User talk:Mitch Ames

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

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steve Perry (author) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Mitch Ames (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Category:Lifeguards, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Stations, etc[edit]

Have been categorised the way they are for a very good reason, to take it to the national noticeboard is enough to induce one to order cream pie for sides at lunch tommorow - wear a bib or raincoat for protection before I throw it - either before or after explaining to you why playing with categories and sub categories related to pastoral industry might be fraught with more than angst.... satusuro 09:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


Inserted section break to move the comment below - apparently a response to [1] - into its own section. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

so i didnt see it when editing and created an extra one - you can wiki whatever all you like - I dont like the word ref regardless if it is written in stone - notes feels more friendly for the user, and whole lots of people have left wikipedia cos similar messages have in the end got to them... must remember to stock up on cream and plastic raincoat before next meeitng. satusuro 12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

William Lane Milligan[edit]

Hello. Thank you for creating William Lane Milligan. However, why don't you insert the references at the end of each sentence?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it, but in future please try do inline/insert your references. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
why don't you insert the references at the end of each sentence?
Because the article was a stub, it was getting late, it doesn't have to be perfect for the first version, I had anticipated adding more material and putting the inline cites when I got that far, .... Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


OK you asked for an explanation - there should be something like heritage hotels in australia, and heritage hotels by country - I didnt get to it, just like the message above there is no timetable - sometimes real life trumps finishing a sequence of editing. And sometimes this happens because there is no sense of urgency - I have had real wiki breaks and also waited months to fix some edits (Tasmanian project years) satusuro 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

problem - if you look into the hotels category there is not much systematic approach to have a standardised terminology for old hotels - it is a veritable dogs breakfast - looks like a whole sunday of going in and taking the hotel category and articles by the bar and giving it a good shake, no martini please... satusuro 02:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
So hotel categories are like so many other categories that need some work. The dogs will never go hungry in the morning ... Mitch Ames (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

BUT perhaps hell will fall on you and your agency if you cannot stop tinkering with pastoral leases somewhere like the nat noticeboard... one think to re-arrange streets in buildings for the whole of bloody wikipedia, but cannot you leave the oz notice board little cleaner than you perpetual thinking aloud of the permutations? it would be a much nicer place if you could realise how few people are intersted.... it needs to be pulled into either wa or even just one of the articles/categories - to hang your undies on the nat notice seems extravagant - no one is responding there... and also as there are only about 3 eds involved - going national is crazy... imho. have a good week. satusuro 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Tyop - if we can correct it - we should, if we cannot - we smile and bear it satusuro 12:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Avon Yard[edit]

Should all be sorted. DCB1927 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Eastern railway[edit]

Has had me perplexed as to whether it should be expanded from its original form - if you prune it much, I have no problems with that, it was trying to be too much when it was created.

I would have to have a real life conversation about the issues related to the subject - maybe next weekend lunch? toodyay lunch in guildford - hope you are going. im off and out now for th evening, have fun satusuro 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also Perth city link reads like a mra publicity sheet - crap and 'recentism' they have worried about the railway and how to cross it from 1895... the mra refs are short of the full dollar - trove has material - but not much - cheers satusuro 11:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

will explain it all if you are at lunch today - if you are not - will try to explain offline - cheers satusuro 00:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit request[edit]

Hi Mitch, I would appreciated it if you could take a look at Forrest Highway before I nominate it at A-Class Review. Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 02:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll let you know when it's done. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

as always[edit]

hahaha - it all looks as though you are talking with yourself - - and so much for an active and diverse community who can see beyond their own weird and wonderful myopias... anyways if you feel better about it all, wikipedia must be the better for it... satusuro 00:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Personal identification number may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Personal identification number#Support for and truncation of PINs longer than 4 digits|talk]])}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abbott Government may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Laughland|publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited|date=16 June 2014|accessdate=28 June 2014}}</ref> Another two people attempted suicide the same way within a month of Seemanpillai's death, to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

When I query offline[edit]

When I query something offline - I would appreicate if it is not aired publicly immediately. Again. satusuro 11:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Response via e-mail. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Political parties[edit]

