Hello Cheyne,
Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.
These links might help you with your contributions:
For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Communtiy Portal and the Village Pump.
Be sure to check out Australian resources, like The Australia Wikiportal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.
Also, assuming you're an Hobartian, have you considered participating in WikiProject Hobart? We need all the help we can get!
By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
Again, welcome.--
Cyberjunkie
TALK 06:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know about the work being done at WikiProject Tasmania, the reincarnation of WikiProject Hobart. I see you've been putting in some great work on some Tasmania-related articles so feel free to check it out :) Orderinchaos78 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey if you need any help in creating separate articles or whatever - please ask - also my comments at the merge proposal by casliber are made from my experience of the west coast mountains - If you can gut the Mt Field NP article and use it as a linking article- great! cheers Satu Suro 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for editing it - it alerted me to a list that definitely needs challenging (they are locations not colonies) - moving or renaming - cheers Satu Suro 12:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a link for the name change for the Red-necked Wallaby? It's possible that it hasn't been accepted across the scientific community. Anyway, it's best to discuss things like this here just to make sure you're doing the right thing. Frickeg 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cheyne, Thanks for your comments on my userpage. Please go ahead with changing the heights and cite the state maps you indicate. I added the Geoscience Australia citation because the heights were changed without any reason or reference and it was hard to judge what was going on. What you say makes sense, and I agree that the state maps by those who did the surveying should be more authorative. Perhaps put a comment similar to the one on my talk page on the article talk page so that others don't wonder why you are changing from the figure given by Geoscience Australia. I once visted Maria Island, but sadly never had time to climb the mountains, which I'm sure would have been a great view. Zamphuor ( talk) 13:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cheyne, I see by the corrections you make you consider yourself a specialist on parks or penal settlements. I don't mind grammar/typos being fixed, I made a start to fix that site and only later discovered there was a separate site called "Maria Island National Park". I did not get the chance to go back and clean things up as I wuold have liked. Obviously, Obviously I would not have created two! And as to your last rediculous comment, do you not think that the fact the place is an island AND the fact that the place is a national park might be covered by the heading "Maria Island National Park"?? But, the thing that peeves me is that as for your so called discoveries of factual errors, I am the person that anyone official to do with the park comes to when they want to know anything about its history. I see such people as yourself and other have littered both sites with numerous errors, such as the comment that Aboriginals were located mostly in other places than the island's isthmus. I can assure you from the extensive research on the documentation completed on the two main voyages that visited the island (and in case you do not know there were in 1789 and 1802) most of their occupation was in the two bays surrounding the isthmus. I think a few of you need to research a lot more about the island before contributing, there are a lot of factual errors contributed by others on both sites. As it is my extensive knowledge based on extensive research I have used to add information to the site, I also do not see any problem in referncing the only good publication that is a source of this information, especially given the rangers and co on the island sell my publication as a reliable source of all informatin about Maria Island National Park. regards Michaelhobart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhobart ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
re your previous comments to me - I found many errors in the information you have contributed to the Maria Island pages, sorry if you do not like hearing it. The rangers themslves do not have any in depth history about Maria Island to suggest that my publication would contain errors and they are regularly having guests on the island write or email me for further information. The sources of information in my book are all credible including Parks and Wildlife, Archives Offices and state libraries and people who themselves lived and worked on Maria Island with their families. If you actually have any valid errors in my book, please ensure you let me know so it can be fixed before a third edition. Michaelhobart ( talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And again .. you are not telling me anything I do not know or that isn't reasonably common knowledge. As stated, if you have any legitimate corrections or new info (I doubt this) then let me know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhobart ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont think so - being minimalist is one thing - removing valid information is another - I would say try again - with a bit more care to leave the referential aspects of the southern capes - they are as valid as the cape itself as you aspire to in your summary - the main thing about the capes is their placing and their relationsihps with other capes (east of this or west of that etc) - as in the end there is little to say about them - they are just capes in the end Satu Suro 09:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
|
The Exceptional Newcomer Award | |
| The Exceptional Newcomer Award is presented to newcomers (and those who have returned after an extended absence) who display exceptional enthusiasm, skill, and boldness beyond their experience. I've noticed the edits you've been making, and wanted to let you know that your work here on Wikipedia is appreciated. — Senator2029 ║ talk 02:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Cheyne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cheyne. 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)
Hello, Cheyne. 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)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
For the copy edits - it would be much appreciated if you could go to the WP:RS sources for your edits - as they stand someone could revert your hard work due to the WP:OR issue - if you need help, ask! Thanks.
- And a closer examination - an article with that number of assertions and no WP:RS is really a sitting duck... quacking very loudly... for intervention... JarrahTree 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it already had a lot of assertions, mainly from 1 reference I think and mainly correct, but ceasing at about 2007. It was already a lot of time to update; I might add some references, but that's a lot of work too...
Cheyne (
talk) 05:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, as it is, someone can come along and simply revert all your editing as it is clear WP:OR despite your assertions... JarrahTree 08:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- please make an effort to add RS wherever possible, thanks... JarrahTree 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally the tasmanian iterations - whichever one need the equivalent of
/info/en/?search=Department_of_Parks_and_Wildlife_(Western_Australia)#Preceding agencies - to try to make sense of the political shennanigans of 'naming' and 'changes' games of the inhabitants of the Tasmanian parliament...
JarrahTree 02:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, beyond my present skill level - I've just corrected what wasn't right or was missing previously, but will endeavour to do better.
- I'm good with facts but not yet with Wikipedia. The article's likely too long-winded in that aspect presently, but it shows what a political football PWS has been. Cheyne ( talk) 02:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Cheyne,
Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.
