User talk:Hide&Reason
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Australian wine
Hi. Australian wine has been selected as the current Australian collaboration, so as you voted for it, any contributions would be welcome. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Policy
To encourage anonymous persons to register. I find it very insulting being asked to debate with IP addresses. Adam 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of pics from Melbourne article
You have removed the panoramic image of Melbourne/Southbank twice, both times without justification. It is a featured picture and one of the better images in the article and I feel (somewhat subjectively) that it should remain. In future, could you discuss it on the article talk page as I feel have been, at times, a bit liberal with your removal of content. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I mentioned the removal here: Talk:Melbourne#Photos
- Diliff, there was a panorama of the city skyline from the Docklands (a featured photo of yours) which I transferred to the top of the article. I thought something really professional should come at the start, but that's since been reverted to the previous skyline shot, from the Yarra.
- Melbourne#Geography already contained about three pics in addition to your own panorama. I found the metro map and the birds-eye image were more informative to that section. Your photo's superb, but it doesn't really tell users anything. It may well suit another part of the article; it may even find a home where you've put it if the section were expanded so that three/four pics wouldn't spell clutter. I'm not excluding your work, but I think sticking in photos like post-it notes for a later editorial change is a bit rich. I realise I should have put all this in the edit summary, though. Hide&Reason 10:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was just being bold and putting it back in. I do agree that the image in question doesn't 'tell a story' but it does show the CBD/Yarra River/Southbank areas in relation to each other, which is pretty important for the geography of the city. If anything, the aerial image from the Rialto is one of the poorer images of the city in the article, since it misses so much of the skyline and doesn't really show anything other than a random scattering of buildings - its difficult to get a sense of scale. I suppose there are pro's and con's to either image but I do agree with you that we needed more images of around Melbourne as well as the skyline itself. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unilateral removal of the history section in ABC article
Hi H&R
We have an unpleasant situation about to develop over this action by one "cyberjunkie" ("cj"), who decided all of a sudden that he'd move the entire History section of the ABC article to a new daughter article, without replacing it with a summary. The history section was almost entirely written more than a year ago.
Since this action on 12 September, the section has languished with no text at all under its title, save a link to the daughter article.The action has, in effect, gutted the article, leaving what appear to be insubstantial fragments without a core. It's must be odd to the newcomer to be denied a summary of the history and to move straight onto a chunky section on "funding and relationship with government" without knowing where how the institution arose.
Now, it's not that I disagree with him that the History section was written in greater detail than you'd normally expect in summary style. (A related issue is that the rest of the article may need to be fleshed out in the opposite direction to achieve satisfactory summary coverage of the topic—perhaps the optimal balance needs to be debated on the talk page.) What I do object to is
- (1) his failure to raise the matter on the talk page beforehand, and
- (2) provide replacement text with the summary style that he's using as his stated rationale for the removal.
The edit comment for the removal was "split (will summarise later)", whereas I'd have been pleased to see a summary written before the removal, for immediate replacement.
I've raised the matter on the talk page, and Cyberjunkie has responded negatively:
I think a total blank is worse than a long history. Please create a summary soon. Your action has resulted in damage to the overall article, IMV. Tony 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Whereas, I disagree. --cj | talk 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see that this is getting nowhere. I wonder whether you agree that he should either undertake to write a summary section in the near future (I suggest three or four paragraphs) or reinstate the text and raise the issue on the talk page.
I'd appreciate knowing your opinion. The ABC's talk page is here. Tony 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Australian Collaboration of the fortnight
Hi. You voted for Australian Broadcasting Corporation as Australian Collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Scott Davis Talk 13:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
Mey but y did u send me that guidlines to wikipedia, im an established member and ive done a lot of work on wiki!!! iKNOW how to edit.THE MILJAKINATOR 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. There are a lot of things about your game you could address, not least of all your spelling, etiquette and the POV penchant for Serb/Croat topics. And no offence, but dropping the AIMspeak may improve your editorial credibility. Hide&Reason 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Mr Hide and Seek, i beg to differ as well. I have created and contributed to many articles and its not Pov I ATTEMPT TO PUSH, simply the truth. Now i know how to compromise with everyone, including Serbs and i have, and i do not need my credibility to be downgraded by, someone that probably puts less time and effort into the Wikipedia Project.
- Yep. No worries, mate; whatever you say. Hide&Reason 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
