User talk:CJ

cj is retired. sorta.

Home	Users	Gallery	Sandpit	To-do	Talk

replies

If you have posted your comment correctly, know that I will read it, generally within a weeks time.
I will usually always respond to your comment on my talkpage. Sometimes I may crosspost to your talkpage.
Occasionally, I may not respond — understand this is not because I have not read your comment nor is it a personal slight

Note

I hope you read my last message before you archived. : ) - √αʑʑρεɾ 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--cj | talk 07:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you like my award? √αʑʑρεɾ 07:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I trust you recieved and read my email, : ) √αʑʑρεɾ 09:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--cj | talk 09:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You truly are currently a man of few words lol, √αʑʑρεɾ 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News portal on John Howard

John Howard is not the first PM to face a judicial inquiry. Bob Hawke also faced one. [1] Thanks, Andjam 12:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling on Userpage

Couldn't help but notice that "welcoming committee" on your userpage is missing the "c" in welcoming. I would have changed it myself but you don't seem to like people playing with your userpage (quite understandably). So I thought I'd leave you a message instead. Witty lama 02:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telstra Football Anytime

It was a press release, so it’s hardly copyrighted material. Put it back now please, so it can be worked on if need be. --Executive.koala 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still copyright Ek unless you obtain permission to license it under the GFDL. But even then, doesn't it occur to you that the text of press release will almost always be inconsistent with Wikipedia policies? The text you posted was not only copyright, but also POV. You're welcome to write an article for Telstra Football Anytime in your own words from what you deduce from external sources, but please don't copy those sources themselves.--cj | talk 03:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Fpopages

Template:Fpopages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (I am telling you because you have edited it). Batmanand | Talk 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry rush of blood to head. Ignore it. No longer listed. Batmanand | Talk 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

portal

I have a question regarding Portal:Fashion. Why was it taken off the main page of portals? It's of the same quality as Portal:Rock and Roll, yet that hasn't been taken off. --Osbus 15:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perth population density source

It looks like you were the one who added the infobox on Perth on 2005-10-12. Part of this infobox is a figure for the population density of Perth.

The population figure has since been updated and referenced, but I cannot find the source for the density figure. I suspect it needs to be updated to reflect the population increase. Could you please advise where you found this statistic? LX 09:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that I refered to the Perth Statistical District of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. You'll find it in the AusStats section of the ABS website.--cj | talk 10:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It appears you calculated the density based on the Statistical District area as given in the 2001 census. I have updated the density figure based on the same area and commented accordingly on the talk page. Case closed. LX 13:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Hi Cyberjunkie,

Are you aware that the notice board is still on walkabout? Andjam 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's finished now. It took a while to go through - the interface isn't really helpful for selective deletions; you have to check each individual edit you want restored. And there were nearly 4000 edits to AWNB. Thanks, --cj | talk 07:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! I assumed it'd only take a few minutes. Sorry about that, and thanks for your work. Andjam 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content

Hello Cyberjunkie, I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. You might want to voice your opinion on the matter. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSIRO is ACOTF

Hi. You voted for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as Australian Collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve this article in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis ^Talk 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viagra spamming

Thanks for blocking the spammer; unfortunately, they seemed to have moved to this IP: 221.152.220.67 (talk · contribs). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall blocking anyone for viagra spamming, so this must be incidental.--cj | talk 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasons

Hi. Why did you delete my sourced sentence that John Gorton was a freemason? It was sourced correctly, and yet no reason was given for its deletion. Please respond promptly. Rcm 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Robert Menzies and Edmund Barton are also Freemasons. The source - from the freemasons - says so. No reason was given yet again, and yet you say you were merely "reverting in-text link spam"...This is not the case. It is sourced to be true. It is a legitimate fact to be known. Censoring this fact does little for the noble goals of Wikipedia. Here's the source: Famous australian freemasons from freemsonryaust dot org dot au Rcm 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded here. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to help

