User talk:Find bruce

This is Find bruce's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Frankie Thomas (cyclist)

I tend to agree, I put a question mark against living status, which shows as living. At Category:Possibly living people it says that people who are born after 1900 but there is no evidence of their death should be treated as possibly living, although you would think that a still living cyclist born in 1906 would be well known. A very small number of people live past 110.--Grahame (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is unlikely he is living I do agree. I did send a message to someone who seems to be more of a expert on the 100+ people. (Though nothing can beat when I found someone recently somehow listed as living person when they were born in 1864. Ummm yeah right) Wgolf (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclists

Nice work on expanding the stubs that I started. Always nice to see the articles grow. Thanks for your hard work. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Lugnuts, I started with Ossie Nicholson which led to Richard Lamb & on it goes - it is a bit addictive, but much easier with newspapers online through Trove. Next thing missing are some photos so I might see if I can find some good sources. Find bruce (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from High Court of Australia into Chapter III Court. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa I wasn't aware of the policy for attribution, while I am a contributor to the copied text, I am not the sole contributor Find bruce (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Find bruce, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senate tables

Hey there, good to see some colour going into these. Can you please make sure, though, that "Hon" is not part of the link? Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Frickeg. The linking happens as part of template:sortname. As I understand it if you put "Hon" before the sortname, it gets sorted under H. I have a couple of ideas to fix it. Leave it with me & I will see how they work. Find bruce (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No dramas at all. I hadn't thought of that - great point! If it can't be fixed it can't - the sorting is more important - but it might be an idea to put a full stop after it ("Hon.") just to differentiate it from their actual name. Frickeg (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frickeg that turned out easier than I thought. Have a look at Members of the Australian Senate, 1901–1903 For those with an honorific I used the template:sort with a manual "surname, first name" sortkey which allowed me to exclude "Hon" from the wikilink. It seems to look right & sort correctly. If you are happy with that page I will update the others. I will also put a comment on the talk page to explain the work-around. -- Find bruce (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! A couple of minor points:

This wasn't you, but it should be Labour until 1912. If you're going to be updating them anyway ...?
There shouldn't be a full stop after Dr (that is US usage).
I have always included "Sir" within the link, but have been unable to find anything in the MOS to provide guidance on this. To me it seems more natural since the "Sir" is a different kind of title to "Hon".
Dobson was only Tariff Reform 1903-06 (I suspect only until 1904 in reality, but as we discussed we have little info on this). I fixed this one.
I like the notes for the casual vacancy end-term, but I think that instead of "casual" it should have the year of term expiry. Any reason it's note "f" rather than "d" (or even "a")?
Another thing from years ago, but if you're going through updating them would you mind removing the HoR terms from people like Best and Higgs? None of our state lists, or later federal ones, include service in other chambers.
I believe in sortable lists we're supposed to link every occurrence of things like the states and parties. Given this I would be inclined to include the notes on parties as general notes rather than linking to a specific name.

Really glad you're having a crack at these! A few years ago I designed a table to significantly expand these lists (here), but never got around to introducing them for formal consensus and implementation. They'd be a lot of work but I'd still like to try one day (when I have more time)! I'd be interested to hear what you think of them. Frickeg (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Frickeg. No problem with Labour, Dr & Sir & removing the HoR terms. Thanks for clarifying Dobson.

Casual vacancies- I started off with showing until the end of the term, until I came to Members of the Australian Senate, 1920–1923 which highlights one of the complicating factors pre 77 - when Garling & Vardon jnr were appointed, but were replaced at the December 1922 election for a term ending in June 1923 & MacDonald was similarly replaced for a term ending in June 1926. It seemed to me to be a bit confusing to list those 3 as having a term later than they served. Another way to deal with that would be to list the date of that election - they are all known now, even if they weren't at the time of their appointment. Technically in 1903 the terms of Saunders, Mackellar & Reid ended on 16 December rather than 31 December, but I am not aware of any practical effect or indeed any source that cared. With the notes, I initially used reference groups which looks great on the page,^{[n 1]}, clearly distinguished from references.^[1] but it gets confused with the numbering at the bottom of the page.

^ Note list

^ Reference list

To avoid that I have tried using Template:Notelist, which does the same thing but uses a letter code. The advantage over manual notes is you get a mouseover pop-up showing the text, as well as links to the reference & back-up to the text. The lettering is applied automatically, based on the first occurence on the page, so if we want a or d, its simply a matter of fudging the first location.

