This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page
I commend you on your attempt, I just think the layout and design is somewhat inferior to Bryan's. But now that we have yours I guess we have no choice. Timeshift 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
New poll. Timeshift 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi JPD. I was looking to get permission for one of his preferred PM tables, but then I realised that it wouldn't be acceptable. Would you be so kind as to replicate a preferred PM ozpolitics table? Thanks if so. Timeshift 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You do not specify exactly what provision of WP:NFCC is not met. An image is not replaceable if its subject is retired from public life. — ATinySliver | talk 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Good work. I'm on the fence on Latham - for completion's sake, I agree Latham should be there, but in practicality, there's barely any data for Latham and only seems to create clutter. I'll leave that one up to your judgement. Again though, good work. Adding now. Timeshift 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, week-old RM 2PP poll... *slams ozpolitics for not updating their graph* Timeshift 09:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Newspoll PPM/2PP out. Timeshift 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you please be able to take the time to create a freebie for this graph? Thanks if you can, Timeshift 09:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
New polls out, details on their pages. Timeshift 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Newspoll is surprising! I've left the RM phone poll in for now. RM list a similar poll in 1998 on their trends page, and perhaps more importantly, the ACNielsen poll from last week that we have already included wasn't one of their regular polls, either. JPD ( talk) 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I think that the graphs could do with a line to represent when the election was called. Timeshift 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Are we including the online ACNielsen polls too? Timeshift 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of adding graphs for previous elections? Although the companies may have been polling longer, they only hold the online 2pp and ppm figures since 1996... newspoll aside which only goes back to 1993 for 2pp and 1987 for ppm. Thoughts? I'd be happy to do it if you don't want to or have the time to, if you're willing to show me. Otherwise, if you like it, hopefully it will help to put polls in context! Timeshift 09:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I can't believe you're disagreeing with the 16-year clerk too... Timeshift 14:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't wait to see the new lines on the PPM poll in particular - that line is getting damn close! Timeshift 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per graph, 62% ALP RM out. (leaving msg here cause i noted you've been online after i added the it to the page) Timeshift 06:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Saw you editing another page so just letting you know two polls need adding incase you didn't see it in the watchlist ;-) Timeshift ( talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that it got demoted from GA? I suggest the procedure wasn't correctly followed - see Talk:Sydney. -- Merbabu 05:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your query on WT:CRIC, in that the templates don't need to be used for the 2005 season because already more detailed templates are available on those pages. Bobo . 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there JPD,
I feel that we've crossed paths before over articles but I can't recall when. Was it at Sydney over User:Jackp's editing? Anyway....
Yes, as you noticed I'm going through articles related to Sydney trying to give them a class and importance rating. I'm learning as I go. Could you just check some of my recent edits - entitled "re-classing" - and check that they are being done correctly. Once I feel confident in the process I might try and organise a Sydney project drive to get the show on the road. One of the first things would of course be to classify our articles.
Also, all of the classifications that I did last night, for example, update in the categories (i.e. Sydney Opera House now appears at Category:Top-importance Sydney articles however their is no corresponding change to the class/importance matrix at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney. Why is this?
Cheers,
Witty
Lama
00:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
JPD, Could you help me learn how to correctly populate the "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Sydney articles by quality statistics" box at WikiProject Sydney or point me to someone who could? I'd like to do it properly.
Cheers, Witty Lama 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sydney-importance
and class
fields should be enough, but it won't be updated straight away and might take a few days to appear. If you have more questions, it might be best to ask
User:Oleg Alexandrov, who runs the bot.
