User talk:JPD

Rv on Sydney

Hello there JPD, I was wondering if this edit of your was a "revert" as you said it was or was it simply a return to a previous edit. The term Revert (rv) should only be used in cases of vandalism rollback (manual or automatic) and the changes which you removed were not vandalism. Further, regarding the picture you changed back in that edit - from the Image:Sydney skyline.jpg to Image:North Sydney office buildings, dusk, from North-East.jpg - do you think the N. Sydney pic is a better pic in that position? I placed the Sydney CBD pic there, which I took that morning (my POV!), as it fitted with the paragraph. The lead sentence talks about the Sydney CBD and there is no mention of North Sydney. Further, the North Sydney pic is not very clear and also at night. I reaslise there is a debate about showing images of non-CBD things given that the page is supposed to represent ALL of Sydney, but I do not believe that the north Sydney pic is an improvement. What do you think? Please reply on my talk page, Witty lama 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Witty lama. According to Help:Reverting: "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past." "rv" does not only refer to reversion of vandalism, as seen by the fact that many people write "rvv" for "revert vandalism". Your edit was clearly not vandalism, and I did not intend to imply that it was. Your picture is definitely a better picture than the CBD one, however I feel that it is not better in that position in an article which already has many pictures of the CBD. The North Sydney picture is appropriate for a se ction that mentions the many newer commercial areas outside the CBD, although a better quality image of North Sydney, or another non-CBD area would defintiely be an improvement. If you disagree strongly, the talk page would be a good place to discuss it, so we can get some other opinions. JPD (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello JPD. I hope your enjoying the English summer! Thank you for your full support and gracious comment at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation - especially when people like yourself make a rare trip to RfA to support. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. If you need admin assistance, feel free to ask me. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully as an admin. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic peace theory (specific historic examples)

This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Regions/St George suburbs

Hi J Bar! I've added Upper North Shore to the Sydney regions template, and left my comments at Template talk:Sydney regions. I agree with you concerning the Hurtsville localities - those localities didn't make it to our list of Sydney suburbs, and so don't have articles. I guess they originally came from the dodgy DLG site. JPD (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input guys. I have some good reference material on my local area Arncliffe/Rockdale/St George. I'll keep adding more stuff when I get the chance.J Bar 00:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please request another change to the suburbs box for 'Municipality of Kogarah' template to remove the localities that appear in red, which are not suburbs? Also, if possible can the 'St George' region link be added next to 'Southern Sydney' for local government boxes: 'City of Rockdale', 'Municipality of Kogarah' and 'City of Hurstville'? J Bar 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim! I've just removed the red links from the Kogarah box. You could have done this yourself by editing Template:Sydney Kogarah suburbs - there's no need to ask for permission or anything like that. As for including "St George", I suggested at Template talk:Sydney regions that it replace "Southern Sydney", rather than have both. What do you think about that idea? JPD (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes JPD. I think I'd rather see them appear in both St George and Southern Sydney because they fit into both region descriptions. If we just switch them from Southern to St George, then people would have trouble finding them if they did a search on southern suburbs of Sydney, especially if they were not familiar with Sydney and were not aware of the St George area distinction. People like me who live in this area consider themselves to be in the St George area and part of Southern Sydney, with our neighbours in the Sutherland Shire. Hope you agree. J Bar 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that suburbs/LGAs in the St George area should appear on both the St George and the Southern Sydney articles, and that both of these should appear on the Sydney regions template! I was talking about the boxes like Template:Sydney Kogarah suburbs. You are suggesting having the heading on that box say: "Suburbs and localities within the Municipality of Kogarah | St George | Southern Sydney | Sydney". To me, this seems a bit long for a heading, and it would be sufficient to include only the more specific region name, giving: "Suburbs and localities within the Municipality of Kogarah | St George | Sydney". The fact that the St George area is part of "Southern Sydney" should then be mentioned on the St George page, and the Southern Sydney page does indeed provide links back to the St George LGAs. JPD (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also talking about the boxes like Template:Sydney Kogarah suburbs. I can see your point about it being a bit long. Fair enough. Personally, I don't mind it being long because I think it's better to have as much information available as possible. Anyway, I'm not against your idea either. I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion of linking the 3 LGAs to St George and providing links in "St George" there to "Southern Sydney". Cheers.J Bar 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I've made the modifications in the way that looks best to me - if you're not happy with it, feel free to make more changes. JPD (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'Day JPD Just tried uploading my first photo to wikipedia. I've been taking heaps of photos of the local area recently and want to upload them. I had this message come back from a bot and was hoping you can help me with what I have to do exactly to avoid the photo being deleted. I'm not that tech savvy. Can you help me out? Below is the message that appered in 'my talk'. Any help would be appreciated.

