Hello, Dave Rave, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me)) before the question. Again, welcome!
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Robert E. Herzstein requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. - Happysailor(Talk) 00:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Southern Villages (Southern Highlands, New South Wales) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. noq (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've found a couple of references to illustrate use of the term, but it's up to you now to expand the article. PamD 13:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
working this up in my sandbox . Cen I hez two sandboxen ? Dave Rave (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My user page needs citational references? Lol. Thanks for the compliment.--Deweypants (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have just checked it on the map and the Jamison collapses directly down to Coxs, it looks to me to be directly linked with the Coxs system. However, if you don't like it, feel free to change it. I don't think I put that statement there, someone probably added it later, but anyway you are free to change it.
Should it get a re-write for plagiarism rule ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Rave (talk • contribs) 07:52, 23 May 2014
The page you link to at www.railpage.com.au says "Source: Wikipedia". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are greater gurus than i.... on the rail gauge issue[edit]
Try looking at the 2 -3 eds who have spent the last couple of months re-jigging rail gauge categories/templates etc... they are much better chances of helping you - I simply prodded a few many months ago for my dislike of one size fits all things that had bothered me for over 5 years... satusuro 10:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
many too trues, but when I'm circling myself for hours trying to pin the missing parts of ASG and SA400 v SA300 I'd think a ref to something has to be better than not a ref. --Dave Rave (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hah, I've done that with the number of tabs I have open more times than I can count. Glad to have helped! I'm new around here, and trying to "fix" as many of July's dead links as I can for fun. Llopster (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Goondah railway station requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou for expressing your concerns regarding unit conversion on the above article. While I could be (and probably am) fundamentally wrong please allow me to explain my motives. Reading the same guidelines you cited, I appear to have interpreted the meaning slightly differently than yourself. Allow me to demomstrate.
"Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, follow the "primary" quantity with a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. In science-related articles, however, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so."
I concluded from this paragraph that this article is not a science based article and should therefor have conversions.
"Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice-versa—and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions—a double conversion may be appropriate: Rosie weighed 19 stone (266 lb; 121 kg), The car had a fuel economy of 5 L/100 km (47 mpg-US; 56 mpg-imp)
Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided
I reached the same conclusion with this paragraph as while the bridge was constructed under the imperial system, we now use metric in Australia and I figure it would be unwise to assume that everyone has a grasp on the imperial system.
I'm not by any means trying to say that I am right and you are wrong - merely trying to convey my understanding of the guidelines.
I would like to assure you that I meant no harm and will not stand in the way of you REVERTING the conversions, should you so choose.
Any queries or complaints, my talk page is always open :-)
Excellent point. I will endeavor to read up on the conversion template to see how I can make it easier or at the very least, a little more accurate - Up until now I've asked google to do the conversions for me... my bad. Wikiian 02:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As requested, I'm now moving all the articles from Category:Victoria (Australia) articles missing geocoordinate data to Category:Victoria articles missing geocoordinate data, and I've updated the bot code to use this new category from now on. -- The Anome (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dave
Re: My talk page. My Sandbox already had something in it, and I didn't really know about the work in progress pages (thank you for setting one up for me).
Re: Wil Anderson Wikipedia page: I should have perhaps explained my edit better, thank you for noting. I had a read through Wikipedia:Citing sources, and I think including multiple refs to establish something as fact is okay, the 'clutter' referred to, I thought, seemed to refer to multiple uses of the same source - in which case you can use short citations, etc. What do you think? Clare-Bear
Not sure if you are still watching the Template historic site talk page or not, so repeating my response here.
