VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k (talk | contribs) |
General note: Improper use of warning or blocking template on User talk:Bidgee. (TW) |
||
Line 243: | Line 243: | ||
:No worries. :) -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
:No worries. :) -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== February 2011 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to [[:User talk:Bidgee]] has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed because it was a misuse of a [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning or blocking template]]. Please use the [[User talk:Sandbox for user warnings|user warnings sandbox]] for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction page]] to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tempabuse1 --> [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 06:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:23, 6 February 2011
KLA?
I'm really keen on the teaching of the Science and Mathematics KLA's, but ... - I'm guessing that a KLA is a "Key Learning Area"? It's not a term I'm familiar with; can you point me at a useful webpage please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's right KLA is Key Learning Area. It's basically an interchangeable word with subject. :) Probably a NSW teacher's specific acronym. -danjel (talk to me) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. If you are in the mood, you might like to create an article, and an associated entry on KLA. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hummm. I'd be surprised if there isn't already something that covers it... Probably just a redirect to Curriculum or Syllabus, although both of those seem a little americo/university centric. I'll think about it. -danjel (talk to me) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- There probably is "something that covers it" - it's just that in a quick search of WP, I didn't find anything that answered my question of: "WTF is a KLA?". Given that, of the two of us, YOU are the "subject matter expert", I'll leave it with you. Again, thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah.. I've been looking over the last couple of minutes and there's really nothing. I'll think about it some more. Thanks for the suggestion. -danjel (talk to me) 13:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
G'day Pdfpdf. Just a note regarding your recent edits to Xavier College. I'll insert this into the talk page for the article also so that the discussion can begin, if you like.
(1) With regards to Fees, it was discussed at length over quite some time at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Template:Infobox_Australia_school_private and Template_talk:Infobox_Australia_school_private#Fees. The consensus was to remove fees from Australian school infoboxes.
(2) With regards to adding extra information such as their post-nominals and so forth, I disagree that this is necessary, and it seems to detract from consistency across the site. There is no other Australian school article at the moment where this is included.
(3) With regards to the other position holders in key-people, I don't believe that these people are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, which, after all, is meant to be brief. Again, this is also an issue of consistency across the other infoboxes for other schools. Following WP:BRD, you've been bold, I've reverted, we're now at the discussion phase, and my stance at the moment is not to include that information.
I've also responded to your post on my talk page. Cheers. :) -danjel (talk to me) 13:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Mate. From WP:BRD:
1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.) 2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.
- You've made your edit, I reverted it. We have to discuss it before we come to a compromise and re-add it to the article. -danjel (talk to me) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't mind the suggestion, I'd really like for you to revert your latest couple of changes to reflect where we are at in the above process. -danjel (talk to me) 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what time it is where you are, but it's bed-time here.
- Why does this sort of thing always happen at bed-time?
- I'm not interested in edit-warring.
- It can wait until tomorrow, can't it?
- I'll assume you will act in good faith whilst I'm sleeping.
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Schools
Hi Daniel. Thank you for your contributions to school articles and recent related discussions. I's quite possible that you might not be aware that school articles are governed by a special set of guidelines. Except for extenuating circumstances, primary schools do not qualify for Wikipedia entries and are redirected to the education section on the page about their locality. Do take a moment to familiarise yourself with the guide to school article content at WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Happy editing, and all the best for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Schools
Thanks for catching the side bar typo. Please note however that the newsletter is still in draft form, is likely to have more additions, and is waiting on someone with cat search skills to extrapolate the mailing lists. Several have been asked, none have responded. I would have thought it may have been an easy task for someone like Kangoule, but I haven't asked him. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. It's one of those basic bloody errors that all of us make (me? I keep screwing up it's vs. its). :)
- I put the newsletter at the top here so that I notice it, until something better can be done
- I'd volunteer, but this is well outside my area of expertise. I'm sorry -danjel (talk to me) 14:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
User: Pdfpdf
He deleted your comments on his page. I restored the changes because they were legitimate. --Graythos1 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Graythos. Assuming that he has read and understood the warning, he is entitled to remove the warning per WP:OWNTALK. -danjel (talk to me) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh fair nuff. Changed back :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graythos1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC) --Graythos1 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this message on my talk page
- Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Xavier College, you may be blocked from editing. I note also that you have removed the previous warning[[1]]
- Please sign your posts
- I neither deleted nor edited legitimate talk page comments. Yet again, get your facts straight before letting loose with accusations.
