User talk:Mordemur

Referendums in Australia

Good change for the referendums site. I've emailed the web maintainer of the palamentary handbook asking for reproduction permission for the statistics on that site, along with another article I found there.

I think we should name the referendum question articles like this:

Australian Referendum, 1910 A base page linking to:
Australian Referendum, 1910 (monpolies)
Australian Referendum, 1910 (commerce)

Obviously when only one question was asked, then only provide one article.

This is good because it's in line with the elections convention, and plus it separates out the debates, information and statistics about the different questions.

NB: I'm available via yahoo messenger: swamp_ig, if you want to chat.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne

my melway makes no mention of the hoddle hwy. however the online version does. it must be a recent invention. ~~btw, why do you use multiple usernames?~~ Xtra 00:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sorry, it was a misunderstanding. i retract the comment. Xtra 22:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Esplanade Hotel

It's just a stylistic thing - we generally don't include "the" at the start of the title of most institutions. As far as I know, it's like this across the board (there's a lot of universities in particular who like to have the "the" at the start of their name, but aren't that way on Wikipedia). Ambi 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um... did you really mean to do this? Because, you know, "as of 2005" really implies that it's ongoing, and hence already includes 2006... pfctdayelise 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. To be honest, I didn't even know there was a whole big thing behind "as of" links. So I'm not going to push the point. But doesn't it seem weird to you? Because it was true in 2005, and it's still true now. To me changing the year is implying that it began the practice in 2006, thus wiping out the history. I guess I think it should really be since 2005. pfctdayelise 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

Just to let you know, good work! Renata 13:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matilda Bay Brewing Company logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Matilda Bay Brewing Company logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PissBeer-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:PissBeer-logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Coopers logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coopers 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]