ScottDavis
ScottDavis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since November 2005.
You are welcome to leave me a message.
I will usually reply to conversations started here on this page, and might leave a note on your talk page as well. If your message is about a particular page, please include a link to that page.Archives
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have ticked the ones I've edited in response to the suggestions. --Scott Davis Talk 10:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This conversation was copied to talk:Solar updraft tower. --Scott Davis Talk 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I do not understand why you took out that sentence about conversion efficiency. All I am doing is take the numbers which are provided in that paper by Schlaich et al. That is not original research, it is just presenting data which is publicly available. I will refer to that paper right there to avoid any further misunderstanding JdH 02:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article as it stands is still disjointed and not particularly neutral. I tagged several sentences as requiring references if they were to be kept. You removed the request for a reference with the comment No citation needed; the numbers are right here. I had requested a citation for those numbers, so I removed the sentence as original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policies. You have now added a reference, but that reference still does not contain either the 0.5% efficiency or 1 kW/h numbers. Sentences that start with phrases like "From those numbers it appears..." look more like OR or POV than citing a source. --Scott Davis Talk 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is not good to obfuscate information that you dislike, not for Wikipedia nor for society at large. I have clarified the discussion on gross conversion efficiencies, and all of this is backed by information from the original sources, and in particular the Schaich paper that contains the most relevant data that is out there. I feel that the article is well balanced as is, and well documented. Still a lot of cleaning up to do. The references to journal articles now follow convention (I think), but web citations are still a mess. JdH 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I replied in the mean time to your remark on the Talk:Solar updraft tower
But the reason I come down here is in your quality as administrator. What I have tried to do over the past few weeks is: trim the article by taking out all proprietary stuff, and get it focussed on the technology instead. In the process I have strenghtened the description of the technology. I was not done yet; I wanted to trim it even more, get it even more focussed on technology.
To my dismay I noticed that an anonymous editor from Australia made major changes in the article, essentially converting is into a EnviroMission pamphlet, even discussing EnviroMissions problems in financing the project, and bringing in a report from an investment firm who was probably hired by EnviroMission in the first place. I short, he has undone everything I have tried to achieve over the past few weeks, and worse. I do not want to get into a revert war about this, so I will leave it alone for a while, but I would like your suggestions of how to go about this. JdH 11:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I came to the article as a reader, not an editor. My motivation is to improve the editorial quality of the article with a higher standard of citation etc, rather than pushing any POV. I was looking for more information on the Australian tower, and found the article at the time to be of rather poor and muddled quality, with lots of unsourced claims. I have not really worked out the positions of all the editors, as I don't fully watch the article, but I think you seem to be slightly biased against the concept (perhaps due to the fact nobody has actually built a commercial one). I will seek to improve the quality of references, and general use of English as best I can. I voted to keep separate articles about science, technology and implementation, but the consensus was to merge all into a single bigger article, leading to the recent mess. Info about EnviroMission as a company belongs in that article, not in solar updraft tower. The best advice is to refer to Wikipedia policies in your edit summaries, and copy "contentious" bits to the talk page if you can't fix them and they aren't referenced. --Scott Davis Talk 13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I like your suggestion of putting company related info in a separate EnviroMission article; thank you for generating a stub :-) Maybe it would be best to suggest to the anonymous Australian editor to put his stuff there.
What about possible bias? The nice thing about solar dishes and troughs is that they scale linearly with scale: If you know how one performs you pretty much know how 10,000 of them are going to do. But that is not the case with the Solar Tower (original design); the only thing there is are Schlaich's model calculations. The problem is that we don't have a full scale plant, so we really don't know how it is going to perform once one is up and going. Also, I find them very naieve about issues like conversion efficiency and maintenance. To maintain those 38 km² of greenhouse is going to present a major problem to them. The Schlaich paper actually mentions that the Manzanares pilot plant had problems with its canopy; the plastic it was made of became brittle and started to disintegrate. Apart from the queston what would happen if severe weather passes through the area.
