User talk:JPD

Rv on Sydney

Hello there JPD, I was wondering if this edit of your was a "revert" as you said it was or was it simply a return to a previous edit. The term Revert (rv) should only be used in cases of vandalism rollback (manual or automatic) and the changes which you removed were not vandalism. Further, regarding the picture you changed back in that edit - from the Image:Sydney skyline.jpg to Image:North Sydney office buildings, dusk, from North-East.jpg - do you think the N. Sydney pic is a better pic in that position? I placed the Sydney CBD pic there, which I took that morning (my POV!), as it fitted with the paragraph. The lead sentence talks about the Sydney CBD and there is no mention of North Sydney. Further, the North Sydney pic is not very clear and also at night. I reaslise there is a debate about showing images of non-CBD things given that the page is supposed to represent ALL of Sydney, but I do not believe that the north Sydney pic is an improvement. What do you think? Please reply on my talk page, Witty lama 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Witty lama. According to Help:Reverting: "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past." "rv" does not only refer to reversion of vandalism, as seen by the fact that many people write "rvv" for "revert vandalism". Your edit was clearly not vandalism, and I did not intend to imply that it was. Your picture is definitely a better picture than the CBD one, however I feel that it is not better in that position in an article which already has many pictures of the CBD. The North Sydney picture is appropriate for a se ction that mentions the many newer commercial areas outside the CBD, although a better quality image of North Sydney, or another non-CBD area would defintiely be an improvement. If you disagree strongly, the talk page would be a good place to discuss it, so we can get some other opinions. JPD (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello JPD. I hope your enjoying the English summer! Thank you for your full support and gracious comment at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation - especially when people like yourself make a rare trip to RfA to support. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. If you need admin assistance, feel free to ask me. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully as an admin. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic peace theory (specific historic examples)

This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Regions/St George suburbs

Hi J Bar! I've added Upper North Shore to the Sydney regions template, and left my comments at Template talk:Sydney regions. I agree with you concerning the Hurtsville localities - those localities didn't make it to our list of Sydney suburbs, and so don't have articles. I guess they originally came from the dodgy DLG site. JPD (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input guys. I have some good reference material on my local area Arncliffe/Rockdale/St George. I'll keep adding more stuff when I get the chance.J Bar 00:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please request another change to the suburbs box for 'Municipality of Kogarah' template to remove the localities that appear in red, which are not suburbs? Also, if possible can the 'St George' region link be added next to 'Southern Sydney' for local government boxes: 'City of Rockdale', 'Municipality of Kogarah' and 'City of Hurstville'? J Bar 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim! I've just removed the red links from the Kogarah box. You could have done this yourself by editing Template:Sydney Kogarah suburbs - there's no need to ask for permission or anything like that. As for including "St George", I suggested at Template talk:Sydney regions that it replace "Southern Sydney", rather than have both. What do you think about that idea? JPD (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes JPD. I think I'd rather see them appear in both St George and Southern Sydney because they fit into both region descriptions. If we just switch them from Southern to St George, then people would have trouble finding them if they did a search on southern suburbs of Sydney, especially if they were not familiar with Sydney and were not aware of the St George area distinction. People like me who live in this area consider themselves to be in the St George area and part of Southern Sydney, with our neighbours in the Sutherland Shire. Hope you agree. J Bar 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that suburbs/LGAs in the St George area should appear on both the St George and the Southern Sydney articles, and that both of these should appear on the Sydney regions template! I was talking about the boxes like Template:Sydney Kogarah suburbs. You are suggesting having the heading on that box say: "Suburbs and localities within the Municipality of Kogarah | St George | Southern Sydney | Sydney". To me, this seems a bit long for a heading, and it would be sufficient to include only the more specific region name, giving: "Suburbs and localities within the Municipality of Kogarah | St George | Sydney". The fact that the St George area is part of "Southern Sydney" should then be mentioned on the St George page, and the Southern Sydney page does indeed provide links back to the St George LGAs. JPD (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also talking about the boxes like Template:Sydney Kogarah suburbs. I can see your point about it being a bit long. Fair enough. Personally, I don't mind it being long because I think it's better to have as much information available as possible. Anyway, I'm not against your idea either. I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion of linking the 3 LGAs to St George and providing links in "St George" there to "Southern Sydney". Cheers.J Bar 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I've made the modifications in the way that looks best to me - if you're not happy with it, feel free to make more changes. JPD (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'Day JPD Just tried uploading my first photo to wikipedia. I've been taking heaps of photos of the local area recently and want to upload them. I had this message come back from a bot and was hoping you can help me with what I have to do exactly to avoid the photo being deleted. I'm not that tech savvy. Can you help me out? Below is the message that appered in 'my talk'. Any help would be appreciated.

