User talk:JPD/Archive4

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Archive 1: 17 May 2005-16 May 2006
Archive 2: 17 May 2006-16 September 2006
Archive 3: 17 September 2006-16 January 2007
Archive 4: 17 January 2007-16 May 2007
Archive 5: 17 May 2007-16 September 2007
Archive 6: 17 September 2007-16 January 2008
Archive 7: 17 January 2008-16 May 2008

USYD Significance

It would seem signiicant as this is the first time an un - enrolemnt has been effected by executive federal governmentpressure rather than according to democratic rule of law? Perhaps the inclusion of more information is need to highlight it s significance. Essentailly this ation goes agasint the Austrlian constituional prohabition on civil conscription. It is a pivitol momnet, in the University of Sydney, and perhaps Australia as a nation where the purported centre of free thought, sucumbs to the ideological and polical designs of the federal executive government in opposition to parlimentry/constituional rule of law, representation. The department of health and ageing was sunsequentlhy taken to the Adminstraive appeals tribunal where it put on the public recird that it was not upholding any law in its request to the UNiversity to have this student unerolled. Yet the federal government is a limtied powers government. Accordingly it is acitng agaisnt rule of law, upon the rights of citzens in a central ore of Austrlian society, sydney uni, and the university is being co-opted agiasnt the citizens. This is relevant becuase it identifes a turning point as Austrlians are denied their tax HECS/medicare services in direct apposition to democratic rule of law uer the constituion. The Unversity is stepping in to the real of federal parliment, at the behest of the executive federal government.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JUBALCAIN (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi JUBALCAIN. It may indeed be a significant issue, although I am not fully convinced that it is the sort of thing that needs to be covered on the main article about a University. It seems mainly to be about arrangements between the university, a student and a funding body that happens to be the government. But that is to some extent irrelevant. The key issue here is that to be included in the article, it needs to be not only relevant enough, but based on verifiable third party sources. If you can provide these (note, this doesn't mean original documents, but news reports or things like that), then please continue this discussion at Talk:University of Sydney, so that other editors may also join in. JPD (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your input, I will supply there references to the material, by way of link.. I think the importance of this type of information, is becuase the University of Ysdney is a permier university, in an open democracy and arguably a place where the free and democratic congress of ideas, disemination of information and education are the foundations of the Unviersity. When the UNI become the agent of the will of the federal exectutive agasint students, rather than the the federal parliments will that is put before the people in the parliment for open examination. That the University chooses to act in this way is impotant information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JUBALCAIN (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, thank you for previously looking into the material inserted by User:JUBALCAIN. I was wondering if you would be able to give your input at Talk:University_of_Sydney#Anti_democratic_action_.2F_Threats_against_students, where JUBALCAIN has provided some evidence to support some form of problem with the medical students scheme, but what User:Sumple and I feel still lacks in terms of supporting the allegations at hand. It would be great if you could comment on whether the paragraphs, even if referenced, could be inserted without causing undue POV, and whether the evidence goes anywhere near sufficient. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare Card

You can be licened and in fact are licenced after you registration year, by the state power eg NSW. For Access to the commonweaalth rebate it iis a necesarry but not suficent requirment to be leicenced (the wor is reigsiterd, wit hte stae medical board, licenced is an american term). Once you are registered with your medical board then you need to be reconsied by some specialty colledge. After this if you may apply for a provider number, but if the practioner is in breach of a contraact with theCommonwelth then they cannot get a provider number for typically 12 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JUBALCAIN (talk • contribs) 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that section. I thought licenced was a reasonable, in not official, word to describe being given a provider number, but given US usage, it is definitely better to avoid it! As for the section you added to Medicare, it really does read like advocacy of a particular view, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If this controversy is notable enough to be included in the article, it needs to written from a neutral point of view, using reputable sources (however important the issue is, it doesn't get included on Wikipedia until it has some sort of coverage by reputable sources), and probably in a different location in the article. The constitutional foundation section is about the relationship between the federal and state governments, explaining how the scheme can exist in the first places. Questions about the consitutionality of particular schemes at this point simply make the article hard to read, and would be more appropriately covered in a section about how Medicare interacts with medical providers. Thanks, JPD (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not soap box material, is is all factually based and refeernce to legislation is given. That section the contractrs scheme and deffects and high court case are both lawfyul and factual —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JUBALCAIN (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be factual, but that doesn't stop it being soap box material. A reference to legislation is not good enough, you need to use 3rd party coverage of the issue, not your own observations and arguments. The section you have added is about the constitution, yes, and may be factual, but it is not about Medicare as a whole, but about particular schemes within/connected with Medicare. To discuss this near the beginning of the article, before things like the components of Medicare, disrupts the article. If this topic really should be included, it would fit better, and even be easier to understand, later on. JPD (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are categorically wrong, it is the very essence of medicare, without rebates, thier is no medicare system tahts it end of medicare, all you are left with is a load of usless plastic cards. This is the very centre of medicare, every single service under medicare attracts a rebate, only available if a servce provider has a provider number . Proof, if *no* provider numbers were issued, medicare cards would be uterly useless.