About economic efficiency: That is closely tied to questions related to conversion efficiency and maintenance. The DOE has websites that address that (I actually stuck in a reference to one of those). Basically what it boils down to is that none of the alternative sources of electricity are economically competitive as yet with a coal fired plant. According to the DOE the one which comes closes to the break even point is the wind farm; close second are the Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Plants, and there are high hopes about the Concentrating Photovoltaic (CPV) systems as well. The Solar Tower is only mentioned in passing, essentially they dismiss it on the basis of its low conversion factor.
As I said before, I think we need to be honest about it; the article was very biased towards the EnviroMission POV to begin with, and I have been trying to bring some sense to it. But as said, I want to focus this thing on the technology, which btw includes conversion efficiency. But things like how to finance one and how to run one once it is built, as well as economic returns, those issues should only be mentioned in passing. JdH 14:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we have similar goals for the article :-) Be careful to cite articles that contain the conclusions you wish to express, not just raw data for your own conclusions. I deleted the comparison to Hazelwood power station, as that seemed to be an arbitrary choice to demonstrate a point lacking objective references. EnviroMission appear to have consistently failed to achieve their stated targets, but the solar tower concept interests me as it should have very low ongoing costs once constructed. I don't think I've seen the version of the article you started from, the first version I saw was just very confused and in need of consolidation, clarification and referencing. Over the last week, I've been on Wikipedia much less than usual, and involved more closely in several other editing projects. I'll try to keep coming back to this every few days though. --Scott Davis Talk 15:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The version I started with was the Revision as of 06:04, 24 June 2006; I thought I had come a long way in removing superfluous stuff and other overhead, and at the same strenghten the description of the technology and put in references. But I am going to leave it alone for a while; at least until the present editing storm has faded. First comes World Cup Soccer :-) JdH 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I delete something you've added that you think is important, please let me know. If I claim to have checked a section and did not delete what you think I should have, let me know about that, too :-) So far, I've just been trying to combine multiple sections with the same info into single sections, fix headings, grammar and reference styles, and verify that at least some of the claims are supported by the provided references. There are an impressive amount of references on the page, but perhaps they are not all required. I haven't worked out what the point of some sections is yet. --Scott Davis Talk 01:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I had almost figured out how I wanted to section it up.
I was working towards the following scheme: - 1. History
2. Description of the technology- 2.1 Quantitative modeling/predictions
- 2.2 Conversion efficiencies solar tower vs solar thermal
- 3. The Australian project (very terse)
4. comparison with existing solar power plants around the world and Australia
5. Other stuff, like the Energy Tower
I wanted to tighten the paragraphs on greenhouse gases (perhaps find a suitable wiki link to refer to since that is something generic to alternative energy, not specific for the updraft tower) and also the land use paragraph; reduce it to merely saying that it uses 5x more land than some of the other solar thermal and solar voltaic systems
And yes, the Betz Limit, strengthen that a bit. But to be perfectly honest: I'd rather revert to what I had a few days ago and continue from there than try and clean up the present mess. JdH 01:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I had almost figured out how I wanted to section it up.
- 1. History seems stable
- 2. Todays "Features" sections could be condensed, but contains useful descriptive info for a new reader. Possibly before History under a heading of Description with no subheadings.
- 3. Technology. Summarise the source documentation, and be careful not to introduce our own conclusions, especially economic assumptions that might vary such as the relative value of land - there's a reason that proposed sites are not presently under intensive agriculture - or availablility of coal or natural gas.
- 4. Don't trim the Australian project too short - you voted to merge it here rather than keep it separate - and while the timelines keep slipping, the company has not gone bankrupt.
- 5. Comparisons. Don't introduce our own conclusions. Identify the differences, and cite reputable journals that draw conclusions.
- We need to trim the See also list. If the other articles are relevant put it in a sentence, if not, just drop them. It's disappointing that Betz limit is not a separate article to refer to.