Image Tagging for Image:CaptainCookBridge.gif Thanks for uploading Image:CaptainCookBridge.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages: Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Bar" J Bar 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Bar. I'm glad you've sorted out the correct tag for this image without any help. It's a nice pciture, too! JPD (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. I'm getting there ...eventually, and teaching myself a lot in the process.:) J Bar 23:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbrook Heights

Couldn't we invoke the speedy criterion that allows for deletion of pure vandalism. If your source doesn't know the place, I doubt anyone could make a good article out of it. Putting it on prod or AFD wastes everyone's time, right? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is a candidate for speedy deletion, then that's your decision, and I definitely won't complain if it is deleted. I would find it slightly strange that the "patent nonsense" criterion bothers to explicity rule out hoaxes, if they can instead be considered "pure vandalism", but that's just my view of it. JPD (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello JPD, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Warne

Just wondering why you reverted my edit to shane warne so readily. I understand the problem with stating that he is 'the greatest leg spinner', but I have not done that. I have merely rephrased the sentence as the orginal sounded awkward and a bit long winded.--58.169.32.94 09:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might not have noticed when you were editing that above that sentence there was a comment asking people not to change it without discussion on the talk page, or it will be reverted. If you really think it needs to be changed, you will need to discuss it on the talk page first. I personally don't think that the sentence as it stands is awkward at all, but that is for discussion at the talk page. JPD (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it no one has discussed the issue since December 2005, which is why I decided to be bold and change it myself. At any rate though, I haven't changed the sentence against what the current consensus is: that it shouldn't be written that shane warne is the 'the greatest leg spinner'. No one has stated that current sentence is the only variation of it to be used, so I think its a bit silly to revert it on that basis without explanation (as you did). However I don't wish to cause any arguments, so I'd best be off. thanks anyway.--58.169.32.94 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Sydney

Hi JPD, I undid the proposed deletion on Education in Sydney, and put my opinion on the talk page. --Zigger «º» 02:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackp's edits

You seem to be a frequent reverter of Jackp's vandalism, so I ask you to comment here: [1] (bottommost section). Skinnyweed 13:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with Jack!?! He has moved the Skyscrapers in Sydney page to Architecture in Sydney and added mostly POV fluff. --Merbabu 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hey, thanks for helping me out with that. Ill make sure copyright isnt infringed in the future. Thanks alot!--Krabby me 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I found B396.jpg are you able to tell me if photos from Yahoo groups are copyrighted if people post their favourite photos on the group. Thanks for that--Krabby me 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I think that copyright for the Yahoo group photos is still owned by the original owners. They have simply given Yahoo permission to use them to promote their group. That permission does not extend to us at Wikipedia. Of course, if the group only exists to share photos, then they might have given permission for others to use them anyway. These photos might be ok for us to use, they might not, but until we know we can't use them. We need to have: firstly, evidence of who the copyright holder of the photo is, and secondly, evidence that they have released the photos under an appropriate license. Hope that helps. JPD (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rv on Is mathematics a science?

Can't find your opinion on whether maths meets Popper's criteria in your last talk page archive. Please explain your rather hasty rv. Geologician 13:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the last archive of Talk:Mathematics, where this issue has been discussed several times. It is now being discussed again at that page. I reverted, firstly because the link given definitely does not provide evidence that Popper believed mathematics was not a science, and secondly because any explanation you give of why mathematics is not a science by his criteria is likely to be both original research and POV, given that this claim is disputed in the talk archive. JPD (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I found it in Archive 5. That is mostly a semantic discussion and provides no proper examples. My submittal was intended to provide a clear, if trivial example of why mathematics cannot be trusted implicitly. Surely examples have a place in discussions about whether maths is a science. The current Wiki section lacks these. If the heading of a section begs the question then surely POV and trivial examples are entirely appropriate.

