Anubis1975

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 00:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my comment below, I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia. Be sure to check out Australian resources, like The Australia Wikiportal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. Also, you can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians. Happy editing! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

RE: Commonwealth template

Hi Anubis. Yes, there is quite an extensive background to the issue of not only the Commonwealth Realm template, but also the Commonwealth of Nations template. Unfortunately most of the discussion regarding them is now archived or no longer active. Long story short, Astrotrain and SimonP have been engaged in a vicious cycle of adding and removing them. A while back, Astrotrain began adding the Commonwealths Realm template to all related articles and SimonP began removing both it and the already established Commonwealth of Nations template as per WikiProject Country guidelines. I saw the Commonwealth Realms template as an unnecesary duplication of the Commonwealth of Nations template, and after SimonP removed both, I and other editors returned CoN. Eventually, we at the Australia article reconciled to remove both templates and place them in relevant sub-articles (CR went to Queen of Australia and CoN to Foreign relations of Australia). It appears that Astrotrain is still popping up every now and then to re-add it to various articles. I lost track of the discussion and assumed (as you would) it had been resolved. Apparently not. Still, the issues' persistence isn't really of any great consequence in the grand scheme of Wikipedia things. Here are some links to the various places discussion has occurred: this link, in particular, shows a compilation of links to discussion; this link takes you to the template talk-page; and this link is to my entrance into the fray. Some links may no longer be current, so you'll have to refer to archives. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

References

Hi Anubis: Thank you for your interest in Athenaeum (band). I can think of no circumstances when it is appropriate to delete a reference. The reference was used to write the article and remains so even if that source document subsequently becomes unavailable. In this case, the reference exists on an internet archive and may be consulted there. I have edited the article to taht effect. Even were that not the case, it should remain (albeit annotated) in case some archive does make it available. This particular example was also a web version of a published paper document so at the very least, the reference to that original source should survive. —Theo (Talk) 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm..thanks Theo, OK, so I am new enough to this process that I won't argue too much. The only thing I would be concerned about is the internet is a very living thing. Yes a site might be here today, but gone tomorrow. At what point will invalid links get deleted? And if we take your approach, who is going to go around finding archived versions of the link, and how do we really know that it is the real archived version, and not a "guess" as we don't have the original to compare it with?

As a reader of Wikipedia articles, I know it annoys me that the link doesn't work. If you have some definitive (Wikipedia) guides on the subject, I'd be interested in the reading them. Thanks for setting me straight. --Anubis1975 06:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anubis: Inactive links to reference sources should never be deleted (although, I suppose that they could be unlinked). As for who is going to identify archive copies? We are: the many editors of the encyclopedia. The great thing about a wiki is that anyone who finds a problem can fix it. Sites like Internet Archive work by using the original URL as a search string; we have to rely on the integrity of the Internet Archive spiders. For more about references see Wikipedia:Cite sources. —Theo (Talk) 09:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your message (and stickybeaking)

I removed the reviews because I took them to be inappropriate for an encyclopæ (though they'd be fine for a sports journal or the like). Leaving aside the sports journalism style, a question to ask when thinking of adding something is: "Would I expect to find this in an encyclopædia?" I'm not saying that that's the end of it (for one thing, different people might expect dufferent things; for another, we're trying to be better than other encyclopædias, and we can offer more, being less constrained by space). In this case, though, I couldn't see that detailed accounts of individual games were appropriate. (Another, less important, consideration was that the article was already oversized, and there were still a couple of reviews to come.)

I couldn't help seeing your discussion with Theo, above; on that issue I was inclined to agree with you, but Theo's someone whose views I respect, so I've asked a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• As you suggest, Wikipedia can be much better than a traditional encylopedia. I'd like to see the reviews kept for historical reasons. Just knowing the result of a game does not tell the whole picture of a match. I could image that I will look back at these reviews in a few years to relive the games, and for me some of them would be reliving, as I attended a couple of the games. So, I vote to put the reviews back in. Anubis1975 11:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think that the reviews belong somewhere other than Wikipedia. You could place the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and see if others agree with you against me. I'd go along with consensus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Anubis on this one. An encyclopedia does not just include information on the final results of a game, but it usually contains some sort of description. MEA ETNING or whatever your name is, I recommend you spend your time adding and contributing to Wikipedia than worrying about trivial little deletions of useful information. Rogerthat 03:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey... please be friendly and respect all views put forward. We are all friends and can work together.. Anubis1975 11:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL

G'day Anubis, noticed you have a nice piece of work going on with the Sydney Swans 2006 Season page, good job. I suggest you check out WikiProject AFL and perhaps we can join forces on some projects together. By the way, where are these match reviews you have written (Re: the above message)? Keep up the good work, Rogerthat 03:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• G'day to you too... thanks for compliments on the 2006 sesason page. I'll slowly get it altogether before the season starts. I have been keeping an eye on the AFl project. At this time, I'll just dabble here and there. Don't have time to do much else. The reviews (weren't mine) were in the 2005 AFL Finals Series. Check out the Revision as of 01:28, 20 September 2005 version. Anubis1975 11:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

New ACOTF

Australian Football Hall of Fame has been selected as the new Australian collaboration. As you voted for it, please help to improve the article in any way you can. Scott Davis ^Talk 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MediaMonkeyLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MediaMonkeyLogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anubis1975. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anubis1975. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)