I have wondered about linking the States at all - is there going to be a reader interested in lists of members of the Australian senate who don't know what the states are? Easy enough to wikilink the parties & I agree with you about general notes - do you think as part of the lead, or keep them as notes but referred to in the lead?

Your draft has more information than a simple list which I like. I wonder though whether it gets a bit unwieldy with the expanded Senate. I will think about it some more & get back to you, not that either of us are in a hurry to take on the extra work. -- Find bruce (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough

Hey! So it's not a huge thing, but I just feel like it's a bit too much from a "historical revisionism" point of view. The election happened and Culleton/Day were elected, and while that may have later been invalidated, I think actually striking through their names is going too far when we are presenting the results themselves - I feel like the footnote is a far better way of dealing with the issue. I mean, this isn't even that rare - election results have been invalidated a lot (Senate ones not so much, admittedly), and I feel like the strikethrough is trying to solve a problem that isn't there, and it kind of creates a misleading impression if you don't know the full backstory (Georgiou, for example, was elected at the countback, not the election, and we shouldn't suggest otherwise). Frickeg (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Template:Cite AustLII

Hi. Your recent (3 May) edit to Beare-head engine went a little wrong. I've fixed this one, but you may want to take another look at some of your similar past edits and/or tweak how you do these edits in future. TuxLibNit (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My holiday

Hi, Find bruce

We've been complementing each other I believe rather usefully, so I'd like to let you and any other reader of this know that I will be on holiday for about the next month. Good luck! Wikiain (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judges

Thank you! I've got a really broad to-do list for the project, so while I'm going to try to do a bunch of judges, the more the merrier in that effort. The only one of those I was necessarily planning on doing was Collier because she's also a justice of the Supreme Court of PNG. Your articles yesterday were really impressive - you've clearly got a bit better access to sources than I do. It'd be great if there's anything you could add to any I tackle with those extra sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on Re Canavan, great job. I was keen to read through the article and so as I did, I made a few changes to what seemed to me to be minor tidying up grammar and wording etc. If you have any problems with any of my changes, feel free to ask or change back, I just thought after all your work a second pair of eyes might help as sometimes it's hard to see the trees for the forest. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. Well done, Find bruce! Wikiain (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

hi Find bruce, hope you don't mind, but i have added Jane Mathews to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge as it is an article about an ozzie:))

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Robert

It would've been the sensible thing for him (and the LNP) to do. His reindorsement last time reminded me of Labor and Craig Thomson in 2010 - clearly there's still some more stuff to come out there. Given the general tenor of this government (like Rudd/Gillard/Rudd, but worse!), seems likely there's more drama to come! Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but please comment only for improvement of the article. Wikiain (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Find bruce. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An exceptional barnstar for you

	The World Contest Laurels
	Thankyou for the work you put into the Women in Red World Contest!! -♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I make it $16.50 that you've won. Please double check. If you would like to donate any of your winnings into the Women in Red Book Fund to raise money to buy books for editors of women topics who need them on demand please add your name and the amount you'd like to donate in the sub section below the prize winners on the main contest page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not join Women in Red?

Thank you for creating articles on women and their works over the past few weeks as a participant in our World Contest. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
If you would like to receive news of future WiR events and participate in our discussions, you might now be interested in becoming a member of Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently 17.25% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for December:

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/61|Seasonal celebrations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/62|First ladies]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/63|Go local]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

It's been really great to see all the work you've been putting in with articles on women judges - Australian law (and the judiciary especially) has been such a neglected topic and you're really doing a stellar job. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the encouraging words @The Drover's Wife:, nearly as much as the proof reading - I struggle to see the errors in my own work. While I occasionally dabble in current issues, there are plenty of people contributing there & so I prefer to work in neglected areas & women lawyers fits that bill. There are some great sites that make it easy though, such as Australian Women Lawyers & the Pioneering women. The women in red contest saw articles on almost all women judges of superior courts so I am now working my way through them to add an infobox & bring them up to start class. If there are any that you think need some work, please feel free to let me know. Find bruce (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is my to-do list: WA seems to be pretty bad: Lindy Jenkins and Janine Pritchard are as short as they come, and current judges Katrina Banks-Smith and Gail Archer and past judge Narelle Johnson lack articles. SA is still missing Trish Kelly. Vic is still missing Jane Dixon and Rosemary Balmford. Berna Collier on the Federal Court still needs one. Helen Wood in Tas, Rita Zammit and Melanie Sloss in Vic and Debra Mullins and Ann Lyons in Qld are very basic. I'm finally going to have some time on my hands come Friday so will be tackling some of these, but you always seem to manage to turn up more than I do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senate lists

