User talk:JPD/Archive3

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

• Archive 1: 17 May 2005-16 May 2006
• Archive 2: 17 May 2006-16 September 2006
• Archive 3: 17 September 2006-16 January 2007
• Archive 4: 17 January 2007-16 May 2007
• Archive 5: 17 May 2007-16 September 2007
• Archive 6: 17 September 2007-16 January 2008
• Archive 7: 17 January 2008-16 May 2008

Thanks JPD

Hey JPD, thanks for supporting my recent RfA. It passed with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. It was awesome having so many fantastic Australian editors get behind me. Thanks JPD. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)\

Comments

You disappoint me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.29.56 (talk • contribs) 15:45 20 September 2006

(response to warning message concerning edits describing George Bush as the Prince Consort of Queen Elizabeth II.)

Please return the article on John Medica. He is a personal friend of ours and knows all about this article. We were doing it as a celebration of one of his recent accomplishments and so he could get a good laugh about it. His other friends would appreciate it as well. We only wanted it to be up for a week or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowjd (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 September 2006

Hi Flowjd. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't make any difference whether John would get a laugh out of it or not - Wikipedia isn't the place for jokes like that. Perhaps you could look for somewhere else to put it. JPD (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey JPD. I'm not sure why you deleted the link to swift city. We don't make any money off the site - there is no advertising, and people don't have to pay anything to view the content. Also, businesses can't pay us to be included. We have a bunch of people from around the world who are writing articles on their favourite places to go etc. We will be launching many new cities soon. When you read the Wiki guidelines on what is link spam, this doesn't fall under that. Hope you can reconsider. Thanks!

Hi. You are right that it is probably unfair to call that link "linkspam", as it is not a commercial site. I do think, however, that it's not quite an appropriate link for the article under the external links policy. We don't want to end up with a whole lot of links to travel guides. JPD (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Hej JPD, I'm working on some Australia related articles on the french language Wikipedia and I wanted to know if I can use the maps you uploaded on en.wikipedia such as this one Image:City of sydney.png, first on Commons and then on fr.wikipedia. You can answer me here, I'm watching you :-) Thanks --Sam67fr 10:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sam! I uploaded those maps under the GFDL, so you shouldn't really need my specific permission to use them, but thanks for asking anyway! You have made me realise that at the time I neglected to mention that they were based on Image:Ku-ring-gai sydney.png by User:Randwicked, so he really should be credited as well. I will update the pages to recognise this now. JPD (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Germanism

Hello. I wonder if you can you help me? I came across a rather eccentric page entitled Anti-Germanism, which seems to have no place in an encyclopedia. I began the 'put forward for deletion' process-labelling the page as a start-and then discovered that there seems to have been a previous deletion of the same (or similar?) item. I am not quite sure how to proceed. I have given my reasons for requesting deletion on the present article's talk page. I turn to you because your signature is on the previous deletion's entry page. I'm a fairly new user and this is all becoming horribly complicated! Sorry to bother you. White Guard 05:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi White Guard. I have started a deletion discussion at the new page Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Anti-Germanism 2, using your comments from the talk page, and listed it on today's Articles for Deletion log. This is how we normally deal with repeat nominations, although in this case the first nomination was a mistake and didn't refer to this article. Feel free to comment more in the discussion, or ask for any more help! JPD (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! White Guard 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken Reversions

I apologize for the false reverting, but, I didn't realize that the articles were already being edited at the time.--Mr Fink 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image Deletion

Thanks for the note JPD. For one of my admin chores, I've been trying to help with some of the image licensing categories-- the ones with incomplete source or copyright info to be deleted after 7 days. However, these are often left until around 14 days, and there are multiple categories, so as you can see, there are almost too many to deal with. Its a lot of work just deleting them and there aren't many people doing this. I have noticed this concern elsewhere, just yesterday, that the ones deleting them should remove the links, and I'll try to do this from now on. Regards, DVD+ R/W 00:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hopf algebras