JPD (
talk)
11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
JPD- I see you've been involved in the editing of Australian monarchy and on its talk page. There's presently a poll going on regarding the format of the titles for all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. If you'd like to register an opinion, please do so here. Cheers. -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22813751-1702,00.html Timeshift ( talk) 03:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What did i do to the 'Australia' page!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.31.204 ( talk) 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not take kindly to people checking my contributions page and reviewing them all and undoing my contributions because they don't agree with a contriubution I have made. If I find more of the contributions I have made in the past being undone because you don't agree with a contribution I have made in the present then I will have no choice but to inform the Administrators notice board. P.S. you're revert of my contribution on the United Kingdom page was against consensus, it is foul that you should do such a thing just because you don't agree with my edit on the Australia article. Signsolid ( talk) 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your reference to "user preferences" shows that you are not engaging with the Wikipedia readership as a whole. The vast majority of readers are not registered. Of those that are, it is probably a small minority that are aware that there is a user preference option for date formats. LukeHoC ( talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I just can't cope with the way that everyone is angrily saying things that are just totally wrong. What happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I feel like I have been assaulted by a gang of bullies. I have no obligation to help wikipedia, and as it seems that the admins think that meting out this sort of treatment is well and good, I will not risk my peace of mind by trying to help it ever again. LukeHoC ( talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
accessdate
parameter in {{
cite web}}, for example, you will get one of the redlinks I mentioned above. To give a properly formatted date, the template assumes the ISO standard
2007-12-06, which in the "real world" is common in some parts of continental Europe, not Britain or the U.S. (Note that I am saying that the template requires this, not that I think it is the best thing. Actually, for users with preferences set, it makes no difference which format is used to enter the date, but you are right to point out that this is not most users.) If we don't want to use this format, we can use the accessdaymonth
and accessyear
parameters instead. You will probably say that this is a confusing design for the template, and I would agree. The template is causing people to unthinkingly create redlinks like
6 December 2007, which shouldn't exist, let alone be redirected somewhere else. That is the source of the problem.
JPD (
talk)
10:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Thanks for taking care of the move and the dab! JackSchmidt ( talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, there's inconsistancies among all the Commonwealth realms (not just Australia). Sorry if it seemed I was suggesting Australian editors were being 'stubborn'. GoodDay ( talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks So im only allowed to use images from FlickR creative commons ( http://flickr.com/creativecommons), which are marked attribution licence?? or can i use any of the others. Thanks for you help :) InsteadOf ( talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq ( talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I request Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Australian rules football.-- PIO ( talk) 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Mate, don't forget to sign the request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Australian_rules_football#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate -- AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page
I commend you on your attempt, I just think the layout and design is somewhat inferior to Bryan's. But now that we have yours I guess we have no choice. Timeshift 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
New poll. Timeshift 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi JPD. I was looking to get permission for one of his preferred PM tables, but then I realised that it wouldn't be acceptable. Would you be so kind as to replicate a preferred PM ozpolitics table? Thanks if so. Timeshift 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You do not specify exactly what provision of WP:NFCC is not met. An image is not replaceable if its subject is retired from public life. — ATinySliver | talk 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Good work. I'm on the fence on Latham - for completion's sake, I agree Latham should be there, but in practicality, there's barely any data for Latham and only seems to create clutter. I'll leave that one up to your judgement. Again though, good work. Adding now. Timeshift 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, week-old RM 2PP poll... *slams ozpolitics for not updating their graph* Timeshift 09:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Newspoll PPM/2PP out. Timeshift 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you please be able to take the time to create a freebie for this graph? Thanks if you can, Timeshift 09:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
New polls out, details on their pages. Timeshift 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Newspoll is surprising! I've left the RM phone poll in for now. RM list a similar poll in 1998 on their trends page, and perhaps more importantly, the ACNielsen poll from last week that we have already included wasn't one of their regular polls, either. JPD ( talk) 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I think that the graphs could do with a line to represent when the election was called. Timeshift 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Are we including the online ACNielsen polls too? Timeshift 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of adding graphs for previous elections? Although the companies may have been polling longer, they only hold the online 2pp and ppm figures since 1996... newspoll aside which only goes back to 1993 for 2pp and 1987 for ppm. Thoughts? I'd be happy to do it if you don't want to or have the time to, if you're willing to show me. Otherwise, if you like it, hopefully it will help to put polls in context! Timeshift 09:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I can't believe you're disagreeing with the 16-year clerk too... Timeshift 14:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't wait to see the new lines on the PPM poll in particular - that line is getting damn close! Timeshift 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per graph, 62% ALP RM out. (leaving msg here cause i noted you've been online after i added the it to the page) Timeshift 06:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Saw you editing another page so just letting you know two polls need adding incase you didn't see it in the watchlist ;-) Timeshift ( talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that it got demoted from GA? I suggest the procedure wasn't correctly followed - see Talk:Sydney. -- Merbabu 05:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your query on WT:CRIC, in that the templates don't need to be used for the 2005 season because already more detailed templates are available on those pages. Bobo . 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there JPD,
I feel that we've crossed paths before over articles but I can't recall when. Was it at Sydney over User:Jackp's editing? Anyway....
