User talk:Wikiain

I included this. Would you perhaps like to upload your portrait, so we can put a sample of his work in the article. I have one somewhere, but it's rather bland. I wish we had a notable and distinctive pic like Bob Hope or Elvis Presley! Amandajm (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have corrected my memory in Discussion: I now think that "Scissors" was not on his stand but something he said. The silhouette that I have is very well done and is framed under glass, but it is of myself and my then small daughter and I would rather maintain privacy. His stand had some good ones, including some of famous people - I think one may have been of Richard Burton. A great shame if those are all gone. You might put a request into Discussion of the article. See also Peter Goers, "Shadows Falls on our Show" (2008) <http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/shadow-falls-on-our-show/story-e6freafu-1111117346164>, which is exactly how I remember John on our one brief meeting. --Wikiain (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look through a box of stuff, and turned up the one he did of my grandmother. She's been dead for forty years, so I don't think she'll complain! Amandajm (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonne Année 2011 !

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Et meilleurs vœux, également, Frania - de l'Australie!! Feux d'artifice à Sydney--Wikiain (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De l'Australie ??? Mais il y a des feux d'artifice partout !!! Enjoy life... --Frania W. (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiain, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiain, I've left you another reply Marek.69 ^talk 00:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may (or may not) find Talk:List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Australian Defence Force Rank abbreviations of interest. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "warning" me. If anything comes up that we couldn't possibly resolve without your help, I'll drop you a line here. Meanwhile, thanks for your input - I've found it helpful and useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know they are currently moving the Lewers fountain with work in progress.Foofbun (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall proceed immediately to an inspection via the Paragon. Thank you. --Wikiain (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Let's examine http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Napoleonic_code&diff=452717051&oldid=452660440

