User talk:Rob.au/Archive 1

Hello Rob.au, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Alphachimp talk 15:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical   Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Yes do you also have a photo of this plane where it say Boeing 747-438 on the side? I have looked at many photos of numerous Qantas 747's they all say Boeing 747-400, or Boeing 747-400ER. Furthermore Boeing's wikipage doesn't have anything about constructing a Boeing 747-438. And when you click the highlighted link on wiki it does not take you to a Boeing 747-438 page, it takes you to the Boeing 747-400 page. So I feel you need to provide proof of the existence of this so called Boeing 747-438, otherwise I will change the page back, and keep changing it back.--Subman758 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Explosive decompression, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

--The preceeding unsigned comment was left by Socrates2008 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please note WP:DTTR and sign your comments on talk pages. Also please read through WP:V - the status of explosive decompression comes from a reliable source - the pilot - quoted in numerous reliable publications. At this stage it is merely your opinion that this was not the case. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a read at verifiability before making uncited edits, which in this case linked a main article which also did not back up your assertion. This is an enyclopedia, not a blog or newspaper, so opinions don't count. The official investigation has not been concluded or published yet, so the reliable source that Wikipedia requires does not exist yet. PS: Your comment about signing is knit-picking as I usually do; also the edit history shows who added the comment. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Slapping an 'unreferenced' tag on explosive decompression when the article had references is immature to say the least. Also, please take the time read up on the differences between explosive depressurisation and rapid depressurisation before contributing more original research to that article (in form of your non-expert opinion that they are one and the same thing). Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the article had no citations - there's no reason for you to take the application of a cleanup tag personally and turn it into an uncivil attack on me. I'm not enterting into further discussion unless you check your attitude... and your liberal use of the accusation "original research" is a pretty amusing way to twist around my pointing out the lack of citations in that article... I can no longer assume good faith in your edits and arguments... I think you're just throwing that around for the sake of argument. I am not going to be bullied, sorry. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rob, this edit puzzles me. The url http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24078132-2,00.html is titled "Qantas boss 'horrified' by hole in Boeing 747-400", not "Qantas plane has history of corrosion" as your edit implies. It seems News Limited changes story titles after publication. Could you comment? Moondyne 12:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was surprised and in my naive way couldn't believe such a thing happened! Cheeky buggers. Moondyne 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I want to apologize for mistakenly editing your comment while editing mine... [1] It's not intentional and I thought that portion is part of my comment until Bidgee notified me about the incident. Sorry. {Howardchu (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}

To avoid adding yet more to that AFD, I thought I'd respond here...

Yep, that was me getting my ATSB orders of magnitude mixed up. Apologies. :D

OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries! :) -- Rob.au (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You now have my support (You've done a good job on improving User:Rob.au/Qantas Flight 72). Bidgee (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob.au. I was recently searching to see what Wikipedia had on Qantas Flight 72, and was very surprised to find that there is no article at all. After some searching, I see that it has been deleted. I think the deletion was the wrong decision. Anyway, I see you have kept a version of the article. I think the article should be kept up to date on your userpage, as I feel certain that it will have long-term significance. I think when some new information is added, the article should be restored to Wikipedia mainspace. Let me know if it gets restored, as I will support it's retention. Cheers, --Lester 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The article you have been working on is looking much better - well done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as an informatician, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, just to give you a heads up on this page. You have already flagged one series of edits by the user name random 12347. I have made some factual additions to this page from the connex media releases into the Melbourne media, last week. In my humble opinion random 12347 is possibly a connex bod..gut feeling. Can you please keep tabs on this page..I will and if necessary do what you have to do!! RegardsZippomk2 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for your advice in the past, someone beat me to the clarification on Connex! Regards the above page. Am well aware of the edit guidelines 3 strikes to paraphrase! The edits to the External References are at 2. The External Reference I added has been undone. Under Wiki rules imho the External Refs should be an ODP? My reference is factual not POV or inflammatory. As you check the history its the same IP each time. Any chance you can put this up to the Australian Wiki moderators, this is a bit over my head. Appreciate your help in advance Zippomk2 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not here to get involved in other people's concerns or disputes. There are plenty of Wikipedians who are ready and willing to do so, but my main interest in Wikipedia is contributing content in which I have an interest and understanding. When there concerns and disputes about that then I'll dive into the relevant meta-discussions... and I don't mind giving the odd bit of help, but I'm sorry... I really don't want to start trawling through edit histories of articles I have no interest in. You should be discussing these things on the relevant article talk pages so that people with an interest in the topic can contribute to the discussion. -- Rob.au (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that I made assumptions which do not apply. I was obviously being too inclusive. This was not an idea I didn't consider. I was simply curious about Australian places and found that there wasn't a place in which all of the localities, towns, etc. could be seen. I also noticed other suberbs listed in the towns category. Thanks for correcting me, I am but an amateur. I will try to show more discipline in the future. Hows that for polite:) Frankie816 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on the Sydney Boys High School page, I've undid your changes and cited the source for the concerned peice of infomation. Citation of the souce means that the process of arriving at the rankings is irrelevant. As for your arguement about larger canditure, I don't think people would feel the same if their respective schools were topping the long established SMH ranks, but not the Telegraph polls, established last year?

--Sharz 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'd just like to apoligise for that post ^^ I've been embroiled in what is essentially a competition of verbal abuse with another user in and around Wiki which is pretty fustrating but it's no escuse to assume bad faith with you nor have snarky comments like the one formentioned. --Sharz 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article already says "Headquaters" then you are saying it again. That's stupid and its not on any other telco's page.