- I note also that you have removed the previous warning - Yes. So what? As you said: "he is entitled to remove the warning per WP:OWNTALK".
Pdfpdf (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Note
I have reported you at WP:AN3 for violating the three-revert rule. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see my request here that you
strike outyour false and unfounded accusation of my "concerted effort at baiting." Such unsubstantiated allegations can be considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, and I would appreciate your assistance with this matter. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Xavier College
Greetings! I just saw the WP:AN3 report on you. While objecting to the refactoring of your comments is a reasonable basis for reverting, by the third revert, you should probably have considered one of Wikipedia's venues for dispute resolution rather than edit-warring on the talk page. If nothing else, a {{helpme}} on your talk page would've gotten suggestions on how to proceed.
That said, looking at the talk page, I agree that the text starting with HiLo48's "From Danjel" comment should be refactored. Personally, I recommend hiding it with a description along the lines of "a descent down the slippery slope from talking about the article to talking about other editors."
Accordingly, if you agree, I'm willing to wrap the report up as follows:
- Refactor by collapsing the discussion as described above.
- Remove entirely the Talk:Xavier College#The Last Post as a comment about an editor and not the article
- Without admitting that you violated the three-revert rule, you agree that some form of dispute resolution would have been better than continuing to edit war on the talk page.
- No blocks or other sanctions are issued to any party to the report.
If you're online right now, please reply to indicate agreement, and I'll close the report promptly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, C.Fred. I need a moment to think about this, because I'm not fully happy with a situation where Pdfpdf gets to conceal his behaviour, and more importantly my objections to it.
- In regards to your 3rd point, no dispute resolution is necessary as I have walked away from the dispute. I've made my reply to the report at AN3. -danjel (talk to me) 17:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- While I appreciate that you're trying to mediate between two sides who (admittedly) clearly can't come to an agreement, I'm not completely happy with the points above. I'll agree that it was off topic, but a casual observer might wonder why I've suddenly withdrawn from my proposal.
- I feel wronged by the way that conversation turned, and Pdfpdf's actions after that point were abusive and inflammatory, particularly the Last Post comment after I had unilaterally withdrawn. His attempts to hide it, my response and particularly his first attempt where he hid valid on-topic commentary by me [[2]] were extremely inflammatory and WP:UNCIVIL
- *sigh* I need some sleep. Do you mind if I hold off on your proposal and get back to you tomorrow? In any case, I'm not sure that TreasuryTag will be satisfied [[3]]. I'll wait for you to respond. -danjel (talk to me) 18:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can't wait any longer. I know you're busy, C.Fred, so thanks for the time you've devoted to this. I can't expect any more from you. I'll be back tomorrow or the day after. -danjel (talk to me) 18:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is to let you have been mentioned by me at the Administrator's Noticeboard - Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Murray Farm Public School
Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Top Ryde City
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. ...