- I won't be editing it again until at least tonight. --Scott Davis Talk 02:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have a suggestion to get out of the present mess: Let's copy the present version wholesale to Solar Tower Buronga, and restore Solar updraft tower to my version of 23:11, 7 July 2006]. I'll take it from there. JdH 11:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I very strongly disagree ... the only reason i ever started editting wiki was because i went to this page to try to find info about this updraft tower idea ... all i found was discussion of other different projects ... those ideas need and deserve exposure ... but those projects and ideas have other pages to be discussed on.--Flexme 14:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather we go forward from here, not back, perhaps I'm biased by having put effort into formatting the references since then. Also, the current version is not really about the Buronga tower. Detailed info about that seems to be migrating into the EnviroMission article, which seems fair - there's nothing else to say about that company. --Scott Davis Talk 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Betz law is discussed in depth in wind turbines. "velocity of the air passing through the rotor plane to have a smaller velocity than the free stream velocity". , and is probably not relevant to confined flows ...nevertheless the tower does suffer a massive loss of conversion ... an important factor is probably reflection off the glass surface, and heat loss back out through the glass surface . .--Flexme 05:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
i would like to completely remove the betz law bit - i am almost certain it is irrelevant. some loss will be at the turbine stage but not related to betz limit. "performance of an updraft tower may be degraded by factors such as atmospheric winds" seems totally ridiculous to me, the suction from the venturi effect should dramatically INCREASE the power generated by the plant. the reference for "drag induced by bracings used for supporting the chimney" seems to be useless, this does not surprise me, i do not see this as a relevant factor and i would like to remove it. i would like to add the following to the discussion of conversion loss, but thought it most diplomatic to mention it here first. I would like to know what are the MOST significant factors of the 99.5% loss of energy, perhaps this could bring some more relevant issues to light. :
When light moves from one medium to another medium with a different refractive index, from the air into the glass or plastic canopy, some of the light will be reflected back; this reflection of energy is one contributing factor to the low conversion rate for the solar updraft tower.
Another factor is transparency of the canopy. The energy in the light which is not reflected will still not be fully transmitted throught the canopy.--Flexme 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Betz limit is relevant, as it talks about the maximum possible conversion factor of wind kinetic energy to electricity, irrespective of what created the wind. I would have thought the issues related to heating something under glass would be fairly well solved by rooftop hot water services. I haven't seen any estimates of what effect the transparency or otherwise of the canopy might have, or how to manage the edge of the canopy on windy days to ensure the wind doesn't blow the hot air out the other side, or discussion of how maintenance can be done to either the canopy or the turbines in that hot and windy environment. I have seen that most of the canopy is not suitable for agriculture as the physical requirements for agriculture (irrigation, moderate temperature and moderate wind) are incompatible with the requirements of the tower. --Scott Davis Talk 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you both happy if this conversation is moved en masse to talk:Solar updraft tower off my talk page so other people can see it? --Scott Davis Talk 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- i am! i had not seen the "discussion" link at the top of the page ... sorry for clutterring up your talk page ... thank you for your help in getting me started ... and pray that i do not become too embroiled - i need to go and earn a living away from my computer!--Flexme 15:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
rv war
The problem for me is that those "countless other languages" were/are each spoken by *much* less than ten percent of the population, wheras German was once spoken by "ten percent" of the population, this is why I disagree with Michael (talk • contribs) about whether it deseaves primacy (whatever 'primacy' is). Myrtone
- Conversation spilled from and returned to talk:South Australia.
west coast tas
Hi I've been updating refs and finding stub and category together - once a cat is up, surely its worth removing the stub, yes? SatuSuro 15:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- All articles should have a category. Short ones should also be marked with a stub tag. The guideline is that if it's shorter than 3-10 sentences and doesn't contain an overview of the entire subject, it's still a stub.--Scott Davis Talk 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- it's just that youve put a tas geog cat on some arts and there are still tas geo stubs thereokely dokely. thanks for the guideline!SatuSuro 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Stub cats don't follow the usual rule of not using both a category and its parent. Stub tags are for editors, categories are for readers. --Scott Davis Talk 15:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- ThanksSatuSuro 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Gawks i've just found WP Australia and have started placing it on arts that I think really need some work... including some of the tas arts...
