User talk:Nbound/Archives/2013/June

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

Hume Highway

I don't think there is evidence that Hume Highway extends to the Sydney CBD. From street directories and Google Maps Hume Highway ends at Great Western Highway in Summer Hill. So if you agree with me, can you fix the infobox in Hume Highway? Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, yep... my mistake, went overboard with the inner city changes... thanks for the heads up, back to summer hill. -- Nbound (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on Mike Trout history

Just wanted to give you a heads up, in case you see how screwed up the history of Mike Trout is, that we had the reviewer version of an edit conflict. I reverted myself back to your version (in reality it's a null-edit from your version) but just wanted to let you know. Thanks for catching those edits and giving a good summary. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott's Crossing Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sydney-Newcastle....... Expressway?

How is the F3 actual name Sydney-Newcastle Expressway? In street directories it is called Sydney Newcastle Freeway. Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

See pages 15-16 of a recent NSW Govt Gazette (a state gazette is basically the most reliable source on road naming) - -- Nbound (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It contradicts with RMS....unbelievable! Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that the gazette calls it the Sydney–Newcastle Expressway, but I've never heard it called "Expressway" before. It's pretty laughable these days anyway. Used to be that I could drive from Newcastle to Sydney without ever having to touch the cruise control once I'd engaged it but these days it's lucky if you can travel more than a kilometre or two without disengaging, especially after the Gosford inmates hit the road. I drove down to Sydney 10 days ago and while a lot of the exits had alphanumeric markers, the only signs marking the road say "F3". Even recent projects still call it that, like the F3 to Raymond Terrace extension. --AussieLegend () 14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

RMS calls it the expressway too:
DMR (Department of Main Roads) was even calling it that back in 1966: (you can only view the book title, but its in the state library - its the plans for that section)
The do of course call it the "F3 Freeway" as well, as this is the popular name for it.
Nbound (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Never knew this before!! Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
RMS may be calling it the expressway, but that doesn't convince me that was the name. Unfortunately I've seen how a simple glitch can cause an instant rename that doesn't match the paper records. There's a little story about this at User:AussieLegend#Electronic information isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Essentially my mother's street has been a "street" since 1947, when it came into existence. Some time in 2007/08 it suddenly changed to "avenue" on all electronic sources. After 3 years of trying to get Sensis to fix it I contacted Telstra customer complaints who changed their records while I was on the phone to them. In 3 days, even Google Earth had changed. --AussieLegend () 14:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The DMR source is on paper, and the NSW Gazette was already issuing a correction of their Feb renaming (hence why the table is repeated). I doubt we will get a much clearer source on this. I dont mind if Syd-Newc Fwy is re-added, it is called that by people. Just keep the Exprwy version too :) -- Nbound (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The DMR source refers to planning, not the final road name, so it's not authoritative as a final name. However, it wasn't originally a "free" way as it was tolled, so it might have been called that. I expect the freeway designation might be a carryover from the F3 days. Interestingly, RMS also calls it the "Sydney to Newcastle Freeway",[1] and so do the the official topographic maps in my GPS tracking software, most notably 9232 NEWCASTLE. Yet another case of confusuin over the actual name of a road. --AussieLegend () 15:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ive made minor edits to the lead, Im listing the Expwy last in both the infobox [now plainlisted] and the lead, as it is clearly less used in the public arena than the other two. -- Nbound (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

3 opinion

Thank you for responding at User talk:Wwwhatsup#ADV. Wwwwhatsup has responded, I do not want to bias you and it is ok if you do not want to respond to him, but maybe you do. He already knows about LINKSPAM policy because he tells others about it, I think he does not think it applies to him? He has made maybe 100 of those kinds of links. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for responding, he has responded again and I have responded back, and he responded again. I don't know if I am misunderstanding something, I will just let you read the response. Tell me if you don't want to be involved, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding. Yes it can be a lot of work dealing with this, I understand. I don't think DRN is right because it is not a dispute? This? [2] Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

