User talk:Mitch Ames

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

HNY![edit]

Will catch up closer to wp birthday day as to what might be happening - otherwise HNY satusuro 13:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC) My sincerest apology - it looks like nothing short of some miraculous something or other, the actual wikipedia birthday event today , may simply be a few edits on the birthday celebration page, rather than anything live and in real time in real life... perhaps the 15th next year will be more real - cheers... satusuro 22:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dept of Education[edit]

your 2012 abomination of the education department stub has been further damaged by me - your comment is welcome there satusuro 09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I trust you take that in the spirit of WP:AGF and new year cheer :) - satusuro 09:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As always ... Mitch Ames (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
what bothers me is that the website of the ed depts still uses DET - while they call it ED - something spurious there satusuro 10:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!!![edit]

You now have over 25,000 edits on wp en!!! - cheers satusuro 13:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison GA[edit]

The 2nd opinion reviewer suggested promoting to GA after the two issues raised were fixed, which I did a few days ago now. Would you feel comfortable checking/promoting to GA, now that the article has been reviewed by an uninvolved editor? - Evad37 [talk] 00:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I still support the GA, but I also still feel that I am ineligible to formally promote the article, for the reasons originally stated. Given that the minor issues raised by the second opinion have been addressed, I suggest that appropriate action would be for @Folklore1 to replace {{GA nominee}} with {{GA}}, per the reviewing instructions. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have promoted the article to GA. Thanks for helping the nominator with so much of the hard work that it takes to produce a good article. Folklore1 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury[edit]

I checked What Links Here for Murder of Kylie Maybury and it's only linked from talk pages. It's effectively orphaned. What should we do? Paul Austin (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Tag it as an orphan, in the first instance. Then look for articles that might be suitable to link to it from. Timeline of major crimes in Australia is one possibility. Maybury (surname) is another. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

for as long as i remember[edit]

I have not wandered into user talk space to lecture/guide/or advise other users their stupidities or obvious mistakes if they havge been stated or created in Xfd space, as a matter of principle - I leave it to stand alone and be self evident. I wish you would do the same. Please remind me to not lock you in a cell tommorrow satusuro 14:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that we are talking about this...
I thought the first point was a fair question(s); or if taken rhetorically, a genuine suggestion (even if of the obvious).
Likewise the second was a genuine attempt to fix the problem that I though you were implying - that editors were not clear/consistent about the intended contents of a category.
"I have not wandered into user talk space to lecture/guide/or advise... Xfd space"
You have been known previously to explicitly invite me to discuss a category rename in user space, and comment in user space about category renames and other categories issues being discussed in non-user space . Feel free to explain why Xfd is different to the other instances. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
"for as long as i remember"
Perhaps if you occasionally put meaningful comments in the edit summary, and links in your posts to what you were talking about, then it would be easier to find the entries, and you wouldn't have to remember. Face-smile.svg Mitch Ames (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Trouts in any form or number are good medicine against inherently well explained and good logic. Bugger logic, links, and common sense. Long live age related absentmindedness and forgetfulness. satusuro 03:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In my more paranoid days, I wonder if you're just deliberately taunting me. [1][2]. Face-smile.svg Mitch Ames (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
nah, at least we didnt lock you in any of the cells, none of them looked as if they had usb sockets :( - as for paranoia, dont worry everybody is out to get us, specially if we say comprised of or something similar... sigh satusuro 15:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrapping refs[edit]

Thanks for tidying up my edits on the Sydney Siege. However, I tend to lay out the source sentences starting on a new line and references starting on a new line so I can read it.