So far, all examples that have been inserted have been original research, and all have been debatable and not particularly clear. I personally think that an example is not going to help, as the question simply is one of semantics, but feel free to discuss it on the talk page. This section is debated enough that any significant changes need to be discussed first and should definitely not come down on one side or the other. JPD (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Opera House in pop culture

jack's created another new page - once again by copying info from other pages. I can't get the merge/delete template to work. Do you know how??? Have a look: Sydney Opera House in pop culture --Merbabu 13:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Merbabu! The problem with your use of the template was that you put ¦ instead of |. I am not sure whether a merge template will lead to anything actually happening, and it's all already at the main article, so would you mind if I simply put it up for deletion? JPD (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did it get deleted? It seems so but Jack reinstated it!$#^((@*#!@!!! But i have now redirected it to the Sydney Opera House article. The guy is unbelievable. --Merbabu 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong - he has put another copy there, but in a different case. ie, Sydney Opera House in pop culture was first - then came Sydney Opera House in Pop Culture I always check his contributions page - have a look. He is one in a million. --Merbabu 12:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

football edits

hello - can you explain why you feel the "football" term should kept to English-speaking countries only? The inclusion of the non-English terms which are very similar adds to the article and further rounds off the use of the term (I thought). It's my first edit so can you let me know what you thought was wrong?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mickangel (talk • contribs) .

Other language words similar to football are definitely interesting information, but I don't think they are needed in the context of the football article. That section is trying to give a brief overview of the use of the word in English, leading to a disambiguation-style list of different types of football. There is a whole separate article on the word football, where more detail is given - maybe you could add the other languages there? Sorry for not explaining this at the time - I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia! JPD (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mickangel 11:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation - I have included it in the other article as you rightly suggested.[reply]

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page aFreeWorld for speedy deletion with the reason "only serves as link to non-notable webgroup". However, "only serves as link to non-notable webgroup" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle. "non-notable webgroup" sounds like criterion A7 to me. It also qualifies under A1, and when the tag was added, arguably A3. Could you delete aFreeWorld please? JPD (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about a website. Articles about websites are specifically not included in A7. There is context, so not A1 either. I recommend {{subst:prod}}. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original content described a non-notable group (A1), lacked context (A1) and any serious content (A3). Clearly, it has changed since then, so it can no longer be speedied. JPD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photos

Hey, I wrote to someone on a forum asking if they could release 2 of their photos into the public domain. I was wondering how i go about uploading these files to wikipedia. They are for football. Thanks for your help.--Krabby me 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! If the photographers have released the images into the public domain, then you can definitely upload them. After clicking Upload file, fill in the form, select PD in the licensing section, and in the Summary box, mention the author and preferably copy their statement that they release the images as well. JPD (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hello JPD, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 07:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Dear JPD your petulant reverting of the Australia article rather than attempting to either discuss or improve the article has been noted. If you are unable to contribute to the content, perhaps you should enlist the help of others who wish to improve Wikipedia as a collaborative work. I think it is unfortunate that you wish to maintain the schoolchild fantasy that the Commonwealth of Australia occupies the entire continent; Wikipedia has come a long way in dispelling such myths and mistakes of fact, and I hope that a sense of false national pride does not tempt people to prolong this mythos. To clarify the situation for you, the British isles are part of Europe, Japan is part of Asia, and New Guinea is a continental island of the Australian continent just like the smaller island of Tasmania is because they are both sitting on the Australian continental shelf. Just like Sumatra, Java, and the Lesser Sunda Islands are on the Asian continental shelf. Continental land masses are measured by their amount of land above the current sea level, that includes any parts which have become temporary islands. The fact that several species of Wallabies, kangaroo, echidna, and cassowary are endemic to New Guinea may result from the geographic history. The fact that the Commonwealth of Australia occupies almost 90% of the continent is not a large or important issue, but Wikipedia should not be promoting the mistaken mythos of the CoA ruling the entire continent either.58.107.9.159 02:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed that my "petulant reverting" has been noted, as it was not me that reverted it. I do, however support the revert, as your change was an ugly change with an unclear point. It is much better that you have now started to discuss it on the talk page, and I will make further comments on the topic there. JPD (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league

As far as I know the name 'rugby league' is of Australian origin. The early English goiverning body was known as the 'Northern Union' until 1922 and so the sport does not derive its name from the original governing body. It would have been known as 'Northern Union football' or similar back then.

The 1901 claim I think relates to the founding of a rugby league by the Northern Union. The RFU did not allow leagues in the 15 man code until 1986! AFAIK all competitions had been knock-out competitions similar to the Challenge Cup.

