User talk:Bahudhara

Archive 1 (2010 - 2020)

Hi, I changed the motto as I personally attend Pembroke and have been told the motto many times. The motto, as I’ve been told by our principle Mr Thompson, is "Unity is Strength". As such I will now edit the motto again, please leave it that way. Excharlie (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to revert your change again, to the actual wording on the school's website. We can't go with a translation based on your personal interpretation or opinion. Wikipedia just doesn't work that way - see the policy on verifiability. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going on personal opinion. I actually go to Pembroke and this is what we are told the motto is. Plus, the direct translation is “Unity is Strength”. The principal gives speeches at assemblies and says the motto is “Unity is Strength”. Excharlie (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is just hearsay, and for Wikipedia, that is not considered a reliable source. The school website is considered a reliable source. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

corporate assistants get told by their bosses update our wikipedia page - they create usernames with the business/organisation and behave as if they are sanitising a wp article to look or sound like the corporate web page - at least one a month on my oversized watchlist, sometimes as much as once a week - in most cases they ignore messages, or give up... or in some cases persist before they are blocked...

there is one that keeps coming like a bad smell... [1] the edit history has more quacking ducks thsn a well stocked farm yard, it is like they never give up, regardless... JarrahTree 07:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of it, and that particular page was already on my watchist. Corporate spin is one thing, but I find it more egregious when pollies' flacks do it, and those messianic halos were particularly objectionable. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bahudhara I just came across an OK B&W snap I took in the late 1950s of the duty policeman on the steps of Parliament House, Adelaide, and thought it might be of some interest. For at least five years he acted as a sort of concierge for MP's and parliamentary staff, and was a minor Adelaide celebrity. I'm pretty sure his name was Roy, but have forgotten his surname. Can you help? Doug butler (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I can't help directly, but I've passed on your request to someone who is very good at this sort of sleuthing. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have friends. Doug butler (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

apparently you don't get notifications when somebody is writing something to you on some talk page so I am telling you here that I removed again those controversial claims in the article. Why you think that people like Susan Nathan or some other person are a real and reliable sources for claims like "trees have been planted to restrict Bedouin herding" just because they made those claims in a book?. Israel definitely doesn't need trees to prevent bedouins from herding and they already need permissions for herding anyway. Israel also doesn't need trees to "erase traces of the Arab presence prior to 1948", may be some trees were planted on some land that was belonged to some village according to the ottoman or british rule but those lands weren't an actual part of the village and probably contained some trees and wild vegetation even before 1948. Why planting an entire forest if you can just bulldoze some abandoned buildings?. Those accusations doesn't make sense and are completely ridiculous --ThunderheadX (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you deleted my post there, any reason to why? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were several reasons for deleting your edit to Talk:Pavement. Pavement is a disambiguation page (also known as a dab' page, used "as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic"). Dab pages typically consist of a list of linked article titles, and are not articles in themselves. A dab page's associated talk page should be used for that purpose only. Talk pages associated with specific articles are used for discussing improvements to those articles (see the guidelines). Your edit had nothing to do with "Pavement" in the general sense (as part of a roadway, "sidewalk", or geological feature). This dab page does have an entry for an article on Pavement (band), which in turn links to other articles on the band's studio albums aand individual songs, so you should have posted your question there (where you'd have a much better chance of getting a response), rather than on this dab page. Please note also that Wikipedia is not a social media site. Bahudhara (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, my humble apologies. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bahudhara. I've just reverted a huge slab of info added by one Special:Contributions/Crooga on Mike Tyler (that I know to be quite accurate) as unreferenced and part at least copied and pasted. User:Crooga has only edited one other article, on a South Australian soccer player named Martyn Crook. Could you please check it out ? Doug butler (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! If you're receiving this, it's because you like The West Wing—I happen to love the show, and I'm trying to set up a task force for it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to improve its coverage on Wikipedia. If you'd like to join, please leave your name here—hope to see you there!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I seem to remember https://adelaidepedia.com.au/wiki/Main_Page being brought up at a meetup. The site has been down since about March. Do you know who runs it or if the content has been preserved somewhere? Also aren't there a series of these, e.g. Gawler etc? Alex Sims (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, see Meetup 11 and Meetup 16 for some discussion on these wikis - the links there to the other wikis are still valid. The original ones - Mallala, Gawler and Willunga - were set up at the instigation of Dr Darren Peacock. AFAIK he was also the driving force behind Adelaidepedia, but I haven't followed its development or demise - it may have been archived - see archive.org Wiki - Adelaidepedia . Darren was also involved with the collaboration with the City of Adelaide which created the Adelaide City Explorer mobile app. Around this time Darren also became CEO of the National Trust of SA, which meant that he was no longer able to devote much time to continue his personal involvement with wiki development as such. This meant that I had to rely on others to create and maintain the backend for the Port Adelaide wiki that I was trying to create; this ended up being hosted on a server owned by a community organisation, which was crashed by a bitcoin-mining bot. The Port Adelaide wiki is no longer online, but I have the backup files. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Horseshoe (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horseshoe Bay. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds suspiciously like a suburb of Adelaide. As for the RSWA article, I always try to avoid the web pages of such adroit institutions - like government hacks invading articles about their institutions with usernames the same... As for the state of the article - I agree it is very short of the old coke bottle, but I have only peered in with a few trove articles...