Hi... I'm Gifford. Wondering if there is anything I can do with regard to the development of the Web Portal section? What sort of content would you like to see? We make and sell portal software. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.90.147 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work as you wish within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I haven't any particular plans for the article you mention.--cj | talk 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Just wondering if you might be able to take a look at History of Burnside for me and offer any advice on how to improve it before I put it up as a featured article candidate! Thanks, michael ^talk 11:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time permitting, I'd be happy to. It looks fairly good from a glance over. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/66.246.218.169

Perhaps you could clean these up as well? Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English varieties

I recieved your message about the different uses of English and I was wondering if that was meant to be applied to how I changed the spelling of "civilisation" to "civilization" in the Wolf Creek article. If this is the case, then I'm not sure why you left the comment. I originally wrote the synopsis for the film with the spelling "civilization", and you changed it to "civilisation". I merely changed it back to the way I orginally wrote it. So, I dont see exactly what the issue with the spelling variation is. But please tell me if what I did was still wrong. -Lindsey8417 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsey. The golden rule for which variety of English to use in a particular article is consistency. Wolf Creek (film) is not only an Australian topic, but it was and is primarily written in Australian English. Thus, subsequent edits are expected to conform with this variety. It might have helped if I was clear from the beginning. Happy editing, --cj | talk 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I am ready to change the side balks elections-small and ideology-small after my holidays in bottom-templates. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it allready. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Burnside

Thanks for the copyedit! I've addressed the citations and have removed the reference to the Norwood muncipality for now. When I stumble upon it again (19th century english is not fun!), I'll add it in. Again, thanks. michael ^talk

Brown Hill, Mitcham

For my future reference, can you explain why this page name needed to be changed? There are four gazetted hills named Brown Hill in SA, so the Mitcham is needed. Fine. However, there is more than one Mitcham in Australia and the world. I guess the others are unlikely to have hills named Brown Hill, but shouldn't the page name avoid possible ambiguity. E.g. Why doesn't Mitcham in the UK need to be qualified but Mitcham, Victoria does? (there is no page for Mitcham, SA yet). Thanks Ian 22:26, 3 May 2006

Hi Ian. Place names are governed by Wikipedia naming conventions. For Australian locations, these dictate that any city (excluding the capitals), town or suburb be claused regardless of uniqueness: thus Town, Jurisdiction. Somewhat oddly, there are different conventions for other areas. United States and Canadian places are always Town, Jurisdiction. United Kingdom places, on the other hand, are never claused unless an ambiguity exists. In this case, the naming conventions do not technically cover the article. Therefore, disambiguation is only employed where necessary. I specifically moved the article to Brown Hill, Mitcham because a double clause was not necessary - there were no other Brown Hill, Mitcham's published on Wikipedia, thus that is the extent of the disambiguation of Brown Hill. I realise I haven't explained this particularly well, so if you need further clarification, please ask. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got the drift. Ian 22:20, 4 May 2006

I find your lack of faith... disturbing. (joke)

Dear Cyberjunkie,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brogden.JPG

Hi CJ! I came across this image at John Brogden, and didn't understand how it was fair use to use this channel 9 screenshot in an article about John Brogden. Since you uploaded the image, I thought you might be able to explain? Thanks, JPD (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer assert that TV screenshots are fair use. Feel free to remove it.--cj | talk 09:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it and listed it for deletion, since I can't see it having any other use. JPD (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the edit

Sorry about the edit, it was unintentional while I was experimenting with the code for the meter thing. It was not meant to be vandalism, I didn't realize that it posted on your page. Sorry for the trouble. User:Gundam785 04:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

portal formatting

Thanks for taking a look; I figured out a way to fix Portal:History of science, but the same issue appears in a lot of other portals. I think the problem is with Portal:Box-header; I left a note about the specific issue (I think) on that talk page.--ragesoss 05:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it elsewhere. And I just saw your comment there.--cj | talk 05:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why "no thumbs" for the portal content box?--ragesoss 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they conflict with portal box backgrounds when substituted on the portal page.--cj | talk 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? They look fine on Portal:History of science.--ragesoss 05:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason they cause the colour of portal namespace pages to show around the thumbnail in the portal box; essentially, the portal box background fails to appear. On Portal:History of science, the differance between the namespace colour and the box background is subtle, but the fault is still present in both IE and Gecko-based browsers. It appears more pronounced in portals with lighter or darker backgrounds.--cj | talk 05:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, and your support for plunging ahead with the trial-and-error method of fixing things.--ragesoss 06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the exact namespace color is? For things that are only used on the history of science portal, I think the best thing will be to just match them.--ragesoss 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but you should be able to find out from one of the MediaWiki pages.--cj | talk 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:South Australia

