User talk:JPD/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Contents

[edit] Graph

I commend you on your attempt, I just think the layout and design is somewhat inferior to Bryan's. But now that we have yours I guess we have no choice. Timeshift 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite the extraneous invalid claims in your rationale, the image actually only fails the NFCC in criterion 1: replaceability. The non-free content guideline actually explicitly spells out why non-free graphs are almost never appropriate. It is always possible for someone to create a free alternative, as I have done. My image is possibly not as good as the one from ozpolitics - if you have suggested improvements, please tell me. It may even be easier to get Bryan Palmer to release the image under a free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details on what to say when asking people for permission - any permission other than that dsecribed there is no use at all. JPD (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well one admin fixed an issue for me (removed personal info) and updated the rationale because he realised that any rational person wouldn't care as Bryan allowed use on wikipedia, but you're another admin who thinks otherwise. Horses for courses. I'm not going to argue. Timeshift 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What difference does it make whether we are admins? Wikipedia doesn't work by going and asking someone for the admin opinion. It works by following the key policies and after that by consensus of all users. Admins shouldn't be treated as any more or less important than others. Some admins haven't thought too much about the non-free content policy, and some non-admins know it inside out. In that sense, yes, it's horses for courses. In the sense of what's allowed on Wikipedia, it's not. It's not true that no rational person would care - what about someone who wants to use the article outside Wikipedia, possibly even for profit? Could you please take the time to read some of the links I used above that spell out quite clearly why the image was not allowed? Understand the policy, instead of reducing everything to "he said, she said". Finally, unless you are planning to ask Bryan to license his pictures, I would genuinely like to know how you think my image could be improved. JPD (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The layout is dodgy. Compare to Bryan's. The dates, the fonts, the lines themselves, it just seems very "not right" compared to his. I don't have the graphing skills to advise how to improve. I'm already over it, despite the fact the quality of the article has just been drawn back. Frankly, I don't care to understand the policy, i'll keep doing as I do, and you keep up your image-deleting. Btw, I note that the admin in question change one of the rationales himself to "the author gives express permission to use on wikipedia" etc. That was not my edit. Unfortunately the edit is not viewable on the current version (previous version contained my first name which i requested a deletion of). Regardless of what the wikipedia rules are, i've always been an advocate of more liberal image rules. Timeshift 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, if you can't be bothered to understand the policy, you shouldn't be uploading images. We all make mistakes and don't understand things, but not making an effort is just rude. So is calling things dodgy without giving details that would actually help. What sort of font would you prefer? That would be very easy to change. What is different about the lines? How would you like to see the dates - they could probably be changed without too much effort. Do you prefer the squares etc at each point? As a matter of taste, I don't like them, but if consensus preferred them, I could put them in with a bit more effort. If you're over it, don't say anything. If you really think the quality has been "drawn back" (a bit of an exaggeration - the differences are minimal), then explain how. The rest of us are actually trying to improve things, not snipe at people. JPD (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't seriously expect any sort of reasonable response from me with The rest of us are actually trying to improve things. Which of us had a GA passed in the last 24 hours? And which of us tagged a superior image? I rest my case. Timeshift 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Read what you've written. You quite blatantly said that you don't care to find out what the project considers an improvement as far as images go. Not that you don't understand why - you just simply don't care. Then you assert that an image is superior but at the same time imply that you don't have the skills to judge why. I have said before that you are a valued contributor to the project, but in this particular discussion you have completely ignored any notion of improving the encyclopedia, and have turned everything into personal criticism. I don't care whether you are a newbie, have 10,000 edits, 20 FAs and 100 GAs, or anything in between. When talking about the election article, what would improve that article is all that is relevant. One of us has tried to explain to someone who apparently doesn't want to know one aspect of the sort of improvement we're looking for, the other has told someone who's asked for suggestions that they're "over it". How are we going to improve things from here? JPD (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't patronise me. Timeshift 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what you mean by patronising. My point is simple. In this context, the only relevant issue is how to obtain the best appropriate image. Anything else you bring up is irrelevant and gets in the way of improving the article. JPD (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New poll. Timeshift 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JPD. I was looking to get permission for one of his preferred PM tables, but then I realised that it wouldn't be acceptable. Would you be so kind as to replicate a preferred PM ozpolitics table? Thanks if so. Timeshift 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift. I don't quite understand what wouldn't be acceptable. The problem isn't asking for permission, it's getting permission for use only on Wikipedia. If Bryan were to give permission for the chart to be used anywhere, even with the condition that his website be credited, it should be fine. This applies to all images - asking for permission for use on Wikipedia only is a waste of time, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. (This is true even for images with a non-free content rationale - we would only use them if the rationale is good enough even without the permission.)
If you can't get or don't want to ask for this sort of permission for the chart, then I should be able to make one showing the same information, but I won't have time to do that until tomorrow. JPD (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
When you design your graphs, is it by data entry, or replication of the actual graph? The reason I ask is I wonder if you could one-up OzPolitics, and create a Preferred PM table with multiple polling companies in the style of the 2PP graph. Just a thought. Timeshift 16:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I use the raw data (copyright on a copy would still beliong to Bryan). It would definitely be possible to combine the different PPM polls on one graph, but since PPm really needs to show three figures for each poll, rather than one, it might be a bit confusing. I still haven't had time to try it, but maybe I'll try all of them and see what it looks like. JPD (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel the need for undecided to be there - the polling and movements of the two give an idea of the third figure. As for the two polling companies, I believe you are correct. Timeshift 16:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Dotrice