At RFC it says "A user-conduct RfC (RFC/U) is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Third opinion, a quick, simple way to get an outside view. Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RFC/U not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." It seems RFC/U is correct because it is about policy. Do you agree? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with {{AUshield}}

I have addressed some problems in WP:AURD_infobox_mini-MOS about {{AUshield}}. Please have a look and help me solve them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcnut1996 (talkcontribs) 06:44, 1 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Put "delete" instead of "support"

Sorry to tell you but you have to put "delete", "keep" or "merge" instead of "support" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroad 5 (Sydney). Thanks Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry yours is Redirect. See WP:GD#Recommendations and outcomes Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Your comment is requested at Talk:Mahāvīra. (I am completely new to Rfc. Sorry if this is not proper procedure) neo (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

KML data

Do you have any problems with the KML implementation at Infobox Australian road. Apparently Evad does,[3] but he's sick at the moment so I'm not exactly sure what problems he has. Aside from some articles that don't have infoboxes at all, Kwinana Freeway is now the only article using {{Attached KML}} and I was wondering if you had any issues. Anything else you'd like to comment on would be of interest. --AussieLegend () 03:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

None specifically, though I would be interested in his concerns. -- Nbound (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought KML in the infobox was meant to be a way of providing map information in the infoboxes of articles where map images haven't been made. In this discussion AussieLegend wrote "It's up to individual editors to decide which is more appropriate for that article, |kml=yes or {{Attached KML}}, and that really depends on what map information is available (map image, loactor map, coordinates etc)". For short articles like Mouat Street, without any other sort of map for the infobox, having the kml there makes some sense, and there is no need for links at both the top and bottom of the articles. For more substantial articles, such as Kwinana Freeway, there is already a custom png map created, with labels and proper route shields, and the road in the article highlighted in a prominent colour. The article is also long enough to make sense having the attached kml box at the bottom, along with the commons category box and other external links. I also would have been fine leaving the kml how it was in all articles, but was willing to compromise in order to move forward. - Evad37 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me :) - It should be a consensus based system. Some articles will benefit immensely, for some it is a distraction that is partially redundant. Perhaps it should be optional on any article with a route description in the prose, and vector/raster map in the infobox? -- Nbound (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This all seems reasonable. Evad, thanks for dropping in and letting us know. I read a comment where you said you were sick and didn't want to bother you until you felt better. The only issue I have with using both Attached KML and the infobox is consistency. Maybe I should reconsider my opinion about having the links in the title bar. Would it be better to have the links in the title bar and not the infobox? It still seems silly to have both and it would reduce the length of the infobox. This can still be managed using |kml=yes. --AussieLegend () 08:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tweaked the sandbox code based on this discussion. There's an explanation at the Infobox talk page. --AussieLegend () 01:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this is long, but rather than ranting and raving at ANI, I just wanted to have an honest conversation with all of you.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject has largely tried to stay out of the infobox discussions this time around. But since what is being discussed is a dangerous precedent that could have negative effects for us as well as for the Australian roads project, we had to speak up.

But now that we have gotten involved... I don't want to talk about infoboxes specifically. The infobox discussion is certainly covered by what I'm about to say, but that's not the only thing covered by this. I want to look more at the bigger picture here, and share my perspective.

Lately there have been several formative discussions at WT:AURD, which is a good thing. However, I've seen several proposals that basically amount to "reinventing the wheel." What I mean by that is this: The impression that I am getting is that many Australian road editors are choosing to significantly deviate from the way that "American" road articles are written, solely because "Americans" control XYZ or because "Americans" do things this particular way and thus it cannot be used for Australia. In fact, to quote: "Doesn't surprise me that same "blind fold" is being used, US roads have clearly hi-jacked Australian roads and highways. As of now, I'll be no longer uploading my highway photos on Commons or any other site under s Creative Commons license." [4]

This is surprising to me for two reasons:

