
TfD refers to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. The reduction in article size is inconsequential and templates can be vandalised as easily as articles can be. --AussieLegend () 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The templates are harder to find than the article itself, thus 'harder' to vandalise. What do you propose? Luxure (talk)
We don't create articles or templates to hinder vandalism. The templates should be merged back into the articles and then be deleted. You can use {{db-author}} to do that. --AussieLegend () 08:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Place on the coast[edit]

For a moment I though you might live in Kiama; I do. But your recent contribs history shows edits to articles on lots of other Australian places too. Tony (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Newcastle Weatherbox[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Newcastle Weatherbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AussieLegend () 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

West Australian Current[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of West Australian Current, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/640073/West-Australian-Current.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your post to my talk page[edit]

I was recommending a short block for user Gtrbolivar, who was engaging in personal attacks. I was not recommending a block for you. However, it is not a good idea to refer to material as defamatory or libelous. That can be seen as an implied legal threat, so use some other words, such as incorrect or erroneous. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)