Hi JPD. Looking for a quick opinion from a professional mathematician who wrote stuff about Hopf algebras. Errm, User:LW77 has put a couple of articles I created Quasi-Hopf algebra and Quasi-triangular Quasi-Hopf algebra into the Category:Hopf algebras. I only tried looking at this stuff for an honours project last year and didn't get too far, but if I'm not mistaken Hopf algebra is a subset of Quasi-Hopf algebra and not the other way around. Also it seems that User:Figaro is another Australian mathematician (QLD) who is active in this area with Yang-Baxter equation - is Australia a hopf algebra place?!?!!? Regards, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen. I wouldn't call myself a professional mathematician yet, but I definitely agree that Hopf algebras are a subset of Quasi-Hopf algebras. What this mean for categorisation probably depends on how you look at categories - should Category:Hopf algebras contain only things specifically about Hopf algebras, or generalisations as well. If the generalisations were "notable" enough to have their own categories, then I'd say they definitely shouldn't be in the Hopf algebras cat, but otherwise, you could look at it either way. As for Australia being a Hopf algebra place, it was definitely a surprise to me to find many people editing these articles! JPD (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't see what all the fuss is about.. I think its quite reasonable to say that Hopf algebras should be the parent category for wikipedia. And I do agree that Hopf algebras are indeed a sub-category of Quasi-Hopf algebras mathematically, but I suspect its a matter of where you want to put them here on wiki. I also added Ribbon Hopf algebras to the Hopf algebra category. I ripped the ribbon hopf stuff straight from my PhD thesis, with a few minor cut backs. LW77 08:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a general point here, about the logic. Should there be a QHA category of which the HA category is a subcategory? I think one should try to help the reader, rather than insist on the logic. At the stage where there are enough QHA articles to justify a whole category, or for example enough coalgebra articles to justify Category:Coalgebras, then the system can be changed. There is no great difficulty in doing that, some day. At present, assuming that anyone interested in QHA would find the HA category is a reasonable solution; it is much better than having unclassified articles. Charles Matthews 10:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackp & socks

Has he gone? Finally got bored? Is a Woo-Hoo! in order? lol --Merbabu 02:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Woo-Hoo! JPD (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now Boo-Hoo!! --Merbabu 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Announcement

You might be interested in the recent addition to the page Waynflete Professorships! QuantumGroupie 10:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and vaguely interested in one of the earlier names. I don't suppose you've got anythign to say about the Quasi-Hopf algebra question from Blnguyen? JPD (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean Dixon? No, I've nothing to add to your response to Blnguyen - except that of course I read "category" in a rather different way to most Wikipedians. It seems that the Hopf algebra "Category:" has gone now anyway and I can't see any strong reason for putting it back any time soon. If I ever write some of the articles I intend, or someone else writes them, perhaps then I might change my mind. QuantumGroupie 14:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't really gone away - it's gone to Category:Hopf algebras. I suppose you could suggest that we'd need to define the objects and the arrows, but I don't think the software would handle that sort of category. JPD (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Silly me. The question I would ask is: is it useful to a searcher to have a category for this particular collection of entries? Or will they find what they want by a reasonable search anyway? I think I'll add a link to Quasi-Hopf algebra on Hopf algebra in the "Related Concepts" section. That should be acceptable to everyone, no? Well, if it's edited away, then I'll know not! QuantumGroupie 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with QuantumGroupie I think the related concepts thingy is a good idea. I just saw the original Hopf algebra category around and thought I would add the various Hopf Algebras to it. LW77 08:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just had another look at the Hopf algebra category and I don't think bi-algebras of co-algebras should really be in there actually. What do you reckon? LW77 09:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the point Blnguyen was making was that calling the quasi-Hopf algebras "Hopf algebras" is slightly questionable. Mathematically it's wrong, but in general speech it sort of makes sense. They definitely belong in the related concepts section, though. Then you have the question of whether the WP category structure is meant to be correspond to "X is a Y", which there is some dispute about. It all really depends how broadly you interpret the category structure, but I do agree that you'd have to interpret it quite broadly indeed to include bi-algebras and co-algeabras. Perhaps they should be put directly in Category:Abstract algebra instead, and possibly Augmentation ideal as well. Then again, perhaps we should talk to User:Charles Matthews, who seems to be the one that put them in that category to start with. JPD (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

On further reflection, I wonder if the most appropriate thing to do would be to rename the category "Hopf algebras" to something else that would encompass Hopf algebras and related concepts - but that wouldn't be as wide as Category:Abstract Algebra. How about using "Quantum Algebra" - a term used by the arXiv, after all (and arguably one that should become part of the Maths Subject Classification in the future...). I agree with User:JPD that this should probably be discussed with User:Charles Matthews before changes are made. Any thoughts? QuantumGroupie 17:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I only just noticed this message. It sounds like a good idea. I have also left a message for Charles Matthews about this discussion. JPD (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This bears looking into. If I knew for sure what a quantum group was, I'd be that much further forward. A Category:Quantum groups could house that article, compact quantum group, locally compact quantum group, and could be a subcategory of a Category:Coalgebras, and of Category:Mathematical quantization. A Category:Coalgebras could be a subcategory of Category:Abstract algebra, with Category:Hopf algebras another subcategory of Category:Coalgebras. Quasi-Hopf algebra could lie in Category:Coalgebras and in no subcategory. (If I have the wrong idea about the definitions, please just point this out.)