You do not specify exactly what provision of WP:NFCC is not met. An image is not replaceable if its subject is retired from public life. —ATinySliver | talk 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit rich. The rationale doesn't even try to say why the image meets WP:NFCC. I specified replaceability as an issue, which is criterion 1. The rationale given doesn't address this, as it only speaks of images that have been located. Your assertion that "an image is not replaceable if its subject is retired from public life", at least tries to address this, but contradicts the guidelines, which state that taking a new picture of a living person is "almost always considered possible". JPD (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
First, please refrain from judgments of others' motivations or arguments; I find nothing herein "rich."
Second, please note that the phrase "almost always" is not synonymous with "always". I assert that creating a free image of this person is unlikely to the point of near-impossibility due to the lifestyle adopted by this person as an adult and to, quite frankly, the lack of interest that resulted from this decision. The image also is of encyclopedic significance in that it answers the question, "what does this child actor look like today?" —ATinySliver | talk 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about your motivation, and I will judge arguments as I see fit. It is ridiculous to suggest I didn't specify criteria 1 and 10, and even more so to quibble about what I did or didn't "specify" when noone had yet tried to explain how the image did satisfy the criterion.
Neither did I claim that "almost always" is synonymous with "always", but simply that your general statement was incorrect. If everyone who has "retired from public life" is disqualified, it isn't anywhere near always possible to create a free image. I also quite clearly acknowledged that the image served to show the recent appearance of the actor. You may wish consider whether the claim that this is encyclopedic is consistent with your other arguments, but my concern is actually that the issue of replaceability be considered in light of what the significance is. You may assert that it is near-impossible to obtain a free image, and would perhaps be well advised to do so in the non-free content rationale and/or on the image talk page, rather than here, but I would also suggest that a bit more than an assertion is needed. Apart from anything else, by using this image you are demonstrating that someone convinced the actor to appear in a documentary but claiming it is impossible to convince her to appear in a free photograph. Until you justify this claim, it looks like you are missing the point of the non-free content policy. JPD (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed you are welcome to judge any argument as you see fit; you are not necessarily welcome—and certainly not in this case—to extract that judgment from within its purview: the privacy of your thoughts.
To the point: I am indeed "demonstrating that someone convinced the actor to appear in a documentary but claiming it is [nearly if not] impossible to convince her to appear in a free photograph." Her only public appearances since retirement came at the request of Disney; one was for the documentary, the other to accept status as a Disney Legend. Though I cannot currently find the source for this assertion, it is my understanding she has turned down any other such request. I assert again that replacement of this image is nearly impossible by policy standards. —ATinySliver | talk 16:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The purview of my judgment of an argument used as criticism levelled publicly at me is much wider than my own thoughts. I see you have updated (part of) the rationale for this image. I fail to see why you think it is enough to assert that she "evidently" declines public availibility, but at least the least now the rationale is making a reasonable claim. JPD (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
That might be valid were my initial question intended as a criticism; its intent was solely to educate me. —ATinySliver | talk 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If your initial message had contained a question, rather than a false claim, that might make sense. JPD (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You're more dour and presumptive even than me. Congratulations... ;) —ATinySliver | talk 22:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Presumptive? I would have thought that responding to what you wrote, rather than any supposed motivations, was the opposite of presumptive. Your initial message contained a claim about my actions and an argument which I consider flawed. Maybe I should have ignored the false claim as not particularly relevant, but starting with it, I have found nearly everything you have written on this page to be very hard to believe or accept, especially the notion that arguments made in a public discussion should not be judged in that same discussion. I would not judge questions in that way, but neither do I presume that statements are intended as questions. Then again, I don't see what is "evident" about her public unavailability, so perhaps I am not presuming enough? JPD (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, both first steps were less than adequate; I, for one, intend to continue "walking"—away from this issue. —ATinySliver | talk 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