also noticed that you've got Saint Alouarn islands in your suggest list - I had decided to put them under that title rather than include them in the Cape Leeuwin entry - but the problem it is a list, rather than an art - and I did not have to hand something like Nigel Brothers' 2001 Tasmania's Offshore Islands: ISBN 072464816X for WA, a pity... for extra bits SatuSuro 12:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- With a challenge like that, I've just spent a few minutes cleaning up that article :-) Feel free to extend it further, but I decided it was sufficient to lose the stub tag. --Scott Davis Talk 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks once again, I'll have to find something else again :) SatuSuro 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to your request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word (bookstore)
Hi - in this discussion, you left a note "Can you cite a reliable source that A&R is bigger (as a retailer)? It would help to settle this if we could find such." I have found a cite that it has 170 shops (as opposed to Word's 16). It also has only 18% of the market share despite all those shops. I had thought the chains dominated the market but there must be an awful lot of independents. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks to the useful link you left in the discussion, I now know more about retailing of books. In 2003/04, booksellers accounted for 67% of books. I think the 18% market share probably refers to the 100% encompassed by the ABS data. Thus A&R probably has (18/67)% of the booksellers' market share - ie 27% which seems to fit better with my observations/ gut feel. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're probably right in interpreting the statistics that way for A&R. One difference between the 170 and 16 is that many of the 170 A&R stores are franchises, and the 16 Word stores are owned by the company - there are many other "agents" and resellers who are in addition to that number (but are all tiny by comparison). Unfortunately there seems to be a dearth of public third-party information on the bookselling market in Australia for us to cite in either improving the Word and Koorong articles, or determining they are really NN. I feel I have demonstrated my point that there is little more information available on A&R (retail) than there is on Word, despite A&R clearly having a larger footprint in retail Australia. Word and Koorong are both significant names in Christian book retailing in Australia, but proving it is quite difficult. --Scott Davis Talk 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not normally a deletionist. My problem is that there is seemingly not enough information associated with reliable sources to develop the Word and Koorong articles from anything other than stubs that could be misconstrued as advertising links. I am working on the A and R article. There is a fair bit of 3rd party info out there, I just haven't got to it yet. As I said at one stage in the deletion discussion, for me the "what links here" is significant. There are a lot of links to A and R (a publisher of course too). Nothing else links to Word or Koorong.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- A&R shops tend to be in shopping centres that can link to the A&R article from the list of tenants in the centre. As the Word stores tend to be standalone, they don't get these incoming links. It would also be a silly way to boost the link count to go through articles like The Purpose Driven Life, Australian Hymn Book and Stone's Been Rolled Away saying they are available from Word and other places (I have no idea if I can get them from A&R - probably not the CD). If the article were deleted, would you delete the entry, remove the link but keep the line, or keep a red link from List of bookstore chains#Australia? --Scott Davis Talk 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't keep a red link since it is my contention that an encyclopaedia article cannot be written from the information publicly available at present, or information that is likely to become available.
- I am well aware you are experienced and don't mean to preach to the converted! - looking at WP:Not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - and taking a similar type of article, there is an analogy with Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.. In the case of businesses, WP:Not offers Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.
- If we can't write an article - and there is no renovation rescue in the offing, should it be kept? (I would not support deletion if article "rescued"). It isn't so much a comment about market penetration - though I think that comes into it, because a bigger businesss would attract commentary, but what value are we adding? A&R claims that at one stage it was the biggest bookstore in the world - I have found no collaboration of that claim :-). It was also a major publisher - published The Australian Encyclopaedia and The WWI Official history as well as promoting Australian literature with Lawson, Patterson, etc.
- Word has been around for a long time, hasn't it had an impact on publishing of Australian Christian related materials? It would of course be competing with the Churches themselves I assume. Who publishes the Australian Hymn Book?Who publishes the Orders of Service etc for the Anglicans and Roman Catholics and guides to confirmation etc? Same market segment? Perhaps a bigger share? That a shop sells a book is not an encyclopaedic fact usually, publishing might be.