Yes, as you noticed I'm going through articles related to Sydney trying to give them a class and importance rating. I'm learning as I go. Could you just check some of my recent edits - entitled "re-classing" - and check that they are being done correctly. Once I feel confident in the process I might try and organise a Sydney project drive to get the show on the road. One of the first things would of course be to classify our articles.
Also, all of the classifications that I did last night, for example, update in the categories (i.e. Sydney Opera House now appears at Category:Top-importance Sydney articles however their is no corresponding change to the class/importance matrix at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney. Why is this?
Cheers,
Witty
Lama
00:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
JPD, Could you help me learn how to correctly populate the "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Sydney articles by quality statistics" box at WikiProject Sydney or point me to someone who could? I'd like to do it properly.
Cheers, Witty Lama 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sydney-importance
and class
fields should be enough, but it won't be updated straight away and might take a few days to appear. If you have more questions, it might be best to ask
User:Oleg Alexandrov, who runs the bot.
JPD (
talk)
11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
JPD- I see you've been involved in the editing of Australian monarchy and on its talk page. There's presently a poll going on regarding the format of the titles for all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. If you'd like to register an opinion, please do so here. Cheers. -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22813751-1702,00.html Timeshift ( talk) 03:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What did i do to the 'Australia' page!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.31.204 ( talk) 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not take kindly to people checking my contributions page and reviewing them all and undoing my contributions because they don't agree with a contriubution I have made. If I find more of the contributions I have made in the past being undone because you don't agree with a contribution I have made in the present then I will have no choice but to inform the Administrators notice board. P.S. you're revert of my contribution on the United Kingdom page was against consensus, it is foul that you should do such a thing just because you don't agree with my edit on the Australia article. Signsolid ( talk) 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your reference to "user preferences" shows that you are not engaging with the Wikipedia readership as a whole. The vast majority of readers are not registered. Of those that are, it is probably a small minority that are aware that there is a user preference option for date formats. LukeHoC ( talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I just can't cope with the way that everyone is angrily saying things that are just totally wrong. What happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I feel like I have been assaulted by a gang of bullies. I have no obligation to help wikipedia, and as it seems that the admins think that meting out this sort of treatment is well and good, I will not risk my peace of mind by trying to help it ever again. LukeHoC ( talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
accessdate
parameter in {{
cite web}}, for example, you will get one of the redlinks I mentioned above. To give a properly formatted date, the template assumes the ISO standard
2007-12-06, which in the "real world" is common in some parts of continental Europe, not Britain or the U.S. (Note that I am saying that the template requires this, not that I think it is the best thing. Actually, for users with preferences set, it makes no difference which format is used to enter the date, but you are right to point out that this is not most users.) If we don't want to use this format, we can use the accessdaymonth
and accessyear
parameters instead. You will probably say that this is a confusing design for the template, and I would agree. The template is causing people to unthinkingly create redlinks like
6 December 2007, which shouldn't exist, let alone be redirected somewhere else. That is the source of the problem.
JPD (
talk)
10:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Thanks for taking care of the move and the dab! JackSchmidt ( talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, there's inconsistancies among all the Commonwealth realms (not just Australia). Sorry if it seemed I was suggesting Australian editors were being 'stubborn'. GoodDay ( talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks So im only allowed to use images from FlickR creative commons ( http://flickr.com/creativecommons), which are marked attribution licence?? or can i use any of the others. Thanks for you help :) InsteadOf ( talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq ( talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I request Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Australian rules football.-- PIO ( talk) 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Mate, don't forget to sign the request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Australian_rules_football#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate -- AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)