User talk:Robert Brockway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

  • You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
  • If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 14:37, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

In addition to Angela's standard welcome above, I want to personally welcome Rob to Wikipedia. I have known Rob "in real life" since 1995 and know, beyond ANY doubt, that he will make valuable (and very level-headed) contributions to our cause. It will only take a team of 10 editors, working full time, to fix his typos. <grin> G'day mate! - Gaz 15:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey, cool article on Archibald Fenner Brockway. Relative of yours? Isomorphic 21:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Distant relative :)

2nd cousin to my grandfather. I really respect his views and the things he did to oppose wars he disagreed with.

Cheers,

      Rob

Contents

[edit] Australian migration zone

"There is also confusion over the effect on Australia's sovereignty over the excised area."

Really? I haven't heard anything about this... who has suggested that sovereignty is affected, and in what way? - Borofkin 02:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg. What exactly was the permission given? Only for Wikipedia? Or was it free to use for whatever, commercial or otherwise? Thanks. Evil Monkey∴Hello 12:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image in Schapelle Corby

It's a fundamental policy of Wikipedia that it does not take a standpoint but fairly represents all views. In the same way that it would not be fair to show Schapelle next to a big bag of weed, it's not fair to show her pitiful in jail. The photo of her with friends is not really a good enough illustration of her to use as a photo of her. Look, if you're in touch with her family, they must have dozens, hundreds of photos of her. You just need one of her that does her justice. Not a heartbreaking "I am in jail" shot. Not one that hints that she is being inhumanly treated. The picture is posed so that the cell looks cramped and dark. It probably is but the impression it gives should be balanced by a standard photo of the person herself. I'm not going to revert it again. If you insist on placing a photo that tells a story, sobeit. I appreciate the feeling Schapelle's case has aroused in some and I'm content that I've made my point. Grace Note 05:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Judge's comments on Schapelle

Yes, fair enough. I paraphrased him but you're right that what he actually said is a better think to include than my conclusions about what he meant by it. BTW, I think it's fair enough to take off the NPOV tag now, because we've stabilised at an article that while it's not perfect and is a bit skimpy on the prosecution's side, is pretty fair.Grace Note 07:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Englischer Garten

Thanks for pointing out the error. The year was 1777, not 1977. - JMBell° 11:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry for the confusion on Schapelle Corby, it looks like Wikipedia was serious glitching this afternoon. I was tracking the contributions of User:67.81.177.1, a new user who appeared to have overwritten sections of a couple different articles. This is what I saw (click diff link):

  1. 11:46, 6 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Schapelle Corby

I copied his addition with link, opened the previous revision that had the apparently deleted Bali Nine section intact, pasted his addition in, and saved the previous revision -- I made no other changes or deletions.

However, that user no longer appears in the Corby page history, and the diff on my edit is radically different from what I saved; I certainly didn't see any drastic shortening of the article when I reviewed it after saving. It's possible someone else was actively editing at the time, but I did not receive an edit conflict. If it's my mistake, I apologize; if it's Wikipedia's system, then I hope the damage is not lasting. Good luck, the article is shaping up nicely. — Catherine\talk 03:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my User page. Zoe 08:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

It used to be unlocked, I unlocked it when I left last time, just haven't gotten around to locking it again. Zoe 09:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Hi. I reverted your edit to Buck Rogers in the 25th Century because the use of the term "ejaculation" is actually correct. It's an old term frequently used in literature to mean a statement that is blurted out. So in this context I don't believe it to be vandalism. Cheers! 23skidoo 14:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SAGE-AU

Hi Rob - I invite you to use the 'sage-au' box in your Babel box, that I've just created. Steven Plunkett 14:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoh - I just saw your edit there in SAGE-AU. Are you sure? Because when I showed the exec this article that didn't dispute any of the information. What I meant by offshoot was that it was formed by people from SAGE(US), obviously keeping the brand and other attributes etc. Would be interested in discussing this more with you. Steven Plunkett 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iced coffee (Australia)