By "output nothing", I assume you mean you didn't get a map displayed. If so, the answer is you need to use the locmapin field to select a map on which the pin is displayed. I added one to Eneabba Stone Arrangement and now there is a map. Kerry (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Dave Rave. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Warialda railway station".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: ((subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Warialda railway station)), paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again Dave. I bought the (rare) book that notes the Gundagai flood and Long Jimmy in it, today so have put the correct citation on the article page. It wasn't Watson noted Long Jimmy after all but his employer, W Davis Wright in his book 'Canberra' published in 1923. Last week I bought Wright's (rare) 'History of Canberra' book but it is not a waste as its a book very worth having. Long Jimmy has quite a story and should not be left out of any account of the history of this ACT/Gundagai area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.24.66 (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the article creator was suspect in the first place, I am suprised there werent more things to it - appreciate your wake up call... RWSA indeed, what a dumb one that was... JarrahTree 10:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a massive edit that makes working out what isn't and isn't linked an absolute headache. I have never seen that template before before despite having nearly every railway article in Australia on my watchlist - and thankfully so - because it serves absolutely no purpose - it just obfuscates ordinary wikilinks to make the wikitext as confusing as possible. This might be ignorable on a small page, but on a page of that size it is absolutely headache-inducing and for no good reason.
Absolutely nothing is simplified or clarified or in any way made easier by this edit: all it does is turn a bunch of perfectly clear Wikilinks into obscure templates doing exactly the same thing which make the wikitext of that page completely unintelligible. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so, it's en:wiki, and you don't understand it, it doesn't affect you, you don't research it, but you'll revert it, including the date updates and the two edits that needed doing. The associated line template for the article was already done with those templates, I just got around to finishing off the ones not done. So good job for you ... Dave Rave (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That didn't address my point whatsoever. The edit made the wikitext of that page completely unintelligible, and did nothing useful, so of course it affects me (and most other editors). I could care less what you do to the line templates, because they don't need regular editing and so it matters less if they're unintelligible to normal editors, but your edits here were actively detrimental to the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
who reads the underlying written code to understand the presented wiki article ? a normal wiki link is unintelligble until you understand it, so is reading a cite web url = --Dave Rave (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me rephrase: what does that template add to that article besides making the wikitext harder to read? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it detracts nothing from the article. wikitext is always hard to read, until you understand it and translate it in your head, as you go. reverting a valid edit undoes good editing, this article has bad dates, spelling errors, and you haven't learned anything from this experience. --Dave Rave (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to fix all the dates and spelling errors you like. It is completely bizarre to add something that serves absolutely no purpose except making the wikitext harder to read, without even any attempt at having a rational reason for doing so besides "because it is technically possible and I can". The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: It appears that youdon't like ((RwsA)), and support your POV with the straw man argument that “it serves absolutely no purpose …[except] to make the wikitext as confusing as possible.” Apparently you didn't bother to read the documentation, which is as clear and simple as I could make it. If ((stnlnkA|High Street|NSW)) is that much harder to read and understand than [[High Street railway station, New South Wales|High Street]], then I think if may be fair to question your overall grasp of wiki editing. Useddenim (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did you create that template? What purpose does it serve? I can't think of an editorial dispute where someone had literally no reason for making edits except for a desire to obfuscate wikitext. The direct link is clear: it simply tells, in plain text, where the link goes to. The StnInkA requires me to track down and read the documentation for a random template and then interpret it (which on a large page gets to be a headache, particularly when mixed with the equally useless NSWCity template) - and has absolutely no advantages over the direct link besides being a handful of characters shorter. There's a reason I've never seen this kind of useless template in all my years on Wikipedia, and while I could care less if you want to mangle the never-edited line charts, if you're planning on trying to roll these out further, both templates need to be simply nominated for deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: If you are asking those questions, then it is obvious that still haven’t bothered to read the documentation. And if you tell me that you have never mis-typed when inserting a wikilink, well then you’re lying. Your aversion to looking up and trying to learn about something you don’t understand suggests a laziness that is inappropriate for a barn-starred editor. I’m not advocating their replacement of regular wikilinks in articles. I just said that it is merely personal preference. Occasionally I’ve used them in an article; sometimes they’ve been reverted, but usually not.
For new systems and systems in need of maintenance, use the newer ((Station link)) (abbreviated ((stl)) or ((slk))) instead, which uses the faster and less maintenance-intensive Module:Adjacent stations.
