User talk:Mitch Ames

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

reply[edit]

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)

Berndts[edit]

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: [1][2][3][4][5].
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)

Gaven/Gavin[edit]

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)

Unusually[edit]

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)

Profanity[edit]

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)

slippery[edit]

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)

quandary[edit]

deep. please have a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Agriculture_by_state_in_Australia - 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Farms_in_Australia - 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: [6][7][8], 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 [9] 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)

Thanks.
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 [10], 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)

issue[edit]

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)

http://www.bestofriyadh.com/ appears to be a self-published blog - eg http://www.bestofriyadh.com/about/ 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)

bill-Will-bill[edit]

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)

Merry etc etc[edit]

Look forward to seeing you in the new year; and thanks for your help with the Fremantle Prison articles - Cheers, Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
general tidy up of John Hartley (academic) Gnangarra 09:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Cairns child murders nominated for DYK![edit]

Cerabot (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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. [11][12]. 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)