Do you know what causes them to be wrapped? Are you using some sort of GUI editor?Tuntable (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but I think this answers your questions:
Starting a sentence (not a new paragraph) on a new line (with no intervening blank line) is not a problem - the single newline will be displayed as a space, not a new line. See WP:LINEBREAK.
Putting the opening <ref> tag on a new line is a problem, because the newline displays as a space before the reference, but WP:REFSPACE requires there be no space before the ref. The simplest solution - which I use sometimes - is to put a space after the ref tag but before the template braces, eg:
... article text<ref>
{{ cite web
 | url = ...
 | title = ...
 | ...
}}</ref>
I don't use a GUI or WYSIWYG editor - just the basic text editor showing all the markup. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison, again[edit]

FYI, I'm nearly ready to nominate Fremantle Prison for promotion to a featured article. Seeing that the Main Cell Block capitalisation issue isn't really resolved, I plan on (in the FAC nomination) inviting FA reviewers to comment/discuss the issue, and hope some sort of consensus come out of that, unless you have any better ideas. - Evad37 [talk] 05:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that it would be better to resolve the capitalisation issue before nominating it for FA. It doesn't seem to be in the right spirit to nominate an article for FA when we know that there is an outstanding issue about whether it complies with MOS:CAPS. Perhaps a request for comment on that specific issue, so that we can focus on it independently of any other review comments. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

hahaha[edit]

Funny what people think are countries these days... good catch... satusuro 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

hahappy easter - you forgot to sign at my talk page :)
did christmas island deserve all the astonishing array of categories...?
I think that a more appropriate parent category could be based upon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Indian_Ocean_Territories

considering how small the population is - I do agree with you that perhaps the majority of the categories are redundant and hardly of any used to anything as they stand.... at least we agree wholeheartedly it is not a country... also I feel seasick when i see all the categories in the island - surely, they are on? But then, the questions that need answering, how many of the astonishing array of categories are really essential... and which ones are not, who are we to judge?

not sure which way to go - parent cat of Australian Indian Ocean Territories ? satusuro 01:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

also I feel seasick when i see all the categories in the island - surely, they are on? - Officially it is the Territory of Christmas Island[1], so "... in Christmas Island" is an abbreviated form of "... in the Territory of Christmas Island". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Putting Category:Christmas Island in the more specific Category:Australian Indian Ocean Territories instead of Category:Australian External Territories is fine, but does not change my disagreement of the seealso on Category:Transport infrastructure in Christmas Island. Do you object to my removing those {{seealso}} items? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The above also applies similarly to other categories, eg [3]. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The whole christmas island thing is bizarre, no further comment at this stage. satusuro 13:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Sheree Beasley[edit]

Hi, could you do me a favour and give Murder of Sheree Beasley some love and care? Paul Austin (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few edits, but there's not much more information readily available online for me to add anything else significant. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Self-serving propoganda"[edit]

Thanks for that reversion. Actually, I haven't done any paid PR work for 25 years. I wasn't short of peeved critics in those days, so it's gratifying to still have the odd illiterate whinger paying a bit of attention. Bjenks (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

me again[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Mitch Ames. 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.

User:JarrahTree 11:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

omg[edit]

even if its in an edit summary - you should never admit to something like that, we already have many persone in competition for the most geographically challenged editor, you should not put yourself into the category - self nominating is unwise, believe me... User:JarrahTree 09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Aboriginal communities in Western Australia[edit]