110.174.23.139 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text than can instead be rewritten as necessary over time" - from WP:NPOV. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hah, I actually meant to put the heading there to split up the long argument, but I think your version is better. (I did a double take because I reloaded the page and was like "Half the conversation disappeared!")--Danger (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Maintenance of school articles
Hi Danjel. You recently asked me how you can find school articles that need attention. Well, there is our Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools of course, where there is a list of school pages needing urgent attention, but there is also this list of recent edits to schools that is updated daily:
--Kudpung (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:MacRobertsonGHS.png
Thanks for uploading File:MacRobertsonGHS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Concordia College, Adelaide
Hi Danjiel. I notice that you have been involved in noticeboard disputes before. If you wish to garner support for your complaints of breaches in policy, be sure to avoid falling into the trap of breaking any rules yourself, however hard it may be not to react to WP:BAIT; in the worst case scenario, because of the civility issues, you and PDPDF could simply both end up with being topic banned from editing the article. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- G'day Kudpung. I'm sticking to my guns here, while being as civil as possible (it's why I'm trying to keep my responses as short and impersonal as possible). But yeah, I'm trying to avoid taking the bait to break 3RR here, particularly (as I'm sure an opportunity will present itself shortly). Thanks for the sobering reminder! -danjel (talk to me) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, that mean also not even thinking of refactoring talk pages. It might be a good idea to move on from Concordia. You can find plenty of other schools to work on at Category:High schools in South Australia and Category:Schools in Adelaide. You might even be able to find some high schools in Oz that don't have articles yet, and write your own - no ownership mind! --Kudpung (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, and it's why I haven't struckthrough or removed the personal attacks even if WP:NPA would seem to suggest that I'm allowed to do so. I usually assume that it's better to assume that any refactoring at all would be unwelcome.
- As to new High School pages. Hehehe, well yes, there are... Unfortunately I have Conflicts of Interest in regards to a number of high schools about which I could write articles at the moment. I'm sure that I can write neutrally, but I'd prefer to wait until an accusation against me would be more baseless. -danjel (talk to me) 13:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Danjel. I see you've been restoring templates on user:Pdfpdf's page, which is not a good idea. Removing the templates implies that he has read and understood them and they should not be restored. You may also want to read WP:Don't template the regulars, a personalised message would have come across much better. I agree there's been some incivility, but it'd be good if you could both take a step back and breath before moving on. Perhaps using dispute resolution would help? Worm 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- G'day Worm. Of course Pdfpdf has the right to remove warnings per WP:REMOVED. However, the removal of a warning implies that the warning has been understood. In spite of other people also pointing out their objections to his incivility, he continued.
- Each warning I gave was in regards to a separate issue.
- Warning 1 [[4]] (NPA2) was given for [[5]]
- Warning 2 [[6]] (NPA3) was given for [[7]]
- Warning 3 [[8]] (3RR & NPA4) was given for his reversion here [[9]] against the consensus on the talk page at Talk:Concordia College, Adelaide#Student Leaders and the utterly irrelevant personal attack he inserted into his edit summary for the same revert.
- Warning 4 [[10]] (Refactor) was in regards to his refactoring of the comment I made objecting to his personal attacks that he removed at [[11]] and [[12]]
- He has, in fact, continued to be uncivil and doesn't show any sign that he acknowledges that what he is doing is wrong. Furthermore, I disagree with your suggestion that objecting to someone's personal attacks on you is baiting. Baiting implies goading into lashing out, whereas Pdfpdf was lashing out from the get go.
- I also disagree that a personalised message would have been better. I think that the warning messages as they are are very neutrally written and I don't believe that I could do better, and I definitely don't believe that any attempt on my part to do better would be any more likely to be accepted by the other side.
- I thank you for your attempts at interceding here. Don't worry, I don't intend to edit war; I'm sure others will revert any further attempts by Pdfpdf to ignore the views expressed at the talk page. Cheers. -danjel (talk to me) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- That he continues to insist that telling me to "bugger-off" was him being "polite, reasonable, rational, tolerant and civil" is laughable. -danjel (talk to me) 15:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)I'm not done attempting to interced just yet ;) though I'm glad to hear you don't intend to edit warring. I do understand the templates are neutrally worded, but they are still templates. I've never once seen them work well on someone who has been here for a little while. I have to turn the question back on you, if you see that the templates weren't helping, why on earth would you keep adding more templates. In this case they were just serving to bait (yes, you're right, the essay isn't the most helpful, but you know what I meant) Pdfpdf. His edit summaries made it clear that your messages were not having the desired effect, unless the desired effect was annoying him. There are appropriate places for you to take issues like this, for example WP:WQA.