Firstly this is the English Wikipedia so we use names as stated in English. Please do not put an acute accent on "Napoleon" on EN - it's not necessary. Secondly, I understand that his title is "Napoleon I" - But unless there's a possibility that people may be confused, we generally go by the common name. I.E. Napoleon I redirects to "Napoleon" So in Wikipedia articles you don't need his title. Just say "Napoleon" and that's it WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd agree. But to me it looks right to say "Napoléon I" when the same sentence already has "code Napoléon". There seems to be a comfortable transition to the article later having plain "Napoleon". Nobody is likely to be confused. I have, however, removed the outdated redirect need from the link from "Napoléon I" to "Napoleon". --Wikiain (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, usually the publication uses the English name even when a variant of the foreign name appears. I.E. "Tōkyō Station is located in Tokyo." ("Tōkyō" is the Hepburn transcription of the name "東京" but in English we say "Tokyo" without the macrons) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That example doesn't seem to me to be really comparable. It is a relation between two English transliterations, where most English readers would be unable to read the original at all. I wouldn't die in a ditch to resist unaccented "Napoleon I", but to drop the accent inside a single sentence looks like the writer has made a mistake. Chacun(e) à son goût? --Wikiain (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I bother you to clarify this edit? How was correcting that link not constructive? Swarm 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I've now undone my change. I had thought that you had just duplicated "American", but in the cold light of morning "Americans" is the same sort of thing as "British people". --Wikiain (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; re your edit here, I see no problem with including a redlink in that form. Wikipedia was built on the things, and it might be an idea to give the guy time to write such an article before deciding it wasn't needed. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ironholds. I've now looked at Help:Link and see that it says "If a red link is clicked, the user is taken to a page where it is possible to create a page under the redlinked title." In this instance, writing a new page would not be a simple task and I can think of arguments why all of the Bancoult litigation should be together. But I appreciate your judgement. --Wikiain (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan to get round to writing an article for the first Bancoult case at some point. Just a bit busy atm Quickbeam44 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it! I hadn't meant to suggest that it wasn't needed. --Wikiain (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiain, in the edit summary you wrote "Not usually italicised", but I've followed other examples like this one. Could you please explain me the difference or redirect me where I can read and learn the rule to be used in such cases? Thanks a lot. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mauro. Scholars of Roman law usually do not italicise the titles of Justinian's works: e.g. HF Jolowicz and Barry Nicholas, Historical Introduction to Roman Law (3rd edn 1972); JAC Thomas, Textbook of Roman Law (1976). However, 'Digest' is italicised in Alan Watson's preface to his translation of it (paperback edn). It appears to me that a reason why it is usually not italicised would be that it is usually written along with its Latin name 'Digesta' and other expressions in Latin, which are almost always italicised. To italicise both could confuse the eye. I'd follow that for this article. Whichever way we go, of course we should be consistent throughout the article and in other articles on Justinian's works - and the same for articles on similar works such as the Theodosian Code. The situation of frequently citing in both English and Latin might not arise so often for a literary work, such as that of Pliny. --Wikiain (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, professor, I was forgetting to thank you for the beautiful and personalized lesson. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Mauro --Wikiain (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikiain, thanks for pointing that out. I was trying to make the lead section consistent with later usage in the article where the term was used with no explanation. Have now removed it throughout. Melcous (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - and thanks for the other changes. --Wikiain (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thansk for pointing out the discussion over at the manual of style page. I was inclined to make some corrections on that, where i see the uncapitalised "indigenous"- so glad i dodged that one! (Just a little shocked that there was any discussion to be had- seems pretty common to capitalise wherever i see it).WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I've asked barnstarred User_talk:Shiftchange if has any ideas about putting this back on track. Thanks. Wikiain (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Macquarie University logo 2014.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stefan2, but it swiftly ceased to be an orphan. I uploaded it in order to put it into the article Macquarie University, where it appears at the bottom of the infobox and is mentioned in section 1.1. "Arms". Wikiain (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that there was silence in the Hall during the flypast. I was outside under the sun and the sound was heard in the middle of Jerusalem, drowning it out. I looked up into a bright blue sky and saw the unexpected planes flying beyond the spires of the cathedral and beyond the purple haze of jacarandas in full bloom. It scattered the birds which flew out of the plane trees and away in their own formation just as the "missing man" peeled off. It was extremely moving. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Whiteghost. In the recording on ABC iView, there is a gap between "Jerusalem" and the flypast and the flypast is silent - which is what I remember. The "missing man" peeling off in silence was very moving. However, I've removed the reference to silence, because on reflection it did seem unlikely that four jets flying fairly low would be silent, rather that their noise did not penetrate the hall (good soundproofing!). I would guess that, as is common with live broadcasts, there was a precautionary delay of a few seconds - resulting in an overlap experienced by someone outside. That the birds flew off in their own formation is beautiful. The press haven't made anything of William Barton's solo - it was amazing and the hall reverberated. It reminded me of Jimi Hendrix's reported but unrecorded tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. In case you're wondering, I was in the hall not as a dignitary but as a ticketed member of the public - stating in my application that I teach constitutional law may have been an advantage. Wikiain (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose there was a delay but I hadn't expected the flypast so the effect was all the more powerful. Apparently, there was silence and noise as well as the great hymn all at once. Appropriately complex! I was pleased that the flypast was added to the article - I couldn't because I had no information about the event or the planes. It needs a reference though. Do you have one? Also, I think that Whitlam's goals for his program should be added because not only are they are textbook quality business goals, but after thinking them through over a long period, they drove his actions and he was so committed to them that he wanted them mentioned in the memorial. What do you think? By the way, the person standing next to me had come from Dural, and another I spoke to had come from Braidwood, via Goulburn, having got up at 0300 to attend. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the flypast a ref - it was announced in small print on the back of the programme and I missed it, so the extra event was a pleasant surprise to me too and I think to many others inside. You can see that page among the letters in yesterday's SMH. One of the letters sets out graphically the annoyance of someone who came without a ticket. I've read of people being turned away who had come from very far, even Perth. Those of us queuing with a "ticket" were aware that others were upset at being refused, who it seemed did have a "ticket". Perhaps they thought that the email acknowledging their application was sufficient. It read:

Thank you for your email regarding the State Memorial Service for the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC.

We are responding on behalf of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

A State Memorial Service for the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam will be held on Wednesday 5 November 2014 at the Sydney Town Hall, commencing at 11 am. Guests attending this service should be seated by 10 am. The Memorial Service will be broadcast on ABC TV.