Hello Cyberjunkie. Would it be correct if I started a portal along this lines, as I think that there would be enough diversity and amount of content which it can link together and also I have seen Portal:Kerala on the Indian state which is in a similar situation as being a subset/subportal of another portal? I think it meets the guidelines for creation. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, I'm personally not enthusiastic about such a portal - but not necessarily opposed. There are number of portals for subnational entities (aside cities), of which Portal:Kerala is probably the best maintained. I do think there is a fair amount of quality South Australian content, but not enough of it to avoid repeats. My biggest concern would be maintenance; if Portal:Australia essentially has only me to maintain it (aside P:AU/N, which has gained patronage since I transcluded it WP:AWNB), how will portals for the states and territories manage? And although you only propose Portal:South Australia (which would have at least you and myself), it would be precedent to the others. I think if such portals were created the best option would be to make them navigation-oriented, like Portal:Europe. --cj | talk 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that you've made me think about it, I'm warming to the idea.--cj | talk 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eltham North Soccer Club

Cyberjunkie, could you delete this repost of speedied content (random suburban team) and protect it form editing please. The creator keeps on putting {{hangon}} on the grounds "this group needs more exposure" and it is probably confusing some of the non-Australian admins. Thanks.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --cj | talk 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Thankyou! michael ^talk 08:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

I'd had a change of username request going for a while, so I could get rid of some of the baggage attached to the old username, but I was bored this afternoon and finally pestered Tim Starling into doing the necessary groundwork. :) Ambi 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This is your third nick, right – three times a Wikipedian? I like it :P—cj | talk 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing photos

I noticed you removed several pictures from Mount Gambier, South Australia, with a comment of Infobox (which you also added). I was partway through putting the best two back when I realised they were screenshots uploaded by you. Is the removal due to a change or better understanding of copyright policy? Will I notice you removing screenshots from other articles too? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been progressively removing them as I come across them or where I notice that free-use images can replace them. The reason for this being that I no longer assert that screenshots count as fair use. --cj | talk 07:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate

Recognising that you deserve a handful of these ...for your constant maintenance of Aussie articles... and just now for your tireless cleaning up after me... Cheers! —Donama 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since only the original one will do... Glad we'll be working with you on Aussie places WikiProject. — Донама 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly! It's nice to be appreciated ;-)--cj | talk 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hi, could you work out why the flag and CoA captions aren't showing up correctly in the Solomon Islands article. Thanks.--Peta 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed that and a few other faults. For "common_name" a "the Solomon Islands" was required. Happy editing, --cj | talk 09:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Peta 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also something wrong with the box on Nauru, could you take a look?--Peta 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thank you for your vote in my RfA! The nomination failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination - it's been a good learning experience. - Amgine 17:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories

Thanks for fixing that paragraph. That was the major inaccuracy I noticed, but I'm not qualified to know if the rest is accurate, and I'm not sure that someone who gets the names of the state parliaments wrong is either, so I figured it needs a second look.

As for the overarching electoral systems in Australia, I'm not too sure how it would differ from the present, and what we might break that down into that wouldn't fit in the legislature articles themselves - the problem being that a lot of Australian electoral system could basically be copy/pasted into state articles, as there's very little difference. Perhaps you could explain it in a little more detail. :) Ambi 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other inaccuracies, yes. I'm not sure of the exact rules in each state, so I don't want to touch those just yet.

