User talk:Angusj
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Contents |
[edit] ArbCom
I want to thank everyone who took the time to vote on my ArbCom candidacy. I have placed some thoughts on this matter on my user page and would welcome your thoughts. --Edivorce 02:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sudoku
Please explain exactly how edit on the Sudoku page is vandalism? The use of the {{nihongo}} template is per the Manual of Style. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 09:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nihonjoe, please accept my humble apologies - I was too hasty and quite mistaken in thinking you were vandalising that topic. I've now restored your edit. --angusj 11:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I was just curious as to how it could be considered vandalism. Thanks. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- How it happened was I didn't look closely enough at your edit and incorrectly thought the template you'd inserted was simply you user ID. My totally inadequate explanation for this is the Sudoku article is a magnet for kids trying out their 'editing' skills and consequently requires reverting several times a day. Needless to say, this gets quite tedious. --angusj 23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just checked out the Sudoko page; congrats! All very thorough and well explained. Made a slight edit to the grammar in the interests of clarity. Are you the ex-PHM Angus by any chance? --Amandajm 05:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Amandajm - though (obviously) your thanks go to a lot of contributors! Also, considering that I haven't a clue what "PHM" refers to, I think it's unlikely I'm "that" Angus :). --angusj 05:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sudoku 2
Wow, never thought I'd meet the auther of the website on Wikipedia! I'm not offended in any way by the removal of the links since I'm still quite new with Wikipedia (well technically it's been a while but I don't edit on Wikipedia often) so it's perfectly fine to be corrected. This way I can learn to improve. Oh, and you're the first one to edit on talk page! Cheers! --Username314 04:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- This seems to be a common misconception - ie that someone is *the* author of an article. Well, yes I am *an* author of the Sudoku article, but since anyone can contribute in Wikipedia - we all are (or at least can be) authors! I'm not special, I've just contributed my bit :). --angusj 07:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Locking part of an article.
This is a two part answer =)
- From a technical perspective, you can't lock just a portion of an article using standard layout. What you could do in extraordinary circumstances would be to make an article subpage and transclude it in the article (think templates), then lock that from editing. This would not prevent the article from being edited around it though.
- From an editing standpoint, sprotection is not meant to be a long term solution, and page protection is meant to stop edit wars / vandalism. Linkspam is a problem, but are these links really spam? Do they provide useful information pertaining to the article? If this has already been brought up on the article talk page, and is still a problem, you may want to open a RFC on it for further input. If there is an edit war in progress let me know and I'll put full protection on the article until it is settled. — xaosflux Talk 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi again xaosflux. Thanks for your helpful reply. The problem is there are literally hundreds of people proposing and/or inserting their own websites in external links section to the Sudoku article. Most of the links are of very average to poor quality and it's quite impossible to arbitrate which (if any) links should be included. At one stage the main article became dominated by the external links section, then there was a whole "links to consider" subpage of the Sudoku article created (but that subpage appears to have been deleted recently). If you peruse the archived discussion for the Sudoku article you may get some idea just how long this problem has been going on. Now, despite a prominent notice discouraging people from adding links directly to the main article, many continue to disregard it and simply see the article as an easy way to promote their own site. The problem is now getting worse, and I'm having to revert the article numerous times a day. I'm just about ready to call it quits and leave the article to others to manage (if they can). I thought that before I just left, I'd see if there was a simple remedy to this. I don't think I have the patience to present a case to RFC unless it's a speedy process or another 'sprotect' is enabled on the Sudoku article while the RFC is considered. --angusj 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anglican Diocese of Sydney
Well done for finding the references and cites, Angusj! Keep up the good work! I think the page is turning out really well, all things considered. --Amandajm 04:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Angus! You've editted that passage on Anglican Church .... so heavily that there is a reference to "Family First" but absolutely no indication as to what it actually is. It needs to be clear a) that it's a political party b) that it's not Anglican. You need to fix it! --Amandajm 13:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'll fix that shortly. --angusj 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney
Hi, Angus!
Yeah, thanks for removing that. One can be hesitant about chopping up what other people have written, but every now and then , I just get to and do it. Some people have no hesitation. Anyway, I've written most of the St Andrew's page, St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney which is all non-controversial, historic stuff, apart from the little reminder in the first paragraph, which I wasn't responsible for, that the Dean and ArchB. are brothers. I looked up the Cathedral website and discovered that the webmanager had made a link to the wikipedia site for those who wanted to know about the architecture..... so I wrote a whole lot more and ran it past Chris Moroney who is the ... whatever they call the Precenter now. He had only one little edit to make, which was good!
More pretty pics of the Cathedral, and I've now got permission to go and take a whole lot more next week so I'll upgrade the picture of the organ, get the East window (without scaffolding) and some details. Oh the joy of having a digital camera and being able to take 270 shots instead of 24!
--Amandajm 10:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sudoku - I think you did a single rv when you meant to do a double
When you did
it's not clear to me you didn't want to go back a previous revision too. Look at history to see what I mean. See the minor mess there now. I think the "three basic conflicts" should be entirely removed. But am confident of some of my other edits and re-ordering. I.e. I don't think you now want to simply revert all the back to 17:45, 8 November 2006 Mindmatrix. Your leaving-in of the "three basic conflicts" makes me hesitant to simply remove them. Sorry for not being bold. See also Talk:Sudoku. --SportWagon 20:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