- Just as a matter of interest who does Word cater for? Mainstream Christians as in Anglicans and Catholics or more Hillsong type of churches - I am not trying to be rude, they aren't in Canberra and I can't tell - certainly not from reading Wikipedia :-). I assume since a shop opening was mentioned in the Sydney Anglican news they are reasonably mainstream.--A Y Arktos\talk 03:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- AHB is published by HarperCollins Religious. [1] Word would be seen as more conservative/traditional than Koorong, I think, although both would tend to stock a wide range. The Open Book (Lutheran) and Scripture Union would be much more traditionalist I think and now far smaller. Like you, I would normally not be a deletionist. In this case, I consider that the company is significant in it's market, and so should be kept, even though I'm struggling to find suitable references to build a long article, and am disinclined to write a monologue unsupported by references. My inclination is to keep the stub, and that one day someone might come along who has access to a source I haven't found and be able to write a better article. There is some information now to provide a small amount of information to a reader with no previous knowledge. The hurdle to recreate an article voted for deletion is far higher than finding a stub and expanding it. Part of the impact of the growth of Word and Koorong has been (hard to cite) that The Open Book is now little more than a mailorder company, Epworth Books (Uniting Church) closed or shrunk to no more than providing the few items specifically produced by the UCA, and probably the same for other denominations. Now a local church bookshop is a selection of books from Word or Koorong, not from that denomination's bookshop. Thankyou for a challenging conversation. --Scott Davis Talk 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
queenie 84 moonscape photo
Was there just two weekends ago, the rather poor pickie needs to go. The veg is coming back with a vengeance ( I lived there 77-78) and the moonscape stuff is fast becoming passe, didnt take any jpeg shots, I really think as an eg in mining in australia - that Big Bell or the Superpit in Kal a really more blots on the landscape than poor old queenie! If the queenie example stays, either the photo needs to go and the google earth image of queenie from the air is a 1,000,000 times more evocative than a cruddy holiday pick. just my ideas for a slow friday :) SatuSuro 09:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I think I was thinking of oscar wilde and the wall paper if you know that one! SatuSuro 04:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Gawks, guardian angel! thanks for fixing up hamelin bay mess! SatuSuro 04:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I assure you I don't just follow you round copyediting your articles :-) --Scott Davis Talk 04:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The assumption wasnt there, when I see on my watch list another one of my messes fixed up, I usually like to compliment the editor who cleans up my mess! Maybe I shouldnt? :-| --SatuSuro 06:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do you spend a lot of time complimenting people who fix your messes? Perhaps you should practice not making a mess to need cleaning up. I find I do a lot of copyediting and the same kinds of changes to lots of articles, especially Australian geography. You're the only one who says thankyou. --Scott Davis Talk 07:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, a bit of thanks is always due. I could go through my first 6 months arts on wiki and probably do a lot of cleaning up, so its not a promise, but I might save you some time :) soon.
I may well strike terror in the hearts of some editors ( who knows?) - as I have a thing that all many geography arts lack state/region qualifiers in their titles (OK so in the case of rivers - they are state boundaries, and do wander around boundaries as well, but thats rivers) - as I used to (no longer) do random article and found too many usa admin names with no qualifiying part of the title (do you know how many springfields there are in the us?) - so now in the shadow of the tagging of talk page of arts with the new evaluation thingy, I have slowly questioned stand alone names (the best so far - Alfreds Kitchen) that lack adequate qualifiers. Anyways, less mess from me and more work once again!SatuSuro 07:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: User template
I didn't think it would be such a big deal, I chose your namespace becuase somehow I though it was the most suitable. Myrtone
"It would have been polite to ask first. You should have changed the ones you use, such as Template:User VIC res before trying to impose your opinion on the rest of us. You should have changed all the pages that include the template before breaking the redirect."