  • Because it's "Americans". When the infobox and RJL are used worldwide, and when there are Canadian road FAs that use the same formula that we do. This makes me think that this is more political than anything - political because of cultural differences (the "American imperialists") and because of things that happened in the past on Wikipedia (and yes, we've said that we've messed that up in the past). One of the most vocal supporters of the "American" way of writing road articles is actually a Canadian (and believe me, we had our fights in the early days).
  • Because the "American" method works. I'll admit that I haven't been to Australia, but I have traveled to Latin America and Europe, and quite frankly, roads aren't that different worldwide. Meanwhile, the US project has 53 FAs and 850+ GAs, and there are FAs and GAs in Canada, and GAs in Croatia and Norway. So our "madness" works. Thus, it's puzzling to see why the Australian project is choosing their own way and "reinventing the wheel" with a completely untested methodology, solely to be different from the "Americans", and repeating the same mistakes that we made in 2006-2008 when we were getting started.

Quite frankly, this attitude has been causing a lot of unnecessary drama over the last few months, and has become an unnecessary distraction. It has become unnecessarily frustrating for those of us trying to help all worldwide road editors (including Australia). And meanwhile, this desire to be different just for the sake of being different wastes time, chases away editors, degrades article quality, and hurts the encyclopedia.

All the "Americans" want to do is help you, and thus help in writing a better encyclopedia. We can't write all the articles on all the highways in the world on every Wikimedia site ourselves, and it's really best if we don't try to. But where we can, we want to be of assistance, be it advice or whatever. Our goal is not to take over AURD and burn it to the ground, or to try and dominate it; we're honestly just trying to help. It hurts to see AURD editors assuming anything less.

So please, can we all agree to go through an attitude adjustment, swallow our pride, and examine proposals solely on their merits, rather than basing decisions on whether it's an "American" proposal or on wikipolitics or nationalism?

P.S. The IRC channel remains open 24/7 as it always has, if you want to discuss this further; see WP:HWY/IRC for details. --Rschen7754 02:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it should be noted that Bidgee offered me a sincere apology after those (and some other comments).

The thing that many american editors dont seem to understand is that the way roads are signed and understood here is different, this isnt something you can necessary understand/appreciate even with some limited time here. Its even quite different from the UK way of doing things. We are quite possibly even the odd one out as far it goes worldwide. This isnt something against America, hell we for the most part eat American food, watch American TV, drive the same cars... It is a fundamental difference in road systems. Freddie, a US roads editor also recently redone a not-insignifcant number of Australian road shields, He got a barnstar and some other minor awards for his efforts. The differences arent something that is as simple as pointing out a footpath and a sidewalk are two different names for the same thing, they run deeper than that.

Yes, this means that occasionally, we arent going to see eye-to-eye on things... There is nothing wrong with that, there is no reason to standardise for standardisation's sake if it isnt appropriate. Some US things work well here (RJLs for example), some dont. Back to the original discussion, IIRC AussieLegends main point of contention was the lack of categorisation. Major US roads are usually named something like "<State> Route <number>", or "Interstate <number>". Australian roads are not, they are just called "<something> <something else>" and finding them can obviously be a little difficult. Why not use the US based approach? it doesnt apply here, we dont name our roads that way and/or they arent recognisable names for the roads, or a "route" (transferring the US term to our concept) may be split (not duplexed) into many little pieces by other different "routes". Some of our other routes are more traditional in the way they are used, such as our tourist routes. And its quite likely that we will adopt a more traditional approach to those.

We arent being different to be annoying or waste time. We are being different because things are done differently here. I would like to work with the US roads (and greater WP:HWY) communities where its in our mutual interest. But in places where things differ, its not fair at all to be told we are deliberately being difficult based on nationality if we dont want to follow everyone else.