I think whoever created the state categories wasn't thinking about the supercategory rule. If it's to be applied here, all of the national parties need to be taken out of the state categories, because doing it the other way around is absurd (i.e. categorising the Motoring Enthusiasts Party as a Queensland party, not a national party, when it's federally registered, has a Senator in Victoria, and has no representation or state registration in Queensland). There are very few political parties that only have state registration (which are listed in a separate section at List of political parties in Australia; if the state categories remain, these are the only articles that should be in them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think it's worth noting that, by and large, WP:AUSPOL has blatantly and unrepentantly ignored that suggestion in WP:SUBCAT. All the federal MPs are categorised in both the "members of the House of Reps" supercategory and the more specific one for their individual electorate (or the Senate, as the case may be), for example. I'm not saying this is necessarily the right way for things to be, but should you consider suggesting a change I'd think it might be a good idea to encompass some of the other areas around the project where this is the case. Should the change happen here, I'd agree that they should all be in the federal category and not the state one, unless they were only ever registered at state level. (I'm not convinced there's actually much point to the state categories.) Frickeg (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the details yet, but WP:DUPCAT does allow for non-diffusing subcategories, which could be appropriate here. It may be that we simply need to add {{Distinguished subcategory}} and/or {{All included}} template. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


ask first, and contemplate cn later is my policy. Conflation of the name of the area is nothing on the confusion of the historic record of where bazar terrace and the waterside police station actually were physically located, solve that one and youre doing us all a service - the other stuff can be easily edited out and cns removed - identifying the actual location of bazar terrace and waterside police station are far more important... satusuro 02:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

ask first, and contemplate cn later is my policy
Alas, WP:RS may carry more weight ... Mitch Ames (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Weight in this weather - yup wet washing... I am suggesting delete the bloody assertions, and dig deep for bazar terrace.satusuro 02:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Placing cn is easy - finding the RS and researching is a much more productive way to improve articles.satusuro 09:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you would include a link to the relevant edit. Sometimes I can guess what you're talking about, sometimes not.
In general, putting the reference in when the article was written (because, of course, one would have such a reference, or one would not be adding the material...) would be even more efficient. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
that sounds like something from Lewis Carroll! not sure which relevent aphorism is appropriate though. satusuro 14:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You![edit]

Surreal Barnstar.png The Surreal Barnstar
For a remarkable series of contributions on parks, roads and other landmarks in Western Australia. Not the sort of thing you'd ever find in the Encyclopedia Britannica! RomanSpa (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I can see where you're coming from with the clumsy Trove titling 'The first Australians'. However it was originally right as capitalised, per book cover. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you check the internet very carefully, there should be images of the front pages of the books - the caps are used - and the lower case is wrong. satusuro 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do some research before you revert people’s changes[edit]

A quick google takes exactly the same time as a revert, and you get the answer you want. What you have reverted is an extremely common term.—Al12si (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this is not even the first time you deleted this. I don’t care if you use Google Scholar, plain Google, or a reference librarian. You are going to find the acronym.—Al12si (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I make more than just a few edits, and more than just a few reverts (as do many other editors), so it would be helpful when disagreeing with my edits/reverts if you mentioned which one(s) you were referring to. The quickest and simplest is to just mention the article's title, prefereably wikilinked for ease of access, eg "your recent revert to Article title". In some cases - eg where there is more than one recent edit - linking to a diff showing the specific edit can remove any ambiguity.
That being said, I checked your edit history and compared it against my own, and based on these edits of yours, I presume that you objected to these edits of mine: [2][3][4][5][6].
Might I suggest that you read WP:DABACRONYM, part of the MOS guidelines on disambiguation pages – a link to which I included in every one of my edit summaries with the explanation of my revert – which says fairly unambiguously "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article defines the acronym or abbreviation." Each time I reverted, I checked the target article, and it does not define that acronym.
If you think that WP:DABACRONYM is wrong or needs to change, raise the matter at WT:DAB.
I also direct your attention to WP:DDD, which includes:
  • Don't put more than one blue link in an entry.
  • Don't add references or external links.
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I object to all your changes.—Al12si (talk)
The no two blue links rule is idiotic and actively harmful. This means a perfectly good definition from CGD will be removed by people like you if International Ground Source Heat Pump Association ever gets its own article.—Al12si (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:DDD is only a summary; per that pages's note 1 "there are exceptions to these general dos and don'ts—so when in doubt, defer to the full guidelines". The full guidelines, WP:DAB, say "Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link".
For CGD, ideally, one would create a Certified GeoExchange Designer article and link only to that, but in the absence of that article if International Ground Source Heat Pump Association existed, it would be perfectly reasonable to link both International Ground Source Heat Pump Association and Association of Energy Engineers from that one entry.
In the case of PWD, both of your blue links were redirects to the same article. Now that the target article defines PWD, a single blue link to that one article is sufficient. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I hate idiotic policies.—Al12si (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The policies are not cast in stone - they do change from time to time, if the consensus of the editors is that they need improvement. If you think the policy could be improved, raise the matter on the relevant talk page, explaining why you don't like it, and what you think it should be (including "deleted completely" if that's the case). Simply saying "I don't like it" probably won't get you very far, but a rational explanation of why the policy is bad and why your version would be better may convince others of the merit of your case. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


You spelt the convict's name in your Freo Prison execution edit two different ways, and I'm not sure which is correct since you're going from a book source... The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources for John Gavin (convict) are not consistent, so I deliberately did not change the spelling in that article.
The book The Foundations of Fremantle: Exploring the early history of Western Australia's port city, the ref that I added to Round House spells it with an "e", so I used that spelling in that article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO Copy Edit[edit]

Hey Mitch, I do very much appreciate the copy edit and am not trying to prevent better wording. In that particular sentence I was attempting to choose my words very carefully. The actual definition used is almost a full page in length and condensing that into an form consistent with the the wording without getting into copyright infringement was rather difficult. There may be a better way of expressing it and I'm open to that. The edit you made does change the meaning though. I chose the words "expresses" and "to mean" because the standard does not define the term in the definitions section but does define it and I didn't want to confuse the two unique definitions. "uses" does not have the same meaning as it removes any indication that the standard does state how the term is to be interpreted. The quotes would indicate quoted text which it is not, I condensed/reworded to avoid copyright issues. I do need to adjust "time series", "series" is the problem though JMJimmy (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I still disagree with your wording but, I'll go into details on Talk:ISO 8601. I've only just noticed Talk:ISO 8601#ISO 8601 & Gregorian calendar discussion so I'll read through that first - so there might be a bit of a delay before I address the edit/reversion in detail. Meantime, I'll try to keep my other copy-edits minimal. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
As I say, I am open to different wording. My only goals are to maintain a meaning that is consistent with the text of the standard and that does not copy text from it verbatim unless it's appropriate/needed. The "and having several additional properties" is particularly awkward, "that have" doesn't work though as it places the properties solely on the "years" and not both the years and scale. JMJimmy (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO 8601 ANI[edit]

Since it involves an article you have been working on, you may find this thread of interest:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ISO 8601

Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to my watchlist. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund John Patrick Collins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

= User:Tango Mike Bravo/Walsh Report (cryptography)[edit]

Thank you for your edits.

Unfortunately, after I posted on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board I found two more sources which I have added. - Not a request that you look again, unless you want to. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Indeed sir, your observation is indeed accurate - one should never presume that all unusual edits are from actually maligned twisted viciously nasty little twits, they need to exhibit their insiduously nuisance nature online a little further, to ascertain whether they are indeed polite gentle persons with a small bad hair off-day like behaviour as a way of testing the water. satusuro 01:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Or not.Mitch Ames (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, re your edit on 'profanity', I hesitated myself as to whether to put the abstract noun (vulgarity) or its linguistic manifestation ( … ism), the other examples seemed to be verbal manifestations (swearing etc), so I chose …ism for consistency (it previously read 'vulgar'). My reason for posting this to you is that the whole intro seems confused as to whether 'profanity' is an abstract idea, or a language sub-set (or both). It was partly to resolve this that I added the second (slightly distinct, modern use) definition.