It wouldn't differ significantly from the existing article; the change would essentially mean renaming the article; covering the Commonwealth; and condensing it overall as a summary article with forks for each system. It just seems more logical the current circumstance. You're right that most of this could and probably should be covered in the actual legislature articles, though. So perhaps instead of separate articles, we just utilise the "parliament of X" articles.--cj | talk 03:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzper

FYI: User_talk:60.227.174.236. Snottygobble 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've stopped replying to his emails also. He's had his chances.--cj | talk 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Portal

So before discussing with anyone who has been actively working on the USMC Portal for close to two months now any ideas or thoughts you may have on how to change it you go directly to proposing its removal. That is a bad way of doing business. I believe you would be hard pressed to find many portals that are as actively kept as the USMC one. I believe your suggestion that Portal:Military would be appropriate is also off base. There is no way that one portal would be sufficient to do any justice to the enormous amount of military info/history that is already on Wikipedia and still needs to be created. Why not propose we get rid of Portal:Baseball and merge it into Portal:Sport? Because then you would never hear about baseball again amid such a broad topic. The Marine Corps already has a large amount of info on Wikipedia and there are still thousands of articles that need to be created. It is a robust topic and more than deserves a Portal. Before going after a good portal like ours you should concentrate your efforts on portals such as Portal:NATO or Portal:Philadelphia which are stagnant and have not been updated in ages.--Looper5920 05:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is a proposal; it had to be made before it could be discussed. Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals is the appropriate forum for that to take place.

Whether USMC is actively maintained or not in question; what is is its scope and usefulness. One of the fundamental objectives of a portal is usefulness and it has been established that this is best-accomplished with broad subject areas. Moreover, portals are intended to promote only good content from those areas. A portal on military is appropriate because it is a broad subject area; because of that, it can draw on a sufficient number of quality articles. And note that I mean quality; thousands of articles mean nothing if they are in majority stubs.

The strawman you put about Baseball completely ignores the point. USMC is a minor branch of a broader force; baseball is a sport in its own right and thus a broad subject area. Portal:Sports and games exists as an over-arching parent portal from which baseball descends. USMC exists without any structure. Essentially, what should occur is a trickle down - Portal:Military is created as the subject and if a division of that subject, say, navy, should require a separate portal, then one is created. Even still, USMC would probably not be eligible for its own portal because of its inherent limitations.

You state that I should concern myself with other, more inept portals. Believe me that I am getting there; the sheer numbers of sub-standard portals means it will take considerable time. Most of the processes aimed at improving portals were established by me: I wrote Wikipedia:Portal and its subpages; I direct Wikipedia:Featured portals; and I initiated Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. So you needn't worry that I am not working to improve portals. Portal:United States Marine Corps and Portal:Military of Australia are just the latest I've encountered.--cj | talk 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you are well intentioned in trying to improve all of the Portals on wikipedia and we all thank you but just because you have contributed so much to the Portals area does not make you the sole determiner of what stays and goes. This is a large encyclopedia and I truly believe that you do not understand the the scope of the USMC articles on wikipedia. We all have our little corner of Wikipedia that we look after. Yours is Australia and mine is the USMC. Both are substantial topics and both deserve their own portals. --Looper5920 12:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't any never have assumed that I am the "sole determiner"; hence Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. USMC is not a substantial topic and it is laughable to even attempt to place it equal to a country. I think that the reason you don't accept my argument is precisely because USMC is your focus on Wikipedia. I appreciate that you and like-minded editors are working to make coverage on USMC comprehensive but that does not change the fact that it is inherently constrained by its specificity. It is but a subset of a broader subject a portal for which would duly cover it. Thanks, —cj | talk 12:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We'll just have to agree to disagree and let the votes fall where they may.--Looper5920 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Centauri