The game came to Australia in 1908 and the name 'rugby league' was enshrined as the name of the governing body. I think the Queensland Rugby Union were known as the Northern Union at the time so marketing the game as 'Northern Union' would have been rather difficult.GordyB 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have made some changes to History of rugby league. I hope they are accurate, and make things clearer. JPD (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Llyod

Hey JPD, I just noticed on the AFD for Frank Lloyd that you cited the credit list at tv.com. I'm not sure if that list helped sway your opinion but I thought I should let you know it seems to be incorrect. According to the lists at IMDB, there are several Frank Lloyd actors and tv.com seem to have blended some of the credits of an American actor and the Australian one. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I have amended my comment. JPD (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South East Asia and Indonesian

Thanks for your recent edit on this page. I should have removed it myself. What exactly did it mean? Who knows? I think it must have been put there by a Malaysian who thinks the Indonesians "stole" his language. ha ha. By the way, are you interested in SE Asi and Indonesia?? I've seen you around these articles and also Sydney. --Merbabu 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I thought it must be some Malaysian, too. I'm only vaguely interested in that sort of area, and look at those sort of articles fairly randomly, unlike Sydney type articles, which I actively watch and contribute too. JPD (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackp

I'd just revert him on sight and without engaging his socks in any discussion, blocking where necessary. It might take a few weeks, but he'll get bored eventually. They always do. Rebecca 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message, JPD. I agree, it is definitely the same person. It's very tedious and frustrating. But I it's lucky he always focuses on the same articles...it makes it easier to identify and contain him. I've reported him on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, feel free to add to it if you'd like to. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anythign to add - I just hope and admin gets round to blocking him soon. I had half an idea that you were an admin, but I guess we have to wait. JPD (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not an admin, but I actually thought you were until I came here to reply to your message and noticed you didn't have an admin box on your user page! Hopefully they'll get to him soon. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easties and Westies

I must say I am disappointed with what appears to be a real loathing for people from the West given that they make up the bulk of Sydney's population. I might be wrong given the articles you wrote on Marrickville where I come from. I would be happy to see both articles go. Failing that they should both stay. But my preference would be to see them both gone. They are both magnets for vitriol and have nothing nice to say to give NPOV. The argument that because Westies was coined first it should stay but because Easties was used latter it must go is not a significant reason to treat them differently. I enjoy debating with you.--WikiCats 14:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiCats. I am sorry that you think my reasoning is due to some sort of loathing for the people of the West of Sydney. The article is about people called Westies. It is true that it is used to refer to these people. It is also true that it is a widespread term that is also used with certain negative connotations. To report this is good. To say that the people of Western Sydney have the characteristics associated with the term is not, and the article shoudl not do this. My criteria for whether the article should stay or not have nothing to do with whether the term is positive or negative, simply whether it is notable and documented. If the fact that an article attracted vitriol was reason for deletion, we would delete George W. Bush. The fact that "eastie" came after "westie" is also irrelevant in the long term. The relevant factor is that "eastie" has not yet reached the same status in terms of its usage. This is reflected in that fact that it is not well documented, i.e. verifiable. If in a few years time, "eastie" has reached that status, I would want to have an article on it. JPD (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the spelling of "kerb"

I had no idea that Australians would spell curb- kerb. It is very strange to me.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I can understand that it would look strange! JPD (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled Kerb too in the UK :o) E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney

JPD, I’m not clear on why you removed the sentence about Sydney’s status as a global city, I put it there because it doesn’t belong in the economy section, I mean what the hell does a global city have to do with economy of a city? I’m puzzled more on why its global city status is apart of the economy section, more than on why you removed my sentence actually, please explains. 202.6.138.34 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Sydney#global_city_and_economy.... JPD (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sydney bus routes 100-199 on deletion review

Hi, thanks for the notice. I've left my comment on the drv page. - Bobet 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPD, I've relisted the article on the deletion review. We clearly had a consensus for overturning deletion this time, and yet the deletion was endorsed. Can you please vote for overturning this time? (JROBBO 04:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Consensus