- As a friendly suggestion, would you consider trying to ignore articles including pdfpdf? A voluntary interaction ban? I can write up something a little more formal you could both agree to, if you like. Also, you may want to consider holding yourself to 1RR, as I see you've been blocked for edit warring in the past and while 3RR is a bright line that you didn't cross, you were still edit warring. Worm 15:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not looking to discuss your past history, I've spent the last hour reading pretty much everything I can find between you and him since the end of December, and the way I see it both of you over-reacted to the situation at Xavier, and now there appears to be a grudge held. Would you really like me to highlight where you have been less than perfect? I was aware of all three points you mentioned and I stick by my questions. Would you be willing to voluntarily cease interation with pdfpdf and would you consider holding yourself to 1RR? I personally think that both might help you, but of course, it's totally up to you. I'm just leaving work now, but I'll be back on a computer in an hour. Worm 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I kept adding in the hope that the escalation would get Pdfpdf's attention. You're right, I could have taken the issue to WQA, or even RFC/U, but what would that achieve? Both places would turn into another site for a back and forth between he and I.
- Yeah, I've been blocked once in the past. Hence my care for that bright line. Reverting disruptive edits, such as those that contain personal attacks in their edit summaries and that ignore consensus is not edit warring. In fact, you'll notice that I directed people to the talk page [[13]] after starting the discussion [[14]]. Asking for a discussion to happen isn't edit warring either.
- I'm already leaving Xavier College alone because Pdfpdf insists that he owns that one too. I'm not leaving another school, my declared interest as this would reward and justify this sort of behaviour. The only interaction ban I would agree to is that he leaves school pages alone, and I'll leave geography pages (his userpage declares an interest in: Adelaide geography, Australian biographies, Australian companies with Adelaide origins) alone as I pretty much don't edit these anyway. I won't agree to limiting myself to 1RR. I feel that stopping interaction is better than allowing only a single revert to go to a fruitful discussion on a talk page, such as the one at Concordia.
- Again, I appreciate the mediation and that you're trying to maintain neutrality. Of course, I'm less than perfect. You'll never see me claim otherwise. You can go into how imperfect I am, and I'll probably mostly agree with you. :)
- Arrogant, stubborn, elitist, quick to anger, verbose, self convinced, obsessive, excitable, insomniac, antisocial, prone to misunderstandings of tone, allergic to prawns, etc. etc. etc.-danjel (talk to me) 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- You hoped that the escalation would get his attention? Well, it did but I'm sure you can see it didn't help. I'm not sure that constant warnings are of any real help when you're the affected party, they work a lot better when coming from an uninvolved or neutral third party, but hey that's personal opinion. The benefit of WQA is that someone is there to step in, RFC/U probably isn't the best place unless it's an ongoing issue and you have a desired outcome. But no matter, that's useful for future reference and I'll state now that you or he can always come to me if you want a third opinion.
- Arrogant, stubborn, elitist, quick to anger, verbose, self convinced, obsessive, excitable, insomniac, antisocial, prone to misunderstandings of tone, allergic to prawns, etc. etc. etc.-danjel (talk to me) 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion for an interaction ban would be more along the lines of you both forcing yourself to only discuss the edits, not the editor. One way is to not edit the same pages (him stop schools and you stop geography) but that means we lose editors at those venues. I was going to suggest something like this, if you'd both be agreeable. This way, we keep the discussions off user talk pages and do not discuss the other editor, only their edits.
- User:Danjel and User:Pdfpdf voluntarily agree to refrain from commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each others user talk pages for an indefinite period of time. Both are reminded to remain civil in any discussions of each others edits.
- Re: 1RR, that was a suggestion that I thought you might find helpful. I hold myself to 1RR, or more accurately WP:BRD. In your discussions today, your suggestion was valid, as was his first revert. At that point, discussion should really have happened (which you did) and remained at the talk page until consensus was reached. There is no urgency to these edits, and you would have done well to leave it for a little longer than 15 minutes, or called for more eyes. As I said before, you're welcome to give me a shout in situations like this, but if that means an WP:RFC or a WP:3O so be it. You may not have crossed the bright line, but make no mistake you were edit warring as this was not vandalism. I didn't mean anything negative by the comment that you'd been blocked, many people have and they've gone on to be very productive wikipedians, I just noticed it and noticed your little edit war today, and thought I'd make the suggestion.Worm 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Danjel. Sorry I've neglected this, I've been away at a wedding for the weekend. Pdfpdf has agreed to User:Danjel and User:Pdfpdf voluntarily agree to refrain from commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each others user talk pages for an indefinite period of time.[15] I was wondering if you would be willing to agree to the same so we can all move on? Worm 08:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Huh. I had a long response that I thought I had posted in response to your post above. Don't know where it's gone; perhaps it's still sitting there on my work computer.