He keeps on removing a warning that I posted for his reverting here and here. He has also engaged in name calling against me and has generally been discourteous. He also posted a 3rr warning on my page after removing the one from his own, even though I only reverted twice, just for the sake of getting back at me. Xtra 08:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra appears unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing policies as they relate to user talk pages. Posting a 3RR warning on my talk page when there was no abuse of the 3RR is misplaced and constitutes incivility on his part. As a misplaced warning I removed it. I was wrong to add a 3RR warning to his page and will remove it immediately. --Centauri 08:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri did revert 3 times. Hence my warning to him was valid. I am aware of editting policies and one is that you are not suposed to remove warnings from your talkpage unless you are archiving. Xtra 09:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously noted Xtra's apparent unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and the above comments are further evidence of this. As I limited my reverts to the 3 per 24-hours alowed by the 3RR, his posting of a 3RR warning was obviously misplaced, so I was therefore entirely justified in removing it from my talk page, in accordance with the policies pertaining to editors editing their own talk page. --Centauri 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no strict violation of the three-revert rule by either party. Whilst Centauri did make three reversions, the latter two affected different content to the first. The posting of {{3RR}} to Centauri was not necessary but neither was it misplaced; the warning does not allege infringement, but cautions against it. The same would also apply to Centuari's posting to Xtra's page were it not tit-for-tat retaliation. However, the removal of that warning was highly inappropriate whether it was justified or not; aside from vandalism and personal attacks, the blanking of any comments to any talk page is frowned upon. If you dispute something, do so in words; to simply erase a warning reeks of a cover-up. And finally, I take issue with something Centauri has abovestated. Centauri: you stated you were "allowed" three-reverts by the 3RR. This is very much a dangerous perspective; 3RR does not permit or encourage reversions – it plainly proscribes any more than three in a day. The whole point of the policy is to discourage edit wars altogether, not to establish a framework in which they may take place. Xtra: I see no evidence of Centauri engaging in name calling. In any case, wise Peta has settled the matter. Happy editing, —cj | talk 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated? When did that happen? Kirill Lok s h in 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since {{portal}} made it redundant; it has optional parameters now.--cj | talk 13:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it; I hadn't noticed that {{portal}} had been changed. Kirill Lok s h in 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manna

User:Mannaseejah is doing it again, this time under his anonymous URL. Can you block him again and/or ban him? [2]

Thank you for your help! Sparsefarce 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozboy

Thanks for the tidy up on my last immigration to Australia edit. I'd note though that I did include a reference to the UNHCR data on the Australian resettlement program in the reference list and mentioned it in the text. I've changed that back to the way it was, but if there is a special way that it should be cited I'd appreciate it if you let me know. (I'm on a different computer so will have a different IP address today).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.176.115 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. I have revert back to my citation request because you have incorrectly referenced the claims; the link you list does not corroborate the assertions - please point directly to such evidence. Thanks, --cj | talk 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page in the middle of the night. Since all later contributions from that user have been for vandalism, it makes me wonder if Mobile offshore base is a hoax. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps put a {{prod}} on it?--cj | talk 08:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkheader

Please see Template talk:Talkheader#Colours, thanks/wangi 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have seen. Happy editing, --cj | talk 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi CJ,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian electorates

Hi Newhoggy. I caught your question to Bec and thought I'd point you in the right direction. Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/Electorates was set up to deal with Australian electorates. Happy editing, --cj | talk 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks cj -- Newhoggy | Talk 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion

Thanks for clearing that up for me, it is interesting to have someone of note editing / contacting wikipedia (I actually have her book sitting on my tv cabinet, it has been lying there, unread, for three weeks now). I study at Marden Senior College part time to up my TER; this will enable me entry into a university course I *really* want to do next year. michael ^talk 06:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University

Hi, I just reverted your changes to the Infobox University template - you had changed the class from "infobox bordered" to "infobox," which inserted table gridlines between each data element. A variety of other infobox templates use the "infobox bordered" class, and I think it creates a much cleaner look (such as Template:Infobox Company). If you disagree can we first discuss the change on the template talk page? Thanks! —Jnk^[talk] 12:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have this the wrong way round: I changed the class from "infobox" to "infobox bordered", a format which is more common among infoboxes and for the most part more attractive. I won't pursue the matter however. Happy editing, --cj | talk 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF

I tried to add Australian National Heritage ListI feel this would be worthwhile, if I am not following the right procedures can you please help me to do the right thing. Ghostieguide 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news - Fijian election

The report on Laisenia Qarase claiming victory may be premature. See [3] and [4] for example of news reports which seem to make it clear that there is no victory yet. If you have a source which is better than these, repeat your post and I won't revert you. Please also add a post with source at Current events.-gadfium 09:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]