Hey there, I noticed a couple of things when I was going through recent Senate lists updating Brandis' and Colbeck's terms and just wanted to raise them here.

I actually quite like the little summary tables at the top, but they need to clarify that they depict the Senate as it was when the new term began (i.e. 1 July 20XX). The notes do imply that but it needs to be clearly stated somewhere.
Something to note for the future: per WP:MCSTJR, surnames beginning with "Mc" (as opposed to "Mac") are sorted as "Mc" rather than "Mac". So, for example, Jenny McAllister would appear after Brett Mason in an alphabetised list. (I don't blame you for not knowing this - I knew this had been a thing somewhere, but it took me a really long time to find it!) I can't be bothered to fix all of these now, especially if I might be going through them fixing up the notes soon anyway.

Cheers, Frickeg (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Frickeg: I have always been of the view that Mc should be sorted as Mac - probably because my family name has been spelt both ways over generations. Never knew wp had a policy, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Out of curiosity I checked the lists in Hansard & right from 1901 they were sorted as Mc. Agree with you about the summaries - I'll follow your lead on how to clarify them. Find bruce (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reasoning is that the Mc-as-Mac thing is rather old-fashioned and is deprecated by the majority of style guides - it's seen as a relic of the days of paper and ink. Although I was not involved in any of the discussions, I suspect that ease of machine sorting played a part as well (indeed I believe this is a major reason that Mc-as-Mac is dying out). I do find it very surprising indeed that Hansard was going with Mc-as-Mc right from the start! (The Parliamentary Handbooks, by contrast, seem to go with Mc-as-Mac.)

With the table summaries - I'm thinking maybe a heading, "Senate as at 1 July 20XX, with changes noted"? Kind of clumsy but I'm struggling to come up with something better. Maybe worth seeking further input on that one. Frickeg (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Members of the Australian Senate, 1929–1932 ? Find bruce (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! Frickeg (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frickeg: I think I have fixed all of the Mc sort order issues & have added a title to the tables as per 1929-32 for all the pages up to 2008 when they change to using a different format - I will need to check the effect before I do anything to those. For Senates after a double dissolution I have used the first sitting day of the Senate - eg 1975 Let me know if I have missed any. Find bruce (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for doing this. For DDs - if we are being technical it should be the day of the election as that is when their terms start (1 July is not necessarily the first sitting day after a half-Senate). But I will probably be going through to fix up the notes soonish so I don't mind making that change then. Frickeg (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs retirement/resignation

Although the motivation for Gibbs leaving the Court was the impending operation of section 72 of the Constitution, he actually resigned on 5 February, one day prior to the operation of section 72 on 6 February (his birth date being 7 February). It is clear that this was done in order to ensure that Mason could be sworn in immediately (6 February being a Friday) rather than the following Monday.

Consistent with how the resignation/retirement part has been dealt with in the article, I believe this should be recorded as a resignation not a retirement because he would have had to formally resign his commission on 5 February rather than simply allow the Constitution to operate on 6 February. Although it was a matter of one day, there seems to me to be no reason to distinguish this situation from those of Kirby and French, for example, whose resignations were motivated by the impending operation of section 72 but chose to do so a few weeks earlier in order to allow replacement justices to commence at the beginning of the Court's term. Shadow007 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shadow007 its an interesting point that I will have a think about. If that approach were adopted, wouldn't it follow that every "retirement" before then would in fact be a resignation? The designation of retirement / resignation seems to me to be a bit random. I find it hard to accept that Rich's cessation of office aged 87 was anything but a retirement. Similarly Starke aged 79. On the other end of the scale, Gaudron, aged 60, would appear to be a resignation. More fundamentally are you aware of any authoritative list that deals with the issue ? Find bruce (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Find bruce: I am not aware of any source that definitively establishes the difference. There are two relevant time periods; first, prior to mandatory retirement and, second, after mandatory retirement. In relation to the first period, I think the difference comes down to the career the Justice had after leaving the Court. So Griffith held no substantial positions after leaving, therefore is said to have retired, whereas Isaacs became Governor-General and so is said to have resigned in order to take up that office. It appears that this has been very inconsistently applied. For example, Charles Powers is listed as resigning but there is nothing in his article to suggest he held any substantial positions after leaving the Court, therefore I think that is a retirement.