These links might help you with your contributions:
For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Communtiy Portal and the Village Pump.
Be sure to check out Australian resources, like The Australia Wikiportal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.
Also, assuming you're an Hobartian, have you considered participating in WikiProject Hobart? We need all the help we can get!
By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
Again, welcome.--
Cyberjunkie
TALK 06:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know about the work being done at WikiProject Tasmania, the reincarnation of WikiProject Hobart. I see you've been putting in some great work on some Tasmania-related articles so feel free to check it out :) Orderinchaos78 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey if you need any help in creating separate articles or whatever - please ask - also my comments at the merge proposal by casliber are made from my experience of the west coast mountains - If you can gut the Mt Field NP article and use it as a linking article- great! cheers Satu Suro 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for editing it - it alerted me to a list that definitely needs challenging (they are locations not colonies) - moving or renaming - cheers Satu Suro 12:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a link for the name change for the Red-necked Wallaby? It's possible that it hasn't been accepted across the scientific community. Anyway, it's best to discuss things like this here just to make sure you're doing the right thing. Frickeg 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cheyne, Thanks for your comments on my userpage. Please go ahead with changing the heights and cite the state maps you indicate. I added the Geoscience Australia citation because the heights were changed without any reason or reference and it was hard to judge what was going on. What you say makes sense, and I agree that the state maps by those who did the surveying should be more authorative. Perhaps put a comment similar to the one on my talk page on the article talk page so that others don't wonder why you are changing from the figure given by Geoscience Australia. I once visted Maria Island, but sadly never had time to climb the mountains, which I'm sure would have been a great view. Zamphuor ( talk) 13:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cheyne, I see by the corrections you make you consider yourself a specialist on parks or penal settlements. I don't mind grammar/typos being fixed, I made a start to fix that site and only later discovered there was a separate site called "Maria Island National Park". I did not get the chance to go back and clean things up as I wuold have liked. Obviously, Obviously I would not have created two! And as to your last rediculous comment, do you not think that the fact the place is an island AND the fact that the place is a national park might be covered by the heading "Maria Island National Park"?? But, the thing that peeves me is that as for your so called discoveries of factual errors, I am the person that anyone official to do with the park comes to when they want to know anything about its history. I see such people as yourself and other have littered both sites with numerous errors, such as the comment that Aboriginals were located mostly in other places than the island's isthmus. I can assure you from the extensive research on the documentation completed on the two main voyages that visited the island (and in case you do not know there were in 1789 and 1802) most of their occupation was in the two bays surrounding the isthmus. I think a few of you need to research a lot more about the island before contributing, there are a lot of factual errors contributed by others on both sites. As it is my extensive knowledge based on extensive research I have used to add information to the site, I also do not see any problem in referncing the only good publication that is a source of this information, especially given the rangers and co on the island sell my publication as a reliable source of all informatin about Maria Island National Park. regards Michaelhobart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhobart ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
re your previous comments to me - I found many errors in the information you have contributed to the Maria Island pages, sorry if you do not like hearing it. The rangers themslves do not have any in depth history about Maria Island to suggest that my publication would contain errors and they are regularly having guests on the island write or email me for further information. The sources of information in my book are all credible including Parks and Wildlife, Archives Offices and state libraries and people who themselves lived and worked on Maria Island with their families. If you actually have any valid errors in my book, please ensure you let me know so it can be fixed before a third edition. Michaelhobart ( talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And again .. you are not telling me anything I do not know or that isn't reasonably common knowledge. As stated, if you have any legitimate corrections or new info (I doubt this) then let me know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhobart ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont think so - being minimalist is one thing - removing valid information is another - I would say try again - with a bit more care to leave the referential aspects of the southern capes - they are as valid as the cape itself as you aspire to in your summary - the main thing about the capes is their placing and their relationsihps with other capes (east of this or west of that etc) - as in the end there is little to say about them - they are just capes in the end Satu Suro 09:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
|
|
The Exceptional Newcomer Award | |
| The Exceptional Newcomer Award is presented to newcomers (and those who have returned after an extended absence) who display exceptional enthusiasm, skill, and boldness beyond their experience. I've noticed the edits you've been making, and wanted to let you know that your work here on Wikipedia is appreciated. — Senator2029 ║ talk 02:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Cheyne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cheyne. 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)
Hello, Cheyne. 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)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
For the copy edits - it would be much appreciated if you could go to the WP:RS sources for your edits - as they stand someone could revert your hard work due to the WP:OR issue - if you need help, ask! Thanks.
- And a closer examination - an article with that number of assertions and no WP:RS is really a sitting duck... quacking very loudly... for intervention... JarrahTree 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it already had a lot of assertions, mainly from 1 reference I think and mainly correct, but ceasing at about 2007. It was already a lot of time to update; I might add some references, but that's a lot of work too...
Cheyne (
talk) 05:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, as it is, someone can come along and simply revert all your editing as it is clear WP:OR despite your assertions... JarrahTree 08:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- please make an effort to add RS wherever possible, thanks... JarrahTree 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally the tasmanian iterations - whichever one need the equivalent of
/info/en/?search=Department_of_Parks_and_Wildlife_(Western_Australia)#Preceding agencies - to try to make sense of the political shennanigans of 'naming' and 'changes' games of the inhabitants of the Tasmanian parliament...
JarrahTree 02:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, beyond my present skill level - I've just corrected what wasn't right or was missing previously, but will endeavour to do better.
- I'm good with facts but not yet with Wikipedia. The article's likely too long-winded in that aspect presently, but it shows what a political football PWS has been. Cheyne ( talk) 02:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)