User talk:Moondyne

↓ Go to the end of this page ↓

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

Reply

No, that's excellent. It's great having different people looking at this stuff as we'll all most likely take different views or perspectives on the thing - mine obviously focussing on the results and the campaigns, as that's the easiest to source from newspapers and the like. 1911's my target for FA, by the way (probably not entirely obvious from my contribs, as most of my work on researching it and building a content library has been offline to this point). Orderinchaos 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson's maps

Thanks, bushy. Unfortunately I don't have any scan capabilty. All this stuff was supposed to to be "parliamentary papers by the Governmenent of th Colony of South Australia." Those cetailnly ought to be available. I —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a few hours looking for those maps this morning. From what I could tell, that State Library of South Australia does hold them, but there seems to be no incentive to make them accessible. I spent some time trying to fathom their system but emerged baffled. If I lived near the Emerald City, I might attain enlightenment after a while. Oddly enough, I came across a SA library-published version of Australis Twice Traversed,, priced at $99 ($139 for with deluxe edition) As usual, if I said what I thought, people would be offended. The local bookshop charged $40-$50 for Australia Twice Traversed. Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you brother! Its sad but probably not surprising how many libraries have difficulty reconciling their public duty in sharing their booty with the need for fund-raising. A bit like them claiming copyright on old photographs which are clearly public domain and for which they are just custodians of while demanding permission be given before mere mortals can touch. eg [1]. Ah well... Cheers. Moondyne 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts of a Hakluyt Society sort of setup for Australian explorers? (Someone else please say yes) There are plenty of documents, maps, biological samples, etc. Much of it has not been published in a usable form. The Giles book we've discussed is itself, a conflation of, according to his author's notes:" the journals of the first two expedtitions formed a small book, which was mostly distributed to the patrons who had subscribed to the fund....The account of the third found its way into the the South Australian Observer, while the records of the fourth and fifth journeys remained as parliamentary documents...."

And we know, there's plenty of good stuff buried the State Libraries.

AfD nomination of List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? The articles List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1980s and List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1990s, pages you contributed to, have also been listed at the deletion discussion for the 1970s article.--Classicrockfan42 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your barnstar

Congratulations; you're the inaugural recipient of the *cum grano salis* barnstar. What an honour! Hesperian 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I am a worthy recipient of this honour. Thanks! Moondyne 01:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Launceston

You might want to take a look at Launceston,_Tasmania#Major_Developments. this has been discussed on the Talk Page. Personally, I don't think such sections should be included unless a development is very unique and very notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are very right about the Launceston page. Well done for talking some sense! :) Keep up your good work. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION OF MY WORK

Hi Moondyne

re. wikipedia's removal of List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s which I originally produced.

Basically in standardising my lists, they have cut out the "weeks at number one" category, which I used in my research for my radio show, which I why I put the lists up there in the first place. The year by year format detracts from the presentation, I believe. More about it here:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_number-one_albums_in_Australia_during_the_1970s#objection_to_the_removal_of_this_list

I had absolutely no idea that this list was going to be deleted and I am not at all happy that someone in North America has downgraded my original work (You will see my reasons listed above). I was not notified that Classirockfan42 was going to do this, nor was my permission asked for in doing this. Basically some of the information in my voluminous lists were removed without my permission and will take a lot of work to reinstate them. I don't want to do this just because someone in America didnt like the formatting I used!

regards Barry in Sydney Rusty201 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s. Moondyne 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

current project

you'll see im putting in a year end chart for every year in the template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Australian_music_charts

What guidelines have they gone by to change and downgrade my work re the album lists? How do I know this next project won't suffer a similar fate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusty201 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes to the template are fine; and you don't—there's no way I can answer that. Wikipedia works by consensus for everything and no-one owns any article. Every edit page has a notice "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." If you push the envelope with original research or hard-to-explain tables, you have to expect that sooner or later someone will come along and challenge you. You need to understand the acceptable standards the Wikipedia community expects and you'll usually have no problem. Moondyne 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

media coverage of Wikipedia

Ahh Mr Moondyne. Sometimes there are generally positive items about WP. Have you forgotten Daniel Pink's epochal feature in Wired? Reporters aren't concerned with whether things are positive or negative - we report what's happening. Vandalism of WP entries, and repair of those articles, for example. It's unrealistic to expect wholly-positive coverage of anything. Davidcohen (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed

I've been extremely impressed with you and u've been the best wikipedian i've worked with! Aaroncrick (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]