Finally, please just think about it, either it is a conspiracy of all Australian Roads users which happen to be part of some secret American hating society, or things are just a bit different here. Which of these seems more likely? :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Bidgee is not here to defend himself, I'd like to offer the following on his behalf. Australia has had its own road infobox since 2006. In 2010, members of the roads project identified several Australian templates, managed by WP:AUSTRALIA, that really should have been merged into Infobox Australian road. Instead of at least communicating this to WP:AUSTRALIA they went ahead and converted all of the articles using the templates to Infobox road and nominated the now unused templates for deletion under CSD#T3. The edits were made by several editors at different times, making it almost impossible to find what articles were used by what templates. This action seems to be contrary to an ArbCom ruling. It wasn't until one of them started changing articles that used Infobox Australian road that these actions were detected. During a subsequent discussion, where the editor in question wasn't getting his way, the editor nominated the template for deletion. After a subsequent and lengthy discussion, the editor withdrew his nomination. Fifteen months later, with no intervening communication between the roads and Australian projects, the infobox was again nominated for deletion, again without any warning.[5] After a much, much longer discussion, there was a "no consensus" result. In all this time, right to the recent RfC, the roads project has made no active attempt to enter into discussion about how to address the concerns of Australian editors. Because of this, there is distrust in the motives of some roads project members. They seem to want to control everything they can and are unwilling to discuss matters in forums where they may not gain support. This is being demonstrated at the moment by the editors at Attached KML who are seeking to control all KML data on Wikipedia, which they clearly don't have the right to do. Bidgee was one of the editors who was involved in previous discussions and he obviously shares this mistrust. I don't blame him. --AussieLegend () 16:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. --Rschen7754 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Well no, it doesn't prove anything. Your point was "that many Australian road editors are choosing to significantly deviate from the way that "American" road articles are written, solely because "Americans" control XYZ or because "Americans" do things this particular way and thus it cannot be used for Australia." That's not the case at all. We're more than happy to collaborate, but we're not willing to be bulldozed into submission. I see the attempts by some editors at Attached KML to look seriously at categorising the KML files as a positive thing and I'm more than willing to collaborate with them. But this isn't the place for further discussion on this, I was just trying to explain the possible reason for Bidgee's attitude, and I've done that. --AussieLegend () 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS compliance

I know what you are after but it really depends on which part of the MOS you want to comply with. The MOS is huge and, as far as I can see, there's nothing that doesn't comply. There are a lot of furphys being tossed around in the discussions. The template is built on {{Infobox}} so, if it doesn't comply with the MOS, that's an issue with {{Infobox}}. --AussieLegend () 01:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The only way we will know for sure is an FA, and I dont want (likely) one of Evad's articles degenerating into something that can hopefully be avoided. If I cant get someone to go over it, then fine, but if I can, it would definately help our usage of it. -- Nbound (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if at WP:MOS, they only say put it through an ACR or FA, it will reflect positively on infobox, and when someone says get it looked at... we can say... "we tried... we dont know anything that is wrong with it (its built from infobox and largely based on IR anyway), unless there are any specific concerns can you please refrain from making unfounded complaints?" as obviously not being checked for MOS compliance isnt something that can be failed on... only a specific thing that does fail the MOS can cause that. -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monaro Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


I didn't want to bring/drag you into it but I raised the notifications you gave back in May on User talk pages, I'm trying to cool the rather heated atmosphere that currently exists. I though it would be best to know that I've commented on ANI (which is regrading the KML saga) that is about you and inform you. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate canvassing. Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


I am fully aware of what a template does, thank you. I am also aware that wikipedia is meant to be a fully-functional work of reference, not a private scribbling block. All work should be fully developed in the user's sandbox before being put live. Otherwise it looks like a test pad. Or worse. Maybe I should have labelled it {{db-g1}} - I was in two minds. John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Tue 16:01, wikitime= 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasnt attempting to school you on what a template does, you are an admin, youve been around the block a few times, was just querying the (IMHO) odd CSD notice, and trying to explain it wasnt a test template :). It doesnt matter now anyway, rschen7754 (a roads related admin) has sorted it all out.