I left some other questions on talk about - what seem to me - to be flaws in the article. If I have time, I will post some suggestions there also.Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with Merriam-Webster online, that the word profanity has two meanings: the quality of being profane ("Profanity in public will get you arrested"), and a specific profane word or act ("He uttered [or committed] a profanity and was arrested"). These are my examples, by the way, not SOED's.
The lead sentence "Profanity ... is a subset of a language's lexicon" uses the word to denote an concept. Note the the absence of a grammatical article in front of the singular profanity. (If profanity were to denote a specific word it would be "A profanity is one of the subset..." or "Profanities are the subset...".) So far as I can tell most of the other bolded words – ... language, swearing (not swear word(s)), cursing (not curse(s)), cussing (not cuss(es)), using expletives (using is the operative word here, not expletives) – are consistent with the concept rather than the specific. The only exception is bad words; I can't think how to change that to the concept, and I'm actually tempted to delete it (bad language covers it). So I think vulgarity is correct, to make the first sentence self-consistent. Likewise the second sentence is about the concept ("Profanity usually takes the form...") The article does cover both the concept and specific words/acts, so it's still appropriate to include the second definition.
If we wanted profanity in the title to refer to specific words/acts, rather than the concept, the title should probably be Profanities - using the plural for the title of an article about a group or class of specific things (words/acts, in this case), per WP:PLURAL#Exceptions. However I think the article is more about the concept that the words, so I think the current title is correct. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

profanity (deleted)[edit]

fix it you XXXXX - rather than leaving something at my talk why cannot you fix it instead? thanks for your message if you havent fixed it yet i will - as for leaving links on my talk - you have to be kidding i have my 2 gamer boys over-loading my internet connection and i keep seeing dropouts - so something helpful would be a fix, not a message :) satusuro 11:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I didn't fix this is because I didn't know what category or categories you had intended to put Category:Agriculture of New South Wales in, or whether you had some bigger plan of which I was unaware. You have been known to disagree in the past with my suggestions or proposals about such matters, so I thought it best not to jump with a "fix" that you might not like.
Unfortunately (for the reporter of a problem) it is often quite easy to see that there is a problem or discrepancy, but not always so easy to fix it. Eg, if an article says A and B but we know that A and B are mutually exclusive, it is easy to see that A and B cannot be both be true - the article is obviously and necessarily wrong (or needs some clarification), but knowing which (if any) of A and B is correct is a completely different matter. In this case, it is obvious that a category needs to be created, but it is not obvious which super-categories (of which there must be at least one) that category should be in. Or perhaps the redlinked category was something recently removed/moved and you were actually intending to put it into a different, existing category. I just don't know.
I don't have time to fix every problem that I see, but it would be remiss of me not to at least mention the matter to someone more knowledgeable than I on the subject, who can probably fix it more reliably and consistently (having made the changes that raised the issue) than I can. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe 10 word limits could help... ok ... none of us have time ... agriculture doesnt appear to exist in some states of australia... inneresting... satusuro 13:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
coastal city, nah gerroutofit, the city of perth does not abut the coast - it lies on the swan river,.... satusuro 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply at User talk:SatuSuro#Coastal cities
ahem, my sincerest apologies kind understanding sir - I had misread the edit history (again), so much for senior moments - thanks for your judicious reply. satusuro 09:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

MLA categories[edit]

Thank you very much - I didn't even know that was an option! Adding them to the other categories is a good idea; I'll get to that later today. Frickeg (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Perth Polo Club[edit]

Yes, McNeil should have his own page...Zigzig20s (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thanks for your edits on Little Athletics, it is much appreciated! NickGibson3900 Talk 23:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


long term staged project first export due to leave by 2017... satusuro 12:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither my crystal ball nor my mind reading skills are working today. Would you care to elucidate? A link might be helpful. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
haha the rain? Anketell Port - those infuriating tags which are the way to say I have not checked the refs for the answer - so have changed article... most of the refs say nothing about timescale - but the second abc ref has the 2017 first ore export date... there is also an intriguing side story about how the main iron mining company looks to be taken over during the development as well... trust the rain has been good for you in some way... satusuro 12:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