Chief Executive is CEO, those terms are interchangable. [2] If you believe that they are not, point me to a single page on the web where it says they are different.

My point exactly is that foreign members in a management team can and does bring benefits to an organization. If you disagree with the wikipedia policy on the use of flagicons, that's your problem. It offers a quick glance at the origins of the management team, as on many other pages, especially if there is nothing written about the management team. Tri400 01:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what I was thinking, guess I wasn't. I've removed the image from the pages it was on, it was quite a poor photo too. RP Bravo 00:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you own the Telstra page also? Tri400 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's clearly no point me responding to this other than here - nobody owns anything. Tri400 (talk) was discussing the content of the Optus page on Talk:Telstra#Flag icons and I observed it was best discussed on Talk:Optus. End of story. --Rob.au 12:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Opel networks logo.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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Aren't broken bots fun? -- Rob.au 09:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have started a vote on the discussion page of this article to remove content that is irrelevant to Qantas's operations flight. Seriously this article needs a rewrite! Please add your vote. Kransky (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a number of photos which I will add in the upcoming weeks. I have been too busy to upload them now. Thanks for your suggestions so far.

Cheers,

--Loy Wong (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that I can't rename citation [3]? Reason why I changed it was to reduce the title's size (I'm not the only person due do so) and it's at the top of the report. Bidgee (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find some sources for you and this is what I've found so far. Optus confirms offshoring plans (Reliability unknown), Optus starts lay offs (Reliability unknown), Telstra sends 500 jobs offshore (Has a section with Optus outsourcing in the Philippines). Bidgee (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:OptusC1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:OptusD1 SatelliteOnly.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob! researching stuff about altitudes of Sydney railway stations and line-gradients, found a few anomalies in "Distance from Central", as below. Have checked using mapping software, but don't necessarily claim Wiki-level authenticity for this info. Cheers Laurie Power Loftus wrongly reported as 11.61 km from Central. More like 26.92 Bombo wrongly reported as 140.84 km from Central. More like 117.44 Flemington wrongly reported as 28.997 from Central. More like 14.33 Croydon wrongly reported as (same as Burwood) 10.62 from Central. More like 9.65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.203.43 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the distances I have seen on Wikipedia (which aren't clearly wonky - and I've seen a lot of those) appear to be sourced from CityRail's Fare Calculator. Accoridng to that, the distances would be Loftus 26.27 km, Bombo 117.54 km, Flemington 14.32 km, Croydon 9.44 km, Burwood 10.62 km. It looks like your figures are pretty much on the money, but using the Fare Calculator's figures would give you something to reference as the source of the data without being WP:OR. -- Rob.au (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the CityRail Passenger Fares and Coaching Rates Handbook is probably even better as a source, refer to Section 5 (page 93 of 120 in the PDF). -- Rob.au (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Nbc up all night.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing at Sydney Opera House. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

You've added after the decimal point, whereas I had rounded to match earlier polls, which is fine. But how do you get to 16.9% for Others? I made it AC 6.2 + Others(SMH) 3.4 = 9.6 (10)%. SMH confuses me, though, because it gives a figure for ON, which according to the AEC isn't standing (at least in its own name). Even so, ON+AC+CD+Others(SMH) is only 14.5% The poll isn't on ReachTEL's site. Wikiain (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned about the subsequent edits to the article because they rely on a third-party source [4] rather than the SMH article [5] given Fairfax commissioned the poll and it's not clear where the third party is getting it from and indeed the third party has gone on to provide different data again (supposedly pressing the undecideds to give some kind of answer). Most of the previous polls in the table have shown all results tallying to 100% inclusive of undecideds, although that was only 2.4% in this case so there was still a discrepancy in your figures from the SMH data I couldn't account for (but didn't try to, I just copied the figures across, I figured maybe you made a typo or something... I didn't dwell on it, just double checked my tally added up to 100). This said, SMH seems to have now removed the full results from their site which I saw this morning, so now I'm unable to reference it, which makes me uncomfortable making further edits.

It's true that One Nation isn't standing, but ReachTEL may have allowed respondents to provide their own answer and it's possible this many actually said One Nation (we saw in the Queensland election many voters getting upset that they couldn't vote for Hanson in electorates where ON didn't run). It was surprisingly high given that One Nation has traditionally tanked in Bennelong, but it's possible that's changed since ON switched focus from Asians to Islam. In any case, they certainly are not running, so that's another extremely problematic aspect of the poll.

To be honest, I'm not that big a fan of this table being in the article because of the issues with the sourcing of the data which it seems the propriety owners of are being a bit cagey about... and that's before consideration of the other question marks, not to mention the issue of by-election polling being notoriously problematic due to how hard it is to accurately and consistently reach genuinely eligible voters for polling. -- Rob.au (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The ReachTEL poll was by robocall and I don't remember whether there was an option for adding to its list. To my recollection of the original SMH story (I'm working from incomplete notes of it), it correctly had ON from November (when they might have been going to stand) for comparison. But I also recall that CD was included in the same way although they are standing. You will see that I have reverted to the original SMH story and have taken up the third-party question in Talk. That source is also used here for earlier polls, so there might be similar problems with those entries. It's stormy weather here in Bennelong - which BTW barely exists outside of federal election times (Sydney, the "city of villages"). Wikiain (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rob.au, thank you very much for the video "737 Technical Aspects of AS1282 FAQs" and sharing your insight. If you don't mind sharing, what experience do you have in the industry? I'm curious to ask more questions. Dw31415 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dw31415 Literally none. Interested outsider only. Rob.au (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)