In any case, the approach should really be: small glitches in the category system are tolerable, but at a certain point of acccumulation of articles revamping the system is a good idea. That is, the system adapts to what is actually posted here. Charles Matthews 10:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New Colours For Political Parties

I saw you made the colours on the Marrickville by-election page on the election boxes and I was wondering if you could finish making the remaining colours. I am currently working on making election boxes on some the electorate pages of the Victorian state elections and I need the colours for the Liberal, National and Family First parties. Please contact me on ny talk page once you either :

a) have finish making the templates

b) cannot make the templates for whatever reason

c) the templates have already been made. If the tempaltes have already been made can you please tell me excalty what to write into the election boxes so I can use them. Thanking you in Advance. Aussie King Pin 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi King Pin! You might like to take at look at the templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Templates, which seem to be more widely used than the ones I made. It does mean using slightly different templates to the (British) ones I used for the Marrickville page, but it seems to be how most of the Australian election articles are being done. JPD (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that but I still don't know how to use them. Do I have to make a completely new election box or can I insert the colours into a section of the template. Aussie King Pin 06:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, they have been used in Electoral district of Little Para, for example, but I have just made {{Election box candidate AU party}} to use them in the style at Marrickville by-election, 2005. You can look there to see how it works - it shoudl work for any of the parties listed at the WikiProject. JPD (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Administration

Hi Jp. Have you worked out what all the buttons do yet? --WikiCats 10:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats. I think I know my way around the extra tools by now. Do you ask for any particular reason? The main uses are easily reverting obvious vandalism using rollback and deletion (cleaning up) as well as protecting pages and blocking for dealing with vandals. JPD (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blake Bowden on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blake Bowden. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

(See the recent contributions by the article's author/subject.) -- Tim D 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if confusion was caused by this, JPD. I think that I more properly initiated the review process in the appropriate places. But if you could give it some attention when you have a chance, that's be great. -- Tim D 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it all makes sense now. I have commented at the deletion review. I am not sure why Theguyinblue/Blake Bowden now want it deleted, but it would perhaps be best to reopen discussion. JPD (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JPD. I'm not sure about the sudden change either, but I'm willing to continue discussing. FYI, I cleared up the identity question on the deletion review page -- Tim D 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne

Melbourne's founding by free-settlers is a distinct point of difference between it and other major Australian cities, and relevant to understanding the cultural makeup of the city. Have removed the 'not by convincts' stuff and replaced with a link to free-settlers which I hope someone else will create.

Cultural capital is also a well known characteristic of the city, have removed link to tourist guide per your suggestion (though Fodor's is a large, reputable source) however you're free to add other references - a Google search for 'Cultural Cpital of Australia' should reveal a variety of sources to choose from, some of which will likely meet your standards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.52.114 (talk • contribs) .

I have replied concerning some of the issues at Talk:Melbourne. I don't quite see the poitn you are making about free settlers, as half the other major cities were also founded by free settlers. JPD (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"I have replied concerning some of the issues at Talk:Melbourne. I don't quite see the poitn you are making about free settlers, as half the other major cities were also founded by free settlers. JPD (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)"\

I have no idea what you are talking about, i didn't edit anything.

I got this message on 4th January 2007???

What are you talking about???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.52.114 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This message, which I left at User talk:220.253.52.114 on 30 October, was a reply to the message left at User talk:JPD#Melbourne by someone using your the IP address 220.253.52.114. You have now "received" this message as you are also anonymously using the same IP. If you create an account for yourself, you will no longer be sharing your talk page with other users. JPD (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Victoria state election

Hi JPD,

I noticed that you left several comments on Talk:Victorian legislative election, 2006 about the length of that article. I recently severed the section about the campaign and placed that in a new article 2006 Victorian election campaign. There is now a dispute about how that article should be re-structured if at all and we need more opinions of more editors to reach a consensus. Could you please take a look if you are still interested? Grumpyyoungman01 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

name removed

Hi JPD.

Sorry to ask, but I am hoping you can help or point me in the right direction.

It seems that I have embarassed a (schoolboy?) editor into asking for their hoax/vanity page to be removed - see name removed, Talk:name removed, and also on my own Talk page where what seems the same User has added: "Please delete the article: 'name removed' as soon as possible.".

Obviously I cannot delete the article myself, and I am still very much struggling through the labrynth of Wiki procedures. Are you either able to meet user 529's request yourself or demonstrate/direct to me what action I should be taking from here?