If you are seeking information regarding attendance can you please provide the following information;

Full name and title

Telephone contact details

Association with Mr Whitlam and his family e.g. former colleague, friend, member of the public

Alternatively you can phone 1800 146 713 between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm from Saturday 25 October until Friday 31 October 2014.

I wrote back with those details, was phoned to check me out, and then received an email beginning:

I am pleased to advise that seating within the Sydney Town Hall will be available for you at the State Memorial Service for the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC on Wednesday, November 5th.

It went on to advise bringing a copy of it and photo ID - and that was my successful "ticket". I don't think we need to include these difficulties in the article, but this is one reason why I have specified in a ref that DPMC was responsible for the arrangements. That included seating Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd side by side.

Whitlam's goals were covered extensively by speakers, as you will recall, especially in a long list of them from Noel Pearson. Perhaps we can leave that to be assumed and, if desired, followed up by reading the published transcripts. Otherwise there would be duplication of earlier material. Wikiain (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point re the goals being listed in the eulogies. That was what brought them to my attention. For encyclopaedic value, it is very good that we now have links to them. I agree that seating problems are not relevant for the article. For the sake of balance, noting the high level of interest, as has been done, is all that is needed.

I wouldn't have expected that everyone could get in to the Hall and I thought that the screening arrangements outside were excellent. I assume that were installed when they realised the numbers. On the other hand, perhaps this was just the ABC doing a good job quite independently. Any fault seems to lie in DPMC not following up and advising the "ticketed" people that there were more "tickets" issued than places available so that they could plan to watch from outside, where one's attendance still registered respect for the man. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to all of that. They also got very, very lucky with the weather - you'll remember the storm around 3.40-50. Wikiain (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! Well done with that photo. Excellent! I added some categories. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiain,

There is a draft on the Bail Act 2013 that was developed following the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Its author is trying to get it up to publishing standard. I realise this is not specifically your area, but if you had some time, you might be able to check its readiness and perhaps improve it a bit. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invitation, Whiteghost. I see that this very timely article is published and I think it looks good. I've made a few changes, particularly to the lede and especially giving ref priority to the NSW Legislation database - for reasons that you will be aware of. Do you have a citation for the September 2014 amendments to the Bail Act (end of lede and of #Amendments section)? Wikiain (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added the 2014 amendment act Wikiain (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! I was wondering if there was such a thing as that Legislation Infobox. Thanks for that and your oversight. I have answered a question from the creator of this Bail article on my Talk Page and wondered whether there should be a separate section entitled "Criticism" since there seems to be so much of it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the read-through and edits to the article! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article for DYK. A better idea for a hook (from someone like your good self who can sum up the legal/social impact accurately) might help. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I'm no expert on criminal procedure. Wikiain (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with this edit, I do disagree massively with the edit summary. As a fellow Australian and frequent Oxford comma user: what is this based on? Frickeg (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be reading different kinds of thing. Can you point me to somewhere Australian that uses Oxford commas? Wikiain (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's tricky to search for a specific example, I've been unable to find anything in style guides that says Australian English has a blanket rule against the use of the Oxford comma (some say it's more common in the US than elsewhere, but that's about it). Here's something from ABC Brisbane; Monash Uni recommends it in some circumstances. In fact most of the sources saying we don't use it (or use it rarely) seem to be citing Wikipedia, and our article doesn't do a great job of covering a breadth of sources (basing its entire stance on just one, the Australian Government Publishing Service, and even that includes a clarity exception). Certainly we're less likely to use it in a "apples, pears, and oranges" type sense, but the clarifying Oxford comma (as in the famous example about "encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector") is I think just as usual here as anywhere else, from what I can tell.