- Sure I'll agree to it, but it doesn't achieve anything. -danjel (talk to me) 10:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll look forward to the long response ;) It may not achieve anything, but it's worth trying. He has agreed not to comment on you, which should at least alleviate the issues regarding his conduct and you've agreed not to post on his talk page, which appears to be one of his largest gripes. Both of you have agreed to the vice versa to. I'm hoping we can move forward and build an encyclopedia, but if there's any more problems, you know where to find me. Worm 10:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:MacRobertsonGHS.png
Thanks for uploading File:MacRobertsonGHS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Carmel School
Yes, sorry you are right about the copyright issue with the page Carmel School (Perth). Although I could very well easily get permission from the creator of that website to grant permission for its contant to be replicated on the page, I hadn't actually done that... on the other issue, I'm afraid as far as websites go, there appears to be no 3rd-party souces what-so-ever (believe me, I've searched..). I may try to gain access to books or documents on the school to use as sources for the article, but for now, it is not at the top of my priority list.--Coin945 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. It's not bad content; I'm sure if you go through it and put it in your own words (and omitted the non-neutral bits and pieces) then it'd be acceptable. Want to have a go? -danjel (talk to me) 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Top Ryde Shopping Centre not largest shopping centre nor largest development.
Hi Danjel, I am just telling you this, as it is fair for you to know. You were the one who edited the Top Ryde shopping centre article, and who added "This makes the centre the largest shopping centre in Australia". Now the only problem with that is, that it is not the largest, infact far from it. I can name 30 shopping centres in Australia that are larger in size as well as contain more stores. A top example is Chadstone Shopping Centre, which is not only Australia's largest shopping centre, but the Southern Hemisphere's by stores and size. Yor edit also included, the centre is on 6 levels, when in fact the centre is on 5, 1 or 2 or even 3 stores on a 6th level, dosent mean the whole centre is on 6. Even if it was on 6 levels, shopping centre's like Westfield Bondi Junction would have the exact same floor count. And Westfield Doncaster has an 8-storey office tower with a few shops in it...would that make the centre 8 storeys high? offcourse not. Thankyou :) if you have anything you would like to say feel free to discuss on my talk page :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- G'day MelbourneStar1,
- I was paraphrasing what was already there in regards to the relative size, if I recall correctly. I'm not particularly bothered if it's an error, semantically or factually. Thanks for catching it
- As for the number of levels, there's two major levels, then Ground, 1st Floor, the floor on which Strike Bowling is being developed, and the floor(s) for the cinemas. That's 6. Actually it'd be 7, with the two levels of cinemas... But... -danjel (talk to me) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry If I seemed a little un-chilled about the whole thing, It's just that I want facts to be correct, thats all :)
with reguards to how many floors the shopping centre has, I still take my stand, because there are shopping centres world wide that include buildings attached to them, Highrise buildings infact, that range from 40 to even 60 floors.......making the centre in this case 40-60 floors high which is not correct. A proper floor count for a shopping centre, is the whole shopping centre, not just a few stores. You can keep that the centre is 5 levels (if the majority of it is 5 levels) and you can say that the centre has this store and that store that are 6 levels high... so in other words, you can have floor counts for the whole shopping centre, and also floor counts for some individual stores, done seperately :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not counting the residential towers, because I agree with you. They're not actually part of the shopping centre. But the cinemas are, and should be counted. It specifies that the top floor(s) are cinemas, so I don't see any reason to add extraneous detail. -danjel (talk to me) 05:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Look, your current edit that you just made on the article --- thats what I am looking for. That is correct. Thankyou! :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. :) -danjel (talk to me) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Bidgee has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)