A number of other templates provide the same function for specific systems:
Go ahead and nominate the templates for deletion, and see the shitstorm that you’ll bring down on your head. Useddenim (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I understand how they work. I am just stating that they're completely pointless - ecause at no point has anyone advocating these templates actually advanced a plausible reason why they're doing this besides "just because". If I mistype a wikilink, it will show up as a redlink, and I can fix it piece of cake. If someone else mistypes a redlink in this format, I, like many editors, may or may not be bothered trawling through the documentation to work out how to actually fix it. It's bizarrely contradictory to all the efforts of people like the VisualEditor developers to make editing Wikipedia more accessible to newbies to drive our amount of active editors up to just intentionally make editing pages harder because you can and very weirdly, want to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you’re just not willing to make the effort to understand? Definitely not willing to read what I wrote about easing editing Route Diagrams. (Try creating one yourself, and you might just see how much work it saves.) Besides, VisualEditor is incompatible with RDTs, so stop dispatching straw men to this discussion. WP:IDL is not an adequate argument, and if using a template is harder for you, well then just don’t use it – but don’t prohibit it to everyone else! Useddenim (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[RDTs are] a giant block of pipes and strange acronyms in German … a standard RDT contains lines such as ((BS9-2|exSTR|O1=HUB-R|exKHSTa|STR|O3=HUB-L|eHST|d|STR|d|STR|STR|((rws|Avonmouth|BPRP))|((rws|North Filton Platform)))). RDT coding is ridiculously complex and completely obscure. Anyone who wants to change an RDT needs to know the codes…
If you want to use it in route diagrams, which rarely need to be edited, I could definitely care less. It is using it in articles that is the problem - and, if it is, as you put it "ridiculously complex and completely obscure", and incompatible with VisualEditor, then we definitely should stop using it in articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I heard my name, though I'm not sure why...
If I understand correctly, this is an argument about whether templates like ((rws)), which add simple links, should be allowed. In my view, these templates make wikitext significantly clearer, because instead of having something like [[Avonmouth railway station|Avonmouth]], you have the simpler ((rws|Avonmouth)). It's a way to save effort and to make it a bit easier to read (especially in RDTs!). Now that's obviously a very simple example, but similar templates allow enhanced functionality, such as the ((StnlnkA)) mentioned earlier. For another railway example, you have ((brc)), which allows you to easily link train classes. Then you've got stuff like ((railgauge)), which again is similar. Sure, all this stuff could be done with simple wikitext, but by that logic there is no need for templates at all. You may think that they're useless, but given their ubiquity most people clearly disagree. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: Once again you misdirect away from the previous point. (Something that accomplished politicians are good at – perhaps that explains the overwhelming interest in Australian politics.) ((RwsA)) and its brethren – which is what sparked this discussion – are simple and easy to use. If you don't want to use it, then "I could definitely care less". Useddenim (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which completely contradicts everything you said in the immediate previous post. If you are replacing garden variety wikilinks with something that intentionally breaks VisualEditor, then that should be a glaring red flag that you should not be doing that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And once more you twist things around to try and justify your POV. Nothingintentionally breaks VisualEditor (it’s just a PITA); VE can’t cope with the complex formatting of Route Diagram Templates, whether they’re coded in ((BS-map)) or ((Routemap)). ((RwsA)) – which you seem bent on ignoring –
works just fine whether you edit by invoking ctrl+alt+e or ctrl+alt+v. Give it a rest already. Useddenim (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I turned on VisualEditor and opened the old revision, and the edit looks just fine, the text is okay, the VE knows what the template is, even lets you edit the link. Where's the problem ? --Dave Rave (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opps, I left out “[VE] … on mobile devices”. Useddenim (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I tried editing an RDT on my phone, and VE has been “fixed” … by defaulting to the standard editor — good luck using that to edit a diagram on a phone. Useddenim (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
three days ? what's the definitive answer ? can I continue ? can we make the TDW re-add my previous edit just because ? Dave Rave (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd go ahead and reinstate the edit. You might be able to sucker her into falling afoul of WP:3RR, but even if she just blanket reverts, you might be able to take the issue to WP:ANI based on her weak argument from this thread. Useddenim (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just so you know, I've bookmarked that diff, @Useddenim:, and raised it at WP:ANI. If you're trying to escalate this from a garden variety edit dispute to the sort of thing arbcom needs to get involved in, you're going about it the right way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to your comment on my talk page: I have no idea what a discussion at Wikipedia:Citation templates would have to do with the RWSA template because uh, it is not a citation template? The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it doesn't actually cite anything, that's not only absurd but a fairly spectacular attempt at managing to stage a discussion where no one from any affected articles would ever see it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