As I said, I don't disagree with the edit you made, I just don't think it's accurate to say that "Australians don't use Oxford commas". :) Frickeg (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Monash examples. I too put a comma where there is a succession of "and"s. But that's by way of exception. Australians don't seem to use the American serial comma, where it seems normal to put one whenever "and" is used serially. That is what I understand as an "Oxford" comma - it was once inflicted on me by an Oxford-based publisher. We may be in agreement about Australian practice. Yours, truly. :) Wikiain (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re your query here: Have we forgotten Sir Douglas Nicholls? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jack. I thought there might be someone, which is why I asked the question. I've now checked and can't find anyone else. Wikiain (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's definitely the one and only, so far. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about your style-improving edits, but perhaps something out of order "advice -> advise". I don'to know, but... It's up to you. Good edits. E. Feld ^talk 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"advice" is the noun, "advise" is the verb - I thought that a noun was intended, since it comes at the end of a list of nouns Wikiain (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For improving Theory of Legal Norms E. Feld talk 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado, Eduardo! Wikiain (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, you pinged me ;) I've been watching the ongoing infobox discussion, but have chosen to no longer post there as my concerns & proposals are already well known. Also, I was growing tired of being accused of pushing a republican Pov (by one of the participants) at that article & discussion. I'm a Canadian republican, but I don't push it on Wikipedia :) GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry! Will try to remember not to do it again, even if I go on with this discussion :) Wikiain (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

'Tis alright. You can ping me anytime ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiain,

In case you are interested and able to come, there will be a presentation at the State Library of New South Wales on 12 February at 2.30 on Wikidata, given by a visiting Wikipedian User:Pigsonthewing, who is also working at ORCID. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, though it looks a bit beyond my technical grasp. Wikiain (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Australia Act 1986 page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I added 51,000 years (Haaretz, respectable newspaper, free access actually). But following your edit, I added 60,000 years (Australian source, free access) instead. Is that ok? 125,000 is misleading. I am new to Wiki.SAOTY (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAOTY, I was aware that Haaretz is a well established Israeli newspaper, though in the link that you gave it is paywalled. However, WP uses scholarly sources where available (see WP:RELIABLE) and there are many scholarly sources on this point, some of which appear in the body of the article (scroll to #Migration to Australia). For the same reason I am removing your later change, which cites only a DFAT publicity handout. Wikiain (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. Could you perhaps modify the "125,000 years" statement in your own way, adding whichever link you believe is acceptable? The only point at stake from my perspective is that 125,000 is inflated. SAOTY (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that 125,000 years is an inflated estimate, you will need a scholarly reason to challenge the scholarship on which it is based, cited both at this point and in the section "Migration to Australia". The figure has been challenged before (Archive 7#Date of arrival) but without resolution. If you want to revive the discussion, you should do so in a new section in the article's current Talk page -and mention that archival discussion - but only if you have something scholarly to add to what is said there. I have nothing substantive to contribute on this topic. Wikiain (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiain I added a scientific reference of "61,000-52,000 years ago" (using Thermoluminescence dating): http://austhrutime.com/malakunanja.htm. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. SAOTY (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Let's see what others think about it. I'm no expert on this. Wikiain (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate.SAOTY (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiain. You have referenced the wrong case in this edit. Paragraph 4 of that is rather bland. I'm not sure the blockquote is needed, but the reference needs to be right anyway. Cheers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - case ref fixed. The block quote is indeed bland, but it is comprehensive and I would like to draw readers' attention to the decision report itself. Wikiain (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiain. I can accept the revert, if rather than simply reverting my edit, you fix the paragraph so that it doesn't so severely misrepresent the truth of what occurred. Since you are a legal scholar, I am assuming that you can add the information for the missing premises that currently imply something else than what did occur, with the appropriate specificity. Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stevenmitchell, I reverted the edit because of the new obscurity about the Spanish treaty. The command bit went with it and I suspected that was also an error. You have made that correction again, so all seems well now. Wikiain (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

We are students writing an article on Mario Álvarez Ledesma as part of our Class Academic Course and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have an interest in this kinds of topics, we would like to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time. --Mikel Engel Dz (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikel Engel Dz: thank you for asking me to look at this.