Good work. I'm on the fence on Latham - for completion's sake, I agree Latham should be there, but in practicality, there's barely any data for Latham and only seems to create clutter. I'll leave that one up to your judgement. Again though, good work. Adding now. Timeshift 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ACNielsen PPM/2PP out. Timeshift 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, week-old RM 2PP poll... *slams ozpolitics for not updating their graph* Timeshift 09:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just noticed that... wonder when it was first put on the RM site. JPD (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
To me, it seems the WP software is not using the updated image yet. Are you having the same problem? JPD (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it works when I manage to purge everything. JPD (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I only just looked for the first time. Re the image, it looks fine. Sometimes I have that issue which I resolve by ctrl+refresh in firefox. Timeshift 09:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but think the graphs would be more meaningful if there were vertical lines for important points in time - ie: a line for 4/12/06 when rudd took over, when the election was and when it first sat, when it expires and when the election must be held etc. Or pick and mix important ones. Good/bad idea? Timeshift 10:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspoll PPM/2PP out. Timeshift 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the vertical lines: I had considered a line marking when Rudd took over, and liked the idea, but couldn't see a way to do it that would look ok. All the stuff about when the election could be, etc. seems a bit overkill, making it crowded (and not all dates are currently on the graph), but now that the election has been called, I thought it would be good to mark that. The most recent version I've uploaded have the election date marked, and I've also uploaded Image:Pollchart-tpp-event.svg‎, which has 4-12-07 marked. Do you think it is an improvement? Could it be done better? JPD (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could mark the little overflow lines at the bottom to mark events - like use little overflow bits only, marking them with different colours and a legend to indicate what they mean? Or a number or symbol etc... apart from that, nice work. Sorry for all the previous arguments over this, now that we can work on it and build and modify as you/we see fit, I do appreciate this version more than the ozpol one now... again, sorry, and good to see Australian politics/elections on wikipedia is better and more detailed than ever. Timeshift 14:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please be able to take the time to create a freebie for this graph? Thanks if you can, Timeshift 09:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New polls out, details on their pages. Timeshift 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've got them watchlisted, so it shows up. I'm not sure about the other graph - I'll leave a comment on the election talk page - but I don't mind making it if it is wanted. Unfortunately, I won't have any time at all until at least the weekend, though. I've been thinking about the overflow lines, etc. too. Which events would we want to have marked? Leadership changes, calling of the election...? Do you think it would work if I put shaded the election campaign area in a different background colour? JPD (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I don't see a need for change anymore unless you feel strongly. Regarding the RM phone poll, one thing the graph hasnt used in the past is the special one-off non-standard polls that the companies release. The phone poll wasn't part of their regular polling, so as per the rest, I don't think it should be included. New poll out too, a surprising one... Timeshift 10:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Newspoll is surprising! I've left the RM phone poll in for now. RM list a similar poll in 1998 on their trends page, and perhaps more importantly, the ACNielsen poll from last week that we have already included wasn't one of their regular polls, either. JPD (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I think that the graphs could do with a line to represent when the election was called. Timeshift 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we including the online ACNielsen polls too? Timeshift 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of adding