Consensus or not, it is still just a guideline. And as such, I feel that my efforts (which are not alone, see my talk page) to standardize will go on. You play it off as 'my opinion' versus the 'consensus' when YOU are the one pushing it back down my throat, no? Rarelibra 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are arrived at via consensus. You shouldn't unilaterally change the guideline simply because you are sure you are right. Asking us to "read and realize" is approaching arrogant at the best of times, and downright ridiculous when at least two people have read your comments and replied to them displaying a contrary opinion. I don't know how you think your actions are anything other than an attempt to force your "standard" on the Australia article. You have already broken the three revert rule there. As for me forcing it back down your throat, I haven't insisted on anything other than that you leave the Australia article alone according to the wishes of those who are actually working on it, and leave the guideline as it was until changes have been agreed to by a consensus. JPD (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you know what? This isn't worth the effort. You are rude and inconsiderate, at best. Arrogance? Look in the mirror. As for this article, fine. Australia can stay as different as it already is. You can have your consensus. Just remember that it is merely that - consensus. Doesn't mean (1) that it's right or (2) enforced, as according to official Wiki rules. Agree to disagree and stop being so rude - and you should also ASSUME GOOD FAITH and not be so accusatory so quickly. Rarelibra 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think that you do not understand what I am saying. You, in good faith, decided to standardise all the headings. At least three people indicated that they did not welcome this standardisation at Australia, however you kept reverting. This is what is meant by "enforcing a guideline contrary to the wishes of those who are actually working on the article". I am perfectly happy to assume that you thought it meant something else, but I don't see what else it could mean. If I weren't assuming good faith, I would have reported you for 3RR, and you would be blocked. I havent' tried to impose my preferred version over yours on any other pages, simply resisted your change. I am already happy to disagree, and even talk about it on talk pages, just don't keep reverting simply because you are sure you are right. This is not how Wikipedia works. JPD (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J, apparently "Australian English" is biased opinion! [2] :o Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was very surprised when I saw that! Rarelibra seems to have a very different understanding of how Wikipedia works, which would explain why s/he finds our requests so offensive and doesn't understand them in the spirit intended. (Apparently, the US govt manuals of style are the "true" manuals of style, too!) JPD (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Oh! No, I cannot I'm afraid. I had always just assumed that that is where it comes from. Whichever version is true, I do feel that the facts that are known should be equitably presented, perhaps in a brief Etymology section, with whatever refs. we can find. That way the reader can come to their own conclusions. Whichever version is true, I must say that I was very surprised upon reading the NSW article to see no mention whatsoever of Wales! - as it is beyond doubt the inspiration for the name.

Now if only they had called it New North Wales, New Mid Wales, or New West Wales! (There is no "East Wales" - that bit now has a new(-ish) name: England.) :) --Mais oui! 09:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos Parliament House, Sydney

Thanks for all the great Sydney photos, J Bar! I don't suppose there's any chance you could get some good photos for the new article at Parliament House, Sydney? JPD (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. I work in the city, so I should be able to do it sometime soon.J Bar 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded some photos for the new article on Parliament House, Sydney today. J Bar (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim! It definitely improves the article. JPD (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hello JPD. I was wondering if you were up for having an RfA. You have all the skills in my opinion and you are on my hitlist here. I can write one up for you. I also know that Cyberjunkie had a thing in his userspace where he also had an RfA for you on his to do list. Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Blnguryn. Sorry to not reply earlier - I had quite a good day nowhere near a computer yesterday. I would be happy to have an RfA. I would be honoured if you would write a nomination up, although I am sure it could not be as flattering as some of the others you have written! JPD (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Blnguyen to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JPD. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

.Blnguyen | rant-line 09:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can count correctly, whoever is the 21st to support this RfA will bring up 1000 total supports for my noms. It's my 3 month anniversary as admin too :) Blnguyen | rant-line 09:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your candidacy JPD. You'd make a great admin, and I'm happy to see you've finally been nominated (I had plans to nom you myself).--cj | talk 09:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deville's RfA

File:Scarlettanager99.jpg

Hello, JPD, and thank you for the support and kind words on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 00:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Hair edit conflict

Sorry about that! Must have opened to revert while you were removing the sentence. Ansell 11:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'd guess you opened just after I'd made the edit - these things happen sometimes! JPD (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JPD

I am pleased to support your nomination for admin. --WikiCats 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, WikiCats. I am glad that our disagreements about NPOV and the "name-calling war" have not got in the way, and hope to keep working with you constructively. JPD (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good Luck JP. And I'm sorry if I caused you stress. --WikiCats 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPD, I left a question for you on the RfA page. I would appreciate if you could answer it. Best regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asterion. I have answered your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JPD - I'd definitely appreciate being able to do moves when I come across them, and so will be glad to help out with backlogs. JPD (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. You had my vote anyway. I think you will be a hard-working and competent admin. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations --WikiCats 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Algorithm definition: example?