I though wikipedia was about being bold and being free, WP:GUS tells one the "just go ahead and do it" and that is what I did, the reason I didn't do it with {{User VIC res}} is becuase I thought it would be viable to do it first with {{User AU res}} becuase I had a dispute over which image to use and {{User South Australia}} because GUS came from the German language edition of wikipedia (hence the name), so I though it would be more appiciable on SA templates, in terms of changing the references, I have often noticed that the inclusions on userpages do not always get modified and I do not edit other userpages except for vandalism reversions. I thought that other users would change the incusion if it felt neccasessary. Myrtone
- ScottDavis,
- I did not assume that *all* South Australians speak German as a first language and English second, most don't but because it is associatecd with South Australia and vice versa, I thought that GUS would be applied here, and possibly to userboxes for elsewhere in AU *later on*, it is a cultural idea.
- "It is noted that WP:GUS is not a policy." Okay, I'll remember that for next time, but I didn't realise that it made a difference like that. "It seems rude for you to push it onto other userboxes, but not the ones you use." But I was thinking of doing it to the one I use *later on*.
Frenchmans Cap NP
G'day - Mt Read was -4° yesterday or so -bet there's snow somewhere over there! Would you agree with incorping info about the np within the art, rather than creating a new one? SatuSuro 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- It probably better belongs in Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park which subsumed the earlier Frenchmans Cap National Park. Unless the former NP has a lot of info, it could be combined in either, I guess. Try to avoid putting the same info in both articles. --Scott Davis Talk 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I just brought back from Hobart the atrocious walking map (the map that is, very bad colouring) which has brilliant unattributed notes on the other side - will probably try to keep to your advice, might take a while though. Thanks again SatuSuro 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like you had a good holiday. Don't forget to add photos in proportion to the size of the articles as you go. --Scott Davis Talk 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Most were Strahan, Lake Margaret Power Station, and very artistic (ie not very useful) from the east of Lake Burbury of Mount Owen, Mount Lyell and Mount Sedgwick. Also very problematic sources on Linda, Gormanston, 1912 North Mount Lyell Disaster, queenstown - oh well, more material, not enough time! SatuSuro 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I need to go back over a few things like the L Pedder art (being a foundation tws person), very curious if you would be interested in joining in a re-write?SatuSuro 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not especially. Try Chuq. I'd still like to expand Mining in Australia further, I seem to have gotten involved in the mess at solar updraft tower, and both Adelaide and South Australia need work. Sorry. --Scott Davis Talk 01:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey thanks for your honesty! never apologise, hey we're all internees in this goldfishbowl, we have our loads to carry! SatuSuro 02:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Assessment
We can keep it if we want too, just that I didnt know about the Australia assessment. It will be better if we keep it it's just that I thought that no-one was interested in it from the Adelaide project. I only removed 2 articles so you can keep going if you wish.
Unacceptable
I find your solution unacceptable. I have never heard of your Dick Johnson and he seems not to be known out side of Australia. I have replaced your violation of WP:NPOV with your Australian bias with something more neutral. Hello Wisconsin 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not make cut-and-paste moves. I have restored Dick Johnson again, as you still did not attempt to resolve the incoming links, most of which refer to the racing driver. --Scott Davis Talk 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Mungerannie
Hi there, thanks for spell checking the Birdsville track page, unfortunately according to the NRMA it's not Mungeranie, it's mungerannie with 2 n's.
As can be seen on that lovely picture: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~charliemann/deserttrek_files/Birdsv0007.jpg
D'oh!
Saebhiar 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't been there (yet), but Geoscience Australia is an usually an authority on spelling of placenames. I'd choose them over NRMA, but have to concede the picture is fairly convincing. Google favours one 'N' 854:529, with 55 hits for both words! I guess redirects from all words, but I don't know which should be the actual title. The article should contain the confusion, too. My Explore Australia has two 'n's as well, but South Australia: What's in a name? has one. --Scott Davis Talk 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the explanation Scott. I hope you get a chance to go there one day, the Birdsville track is great (especially by Motorbike). Saebhiar 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you happy with how Birdsville Track and Mungeranie, South Australia look at the moment? If you want to change them, I won't revert now that I've discovered the confusion. I do intend to go that way sometime. It's not a long way for me considering where you come from, but I've only been as far as Arkaroola and Leigh Creek in that direction. --Scott Davis Talk 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)