under no circumstance am I going to respond to your legendary systemic hair splitting on the 2 aboriginal community articles. Feel free to email or phone call and I can explain, otherwise do not expect an on-wiki response. User:JarrahTree 08:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Mitch Ames. 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.
User:JarrahTree 11:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
surely - have a look - it looks really crap - the numbers and the letters like that are really really yuk (they are not even separated), go on - change the heading and revert yourself... it is really ugly User:JarrahTree 13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The individual letters are very definitely subsets of "List" so belong under it. Alternatives are {{Compact Toc}} (as I had before), {{TOC limit}} (n=2), or remove the List heading.
(As previously mentioned, I believe this discussion would be better on the article talk page.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
apart from a compatriot geographically challenged editor this am no one else has visited them, the word communities as heading could in one swoop remove the need for something that would bewilder the less literate as to what the hell is going on - a number with a letter is patently absurd User:JarrahTree 13:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we can do something about that ... Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Simply renaming the section from List to Communities does not solve the problem. The list of communities - broken into lettered sub/sections - is not logically a part of the Communities section if both Communities and (for example) "A" are both at the same heading level. The Communities section is effectively empty. (I was tempted to put an {{Empty section}} tag into it, but I am trying to discuss this productively.)
I agree that "a number with a letter is patently absurd" - whether it's "2.1 A" or "3 A". Again, I suggest using ===A=== and {{TOC limit|n=2}}, or {{Compact TOC}}, or remove the letter headings completely. Any of those would solve the problem.
The current structure is logically wrong and needs to change. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I am tied up in real world issues - maybe your suggestion for whichever of your three alternatives looks the best to you - there will be in time - about another 100 or more names of communities added to complement the full range of known named communities showing up in the 2010 report, unless there are other 'isolated communities' that havent been caught by the fed number crunchers User:JarrahTree 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please[edit]

Do not bugger around with the aboriginanal community article anymore. It does not need any numbers, it is an overview of the broader non counting numbers aerticle, predicated by the current form.

It is highly contentious to identify any specific stats from any source at this point (they are POV - specially government published info), and if you look at its current form it is all that is needed.

Please find soemthing else to edit, the communities article is sufficient as it is - any number adding is contentious and provocative User:JarrahTree 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I shall continue discussing, including elaborating my specific reasons for specific edits or why I disagree with certain existing text - with appropriate links to relevant policies - on the article talk page. I would ask that you do the same. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little more critical and will point out that currently the consensus on the talk page(on going discussion) doesnt agree with your edits as such you can consider this a warning that you are engaging in an WP:EDITWAR and should take alternative steps. Gnangarra 05:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Noted, but could you please link to the specific edit(s) in which you think I was WP:EDITWARing, and for each such edit point out the specific edits on the talk page that existed prior to my edit, in which consensus disagreed with that edit, and/or the previous article edit that I was reverting.
So far as I can tell, the relevant recent history - in chronological order - looks a bit like this:
In summary:
  • I have been discussing the lead section sentence - "...prior to that Indigenous people were non citizens with no right" - on the talk page, and have not made any related edits to that sentence since raising the matter.
  • After one person suggested - on my talk page - that the article didn't need any numbers, I added - once - a well referenced (ABS) and neutral statement that 99% of people were "remote", with a talk page entry explaining exactly why.
  • So as I can tell, I have not at any point "overridden [an]other's contributions". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)ats not di
The lead section was removed and discussion started, you then did this contary to the discussion on the talk page – The sentence that was removed from the lead stated how many communities and people there were. The sentence that I subsequently added stated that the vast majority of the people (without stating how many there were) were in remote areas. Both the material and the stated intent were different.
... the fact that the discussion there your are the only descenting voice wanting stats in the lead – That was not the impression I got when you posted this apparent proposed change to the article wording - but still with numbers - in response to my comment in which I explicitly referred to the addition of the "statistics" that your comment appeared to be suggesting a modification to.
However, I'm sure we both have better things to do than this. I shall continue discussing on the article talk page, and try to get someone to agree before adding anything of consequence to the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
To be honest mitch, from what you have played with so far I do not think you can add anything of consequence to the article - you have a whole lot of abc stories that are utilised as refs that can be explored without even considering the numbers.

Please drop the numbers issue on aboriginal communities, it is a mind boggling time wastewr, the list article is where you should be playing with numbers, not on the aboriginal communities article, If you want a 70 minute explanation as to why aboriginal communities cannot be explained from any one perspective, specially one that excludes thew complex historical and anthropological issues that are associated with it, ring me in a fortnight and not before - real life has issues User:JarrahTree 23:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: category Photographers from Melbourne[edit]

Thank you for fixing that up Mitch, Much appreciated, Jamessinarau (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)