deep. please have a look. - there is a mix of in and of, which do you think it should be? the mix is not tidy and a bit of work to cleanup, but consistency has the call, i think. Your opinion is valued, please consider. satusuro 01:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Searching finds that there are only 2 ofs and 251 ins, so I suggest changing the 2 ofs to ins. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I also notice an inconsistency in the colour of the supercategories. It's not clear to me where Category:Categories by state of Australia fits into the hierarchy, so I can't just fix it myself. Do we really need that category anyway? Should it be a hidden category? The only thing I can say for sure is that it ought not be red. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure it should be hidden - there is no category for/by/of/in states or regions of oz - hmmm satusuro 06:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
fixed - forgot the by state and territory bit, doh satusuro 06:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the existence of Category:Agriculture in Northern Territory, should we rename Category:Agriculture by state in Australia to "... state or territory ..." (which would be consistent with Category:Categories by state or territory of Australia and most of its subcats)? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
already in process... the possibility of articles found in the geography of xx state and state categories that would be more suitable in the agriculture in... is the next challenge - imho - geography and state cats should be container cats, but it takes time to create suitable sub cats to accomodate some more strays of odd domain/subject areas, if you get my gist satusuro 06:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
ooops - Natural history has absolutely nothing to do with history... like the usage of the word nature which i find very very problematic... but maybe a long afternoon over coffee or beer for the reasons. In this case please note. satusuro 07:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
reverted. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
sheesh the canadian kiwi olefactory has visited our works - there is something about thinking about environment and economy with argiculture that has a certain, what could i call it - fait a compli... nah - oxymoronish feels closer... satusuro 07:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
also there is something i find quite wrong about - it is sort of like whales in the sea... my thought is diffuse contents into state agriculture cats and put up for a redirect to ag in oz - any thoughts? satusuro 13:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's a few more: [7][8][9], but I'm not going to object if you want to get rid of the category. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

also a thought on the way the geography of states category tree exists - from where i sit i am uncertain, it would be good to hear whether you think the current structure is correct - satusuro 13:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems a little odd that the geography of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Heard Island and McDonald Islands falls under Category:Geography of Australia, when Geography of Australia says that "The geography of Australia ... the world's smallest continent ...", but it's a bit hard to pinpoint exactly what is wrong. Possibly Geography of Australia should explicitly cover islands that are "owned" by Australia, but nowhere near it physically. (Per the hatnote, which contrasts the country with the continent.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)r

I think re the above - the geography of islands in the indian ocean belong to the indian ocean first - then australia as an afterthought

Geology literature[edit]

omg another - I may be off the mark but your signature pedantry is sorely needed at [10] and the entry that I have explained - might be off the mark - if you disagree with my nomination, please could you go to my talk first. Please dont disagree with me at the xfrename first, if you get my drift. Appreciate if we could talk it first... satusuro 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Geology literature category change proposal pedantry request response[edit]

The word Geology in Geology literature is a noun adjunct, which is apparently valid English. (If it isn't, someone needs to update that article, and also tell David Crystal that his Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language , 2nd ed, p211, is wrong.) And isn't it handy how you can string them together in a long sequence when you want need a section title for a response to a request for pedantry about a proposal to change the category containing literature about geology!

Also, while I note that you're only proposing to change one category, it is hard to see why Geology literature is wrong but Geology books‎, Geology journals‎, Paleontology books‎ etc are all correct.

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont mind apologising re my addressing you in such a way (irony/entrendres/attempts at humour etc etc dont translate well into text only) but it simply doesnt sound right - I have no beef with your ref (Crystal etc), however I have been living in an ambience of hearing people wreck english (for instance from non-native english speakers inventing deviant usages) recently, I would have thought that you might have been able to twig as to the line of reasoning that I was offering, but if adjunct is ok - then it sure doesnt sound right even with the explanation from a single source... anyways have a good weekend, satusuro 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn. satusuro 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I too feel metaphoric pain when the language is mangled. (Even now it hurts my eyes to see those red squiggles under so many of your words in the edit window as I reply... Face-smile.svg) However I think in this case the use of the noun adjunct is correct. To my mind geological would be used only as an adjective for a noun directly associated with the "earth" (the topic of the science of geology) – geological fault, a fault in the rocks of the earth; geological survey, a survey of the structure of the earth; geological map, a map of the features of the earth; (the last two examples are from SOED) – but geology literature is literature concerning the science of geology rather than the earth specifically. In our case Category:Geology literature includes articles about books/journals about geology, and articles about geologic[al] maps.
By the way, Crystal does not use the term noun adjunct. He simply says:

Words which are normally used as nouns may appear in the position associated with adjectives: the garden party. They are no longer strictly nouns, because (for example) they have lost their capacity to pluralize: we cannot say *the gardens party. On the other hand, they are not strictly adjectives either, because (for example) they cannot compare: we cannot say *the gardenest party. They form a 'mixed' word class.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. My problem in english is simply subsumed long time usage of what 'sounds right' and my copy of the OED and a few others - I have no copy of crytsal. When in other languages/languages other than english, I trust no single source like you do crystal for english - and in fact will not settle with any one version... and have a propensity to gather a plethora of various sources to balance things against others, but that is for when we have beer/coffee/whatever sometime in the future, when I must explain the issue mre succinctly. satusuro 14:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

eternal vigilance[edit]

with the ever reducing editor base, it is reassuring that there is vigilance. No I do not agree with something like what you have suggested. The big problem is as they are adjacent - many correlations are made that over-indulge the connection - I do believe their adjacent nature is something that your suggested new thing is something worse than ones worst thursday evening nightmare - I would rather remove nullarbor from great oz bight - and simply have a 'see also' than create suggested monstrosity. cheers. thanks for the headsup satusuro 13:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably we should also remove Ceduna, South Australia, Eucla, Western Australia, Eyre Bird Observatory from the Bight. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice picture of the Anzac Parade[edit]

Hey Mitch,

Nice Photo, I would suggest that you crop to remove the flags which are actually not that necessary when you insert the image. Anyway congratulations on that wonderful photo

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I did consider cropping the flags out, but to remove both flags - and keep the road centred requires removing a relatively large number of pixels from each side. Strictly speaking the pixels removed aren't part of the Parade, so not strictly necessary for the purpose of illustrating the road, but I think the wider image is more appealing/impressive. The flag poles act a as a frame for the image. (I also considered trimming most of what's outside the poles, so that the poles were closer to the edge of the image, but it looked unbalanced with only one flag (the right) visible in that version.
Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I went back back and tried the cropping again - it does look a lot better now. Thanks for the suggestion. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I also increased the contrast slightly. (Increasing the saturation makes the colours look unnatural.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that[edit]

speedy nom - the damned the again.:( satusuro 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

16 minutes - that's impressively speedy! Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there any other articles that should be in that category? The Diocese of Darwin looks very lonely there. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually a close look at the world wide set of categories re the churches - anglican and catholic - there are heaps of cats where some bright psarks have added parent cats with child cats [11], but I have in the main being tagging for the projects on talk pages only.... also I am somewhat bewildered by the mix of the clergy tree, the diocesan tree, and tree which has the region/country in it.... I like tagging, a sense of purpose easily satisfied, however categories like those found at the base of RCC in Aust leave me close to low level trauma... are these really valid parallel category trees? I suppose there are valid thingoes but...

the word clergy has created a nervous tic, i think i need to get back to tagging for, um.... satusuro 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Yes to your question satusuro 14:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Now changed to a sub-page and further off line discussion, apologies for the verbiage and inferences. satusuro 23:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that - the sub page is noticeable - it too is hopefully inadequate... but when the complexity is eventually mapped out - the possibility is that there will be a range of smaller articles to sort out the range... Thanks again for your response. satusuro 03:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Riyadh Link[edit]

Hello Mitch just want to know why did you delete the link to bestofriyadh which can give some informations about Saudi Arabia. Any particular reason? --Dcpanganiban (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC) appears to be a self-published blog - eg says "I just decided to make this blog ...". The Wikipedia guideline WP:ELNO explicitly advises (point 11) that blogs should generally not be added as external links. Also the web site appears to consist primarily of advertising, which point 5 advises against. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


HI Mitch, I had asked the editor for a reason and source to the change I have an inkling as to why, but yeah current sources being use "Bill" Gnangarra 13:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the name Will, taken on good faith the editor has given personal letters for extended family over to the Toodyay Museum which use that name as well. Will provide visual(photographic) verification as soon as I'm able to get out there. Gnangarra 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)