In relation to the second period, I think the difference is whether the Justice leaves the Court prior to the operation of section 72 and mandatory retirement. Leaving aside Gibbs, all Justices who served up until the day before their 70th birthday (Mason, Brennan, McHugh, Callinan, Gummow, Heydon, Hayne) would be retirements whereas the other judges that resigned before their 70th birthdays (Wilson, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, Kirby, Crennan, French) would be resignations. The article is inconsistent here too because Kirby and French are currently listed as retirements although previous versions of the article (which included an edit by me re French which was later changed) had both of these as resignations. Similarly, Gaudron was previously a resignation and then was edited to a retirement at some point. I have not tracked down all the relevant edits.

It might be that the column is rather pointless. For example, List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States does not contain such a column. It could perhaps be replaced by a "Notes" column where significant things such as whether the Justice died in office or resigned to take up another positions, like Governor-General, could be noted. Shadow007 (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow007: I think this is worthwhile discussing, but that should take place on the talk page of the article so that any other interested editor can have their input - are you happy for me to simply copy it across ? Find bruce (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Find bruce: Yes, happy with that. Shadow007 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red's Monthly achievement initiative

Hi there! As you were so active in the World Contest, you might be interested in August's Monthly achievement initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfA !vote

Hi there! I noticed that at L235's RfA, your oppose is predicated on a forum post that Lourdes linked to. This falls afoul of our very strict WP:DOX policy. It should have never been linked to, as L235 has never mentioned it themselves. For privacy reasons, please remove the quote from the forum that your !vote contains. I also think you should strike the whole comment. Potential admins have the same right to privacy as other Wikipedians and linking to an off-wiki account that an editor has never mentioned is serious harassment. Thank you. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 08:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bilorv but as I do not agree with your interpretation of WP:DOX and the link contained no personal information identified therein. If a crat strikes my reasons for the vote then so be it, but in the absence of a clear policy I will not be doing so voluntarily. Find bruce (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AustLII ID - proposed property on Wikidata

I note your interest in Australian legal issues, and wonder if you'd be interested in commenting on wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/AustLII_ID. --99of9 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation @99of9:, however I have never dabbled in wikidata & have no idea of the benefits or implications for the project. Is there a primer anywhere ? Find bruce (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whole series of events coming up Wikidata Tour Down Under. Here is the official Introduction. But what inspires me the most about it is how once the data is in, you can ask powerful questions across the whole dataset, connecting properties that would not usually be stored in the same database. Here are a long list of Examples. Legal items tend to be very underdeveloped at the moment, so for example here is a well populated item wikidata:Q52226969, but there are very few clearly identified Australian cases, and even most of them have very little other info attached. --99of9 (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @99of9:. I am familiar with R v Governor of SA; ex parte Vardon, having been the primary contributor to the article Blundell v Vardon which includes the 3 cases that were part of that controversy. Looking at wikidata:Q52226969, it does not link to the section that discusses the case & as I understand it, cannot link to a section, nor to the 5 articles that refer to the case. Unless there is some way to automate the process, for example using Template:Cite AustLII it would appear to involve considerable work to populate the data. While data is underutilised in legal matters, I am not yet seeing how this work would pay off. I am not opposed to the concept, I'm just not enthusiastic about contributing. Find bruce (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that wikidata only associates links with whole wiki articles, not sections. A link between both wikidata items is possible (i.e. one could use property "part of" to link to show that it was a subsection of the other). Similarly cases that cite a particluar case can use the property "cites". Wikidata is big on automation and semi-automation. Once a property is available, then the process starts with matching to existing items (e.g. via the citation template you mention, or using semi-automatic fuzzy matching tools like Mix'n'Match that are in widespread use at Wikidata). Then if the database you have matched has data of its own, this can sometimes be imported automatically. No problem if you don't want to participate, but it might be worth keeping in touch if we do any mass imports. --99of9 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian judges

Hi Find Bruce When you add red-linked items to DAB pages, could you be sure to include a blue link where the item is mentioned, as I did for John Bond, Peter Davis, and Susan Brown? DAB pages are supposed to lead readers to existing content and stand-alone red links tend to be removed. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Leschnei:, both for for letting me how it should be done, why & for fixing up those three judges. Find bruce (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Leschnei (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Federal Court of Bankruptcy

Hello! Your submission of Federal Court of Bankruptcy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dahn (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Find bruce. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Federal Court of Bankruptcy

On 23 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Federal Court of Bankruptcy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Australian Federal Court of Bankruptcy lost its jurisdiction in 1977 but was not formally abolished until 1995? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Federal Court of Bankruptcy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Federal Court of Bankruptcy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

40 hour week in article Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration

Just wanted to mention I added an entry on the CCA Talk page. I highlighted the opportunity to expand the Notable Decisions section with the 40-hour week case. I left some details of citable sources I came across while editing the section for readability. Prime Lemur (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for your work on West Australian judges - there is clearly a deficit on both side of the articles in that area JarrahTree 01:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Further improvement is on my list- identifying the shortfalls was one of the reasons I have created the list of judges for WA & elsewhere. Sadly that list is long, but it won't be a disaster if it takes time. Find bruce (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Industrial Relations Court of Australia

On 16 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Industrial Relations Court of Australia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the existence of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia was so brief that Chief Justice Robert French characterized it as "The tide went in, the tide went out."? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Industrial Relations Court of Australia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Industrial Relations Court of Australia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Security of tenure list

Amazing job on List of Australian judges whose security of tenure was challenged - you've really done a thorough job, explained all the cases really well and come up with a smart way of framing that list. It's such a pleasure to log on and see new stuff like this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Thanks for your kind words of encouragement. I have spoken a few times about judicial independence in Australia & am working on an article & found it was easier to create the list first so that individual cases then illustrate the points made by the sources. Find bruce (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to reading it. Was Richard Pithouse excluded for any reason? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timing was the only reason Richard Pithouse wasn't included - yet. Find bruce (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: I have added Richard Pithouse (& a couple of early ones I had missed). The main article Judicial independence in Australia is now up. Find bruce (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Judicial independence in Australia

On 17 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judicial independence in Australia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chief Justice Murray Gleeson suggested that public confidence in the independence of Australian judges largely consists of taking things for granted? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judicial independence in Australia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Judicial independence in Australia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Admiralty case law

I do not accept your reversions of my edits of "Category: Maritime case law"

Please note that the term Admiralty Law is not only going out of use, (Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppards's book "Modern Admiralty Law" became "Modern Maritime Law" in subsequent editions; and the LJMU module "Admiralty Law" became "Maritime Law") but also it strictly covers only "wet law' (i.e. liens, ship arrest, collisions, salvage, towage, etc). I changed the category to Maritime case law, as "Maritime law" covers both wet and dry law (the latter covering carriage of goods by sea, the MLC, marine insurance, etc). The cases in the category so far are mainly dry law (and NOT admiralty cases).

I will not revert your reverts immediately, but I may do so unless I receive a reasoned and convincing response. Arrivisto (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto: when you go to Category:Maritime case law, you will notice that it is a redirect & comes with the message "Note: This category should be empty", hence my revert. This reflects the situation that Maritime law is also a redirect. I agree with what user:Postdlf said in answer to the same post on their talk page. If there is consensus to rename Admiralty law then changing the category would be appropriate. Find bruce (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Find bruce: I'm prepared to wait for consensus. Perhaps there is (not for the first time) a difference in UK & US usage. In the UK, "admiralty law" is now regarded as an archaism. In the meantime, I will create an independent category Maritime law, which will become the home of "dry law" cases. Arrivisto (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto: I wouldn't claim expertise about either UK or US usage. In Australia our High Court's jurisdiction is defined following the US example of "Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction". There is currently mixed usage of admiralty law, maritime law & the compendium, admiralty and maritime law. I am not aware of any consensus that divides cases into wet law & dry law - the phrase "wet law" does not appear to be used in any Australian law journal or reported case. Mandaraka-Sheppards's book "Modern Maritime Law" includes matters that you would define as wet law. I note that the article Admiralty law goes no further than the unsourced weasel words that "some lawyers" hold a view that they are distinct. There does not, at present, appear to be enough articles in the category to warrant further classification. In any event the two articles you have previously tagged fit solely within your definition of wet law, Wake-Walker v SS Colin W Ltd- collision & SS Kalibia v Wilson- while it may look at first blush like a compensation claim, was in fact about the arrest of the ship until a bond of £500 was paid. Again I would recommend that you begin by proposing the article be renamed to attract a wider audience. If you are not sure how to commence the process, let me know & I will help. Find bruce (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Find bruce: The page https://www.law.ac.uk/futurelawyers/practice-areas/shipping/ provides: "While some shipping lawyers are generalists, most tend to specialise and fall into either “wet shipping”, which relates to accidents on the high seas or “dry shipping”, which deals with contractual and commercial matters and can involve a contentious side, for example, where there are contractual disputes." I assure you, this terminology is in common usage in English maritime circles. Arrivisto (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitor-Generals

That makes perfect sense - sorry, I had assumed since everyone else was linked that it was a case of treating it as an inherently notable office. I just did some searches into them both since you mentioned it. Berkeley has 214 newspapers.com hits that generally seem fairly substantive (he seems to have also been a high-profile chairman of the bar) and I'm pretty confident I could write a decent article about him. Graham is harder to search for due to his common name but seems to be more borderline: "Douglas Graham QC" turns up a lot of "Graham said so-and-so on behalf of so-and-so-client" and "Douglas Graham" "solicitor-general" turns up a lot of standard solicitor-general stuff but the argument could well be made. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if we're treating them the same way it might be better to just throw one together on Graham as well and have articles on everyone - happy to go with your call anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NSW Parliament cite template

Thanks so much for all the work and cleanup you're doing in this area - the cite template is great! Frickeg (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Senate election, seat allocation

Hi, where did you get this info from?

Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990

The effect of this system was that Democrat Senators Paul McLean and Janet Powell got a long term instead of National Senators David Brownhill and Julian McGauran. There was no net effect on Labor and Liberal in that in South Australia, Labor Senator Graham Maguire got a long term instead of Liberal Senator Robert Hill, while in Queensland, Liberal Senator Warwick Parer got a long term instead of Labor Senator Gerry Jones.[5][6] Senators took their seats immediately following the election on 11 July 1987. The four territory senators were elected in July 1987 and their terms ended at the next federal election, which was March 1990.

Odgers only mentions the Democrats and Nationals Senators. I want to update the info here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html#difference-two-seats

Also, I would like to have a separate wikipedia page for the discussion of this particular issue (two methods to allocate long and short term seats). It keeps getting knocked back as "undue". I am currently discussing it on the Talk:Derryn_Hinch#3_year_senate_term page, and would appreciate any suggestions on the best way to do it.

Oz freediver (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #5 - Rotation of Senators (PDF): at page 197 per Liberal Senator Teague "I note that there would be a change over from Labor to a Liberal senator in Queensland and the reverse would apply in my State of South Australia". Jones, Parer, Hill & Maguire are all identified by Labor Senator Ray at p 210. Find bruce (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oz freediver (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce, can you please do a text search in this article Section_13_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia for "and 1914". The second reference to 1914 is a bit confusing. I think this was one of your edits.Oz freediver (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes in member lists

I really like this solution - great thinking! It would be nice if there were a way to make that final note invisible, but I suspect there might not be and I think the benefits in this case vastly outweight the oddness. Frickeg (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new whitelist proposal - firsttimemarinekeeper.com

Hi, You have blacklisted a site, firsttimemarinekeeper.com. I wonder if you did actually click any of the links you have removed? I can't understand why you would remove them because each link was a direct link to a page that was about how to care for that particular species of fish in an aquarium. If you visit the site you will not see any adverts or sales pages as it is not a site for making money, it is just a resource for people who are looking for information about how to care for a certain type of fish in an aquarium. It is a useful site with solid information about care requirements, water parameters, minimum tank sizes etc. Please reconsider adding it to a blacklist. User: Xoxpebblesxox

[1] Note list

[2] Reference list

[n 1]

[1]