| Revision as of 12:19, 3 August 2006 editSocafan (talk | contribs)1,024 edits →Unsolicited advice← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:49, 21 October 2024 edit undoAusLondonder (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,720 edits Notification: listing of Category:Albury, New South Wales at WP:Categories for discussion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| <div style="padding:5px; margin:5px; border:2px solid #0F0; background-color:#CFC;"> | |||
| ''''''</div><br> | |||
| ] | |||
| <!--Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:SwansPinkAndWhitehelicopter.jpg== | |||
| If further archiving is needed, see ].--> | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| '''Previous discussions:''' | |||
| == Welcome back? == | |||
| ] '''/''' ] '''/''' ] '''/''' ] '''/''' ] | |||
| Noticed you made a few edits during 2017, I'm guessing you're semi-back? Planning I'm on a meet-up in Sydney (lunch) and Canberra (evening/dinner) on 15 January, I think others are doing Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth but unsure on Adelaide and Hobart. Hope you have a Merry Christmas and happy New Year! ] (]) 22:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read ] and ] for more information. | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Mojo+%28advertising%29|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-spam-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] 07:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==HMS ''Babet''== | |||
| Hi Matilda, thanks for the material on the talk page. The year is unambiguously 1800. Two key references gives the 1801 year, but it is clear from your evidence that they have shifted the loss by a year. I will make a note to that effect on the ''Babet'' page. I have added the info that John Knox was a passenger on ''Babet'' at the time of her loss to the ''Babet'' page, and have added one of your quotes and the link to ''Babet'' to the page on John Knox. Regards, ] (]) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because it is a disambiguation page which either | |||
| :::*disambiguates only one extant Misplaced Pages page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a ]); | |||
| :::* disambiguates zero extant Misplaced Pages pages, regardless of its title; or | |||
| :::*is an ] redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function. | |||
| Under the ], such pages may be deleted at any time. Please ]. | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Mount+Dromedary+%28disambiguation%29|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-disambig-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 14:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Re link removals == | |||
| == I have sent you a note about a page you started == | |||
| Looking at your comments below - I was hoping you would hear my opinion as well. It took many years and 1000s of people's contributions to create such an amazing repository of images on underwater.com.au - a community website - and yes it does have commercial aspects as well, but how could a website like that run any other way. | |||
| Hi Matilda. Thank you for your work on ]. Another editor, ], has reviewed it as part of ] and left the following comment: | |||
| We have a community of people that spend a lot of their time at not charge to put photos into our galleries, to catalogue the underwater world of australia and to encourage visiting these amazing destinations. | |||
| {{Bq|1=Good day! Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!}} | |||
| I agree with not creating links to purely commercial sites and links that add no further content to wikipedia, but honestly believe these collections (which are constantly growing as the community keep submitting images) are a value add to the articles on wikipedia - most people don't even realise the amount of underwater life and beauty Australia has to offer. We don't need the 10s of click a week we would be getting from wiki links but honestly believed them to be an enrichment of the site. | |||
| To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>SunDawn<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the ] tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small><!-- Template:Sentnote-NPF --> | |||
| Also the links are not merely to a collection of pictures - they also crosslink to articles by the community if they are related. | |||
| ] ] 07:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Of course i will respect the decisions of the wiki family and will not post a collection of external links again. | |||
| ==Eureka Rebellion series== | |||
| I would like hearing from you. | |||
| I very much appreciated your feedback regarding the "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" article. I'd like to know what you think about all the articles in said series that have been nominated for deletion. I have no doubt that some of them are experienced editors. But I just think they lack an Australian perspective. I'm very much keen to get back to my work. | |||
| ------------ | |||
| ''Copied from WP:AWNB | |||
| ] (]) 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''seeking an opinion on external links'' | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| ''Could people please offer opinions on external links added in these edits. The pictures are very pretty and possibly encyclopedic, but I think it skates a fine line it terms of being a commercial website. - What do you think? -- Adz|talk 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ], to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
| The discussion will take place at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. | |||
| ''Adding links from one website to a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles with no other content-adding edits? Looks like linkspam to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