Hi, I've added the information from the Iced coffee (Australia) article into a subsection of the article Iced coffee under Iced coffee#Australia. I did this because it has been nearly two weeks since anything has been done to the article and over a week since you last left a message on its talk page. I was hoping you would add the sources for the information about the popularity of iced coffee and its caffiene content compared to Coca-Cola. I'm letting you know this because I was going to turn the Iced coffee (Australia) article into a redirect to Iced coffee, but I realized this would be pretty rude of me if you were still planning to work on it. Please let me know whenever you can. =) — Indi [ talk ] 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply! =) Okay, I guess I'll turn it into a redirect since I have your consent. — Indi [ talk ] 11:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eli Cohen

Hi, Robert. Please see my comments on Eli_Cohen. Thanks, --Stoopideggs2 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antikythera mechanism

See also Derek Price's 1959 theory. —Viriditas | Talk 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Island

Robert: I believe that you misread Caroline Island when you purported to remove an "inaccuracy" from it regarding the International Date Line. Please discuss. - Seth Ilys 19:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert: Thanks for your comment on Caroline Island. The wording is perfectly clear to me, but perhaps, working together, we can come up with something better and clearer to everyone. Let's work on improving the wording of that section on Talk:Caroline Island. - Seth Ilys 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Island

Please note that the article did not state Caroline Island was closest to the International Date Line. As was explained, the 1995 adjustment of the exact positioning of the IDL (made so that Kiribati would no longer be on both sides of the line) led to the Line no longer being quite so linear - consider the following diagram. You see that little red spot? That's Caroline Island. It's not the nearest, but it is the easternmost point that's west of the line.

This is why the main page is locked against editing by non-administrators. This particular topic was already addressed in the article. DS 19:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:DateLine-with-Caroline-Island.PNG

[edit] Applewild School

Sorry 'bout that. I was going through the history, and thought that there was a lot of vandalism that wasn't cleaned up. I must have missed the edit which cleaned it up. Thanks for noticing. --liquidGhoul 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian PR

Hi Rob. The image I uploaded was a part of the publication from CIC Canada. It's a sample only and it does not constitute any problem on my side.

[edit] Joe Cook

You say that most Australian governments have goverened without control of the Senate. In terms of number of years, I'm not sure if this is true (I will check), but even if it is, it misses the point. Most recent governments (Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard until 2005) have had to deal with Senates where minor parties and independents hold the balance. It is unusual for a government to face a Senate where the Opposition party has a majority in its own right. This happened for the first time to Cook in 1913 - he had a one-seat majority in the Reps and a Labor majority in the Senate which obstructed him at every turn in the hope of forcing an early election, as indeed they did. It subsequently happened to Scullin, and to Menzies in 1949-51. I can't think of any other occasions. Adam 02:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Senate control:

  • 1901-10: Minority governments with no party controlling either House
  • 1910-13: ALP majority in both houses
  • 1913-14: Liberal government, ALP control Senate (double dissolution)
  • 1914-16: ALP majority both houses
  • 1916-29: Nationalist or Nat/Country majority both houses
  • 1929-32: ALP government, Nat/Country control Senate
  • 1932-41: UAP/Country majority both houses
  • 1941-43: ALP government, UAP/Country control Senate (wartime, no obstruction of government)
  • 1943-49: ALP majority both houses
  • 1949-51: Lib/CP government, ALP Senate (double dissolution)
  • 1951-65: Lib/CP majority both houses
  • 1965-72: Lib/CP government, DLP balance of power in Senate
  • 1972-74: ALP government, DLP balance of power in Senate (double dissolution)
  • 1974-75: ALP government, 2 independents balance of power in Senate (double dissolution)
  • 1975-81: Lib/NCP majority both houses
  • 1981-83: Lib/NCP government, Aust Dems balance of power in Senate
  • 1983-96: ALP government, Aust Dems balance of power in Senate (double dissolution 1987)
  • 1996-2005: Lib/Nat government, Aust Dems and Greens balance of power in Senate
  • 2005-08 (at least: Lib/Nat majority both houses

Thus, for the period 1910-2008:

  • Government control of both houses = 57 years
  • Minor parties control Senate = 35 years
  • Opposition control Senate = 6 years

Adam 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding of process

Regarding this edit summary: the default stance when something's inclusion in an article is being challenged is not to just leave it there for the duration of the discussion. --Cyde Weys 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians against anonymous editing

Hi, read your talk page and thought you might want to add this user box.

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

. Rimmeraj 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User_talk%7ERobert_Brockway_2048.html"