Cheers. Pudgey 05:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else has now nominated it for deletion so I guess I'll let that take its course. Pudgey

New football collage

Hi J, I've had another go at this and — since you did all the work on the last one — thought I'd ask you before I put it up for discussion at Talk:Football. See what you think. All suggestions welcome. Cheers, Grant65 | Talk 08:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

File:Football2.png

Hi Grant. Your new collage is definitely an improvement in many ways. It's a pity we haven't got better quality pics for some of the codes. The one suggestion I'd make is to ask whether you can fiddle the brightness/contrast/something in the American football part to make it the players more distinct at thumbnail size. Whether that works or not, I'd definitely suggest it on the talk page. JPD (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackp

I am 99% certain this is Jackp: User:RaptorRobot. But, he seems to be smart enough except on one occassion not to go near Sydney (which is a dead give away), he just uses his anon IP for those edits. But his film contribs are all the same. Also Raptor Robot likes to change Sydney, Australia to Sydney etc, just like Jackp. he also like to play around with the image sizes on Sydney and edited Sydney as an anon 4 mins later. --Merbabu 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Look carefully at RaptorRobot's Dec 5 edit. It's him! lol. now 100% certain. --Merbabu 12:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah.... I picked the wrong version to revert to! Thanks for fixing that. I'm sure it's him too. JPD (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi JP

I've been off line for a while. How are things? --WikiCats 11:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. I haven't been around much myself, since I've been quite busy. JPD (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Transport in Sydney

Hi JPD - would you be keen to have an article on public transport in Sydney? I know you were a little concerned about its recent change to "metropolitan New South Wales", and I'm not intending to delete that, but surely a good article on that would be a good link from the Sydney page? JROBBO 10:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi JROBBO. I would be more keen to have a general article about Transport in Sydney, not simply public transport. This would fit in with the general structure used for other parts of the world. Of coruse, an article about public transport in the suburban area, which is clearly distinct from teh surrounding areas in many ways, would work well, but I'd rather focus on the more general articles first. 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Australia ISBN correction

Hi Ekotkie. Thanks for trying to fix the short ISBN at Flag of Australia. I changed it back, because it looked like the ISBN you gave was for the second edition in 1985, rather than the 1982 edition mentioned in the reference. However, I then noticed that the 1988 edition is mentioned online with the same ISBN. Is it normal for different editions to have the same ISBN? If so, I'll correct it again. If you correct it in the meantime, please read WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English and don't change the Australian spelling again. Thanks, JPD (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Stand corrected on the English usage. I know better having been involved with the development of the F/A-18 Hornet Fighter program that now is flown in the Aussie AF. Great crew of folks. As to the flag issue, I too am sensitive to National standards being also retired Military. My take on the reference was that it was a newer issue so it would be acceptable plus it came from the government folks. As you have seen, there is a 1988 version with the same ISBN. The 1982 number was flagged as a Wiki error so I felt it would not be a problem giving the standard an upgrade. Whenever I do something like that I try to also change the publisher's name and date. If this was your page and you object to my logic, by all means put back in the 82 "corrected data", No problem. I am using three cross refs at the moment trying to dent the number of ISBN errors. One can only hope the original page writers would get involved. I re-reviewed about 20 novels that I had developed the pages for and found all sorts of errors, (Mostly transposing numbers)....old age, I suspect. Have a great day.Ekotkie 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ISBN Corrections

Please excuse my rather quick msg. above. I mistook your id for another Australian who is involved in a Wiki project of correcting ISBN's in error. If you would take a quick spin over to CAT:INVALID you will find a whole category of invalid ISBN's that a group of us are correcting. A quick bit of history. Back in 2000 the ISBN committee started plans for expanding the ISBN format from 10 digit to 13 digits. Unfortunately (My words here) the plan has been very haphazard. What has been found is that past ISBN's first had to be validated and then, in some cases, modified to preclude no falling into areas that were not allowed. (Very complex) The next step, Jan 2007, is to start converting these corrected ISBN's over to proper 13 digit ISBN's. Wiki has a smart bot that has been reviewing all of Wiki-land and when it spots an errant ISBN it attaches a "Template statement" and a flag note at the bottom of the page so indicating an invalid ISBN exists. Please excuse my intrusion onto your page but thank you for challenging why I was there. I use Firefox and it flags *spelling* **errors** (Firefox needs to learn how to speak Australian) and I focus a bit closer to ISBN's (bad me). Ekotkie 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I definitely don't mean to challenge your reason for your edit - it's great that people are trying to fix the ISBNs, I just wasn't convinced that this was actually a valid correction. I think tend to think that having the correct edition is more important than having a valid ISBN. There is no guarantee the info being referenced is in the newer edition (there have been a few things left out of the latest edition of the current equivalent publication), and so unless you are fairly sure that we have the ISBN for the 1982 edition, I'd rather not change it. I can understand about the automatic spellchecking - I guess it's just one more thing to be careful about. JPD (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Locations for tags

Hi. Thanks for your message. I knew that this was house style for references, but didn't realise it was the case for tags. SP-KP 17:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)