| ''* I feel that they fall within the scope for removal under Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. The link is merely to a collection of pictures. Interested readers, if they were looking for pictures, could find them in other ways, eg Google. I agree with Pfctdayelise, looks like Linkspam.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ==] has been nominated for renaming== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 12:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''They seem clearly commercial to me. The front page (at least from the link in the Broome article) contains items for sale. I would remove them all, along with any other commercial links already there. Kevin 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ''* I am removing and will leave a message on talk page of IP--A Y Arktos\talk 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| just checking if you got my comments re the link removals | |||
| Response copied from IPs talk page: *Hi I got your message and was mulling it over. I think the problem is also the addition of links about underwater photography to city pages. If the link been dealing with a reef or other predominantly underwater topic, then perhaps would stay. The increasing preference is that external links are really only references to the content, not additional tangential material. Hope this makes sense - if not feel free to queryRegards--]\<sup>]</sup> 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| the thing is that most people forget the underwater life the cities have to offer - appreciation should go underwater as well - which is what we are all about and why we have such an active community of contributors. It is not about the photography, it is about what is to see especially at that location - which is why we have made our gallery based on localities. | |||
| But who is the judge of all this - maybe I should write a short article addition on each locality and reference underwater and the gallery - would that be something wikipedia is more happy with ? | |||
| ==Wikiproject:Architecure Peer Review proposal== | |||
| I'm trying to build a consensus for a Wikiproject Peer review process. I've opened a discussion page ]. Would you like to comment? Would you be prepared to take part in the peer review process? Many thanks. --] | ] 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==IG Farben Building FAC== | |||
| Also, I posted the ] on the ] on the 17th July. It currently has a '''support''' consensus, but only from 4 people. I'd be more comfortable with a stronger consensus and was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the article? Many thanks. --] | ] 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Anon== | |||
| I had another bout with your anon friend last night, still behaving as vile as ever. -- ] 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He's been told how to sign posts, and still refuses to do so. It's hardly rocket science. I'm going to block him on that behaviour alone if he persists in ignoring reasonable requests. Nobody needs to go along behind him and clean up - that's not why we're here. The rest of his anti-social behaviour only brings a block even closer. I used to work for his ISP. Contacting them isn't going to be easy, as most technical support staff are outsourced nowadays and any chance of reaching anyone able to do anything about this user are very remote. I think the best course of action if and when they return is simply to block the entire range. Affected customers can then determine if it's worth sticking with an ISP that doesn't act on disruptive users. Any help you need with this character, let me know. -- ] 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was about to archive my talk page, but noted you'd linked to it in your evidence. I'll leave it be for now. I only archive for the convenience of others anyway. It can wait ;) -- ] 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm fine for now. If I decide to archive I'll let you know prior. Edit away. We always need more content, and less politics :) I'll ask around some friends of mine who still work for the Big T. Maybe we can show this guy he's not as invisible as he thinks. -- ] 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The offender is online now if you'd like to add to your evidence. Didn't take them long to begin and be blocked accordingly. -- ] 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I just dropped by to congratulate tou and Longhair on your patience dealing with the anon user on ]. I would have run screaming from the computer if I'd had to put up with what you have. --] 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They have been attacking again! ( & ) -- ] 13:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They have returned under another IP ]. -- ] 01:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reverted more under there new IP ]. -- ] 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **They have made a return on another IP ] -- ] 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **And yet again they have returned. ] . This is starting to get very frustrating! -- ] 12:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've noted of late you refer to your anon as a she. What gives you the impression the editor is female? Not that it matters, but if I've missed anything of late please fill me in. -- ] 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am busy, but I'm free at the moment. I leave today for the new town further north. Warmer climate, here I come :) -- ] 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Narooma Pics == | |||
| pretty, thank you for making my town look nice :) ] 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It seems that a wiki search for Mount Dromedary redirects to Mount Gulaga which seems to actually be in NSW (I'm no native!) | |||
| Apparently, Dromedary was renamed Gulaga at some point in history, but... | |||
| In several places on the web, there are references to a "Mount Dromedary" on Tasmania | |||