1. You can find a good model in the article on Amal Clooney, although this one will not have to be so detailed!
2. There isn’t an article on Mario Alvarez Ledesma in Spanish Wikipedia, which might have been translated. Maybe you would like to write that article and then translate it.
3. His major publications should be in a separate section.
4. There are several issues of grammar and vocabulary (e.g. a degree is not “by” but “from” a university), which are for your teacher Leigh to pick up.
5. Alvarez Ledesma clearly satisfies the notability criteria: WP:N.
6. He is also, clearly, controversial: (1) you already have a header “Problems with the Attorney General of Mexico” and (2) in the references I see “fustiga(n)”.
7. It would be very easy, both for you in Spanish and especially in a language that you are learning, to write something that somebody might see as defamatory. So I wonder whether you should choose a less controversial topic if you really wish to publish the result.
8. I think that’s all I can say. My knowledge of Spanish is too limited to be able to assist you in more detail. Wikiain (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate your time and your suggestions, it means a lot for us that you help us during our process. I would like you to take one final see to our article and give us feedback , we had made corrections throughout the month, could you please help us? Here is the link: Mario Álvarez Ledesma

Thank you again for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikel Engel Dz (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mikel. Your people have made a lot of progress.

1. However, there are still many problems of English expression, which are matters for your teacher. One that stands out is "viatical", a word that I don't think exists in English as a noun.
2. The section "Problems with the PGR (Attorney General of Mexico)", I'm afraid, is mostly incomprehensible. So far as I can make sense of it, it is dealing with things that could be defamatory: allegations of fraud or corruption. You should not try to publish this section.

With very best wishes Wikiain (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IgnorantArmies, Jack Upland, The Drover's Wife, WWGB, and ScottDavis: In case you don't have Bob Day in your watchlist, I've just added to it the High Court's notification today that judgement in the Senate's referral to the High Court as Court of Disputed Returns will be delivered on 5 April. Wikiain (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits tidying up this article, especially fixing my mistake in referring to the judgment summary. I will check to see if I have made the same error elsewhere Find bruce (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. Wikiain (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What issue are you seeing with the AustLII template for Sykes & Cleary? The link in your edit works fine for me. Find bruce (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link with an AustLII template format had been going to the case stated by Dawson J. Can you use the template so that the ref goes to the judgment of the full court? (I'll put up my new summary in the morning.) Wikiain (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible for a source published many months before the Searle scandal came to light to be a valid source for a sentence about what the Searle scandal was seen as. Nobody in the earlier source saw the Searle scandal as anything, at least for all the source tells us. See WP:BLPGOSSIP and in particular what it says about "whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject". There is enough appearance of an actual problem with Searle that we shouldn't be trying to dilute it with irrelevancies, and it's also against our policies about biographies of living people and original research by synthesis to try to collect unrelated stories to create the appearance that Searle is part of a bigger pattern using sources that don't actually explicitly say so mentioning him by name. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your position, David. I was never claiming that the Guardian article was about Searle—as you say, it could not have been. It is about serious and recent issues at UC Berkeley concerning administrative responses to allegations of sexual assault by academic staff: and I suppose that it can't get much more serious than resignation of the administrative head, the Chancellor. The Searle case seems evidently to be part of that bigger pattern, which, as the Flaherty piece makes clear, has not been confined to the Berkeley campus. It seems highly relevant to Searle, to consider whether he appears to have been a bearer of a sexist culture prevalent at UC. I will concede, however, that a/the connection of Searle with that pattern has not been clearly stated in sources—although I expect that it will be. The Guardian article, as well as another linked within it, remain available here for addition if (or maybe when) that occurs. Wikiain (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the pattern has little to do with Berkeley in particular, and a lot to do with prominent academics thinking that their success puts them beyond reproach in other matters, and administrators trying to protect their institutions by covering up. It could happen anywhere, and frequently has. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Yes-No Reid.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the band is Australian. Second, it was a short clip so it wasn't copyvio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LandDownUnder (talk • contribs) 07:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your comment at Talk:Titanic_II. Blue Riband► 04:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re Three ministers and contempt of court (2017). I agree that the issue is noteworthy, but I am not convinced that section 44 is the best place for it. None of the references make any reference to section 44 & I am not aware of any article that has made the connection. An article that goes into detail on the issue makes no mention of section 44 - "Fact check: Can you criticise the conduct of the courts or of a judge?". ABC online. 29 June 2017. Find bruce (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article in note 17 refers to potential ineligibility, which is necessarily a reference to s 44(ii). There were later articles about the potential loss of the one-seat majority; I could look for them and add them in. Wikiain (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the lead in R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia - there are still a bunch of improvements to make to the article, but I haven't got around to them - mostly this month I am trying to help the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. I should however have enough time to split the R v Canarvan decision out into a separate page from 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis which will give us an opportunity to knock it into shape. Find bruce (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! Wikiain (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might like the illustration in Kerry Raymond's userpage. Wikiain (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? The "We can edit!" or "High Lord Togneme Vicarus"? Kerry (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The former! Wikiain (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wondering how anything on my page related to R v Kirby or the eligibility crisis. I see now the connection was Women in Red. Kerry (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I got the connection & yes I smiled. Find bruce (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiain. If Ludlam, Waters, Roberts and Nash are all reported as "former politician" in their respective articles, then why not Parry? Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WWGB. Tricky calls for some of these. I'd say that "former" would now be right for Ludlum and Waters, since quite some time has passed, and arguably for Nash, but not yet for Parry. It has to come out for Roberts, because he is standing in Queensland. Wikiain (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Wikiain (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi Wikiain, sorry about my edits deleting "religion" from the infobox of Michael Kirby (judge) and Ronald Wilson, its just that infobox judge no longer recognises the "religion" paramater (see the discussion here) so it doesn't appear to readers, it may be appropriate to enter it in the infobox under the "footnotes" paramater?

Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this conclusive explanation. Kirby's importance is principally as a member of the High Court and he never made a judgment based on his religious position. So let his religion appear only in the body of the article. Wikiain (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your grace, diligence and raising of questions at 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis: thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, hamiltonstone Wikiain (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to your talk page, since it doesn't seem specifically relevant to Talk:2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Please so sign your contributions." The MediaWiki software automatically provides a link to my user page, talk page, and contributions page in page histories next to any edits I make. If you're referring to comments I leave on talk pages, my signature includes a link to both my user page (which does not currently exist) and my talk page.

If there are any specific issues you have with my edits (such as to Australian Senate, which you rolled back so weren't able to provide an explanation), I'd be happy to discuss them on my talk page or the talk page of the relevant article. --SnorlaxMonster 12:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who was supposed to see that you have a Talk page when your Username was all in red? Now it is half in red. Not helpful. Please make your position transparent by creating a Userpage. Wikiain (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every user has a talk page. Having a user page is optional. I do not wish to create a user page right now, and that has no impact on others' ability to contact me when they want to. The colors in my signature are purely a style I've applied, and are not literally "red links" and "blue links" (my signature has been this style since at least 2010). --SnorlaxMonster 01:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I've undone you too, though: the website is probably being slow to update over the summer break, but there is no question that Molan is officially now a senator and has been since 22 December. Being sworn in has no effect on one's membership of the Senate (indeed several senators have never been sworn in, like Lionel Courtenay). Frickeg (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone is a member of either house until sworn in - supposing that, in this respect as in others, Australia follows the practice of the British House of Commons. I assume that "being a member" is the same as "taking a seat". Then it is the list of Senate members that is wrong - as Alfie says, gettin' a bit previous. The Courtney example doesn't seem to prove either way. But I'm not going to sweat over this; presumably four new Senators will be sworn in on 5 February. Wikiain (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this reply. No, it's definitely the date of election that counts, and being a member is definitely not the same as taking a seat. You can see this in every member list on every Australian parliament website - it's the date of election that counts as the start of the term (except, of course, with bodies that are fixed term, like the Senate or the WA upper house - but even then, for replacements, it's the date the state parliament, or in this case the High Court, "appoints" or elects them to the vacancy). The House of Commons works the same way - otherwise all those Sinn Fein MPs wouldn't be counted since they're never sworn in. Courtenay is one of several who were officially members of the Australian Parliament but were never sworn in. Frickeg (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Cook. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.-gadfium 21:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have invited discussion on the article's Talk page. Wikiain (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikian could you please check this source.[1] Thanks. Dr Silverstein (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked this book in a library copy and have cited it more generally. I have removed the reference to Jews, partly because the number is small and partly because it relies so much on surname identification (see also Gillen, p 424). Wikiain (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	all that is solid melts into air
	thank you! gorgeous! Holaholahulahop (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring to enforce inclusion of your own work at Ballade des dames du temps jadis. This may be considered contrary to Wikipedia's policy on self-promotion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, I had no thought of edit warring or trying to force anything: I just reverted you again with fuller information in answer to your question. It looks like you will revert me again, and then I will have to stop. Now: would you object to just a footnote reference and/or a mention of availability in Wikimedia Commons (as educational material)? Some US libraries have copies of the journal and copies are available for purchase e.g. from Amazon. BTW, I translated the longer text in the Penguin Book of French Verse i.315-18. Wikiain (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first two sentences above, anyone can see what you are doing in the revision history, so please don't take me for a fool. You are an experienced editor here, and you know full well that if needed, you can provide more information on the article Talk page, or even in a dummy edit at the article for that matter; a revert was not necessary to accomplish that end. At this point, the best course forward, imho, is for you to revert yourself, address the topic in the discussion on the Talk page (as you have done), and wait for consensus to form. Thereafter, I don't object to a footnote or a mention of availability in Commons, as long as consensus favors it, and as long as it is someone else who places it there who has no connection to you. Cordially, 06:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, let us see what emerges on the article Talk page. Wikiain (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Austrialia" was used for the first time by Quiros – on 1 May 1606( Philip III's name day)

