:{{quotation|More precisely, box-type templates such as {{tlx|Commons}} shown at right have to be put at the beginning of the ''last section'' of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) ... Do ''not'' make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.}}
:{{quotation|More precisely, box-type templates such as {{tlx|Commons}} shown at right have to be put at the beginning of the ''last section'' of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) ... Do ''not'' make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.}}
:See also [[Template talk:Commons category#Propose simplify wording of location]].<br /> [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames#top|talk]]) 03:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
:See also [[Template talk:Commons category#Propose simplify wording of location]].<br /> [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames#top|talk]]) 03:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
== Fremantle Prison FAC ==
Hi Mitch. [[Fremantle Prison]], which you commented on at its [[Talk:Fremantle Prison/GA1|good article nomination]], is now a featured article candidate. Would you care to review it at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fremantle Prison/archive3]] ? Thanks, <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 03:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:49, 6 August 2015
HNY!
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... satusuro22:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dept of Education
your 2012 abomination of the education department stub has been further damaged by me - your comment is welcome there satusuro09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what bothers me is that the website of the ed depts still uses DET - while they call it ED - something spurious there satusuro10:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 satusuro14:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. satusuro03:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 satusuro15:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrapping refs
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.
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>
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
me again
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.
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:JarrahTree09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:JarrahTree08:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:JarrahTree13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:JarrahTree13:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:JarrahTree12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please
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:JarrahTree02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Gnangarra05:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:
2015-05-13 20:02:18 Article: Gnangarra adds to article "prior to that Indigenous people were non citizens with no rights ..."
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.
The lead section was removed and discussion started, you then did this contary to the discussion on the talk page thats edit warring. Gnangarra08:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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:JarrahTree23:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(removed edit conflict anxiety messages...)
Apologies...
Technical issues have stuffed up any hope of fixing the blatant errors in the later edits, so I have reverted back to your first duel - dual edit - there are more issues than can be cleaned up this pm - will come back to it in later days. I might even create a separate article for the narrow gauge station, as they are so different. JarrahTree12:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that {{Under construction}} explicitly says "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." (Implicitly, one should not make major structural changes.) Probably what you intended was {{In use}}. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, the problem is now there are about 4 or 5 railway station articles that are almost totally ahistorical which look like they have been created by what looks like a ---- from the east, I am not going to touch them for a while, as there are major issues about whether separate articles might be created for the 'old' or 'original' stations - and the user looks like a non communicative, non trove user... so much for any interesting conversations there... JarrahTree11:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i'm work on an article about institutional racism and need an experienced editor to cull it down to the key point, relevance to institutional racism. I recently got into an edit war with an editor whose changes to the canada section removed the relevance and i wanted to run this by an experienced australian editor before repeating the same error. See the last story in my sandbox, australia. User: BeeCeePhoto/sandbox Thanks.... Robco311 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the first edit in 2012 - one day a number of subjects related to the same thing, and never seen again (the editor). The list and heading format suggests a website. JarrahTree14:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a few Google searches of phrases from the article, as well as searches through http://webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/ but I couldn't find any obvious source from which it had been copied.
The embedded bullet points in History_of_wheat_industry_regulation_in_Australia#1999 are a good indicator that at least that paragraph was copied from somewhere - but it could just be that someone wrote the article off-line with with Microsoft Word for example (I've been known to do that myself), then copied the text without cleaning up the formatting properly.
appreciate you checking, thanks - cheers - it is a horrible article - I simply have never got around to see if there are any posisble trove links for any of the assertins in the article at all JarrahTree12:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to my watchlist, so if nothing else I'll copy-edit if necessary. Whether or how much significant material I add will depend on how much I time I have. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
There shouldnt be detail of days, as they can change the next time the timetables have a hiccup, your edit is exactly what we want - cheers JarrahTree11:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commons category
On the Sunny Corner, New South Wales page you moved the commons category link from 'External Links' to the 'References' section. I do not dispute that you are right but have always seen it in 'External Links' which came after 'References'. You mention 'per that template's doc page'; I have tried to find the doc page, but have failed. Could you please link me to it, so I can read it up and try not to make the same mistake again? SovalValtos (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... this template should be placed at the top of the ==External links== section, or at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists.
More precisely, box-type templates such as {{Commons}} shown at right have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) ... Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.
Mitch Ames (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
