User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive to 31 July 2007
Contents |
On vandalism
Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism for the official definition of what is and isn't vandalism. Non-neutral point of view edits made in good faith is not considered vandalism. -- Netsnipe ► 06:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I do understand that. The "vandalism" that I was referring to was Macktheknifeau constantly reverting whatever edits were made on the Exetel page by other editors back to his version without justifying the reversions. This is, IMO, the same as constantly blanking a page which is considered "childish vandalism". --AussieLegend 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Exetel Mediation Response
I've taken a look at the mediation cases submitted by both you and User:Macktheknifeau. I've posted an initial response to the situation on the Exetel talk page. It would be appreciated if you would take part in the discussion that I hope will follow so that we can achieve consensus on how the article should look. Thanks, Cheers. Canadian-Bacon 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Whirlpool moderators
Siice two of you agreed with my queying of the non-notable trivia about moderators there, I was bold and removed it. Keep in mind that the entry has its fans (go through its history) and I strongly suspect that my changes will be reverted, quite possibly by an administrator. Peter1968 11:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Documents and oral history
This is of course a difficult area to cite. But the National enquiry - report would probably bring some support to a careful edit. Also related to this subject is this project. Is this what you meant. Regards Fred 10:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for fixing the Newcastle Earthquake page. Nice work!
–Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
LGAs
I think the confusing thing here, and NSW and SA in particular (as in the governments) have gone out of their way to make it confusing, but the official name of the *council* (a local government authority) and the official name of the *shire/municipality* (a local government area with gazetted boundaries) are different. Wikipedia is not writing about the council, but about the area which the council manages (and talking about the council only with respect to that management). For example, one can't say, "East Gresford falls within Dungog Shire Council", it falls within Dungog Shire. The site referred to actually specifically looks to name the former - presumably so one can contact councillors, etc.
In the Government Gazette and in legislation pertaining to items which fall under an LGA, the correct terminology is actually "Shire of ____" or "City of ____" (NSW GGs are available right back to the mid-1990s online), but as nearly all councils in NSW appear to have incorporated their areas as "____ Shire", we're left with the odd situation of having to go with that as it's the most commonly used (and referenceable) name vis-a-vis those entities, and to use the correct name would only be confusing. Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 1993 doesn't help either. So "____ Shire" seems the best compromise, except in the "____ Council" cases as they seem to be an Area under the terms of the Schedule, and said Areas are discussed in terms of the "____ Council area". (In the case of Singleton Council, they've actually gazetted the name for the area as well!) Hope this helps explain my reasoning.
Personally, I much prefer the system here in WA where they've kept it nice and simple - LGAs are Shire of-, Town of- or City of-, while councils are -Shire Council, -Town Council or (except in one or two instances) -City Council. Orderinchaos 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