| http://www.pabha.dhamma.org/ | |||
| Also, it's listed as a protected "forest reserve" on | |||
| http://www.answers.com/topic/protected-areas-of-tasmania | |||
| Perhaps there needs to be a disambiguation? | |||
| ] 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR violation == | |||
| I do not htink I can be accused of being involved in your current dispute over the Lance Armstrong article. I regard your recent edits as violating the 3RR--]\<sup>]</sup> 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Undoing vandalism does not break 3RR. Removing POV-tags and requests for citations without consensus is vandalism. | |||
| :Would you be so kind to look into the actions of both parties? As I lined out at the administrator's noticeboard, JzG violated several important rules. ] 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My fourth edit was '''solely''' restoring a POV-tag and requests for citations of unsourced quotes, that is no content, it is undoing vandalism and thus not breaking 3RR. ] 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Our comments on respective talk pages overlapped. My comments about the 3RR apply to all editors. I am somewhat interested in Armstrong, also Landis and enjoy watching the TdF. I don't have a strong view though whether or not the section is POV or otherwise - thus in the case of the Armstrong article I am not interested in the content - only the behaviour. The other user presently involved seems well aware of the 3RR. If you want tags restored, please use the talk page to state and another editor can make the edit for you if they agree with your request and rationale.--]\<sup>]</sup> 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, sorry, removing POV-tags without consensus is vandalism, and it can be undone by anyone. I ask you again to please take a look at the actions of both sides. I have lined out at the administrator's noticeboard that your fellow admin ] violated several rules. He also deleted the article ] and its history without discussion in spite of two others having found a consensual wording. ] 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please just think about it: What is the sense of a POV-tag if it can just be removed by someone without any discussion, claiming there is nothing controversial? The very fact that there is someone who reinserts the tag shows there is a dispute. Of course this someone can be a nerd who sees a dispute where no one else does. This is not the case here, as can be easily seen at the talk page where Calton did not even bother to participate in the discussion. Removing a POV-tag without consensus is vandalism, as is removing requests for citations of unsourced quotes, there is nothing controversial about the fact that a quote in a quote section needs to be sourced. ] 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am sorry, I was wrong. ] explains that dispute tags should not be removed twice during a 24 h period. However, it does not count as "simple vandalism", and apparently "complicated vandalism" is not exempt from the 3RR: | |||
| ::::::'''''Improper use of dispute tags''''' | |||
| ::::::''Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.'' | |||
| ::::::I apologize and will not do it again. However, I ask you to restore the tag, as there is a content dispute. Furthermore, I ask you to think over your question. Can a POV-tag be placed consensually? If there was consensus, no POV-tag would be needed. | |||
| ::::::I ask you for a third time to review the actions of both sides. JzG clearly violated several rules, even after having been warned by another administrator. Will you take care of that, too? ] 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you for helping to resolve the conflict. I however find it sad that apparently there's honour among <s>thieves</s> admins. Normal editors easily get blocked by discretion of them, but if an admin breaks several rules rarely do the other ones do anything about it. This undermines the credibility of adminship and thus undermines the whole project. ] 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There is no recent behaviour by JzG to complain about. I have taken on one fellow thief today .. now for those dishes.--]\<sup>]</sup> 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::JzG did violate several rules as can be clearly seen from what I explained at the administrator's noticeboard. If you disagree please open my eyes, but do not just make a claim that in my eyes shows a lack of respect. ] 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mining Towns in Tasmania == | |||
| G'day, this seeems to be a new cat with nothing in it, bit curious of the raison d'etre? Surely Tassie towns is sufficient.? | |||
| If you start a cat like this does this include towns gazetted but no longer in existence? Very interested in a response. :) ] 01:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your explanation, I'll watch the afd arguments with interest! ] 11:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == History of cricket == | |||
| Hi. The history of cricket category is being used by the cricket project for generic historical articles like the four or five currently in there. If you want underarm bowling to be in a history category as well as bowling then it needs to be in one of the sub-categories: you may even need to create a new sub-category for similar items. The project is presently reviewing cricket history categorisation. --<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, I apparently wasn't signed in when I wrote the above. I hate IP addresses. --<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Given that a new category ] was created yesterday, I've placed underarm bowling in that and also in the equivalent ] so that the 1981 incident is kept in the historical profile. We cannot have specific articles like this in ] as eventually we will have enormous and uncontrollable clutter. We are looking into the creation of more new historical sub-categories to assist the process. --<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And yet I reckon Greg Chappell was nothing like as bad as his elder brother who frequently brought the game into disrepute. I know this all seems a bit pedantic but it is because of the potential clutter of the main history section that we need to have appropriate sub-categories. Would there be any value in splitting out the incident from the bowling article, but with suitable xrefs, to give the incident a higher profile? There is already an article about a riot at Sydney in the 1880s so a similarly direct title might be better for the 1981 event. All the best. --<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent disambig redirections etc == | |||