It may be complex to grasp, but this does not mean it is confusing, merely it takes familarity with the basal issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 11:54, 22 January 2007 JUBALCAIN  (UTC)

Yes, rebates and provider numbers are central to the medicare system. However, the Medical Rural Bonded Scheme is only one issue regarding provider numbers, even if it will affect 20% of medical practitioners as you claim without giving a source. More relevantly, you are placing the section about conscription and the rural scheme early in the article, before the basic idea of what medicare does (ie give rebates, etc.) has been explained. I myself am reasonably familiar with the issues, but the article should be written so that it makes sense to someone who isn't. Adding sections focussing on a particular problem, rather than explaining the framework is not only against the neutral point of view policy, it also means that the article is less informative. JPD (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok they issue herer, is you offer no support for your assertion that it is a particualr problem. as opposed to the seence of medicare. the assertion / NPOv of the articel is that medicare only covers those who have a card and have a service from a Dr with a provider number. tot his end this effects every doccor as it was changed in 199* (8) from all doctors are issued uon registration, to only doctors with a extra reconsied specialty training. This changed a gaion in 2001 to excxlude all bonded students, and also all forein doctors face a 10 year moritorium. This is how the unversalism of medicare has been erroded. You need to suport your asertions by reasoned argument. It is insufficent to mererly state "this in POV" or a particualr issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 21:12, 22 January 2007 (talk • contribs) 211.30.207.27. JPD (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are the same person as JUBALCAIN. You have given the support for my assertion (which really doesn't need support unless evidence to the contrary is given) yourself. As you say, the issue of doctors having a provider number has many facets, and bonded schemes are only a part of that. The fact that provider numbers are no longer universally issued may well be worth covering in the article, but not simply in the context of the MRBS, for the sake of giving the full picture. Also, for the sake of clarity, it shouldn't be mentioned before the basic operation of the system has been explained. I suggest that any further discussion of this take place at Talk:Medicare (Australia). JPD (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Is Dead

no joke --TurnstileOppopsition 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long live the King! Once her death is reported in reputable sources, then we can include it in Wikipedia articles. JPD (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Deletion

I also placed the tag on the village article because the way it read made be think another article already existed, and there didn't seem to be much context, but I will be more careful in the future.

Regarding the other one, last time I checked I thought deletion was appealed against by adding "hang on", or if it was a prod, by actually solving the problem with the article. The user in question did not alter the article in any way when he removed the prod, he merely removed it. I defer to you're better judgement since you called me on it. Thanks, SGGH 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note of apology on User:UTSAV29s page, cause I hadn't been specific where I should have been. As for the village article, it's notability is just a call of point of view, in which I defer to your more experienced administratorship :). Cheers again SGGH 16:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You are right that there is an argument for not keeping the village article, but we seem to keep articles on every single census-designated place in the USA, for example. As for prod, that process is only for completely undisputed deletions, so anyone can remove the prod tag if they dispute the deletion. It isn't really good form to delete it without explaining why, but I guess we can forgive a newbie for doing that. Anyway, the tag generally shouldn't be replaced after it has been removed, so I have taken the deletion request to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce (game). You might wish to watch the discussion there! Thanks, JPD (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, have contributed. SGGH 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

puzzled

So why did you save this church article from speedy deletion in order to AfD it? The hangon tag keeps it on the list for speedy delete consideration (and I was watching to speedy delete if no content turned up). See WP:CSD: no notability so eligible. Now we have a longer process. Not that I mind, just puzzled. --BozMo talk 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to AfD, because it was most recently prod-ed, not nominated for speedy deletion. It was mistakenly listed in [[Category:Candidates for Speedy Deletion]] by the hangon tag which was mistakenly added in response. It was nominated as a speedy candidate yesterday, but the nominated removed withdrew that nomination by removing the tag. I suppose it could arguably have been deleted anyway under criterion A7, but the notability of churches is generally a bit too controversial for speedy deletion, so the prod by Cyberjunkie was probably the better way to go. JPD (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. I didn't look that far back in the history. --BozMo talk 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons account