Nah, the only one which is even remotely close is Keswick. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the publications being invalid sources - gah.

the only reason that the RSSA from RSWA is different is the long lists of office bearers with red links.... JarrahTree 04:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through those redlinks at the moment, and turning a couple blue. Bahudhara (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least the RSSA article has a "See also" section - the RSWA article is orphaned in that respect. I see that the RSNSW has an infobox that could be emulated. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the state RS's need work - they are sorely neglected, like most oz articles of a certain vintage - the ever shrinking cohort doesnt help. Thank you for checking JarrahTree 04:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more that I look - at each state article has a range of issues, and like so many oz articles about similar subjects - are inconsistent in the larger picture - and as exceptionalist for each state - (as so many things are) - the RS cleanup, and consistency is indeed a project in itself! Thanks for your original reference, the bonnet is certainly mixed up with the bee... I am sure most of the states could have one like Proceedings_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Queensland it would help to affirm the relevance and importance - in the face of any further misunderstandings (sic) JarrahTree 04:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the more I look, the more I find, including as a president of the RSSA one József Gyula Hubertus Szent-Ivány - who would have thought, just from his article? I'm thinking that there should be a category for "President of the RSSA" (along with all the others), as a way to link these otherwise disparate subject articles. Bahudhara (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bahudhara,

Noticed you've contributed a lot to articles on Australians. Thought I'd try a BLP on a working woman behavioural scientist and would appreciate any suggestions from you: Draft:Jemma B King

Kind regards

Matthew MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older has been inactive for some time. The following three proposals may help invigorate this project.

1. Change the name of this project to WikiProject Senior Wikipedians.^[a]
2. Open membership in this project to users who are at least 60 years of age and have made at least 50 edits in the past year.^[b]
3. Open supporting membership in this project to users who are less than 60 years old but have made at least 50 edits in the past year and support the goals of this project.^[c]

Suggested goals for this project:

1. To support collaboration and communication among members for the advancement and improvement of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement.
2. To encourage older people, retired people, and soon-to-be-retired people to participate in Wikipedia both for the advancement of the encyclopedia and for their own personal enjoyment.
3. To encourage older people to share their experience and expertise for the improvement of Wikipedia.
4. To encourage older users to use their experience and expertise to help younger and less experienced users.
5. To encourage participation in local and regional Wikimedia events.
6. To sponsor Wikipedia meetings and classes at places where older people gather.
7. To advocate for the elimination of ageism and sexism in Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement.

Please add your suggestions for this project at Senior Wikipedians. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't wish to receive any further information about Senior Wikipedians, please remove your username from our notice list. Thanks.

My proposal to make extensive changes to WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older was a bust, primarily because many users felt that the term "Senior Wikipedian" implied a higher ranking Wikipedia membership. Therefore, I am making two less ambitious proposals:

Proposal #1. Change the name of "WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older" to "WikiProject Elder Wikipedians".

Proposal #2. Drop the minimum age requirement to 60 years.

Please respond to Elder Wikipedians and let us know what you think of each of these proposals.
Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail

If you don't wish to receive any further information about Elder Wikipedians, please remove your username from our notice list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]