I am amazed that you found this because it isn't linked to anything and I just created it a few days ago. It's far from complete, obviously. Please look at who has been editing algorithm, and Turing machine. If -- after you're read the discussions -- you have some constructive suggestions re those articles I would appreciate reading them in their discussion pages.

I don't quite know what you mean by "moving the article to my user page/space" or whatever. I don't know how to do that. I need a place to work it over because the formatting in Wikipedia is so difficult.

I'd appreciate a bit of patience here. wvbaileyWvbailey 19:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. As you say, the article is obviously not complete. Since to me it seems not even complete enough to be clear what it is about and allow others to contribute to it, I don't think it should be the main article space. I can understand that you want to work on it in Wiki formatting before it is ready, and that is why I suggest you could work on it at User:Wvbailey/Algorithm definition: example or something like that, until it is ready to be in the main space. This is a good way to work on things before they are ready, there you won't have any problems with "�impatient" users. You can move it by clicking on the "move" tag at the top of the page. Apart from that, as I mentioned I think a more general article on definitions would be more helpful and more inline with the Wikipedia style than an article on an example. I hope this helps. JPD (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

After an impressive showing of support, you're now an admin, so use the new tools wisely to help out the project. Be conservative with them, especially at first, and re-read the policies before acting. After getting the hang of them, jump in and help clear out the backlogs. Have fun, and keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) From Special:Log:

2006-09-05T22:27:04 Taxman (Talk | contribs | block) changed User:JPD's rights from (none) to sysop

Congrats on your successful RfA! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to support you when the edit conflict made that impossible as you were elevated to become an administrators! Congrats: My comments were: "Support: More new administrators are most welcome! Only they can bring into necessary insight and reforms to ensure the continuous growth of the Project. More administrators shall also free many administrators who find themselves mostly 'administering' instead of doing anything else!" --Bhadani 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations JPD! 94-1-0! DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN...you're be a great admin. =) Best of luck, man. --Nishkid64 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on Congrat's!!! Very good. Be sure to grab your Admin userbox. You earned it. JungleCat talk/contrib 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!--Bugtrio | Talk 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian - Talk 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!! QuantumGroupie 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations JPD Ugur Basak 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! If you have any questions about being an admin, please ask! I'll do my best to answer. (aeropagitica) 19:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:00 (UTC)

Well, a big congratulations to you JPD - and a pleasant surprise for the unexpected tally - perhaps I underestimated you....and it seems that people are reading and editing User:Blnguyen/RfA. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work – be careful with those shiny new buttons, now :) — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 00:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Congratulations! -- Samir धर्म 02:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, JPD. I didn't even realise your RfA had finished and was thrilled to receive your message. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great result. Best wishes, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

RfA

Oh, I think what happened was that I went to vote on someone else's, but somehow clicked on your RfA, because I remember seeing one just the other day that I thought I had voted on but actually didn't. I must have clicked on yours and put my vote there. Sorry about that, and congratulations. Michael 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walking in Sydney

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that JPD, the problem was a poor implementation of the template (it was being put above the heading, so that when you click the "edit" link from the day page, you don't see the template). See Wikipedia talk:AfD categories#Small bug/feature with categorization. --bainer (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Russell Apartments

Fair point about the apartments. I wasn't able to find a suitable category, so I used nonsense. You category is better though, obviously. Thanks! +Fin- 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you kidding aren't ya mate

Don't tell me your a Hopf Algebra Victim as well... LW77 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not kidding at all, although I've only really touched one Hopf algebra on Wikipedia. I was really surprised when I looked at your contributions! JPD (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I'm in good company LW77 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I was mistaken.. LW77 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I have replaced the photograph of the Hindu Neasden Temple with a photograph of Saint Paul's Cathedral as it is London's most iconic religious landmark and is in central London whereas the Hindu Temple at Neasden is irrelevant not iconic to London at all at is on the outter most edges of what can be called London anyway. Also having a picture of the Hindu Neasden Temple may give the impression to people that London is a mostly Hindu city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

I see what you are saying. I actually think it is good to have some less iconic pictures of Outer London in the article, whether or not the Temple is appropriate. Anyway, it is probably best to discuss this at Talk:London, whether other people are likely to join in the discussion. JPD (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a picture of Neasden Temple to represent minority religions inside of London.

Re: Davin Felth

Just finished the merge. Thanks for alerting me to the closure! BryanG^(talk) 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]