your personal ignorance of the reality doesn't substantiate your reasoning for reversion. Dave Rave (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dave, you only caught one of the two vandalism edits at Gregory Blaxland. reverting is more reliable than undoing in cases like this. Graham87 14:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i usually just fix it from my watchlist, G. you mean i gots to go and check version history too? my day just got a lot longer ;( --Dave Rave (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your message is a bit cryptic but I figured you're referring to the Homoranthus - and you're right. The correct spelling is Homoranthus croftianus. Still red-linked unfortunately. Thanks for the message. Gderrin (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recent editing history at Category:Allan truss bridges shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you started it. An entry in a sub-cat is already in the parent car. Alan only worked Oz. There are only three examples. All are Oz. Can you help your case ? If so, try a ref or two Dave Rave (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Thanks for the hints on how to do a lot with the railway route infobox. Looks like a lot of work there. Skillsy (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what was going on at my talk page? JarrahTree 23:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
working through disam, editing, explaing, expanding, then finding the already explained. Dave Rave (talk)
Nomination of McAuley Catholic Primary School for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article McAuley Catholic Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McAuley Catholic Primary School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your contributed article, Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School[edit]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – McAuley Catholic Primary School. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at McAuley Catholic Primary School. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomination of Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on McAuley Catholic Primary School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School[edit]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and the coords edit at The Drop (i see you're doing lots of ozzie coord edits, so will leave them to an expert:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is probably me having an off day, but your edit summary re-adding the template to Con Man (web series), I just don't appreciate the tone. It's just very unkind. And, like, I have my doubts as to whether or not the series falls in the scope of the template. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Anglican churches in Newcastle has been nominated for discussion[edit]
Category:Anglican churches in Newcastle, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dave. You reverted my deletion of a link from James Cook. The link is to a wayback, but the site itself has expired. Go to it and click on "Not working? Try ... Source 2". Wikiain (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the link shows details, so now you know a name, which leads to a DVD you can buy. you take out the link, suddenly it becomes citation needed and unsourced text deleted. or you could look up the amazon and link to the dvd for sale, or an imdb entry Dave Rave (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see anything about a DVD and a DVD to buy surely is not a good documentary source for WP.
"Source 2" goes to the message "All good things must come to an end eventually, and today the time has come for DocuWatch to sail off into the sunset. / Thank you to everyone who visited the site over the years and to all those who offered encouraging comments. We hope you have been able to learn or discover a thing or two thanks to our endeavours. / So goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!"
The previous page is dated 18 September 2013, so if a DVD is advertised it might not still be available. My preference is still to delete the whole reference. Wikiain (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if you delete the only link to a ref you have no idea what the link is. the docuwatch is a viewing on the telly of the dvd series. the second link is not a thing that is in the wayback. the title is on amazon and any good google search Dave Rave (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you like to substitute that link to the ABC DVD ad? Wikiain (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not substitute, append, as the wayback shows the original which is then why the ABC Dave Rave (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry: why keep the wayback, which now has no significant information? Wikiain (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you originally pointed at the second link as proof that the docuwatch isn't online, but that was a docuwatch link. the wayback is the thing that saved that data. the wayback is the thing that is still there. the wayback is the thing that was posted as the ref. stop deleteing a link that is a ref with data and add to it. Dave Rave (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ref currently does not link to any significant information: that is why I deleted it. But, if I delete it again, it seems you will revert me. I'll go away from this now. Wikiain (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the link currently links to a saved copy of data that doesn't exist anymore. that is the point of the archive.is or wayback machine. Dave Rave (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could well be. If you look at the dab page Tea tree it says Kunzea ericoides it specifically says Australia & New Zealand but if Melaleuca is common I'd be very happy if you change it.— Rodtalk 20:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but the Kunzea page has no mention of Aust. but tea tree oil is a common thing to australia, just not mentioned on that line, and melaleuca is common to australia. Dave Rave (talk)
Do we know anyone with expertise in Australian fauna?— Rodtalk 21:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saw your edit summary here, but couldn't work out what the reference problem was. I've dealt with a few across the register articles - what's the problem there? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the ref after the coords, there's no code as to why it is there and it's just a bare http ref that is the SHR ref, something hidden is adding something somehow Dave Rave (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't fine because it looks terrible on mobiles, but I agree my experiments haven't worked. I think the collapsible sections will have to be removed.--Grahame (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dave Rave, Thanks for your favourable comment on my edits to Fitzroy Iron Works. Happy to add to what I think is an important article.