graphs for previous elections? Although the companies may have been polling longer, they only hold the online 2pp and ppm figures since 1996... newspoll aside which only goes back to 1993 for 2pp and 1987 for ppm. Thoughts? I'd be happy to do it if you don't want to or have the time to, if you're willing to show me. Otherwise, if you like it, hopefully it will help to put polls in context! Timeshift 09:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the phone/online polls, I have come to the conclusion that we should include the polls that the companies themselves include on the lists at the links I gave as sources. I had thought that RM would include the phone poll, based on 98, but they haven't, so I have left it out of the latest versions. ACNielsen don't seem to be including the online poll (and I can't really see them doing so), so I have left it out so far.
As for other elctions - I think it's a really good idea. I just have less than no time for at least the next month or so, and they don't seem as urgent as the current election. I would like to get around to writing something to automate making the graphs, which would make it fairly easy. JPD (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can't believe you're disagreeing with the 16-year clerk too... Timeshift 14:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am. I think he was loosely using terminology that is used in different ways. If I had to agree with anyone, I would personally agree with him and the "one-seat majority", but I would be aware that much of the world would then disagree with me. In particular, I would be aware that this is inconsistent with saying the Coalition have a 24-seat majority in the Reps. What this means for a Wikipedia article, I don't know, but general use is a mess, and I'm not afraid to say so. JPD (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
24? But Labor has 60 and coalition 87 and 3 independents... Timeshift 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and in the senate Labor has 28, Coalition 39 and 9 others. So, we can say that in the Reps, the Coalition has 24 more than all the others put together, and has to lose 12 seats to lose majority. In the Senate, the Coalition has 2 more than all the others put together, and has to lose 1 seat to lose majority. When we talk about how big the majority is, why do most sources pick use 24 (the difference with the sum of the others) for the reps but 1 (the number of seats needed to lose majority) for the Senate? JPD (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
How does it look now? Timeshift 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't wait to see the new lines on the PPM poll in particular - that line is getting damn close! Timeshift 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Per graph, 62% ALP RM out. (leaving msg here cause i noted you've been online after i added the it to the page) Timeshift 06:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw you editing another page so just letting you know two polls need adding incase you didn't see it in the watchlist ;-) Timeshift (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotta run, but I'll do it this arvo (London time). Do you have more details on the Galaxy poll? I couldn't find any, and there have been a lot of Galaxy polls floating around that don't really belong on the graph? JPD (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all in the one citation in the outstanding polls section. Timeshift (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I read that - I was hoping for a bit more than "The Galaxy poll in Friday's Daily Telegraph shows Labor ahead by 52 per cent to 48 after preferences". Apart from the question of whether it is one of their normal polls, it would be good to know which date to plot it against. JPD (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
True. Perhaps we just wait until the media sloshes and regurgitates the numbers a thousand times over :) Timeshift (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. 6 point jump to 52 for Rudd in Preferred PM! Hopefully the links given provide enough info for you to go on. Timeshift (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Found [1] with all the Galaxy details. I'm included the Morgan weekend phone poll as well, because they have included it in the list on their site. Do you know when the last Newspoll will be out? JPD (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Newspoll will not publish its final poll until tomorrow[2] Timeshift (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney

Did you notice that it got demoted from GA? I suggest the procedure wasn't correctly followed - see Talk:Sydney. --Merbabu 05:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I've responded to your query on WT:CRIC, in that the templates don't need to be used for the 2005 season because already more detailed templates are available on those pages. Bobo. 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Classifications

Hey there JPD,

I feel that we've crossed paths before over articles but I can't recall when. Was it at Sydney over User:Jackp's editing? Anyway....

Yes, as you noticed I'm going through articles related to Sydney trying to give them a class and importance rating. I'm learning as I go. Could you just check some of my recent edits - entitled "re-classing" - and check that they are being done correctly. Once I feel confident in the process I might try and organise a Sydney project drive to get the show on the road. One of the first things would of course be to classify our articles.

Also, all of the classifications that I did last night, for example, update in the categories (i.e. Sydney Opera House now appears at Category:Top-importance Sydney articles however their is no corresponding change to the class/importance matrix at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney. Why is this?


Cheers, Witty Lama 00:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read your message on my userpage, I think I'm even more mis-guided than I thought I might be... What I'm trying to do is populate the class/importance matrix box at the Sydney project. I had assumed that the reason this wasn't appearing was because there was a bot that ran through every so often and re-populated the articles in that template... Am I missing something? How is the best way to go about this classification of sydney articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witty lama (talk • contribs) 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

JPD, Could you help me learn how to correctly populate the "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Sydney articles by quality statistics" box at WikiProject Sydney or point me to someone who could? I'd like to do it properly.

Cheers, Witty Lama 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Witty lama. Sorry to take so long to rpely - I had been putting off looking into it until I had more than a few minutes, thinking that it would be very complicated, but it seems it isn't. The figures seemed to be updated by User:WP 1.0 bot at random intervals. So, setting the Sydney-importance and class fields should be enough, but it won't be updated straight away and might take a few days to appear. If you have more questions, it might be best to ask User:Oleg Alexandrov, who runs the bot. JPD (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchy articles

JPD- I see you've been involved in the editing of Australian monarchy and on its talk page. There's presently a poll going on regarding the format of the titles for all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. If you'd like to register an opinion, please do so here. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election-eve morgan poll ALP 53.5

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22813751-1702,00.html Timeshift (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your 2c worth on this? Timeshift (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

What did i do to the 'Australia' page!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.31.204 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone using your IP address vandalised the page on 20 September 2006, which is when my message is dated. If you wish to avoid receiving messages intended for other people using your IP address, it is best to register an account and have your own user talk page. JPD (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My contributions

I do not take kindly to people checking my contributions page and reviewing them all and undoing my contributions because they don't agree with a contriubution I have made. If I find more of the contributions I have made in the past being undone because you don't agree with a contribution I have made in the present then I will have no choice but to inform the Administrators notice board. P.S. you're revert of my contribution on the United Kingdom page was against consensus, it is foul that you should do such a thing just because you don't agree with my edit on the Australia article. Signsolid (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have only undone one of your edits twice - once in Australia, once in United Kingdom. Since these edits are the subject of the most recent discussion on the talk pages of the country I was born in and the country I am now living in, I don't know why you think I would need to go looking through your contributions to have my attention drawn to them. I treat each edit on its own merits, not considering who has made it. I only wish you would do the same, rather than guess (very badly) editor's motivations.
I would have undone your United Kingdom edit, whether I agreed with you about Australia or not. Your edit introduced incorrect implications, and I originally intended to slightly modify it to correct this. I then noticed that the extra phrase made the sentence extremely unwieldy, and thought it might be better to rewrite it. But then I thought, actually, I agree with what has already been said on the Talk page (that the relationship of the British monarch to the other Commonwealth realms is already dealt with in the relevant section already, and is not of major importance in an article about the UK in general, as opposed to the Queen) and so it would be better to remove it altogether. I have no idea why you think that acting in accordance with the only comments on the talk page other than yours is against consensus, so I would ask you to stop throwing around that allegation as well as the ones about my motivations. JPD (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User preferences