is outlined here -> A key phrase in the passage from the memorial is Quirós’ statement that “because on your day I took possession of it.” What did he mean by that? Collingridge (1895, 248) took it to mean “the anniversary of your birth”. However, it was not the King’s birthday, which had passed weeks before, on 14 April. Instead it most likely was referring to King Philip III’s name day, the feast day for the saint after whom an individual is named. Quirós expedition encountered Espíritu Santo in late April 1606, and on 1 May first entered a bay, which was subsequently named La Gran Baya de S. Philippe yS. Santiago, it being, as de Leza recorded, “the day of those apostles” (Markham 1904, 2:370). In the Tridentine Calendar,2 1 May was the feast day of St. Philip and St. Santiago (i.e. St. James). This simple phrase not only alludes directly to Philip but also to his position, as St. Santiago is the patron saint of Spain. Consequently it provides an additional layer of meaning by reinforcing the association between the name of the new land and the Spanish crown. Although the formal ceremony and proclamation claiming possession took place on the Pentecost, 14 May 1606 (Zaragoza 1876, 1:311-17; Markham 1904, 2:24852), I would suggest what Quirós meant in this instance was that effective possession commenced with his discovery of this new land, on the King’s name day.

which is from here -> http://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/Austrialia_Globe_72_2013_pp23-30.pdf

May I put "Philip III's name day" back? LawrieM (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Is the association in the texts that you cite or is it your own, in which case there could be a WP:OR issue. However, I still can't see "your day" as definitely more than a conventional flourish. Nonetheless, much more from Gerritsen could be added into the article. I'm not a historian and my Spanish is rudimentary: please go for it if you can and wish. One curious thing that (unless I've missed it) Gerritsen doesn't discuss: why is the land claimed for a holy order first and for the king second? Wikiain (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I might wait and include it with material from Gerritsen which as you point out is interesting material. As regards the Holy-Order-in-the-name business. At risk of sounding cynical it may have been a good move on Quirós's part, as King Philip III was also known as Philip the Pious - and the Inquisition was still in full swing! LawrieM (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted a category change on 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis. I am not familiar with the two categories, but you may want to look at Category:Political controversies in Australia as the same user has also changed the category to a redirect & removed it from the various parent categories. I would expect any such change to be taken through the WP:CfD process. Find bruce (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - very sensible. I've reverted that category change, with Talk to that user: "Please take this to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, explaining the difference(?) between 'controversy' and 'scandal'. If 'scandal' has a moral element, not all 'controversies' do."

I'd rather not get philosophical about this - just asking for a justification. Wikiain (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, as always. Right now, on this one, I think I’ve reached my three-revert limit, as maybe has someone else. But got other things to bother about. Wikiain (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user has [proposed that the category be deleted. I have responded there as I don't see how many of the controversies have the moral element of a scandal. Find bruce (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've agreed. Wikiain (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]