Regarding the Info-Box, assuming you put one in when you started the article, then someone else must have deleted that long before I became involved.
UPDATE ON 3-6-2019:
Noted your comment to do with the Trove citation dates. I am just using the date generated automatically and not hand-editing these dates. If something is not as expected with the dates, I cannot explain that.
Regarding the length of the article, yes it is long, but so is the story of this ironworks. It is very complex and involved tale. I am not going to add any more now. I am done with this subject. It was a big job.
Hi Dave Rave, got your message on the dates in Trove citations. I thought I had answered it in the post immediately above. When I create the Trove citation automatically, it puts the date in without my input (at all). More recently in an article 'Enoch Hughes' where I used NZ 'Papers Past' citations, the automatic generation of those (as 'website') does not complete the source data field, and then when editing this field, it seems to insist on the format YYYY-MM-DD. It would not accept say "27 November 1920". I have no idea why this is happening. If other people don't have the same issue, is there perhaps a setting at the level of my account? I really don't know and I am not trying to 'buck the system' by doing something odd with my dates. TrimmerinWiki (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no opinion about date formats whatsoever and don't intentionally change them, so I'm not sure why you're posting on my talk page about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, not going to apologise for cleaning up bot-made edits that are incorrectly categorising living people. Perhaps you should find something useful to do than regurgitating years-old grudges. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're still posting about my talk page regarding an obvious accidental revert of a trivial edit. I think this would be an excellent time to take your own advice. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you got me, I accidentally reverted a trivial edit while reverting a bad edit. Shock, horror, abomination. Are you going to drop this now or do I need to be snarkier? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dave, in this edit [1] you removed the |access-date= parameters from many citations, although you kept the |url= parameters to which they refer. Why did you do this?
These parameters are vital information for the verification of sources, and they should not normally be removed.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trove sources aren't web pages that alter over time, they are images of newspapers, fixed, unchanging @Matthiaspaul:Dave Rave (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your quick answer. I can see now that your removal of the parameter is down to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the parameter.|access-date= is used to indicate that the url given in |url= was accessed on that date. This is regardless of if the url shows static or dynamic contents. It's not only about the contents but also about the proper functioning of the url itself.|date= is the publication date of a particular content, which, in your case of trove sources, will never change, whereas the web representation may change over time - even the url may change completely over time. So, please don't remove |access-date= for as long as |url= exists.
Referencing Isle of the Dead (Tasmania) article[edit]
Hi Dave, just wanted to thank you for your referencing suggestions and instructions. A work in progress! --Southpaw20 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Southpaw20: glad to help, obstructed by are you working or not .... hard to do all the things that need doing if you're in the middle of it too Dave Rave (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes i have finished adding to the article so you are most welcome to improve it. Thank you --Southpaw20 (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for the work that has gone in to this article, if either of you have suggestions from this experience for future students please feel free to send them on to me @Southpaw20: --Carrolquadrio (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly don't know what you are talking about[edit]
I honestly don't know what you are talking about, with these three edits:
[2],
[3],
[4].
Near as I can tell we haven't crossed paths before. So, I've no idea what you are talking about.
If you really think I have a pattern of edits, or comments, that are problematic, do you think you could be specific about it? Could you offer a few diffs?
If you think you can do that, you can leave the diffs here, and ((ping)) me. Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although you did not reply to this comment, you continued to make additional unclear comments, at User_talk:Jay_D._Easy. In my last comment there I suggested you learn how to follow our conventions for discussions before you tried to make any more comments, anywhere. Geo Swan (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With rail services templates being updated to Template:Adjacent stations is it worth updating this old article - I am not planning to update it unless requested to do so.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fleet Lists: not on the my user page version, just something I started, I'm sure the current one is better Dave Rave (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at User Talk:Rich Smith. - RichT|C|E-Mail 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