Image Tagging for Image:CaptainCookBridge.gif Thanks for uploading Image:CaptainCookBridge.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages: Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Bar" J Bar 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Bar. I'm glad you've sorted out the correct tag for this image without any help. It's a nice pciture, too! JPD (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. I'm getting there ...eventually, and teaching myself a lot in the process.:) J Bar 23:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbrook Heights

Couldn't we invoke the speedy criterion that allows for deletion of pure vandalism. If your source doesn't know the place, I doubt anyone could make a good article out of it. Putting it on prod or AFD wastes everyone's time, right? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is a candidate for speedy deletion, then that's your decision, and I definitely won't complain if it is deleted. I would find it slightly strange that the "patent nonsense" criterion bothers to explicity rule out hoaxes, if they can instead be considered "pure vandalism", but that's just my view of it. JPD (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello JPD, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Warne

Just wondering why you reverted my edit to shane warne so readily. I understand the problem with stating that he is 'the greatest leg spinner', but I have not done that. I have merely rephrased the sentence as the orginal sounded awkward and a bit long winded.--58.169.32.94 09:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might not have noticed when you were editing that above that sentence there was a comment asking people not to change it without discussion on the talk page, or it will be reverted. If you really think it needs to be changed, you will need to discuss it on the talk page first. I personally don't think that the sentence as it stands is awkward at all, but that is for discussion at the talk page. JPD (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it no one has discussed the issue since December 2005, which is why I decided to be bold and change it myself. At any rate though, I haven't changed the sentence against what the current consensus is: that it shouldn't be written that shane warne is the 'the greatest leg spinner'. No one has stated that current sentence is the only variation of it to be used, so I think its a bit silly to revert it on that basis without explanation (as you did). However I don't wish to cause any arguments, so I'd best be off. thanks anyway.--58.169.32.94 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Sydney

Hi JPD, I undid the proposed deletion on Education in Sydney, and put my opinion on the talk page. --Zigger «º» 02:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackp's edits

You seem to be a frequent reverter of Jackp's vandalism, so I ask you to comment here: [1] (bottommost section). Skinnyweed 13:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with Jack!?! He has moved the Skyscrapers in Sydney page to Architecture in Sydney and added mostly POV fluff. --Merbabu 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hey, thanks for helping me out with that. Ill make sure copyright isnt infringed in the future. Thanks alot!--Krabby me 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I found B396.jpg are you able to tell me if photos from Yahoo groups are copyrighted if people post their favourite photos on the group. Thanks for that--Krabby me 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I think that copyright for the Yahoo group photos is still owned by the original owners. They have simply given Yahoo permission to use them to promote their group. That permission does not extend to us at Wikipedia. Of course, if the group only exists to share photos, then they might have given permission for others to use them anyway. These photos might be ok for us to use, they might not, but until we know we can't use them. We need to have: firstly, evidence of who the copyright holder of the photo is, and secondly, evidence that they have released the photos under an appropriate license. Hope that helps. JPD (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rv on Is mathematics a science?

Can't find your opinion on whether maths meets Popper's criteria in your last talk page archive. Please explain your rather hasty rv. Geologician 13:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the last archive of Talk:Mathematics, where this issue has been discussed several times. It is now being discussed again at that page. I reverted, firstly because the link given definitely does not provide evidence that Popper believed mathematics was not a science, and secondly because any explanation you give of why mathematics is not a science by his criteria is likely to be both original research and POV, given that this claim is disputed in the talk archive. JPD (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I found it in Archive 5. That is mostly a semantic discussion and provides no proper examples. My submittal was intended to provide a clear, if trivial example of why mathematics cannot be trusted implicitly. Surely examples have a place in discussions about whether maths is a science. The current Wiki section lacks these. If the heading of a section begs the question then surely POV and trivial examples are entirely appropriate.

So far, all examples that have been inserted have been original research, and all have been debatable and not particularly clear. I personally think that an example is not going to help, as the question simply is one of semantics, but feel free to discuss it on the talk page. This section is debated enough that any significant changes need to be discussed first and should definitely not come down on one side or the other. JPD (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Opera House in pop culture

jack's created another new page - once again by copying info from other pages. I can't get the merge/delete template to work. Do you know how??? Have a look: Sydney Opera House in pop culture --Merbabu 13:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Merbabu! The problem with your use of the template was that you put ¦ instead of |. I am not sure whether a merge template will lead to anything actually happening, and it's all already at the main article, so would you mind if I simply put it up for deletion? JPD (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

football edits

hello - can you explain why you feel the "football" term should kept to English-speaking countries only? The inclusion of the non-English terms which are very similar adds to the article and further rounds off the use of the term (I thought). It's my first edit so can you let me know what you thought was wrong?