Compare {{Jcttop}} which currently has 5000 transclusions. This is the same thing, but pre-referenced for roads in a certain part of the world :)

-- Nbound (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Route shielding

Just to ask you for A8 (Sydney) and other future articles do we need to put the shielding at the top of the infobox? Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

At this stage, that is what was agreed in that thread, so yes, I wouldnt specifically be against removing large shields entirely though if you wanted to attempt to change it. -- Nbound (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing of geographical facts

You removed a reference I added to Princes Motorway about the Mount Ousley Road section not being motorway standard due to being unsourced. I'm curious as to what kind of references would be appropriate here. I've driven on the road, I've seen the at-grade intersections, and you can see them for yourself on Google Maps. Do we really need to find a random web page to back up this fact? Ausmeerkat (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The NSW standard does allow at-grade intersections on motorways (same with Victoria). The Hume Highway (M31), Federal Highway (M23), both have heaps of them. And Im pretty sure there is some on the Pacific Highway too in section that will likely become M1, one day. So unless we can find something for the one intersection specifically (LILOs dont count), we cant claim otherwise (And given it is both a named and shielded Motorway it probably does meet NSW rules). -- Nbound (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In a more generic sense, you would still need to back it up (even if the source was just Google Maps). You need to cite as much as you can, otherwise it can be easily removed by others at any time. -- Nbound (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics

Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nbound. You were suppose to post your input at Talk:Race_and_genetics not my sandbox. :P. My sandbox was where I was preparing the draft before I started the RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics. Could you move it please? Thank you. :) BlackHades (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL, this is what I get for wiki-ing first thing in the morning :D -- Nbound (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Nbound. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! INeverCry 17:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for talking on the Third Opinion, it was moved to RFC/U. Can you comment here? [6] Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not need to continue discussion but if you could say you talked with user then it would help, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I dont feel at this stage an RfC/U is appropriate (the discussion has barely progressed from where I left it), I suggested it more as an option if the matter continues. You are unlikely to get much luck there if the 2nd certifier is uninterested in following the RfC. Continuing discussion would be the best approach for now if you still wish to follow this up. -- Nbound (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
But you saw, the user only repeats the same arguments over again, and ignores anything another user says. 3 users have said the same concerns and he just thinks rules don't apply to him. MarioNovi (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
One of them may be more willing to back the RfC :) -- Nbound (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like some users do not log in a lot. Maybe RFC/U was the wrong way. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

OMG another Aussie

I just realized that you're another didgeridoo-tooter. Like having my friend Steven Zhang hanging around DRN isn't enough Aussies for a lifetime. Sheesh. (Actually, ask 'ol Steverinio about my lame theories about the similarities between us Texians and y'all Aussies.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of A2 roads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bass Highway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gold nuggets - pepita canaa removal


I don't quite understand why you removed the information about the Pepita Canaa from the Gold Nugget article. The nugget does exist and is (as far as I know) the largest gold nugget ever found in Brazil. Is there a reason why it should not be included in the article? Mylorin (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason why was explained in the edit summary, it was being claimed as the second largest nugget ever found, which is untrue Welcome Stranger and Welcome Nugget were both bigger (and there may be others). There was also no reliable source stating that the nugget still exists as a whole (as opposed to a replica), which was what was also claimed. -- Nbound (talk)

→I ended up reverting your removal of the information about the Pepita Canaa nugget since (a) unlike most of the other nuggets mentioned, the Pepita Canaa still exists (see sources listed in article) and (b) it is the largest nugget still in existence. I did update the paragraph to reflect your concerns about it being the second largest nugget ever found, since the original size of the Pepita Canaa is still debatable (it would be the largest nugget ever found *if* the story about it being broken during excavation is correct). Mylorin (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have done some rewording, but it appears much better than before. I have added information about the Welcome Nugget also. -- Nbound (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Princes Highway AfD

Left a little note for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princes Highway East (Melbourne) for future AfDs, when you have a chance. Have a good one czar · · 15:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a response at Czar's talk page. czar · · 16:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)