Your reference to "user preferences" shows that you are not engaging with the Wikipedia readership as a whole. The vast majority of readers are not registered. Of those that are, it is probably a small minority that are aware that there is a user preference option for date formats. LukeHoC (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is a horrible environment. I regret ever trying to help it

I just can't cope with the way that everyone is angrily saying things that are just totally wrong. What happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I feel like I have been assaulted by a gang of bullies. I have no obligation to help wikipedia, and as it seems that the admins think that meting out this sort of treatment is well and good, I will not risk my peace of mind by trying to help it ever again. LukeHoC (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke, I am sorry that noone discussed this with you before taking it to the admin's noticeboard. (Actually, most of the people discussing the issue there are not actually admins.) I can see how this felt threatening. I can see that you were trying to help, but I think you have misunderstood how dates work on Wikipedia. I tried to explain this, but I probably didn't do very well, and the conversation was quite mixed up by that time. I will try to explain in more detail, just in case you have changed your mind about not editing any more.
6 December and December 6 are actually the same link. If you have set your date preferences (click on "my preferences" at the top of the page), then they will even look the same. You are right to point out that many users will not know about the preferences, but that doesn't change the fact that they will still link to the same place, without the need to create a redirect. This is how Wikipedia deals with date formats, allowing people to enter the date in either format: either [[6 December]] [[2007]] or [[December 6]] [[2007]]. Note that in both cases, the day and month are linked separately from the year. What you have been doing is creating redirects for 6 December 2007, where the whole date is one link. In general, articles about a specific day in a specific year do not exist (December 6 2007 is also a redlink, it is nothing to do with the format), and there is usually no reason to include such a link. (This is why the date preferences are relevant, even if you are not using them. If there were no date preferences, the dates in citations would not be linked at all. The only reason the links are there is to facilitate the process which makes 6 December and December 6 the same link and allows people to set a preference.) If for some reason, there actually was an article about December 6 2007, then it would make sense to make 6 December 2007 a redirect to it. However, it doesn't make sense to make a redirect to December 6. It would be better to remove the links to 6 December 2007 altogether or format them properly as 6 December 2007.
You were right that there is a problem with the usability of some of the citation templates. But the problem applies equally to U.S. and "British" date formats. If you type the date in either format as the accessdate parameter in {{cite web}}, for example, you will get one of the redlinks I mentioned above. To give a properly formatted date, the template assumes the ISO standard 2007-12-06, which in the "real world" is common in some parts of continental Europe, not Britain or the U.S. (Note that I am saying that the template requires this, not that I think it is the best thing. Actually, for users with preferences set, it makes no difference which format is used to enter the date, but you are right to point out that this is not most users.) If we don't want to use this format, we can use the accessdaymonth and accessyear parameters instead. You will probably say that this is a confusing design for the template, and I would agree. The template is causing people to unthinkingly create redlinks like 6 December 2007, which shouldn't exist, let alone be redirected somewhere else. That is the source of the problem. JPD (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-group

Thanks for taking care of the move and the dab! JackSchmidt (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistancies

You're correct, there's inconsistancies among all the Commonwealth realms (not just Australia). Sorry if it seemed I was suggesting Australian editors were being 'stubborn'. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Hello JPD, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Hope you enjoying yourself in London still. At least you aren't roasting back in Australia ..~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Thanks So im only allowed to use images from FlickR creative commons (http://flickr.com/creativecommons), which are marked attribution licence?? or can i use any of the others. Thanks for you help :) InsteadOf (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, two of the licenses on that page are ok. There are many different creative commons licenses, which mix and match different conditions that the copyright holder puts on the photos. For Wikipedia, some of the conditions (attribution, "share alike") are not a problem, but others (non-commercial, no derivatives) are. So images with either the attribution license or the attribution-sharealike license are good. Hope this makes sense! JPD (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers i think i have it now. You dont happen to know of any other sites which store photos able to be ised on wiki do you? InsteadOf (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.
Thanks and now I have to be Sensible and trustworthy. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I request Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Australian rules football.--PIO (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mate, don't forget to sign the request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Australian_rules_football#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)