I assert that I am commons:User:JPD JPD (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Changes

I am so sorry. I forget sometimes that there are different spellings. Thank you for pointing this out. Have a wonderful day!
Saber girl08 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, and thank you for being so nice about all this. I am still pretty new, so I'm still learning. Thanks again!
Saber girl08 15:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a quick question if it's ok...is programme the same as program? I am stumbling across it a lot, and I don't want to cause more work for people if I'm correcting a word that doesn't need to be corrected. If you could tell me, I'd be very thankful. Thank you again, and have a wonderful day!
Saber girl08 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that helped. Thank you! I guess I should go back and fix where I edited it. Thank you again for all your help. Have a wonderful day!
Saber girl08 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saber girl08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Saber girl08 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Football

Your recent edit to Football (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Links

I felt HI and KA links in NSW had been defaced. Thortful 11:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. They seem to be fine, though - maybe you just don't have appropriate fonts for these languages? If in doubt about interwiki links, try clicking on them to check that they are correct. The ka link is definitely an article on NSW, and the hi link is a stub with something to do with Australia. JPD (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I thought I had all available fonts. Thortful 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sourcing of articles relating to Tower Hamlets

Thank you for your helpful clarification of the status of other wikipedia pages as sources for information in the Bow, London article.

The range of articles associated with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets have fairly well developed history sections but don't say a lot in relation to other aspects of an article about a place and generally do not conform to the wikipedia guideline about how to write about a settlement. I'm trying to address this and bring articles generally up to a better standard so that we might start moving towards getting some of them assessed in relation to standards.

There seems to be some generally held belief that referencing to other wikipedia artiles is in some way OK for referencing purposes - although on the basis of investigation I've done so far it's clear that these have not all been checked as to their adequacy in terms of their referencing on those pages. Your clarification on this point this morning was helpful. Some of the articles have included external links as a section at the bottom of the article but had not attributed these through in-line referencing. As such it's difficult to say what points of information are covered by the external references - where these exist - and those that aren't. It's therefore difficult for any other editor to make links to these. (In any case my time if best devoted to the other areas which are current deficits and where I can help)

I'm trying to tread lightly but the reality is that most of places in Tower Hamlets have articles that need to be marked up as lacking citation - and I have been doing this. This is inevitably causing some concern. In particular, there are now examples on the Spitalfields and Whitechapel articles of one individual remonstrating that the articles are OK and citation mark-up is not required. I've referenced policy and practice and your note on the Talk:Bow, London page to no avail.

I wonder if you could possibly review these two articles and see if you can offer a constructive way forward on this within the context of wikipedia guidelines. In addition, I'm wondering whether some sort of commentary by you on the Talk:London Borough of Tower Hamlets page could act as a reference point on other articles within Tower Hamlets if this kicks off again. But basically any help and advice would be most appreciated. Cosmopolitancats 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Is saying 2+2=5 is wrong a point of view?

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BPFAR

I've elaborated a bit on the references part. Simply south 11:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons deletions

Hey JPD, noticed you just deleted Image:WisconsinHighway57atWisconsinHighway96.jpg. However, I can't find that image at Commons (commons:Image:WisconsinHighway57atWisconsinHighway96.jpg). Is it under a different name? Cheers, – Riana _ऋ 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's at commons:Image:WisconsinHighway57atWisconsinHighway96a.jpg. Cheers :) – Riana _ऋ 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! – Riana _ऋ 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I normally answer here as well as at others' talkpages, so now we've edit conflicted here twice :) JPD (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that! (Don't reply to this one :) ) – Riana _ऋ 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFL

Tasmania should not be considered for a relocation of an AFL team. It does not have the financial, population or geographic support. An AFL team in Hobart is also highly unlikely without the support of the Tasmanian Government. The Tasmania Government has made it clear it will only support games based at Aurora Stadium, Launceston. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dwuu (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where have I suggested that Tasmania should be considered? I don't see why you have addressed this comment to me. The AFL article says that Tasmania has been discussed as a location for a team, which is true, and Wikipedia should not give an opinion about whether this is a good idea or not. JPD (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townsville tagging

Thank you!!! That's exactly what I had in mind. Wiki Townsvillia n 03:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize for making a weak argument for my point however. I did not pull the information that i said from thin air. I was going to quote the CNN report about this topic. I apologize for making you fix it it probably was stated incorrectly. By the way thank you for the link i am in the process of changing my user name now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commiessuck (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]