| Hi thanks for watching my edits. For the record I am not an alumnus of WC in Berkshire and have no pro-Berkshire feeling. The move was done because it can well be said that the Berkshire school's public school status brings it a lot more ''attention'' (-> notability) and is quite well known internationally for being just that, and is notable enough for it to be noted in the City media. As for the school in NZ, it (like a lot of the NZ school articles) was probably added by an ex-student---its notability is local in nature (restricted to the city region it serves). | |||
| <small>''Following sentence added afterward''</small>Sorry for not reading the edit summaries before writing this message. Yes obviously NZers will be thinking of the NZ school, but it would not be unreasonable to suggest that someone in... India... would be thinking of the school in the UK.<small>] 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ] 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Apologies if I sounded sarcastic in my first sentence---I wanted to say it was good that someone stepped in to review my page move. I didn't intend to offend. You are right about the argument "all the other school in Berkshire follow this format" being weak, haha. My edits concentrate mainly around the NZ school articles, some of which are in a terrible state, hence my attention on this dab page as part of my project. My bone of contention is that having the unqualified dab page linking to qualified article titles for each of the schools could give the impression that all the schools are of equal prominence (which I've expressed was a wrong impression). Lol anyway this is moot for me in the short term since we'll need more discussion :D Cheers ] 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unsolicited advice== | |||
| Your unsolicited advice has been noted, logged, and dropped into a shredder. Oh, and thanks for your work in enabling an obvious and unreformed troll like Socafan. --] | ] 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <br>Thank you for calling me "frustrating". You see the very respectful reaction above. This user has vandalized the article, now denies it and is personally attacking me. I got blocked four times by guys who violated the policies not to block others they are in a content dispute with and not to block users who act in good faith - as you know that I did. Please also note what ] did at ] and ]. Frustrating it is. ] 12:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:49, 21 October 2024
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.Orphaned non-free image File:SwansPinkAndWhitehelicopter.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SwansPinkAndWhitehelicopter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back?
Noticed you made a few edits during 2017, I'm guessing you're semi-back? Planning I'm on a meet-up in Sydney (lunch) and Canberra (evening/dinner) on 15 January, I think others are doing Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth but unsure on Adelaide and Hobart. Hope you have a Merry Christmas and happy New Year! Bidgee (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Mojo (advertising)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mojo (advertising), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MB 07:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
HMS Babet
Hi Matilda, thanks for the material on the talk page. The year is unambiguously 1800. Two key references gives the 1801 year, but it is clear from your evidence that they have shifted the loss by a year. I will make a note to that effect on the Babet page. I have added the info that John Knox was a passenger on Babet at the time of her loss to the Babet page, and have added one of your quotes and the link to Babet to the page on John Knox. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Mount Dromedary (disambiguation)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mount Dromedary (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Misplaced Pages page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Misplaced Pages pages, regardless of its title; or
- is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi Matilda. Thank you for your work on Nick Champion de Crespigny. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Eureka Rebellion series
I very much appreciated your feedback regarding the "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" article. I'd like to know what you think about all the articles in said series that have been nominated for deletion. I have no doubt that some of them are experienced editors. But I just think they lack an Australian perspective. I'm very much keen to get back to my work.
Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Cultural institutions in Australia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cultural institutions in Australia, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural institutions in Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Category:Albury, New South Wales has been nominated for renaming
Category:Albury, New South Wales has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Category: