Talk:Tom Derrick/Archive 1

Derrick's non-military side
Something which is missing from the article at the moment is a mention of the non-martial aspects of Derrick's personality. All the biographies I've read of him mention that he was a thoughtful diarist, wrote to his wife most days and collected butterflys. On the other hand, I'm not sure how this could be worked into the article... Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only read one source that briefly touched on this, so I, also, was unsure how to incorporate it. However, if you have a bit of information you can worm in on this facet, I think it would work best in the "Legacy" section somewhere. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had a go at including some material. What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! The new info sits well where it is, and adds an even more personal insight into Derrick. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

POV reversion
"partial rv; cites do not need to go in the infobox - clutters it up and info is cited in prose; identification of medals in image is WP:OR; wording on bridge is confusing - old was clear & concise"

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "cites do not need to go in the infobox" - POV. A better reason for reversion is required than "not needed". Provide some supporting evidence please.
 * P.S. If your "better reason" is: "My friends and I don't like it, and there are more of us than there are of you", I would suggest that you stop spouting these MOS justifications to me, because quite clearly, it is your opinion and has NOTHING to do with the MOS.
 * "clutters it up" - Oh come on. Surely you jest? Please explain, with supporting evidence, how [1] clutters up anything.
 * "and info is cited in prose" - Why is this relevant? i.e. Please explain why the fact that it is cited in the prose has any relevance to it being cited in the infobox.
 * "identification of medals in image is WP:OR;" - Don't be silly. You are more than aware that it isn't WP:OR. Do you require that I also add the cites to the caption? I didn't do that because the frame is already a bit crowded, and you have already complained about adding citations to a box. But I can do that if you require it. I can also mention the other six medals in the text, just like "\/" did with our previous discussion. Please clarify your requirements. But make up your mind, be consistent, and stick to it. And do NOT try to bully me with illogical, irrational, irrelevant opinions.
 * "wording on bridge is confusing - old was clear & concise" - Perhaps it is confusing. Perhaps the "old was clear & concise". However, (and there is no "perhaps" about this), the old was WRONG. Are you telling me that "clear, concise and WRONG" is an improvement on ACCURATE?
 * If you find it confusing, YOU are more than capable of making it "non-confusing" - reversion is a lazy and irresponsible response.


 * If I might weigh in here briefly, due time contraints, I have to agree with Bryce re. OR in the medals caption. I know it looks patently obvious what the campaign medals are but they should still be cited like the two decorations for bravery.  I also don't think the abbreviations of the awards following the citations add much.  On the other hand, the prose mods re. the reconnaissance patrol and the bridge/river look good to me.  I'm aware of the medals issue that occurred at Frederick Birks and will probably have something to say on that over there (not necessarily what might be expected from me but I still have to go through everyone's points, the citation situation, etc) as I suspect that's what's being referred to by "our previous discussion" above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian.
 * I am more than "well aware" of how Bryce has chosen to interpret the MoS. However, you (and possibly he) seem to have missed the fact that I stated that my identification was NOT based on the image.
 * "but they should still be cited like the two decorations for bravery." - I agree. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote? Perhaps I did not communicate this clearly enough? (Though on re-reading what I wrote, it seems clear to me - but I guess that's irrelavent; I guess that what's important is what you interpreted from what I intended to communicate, and it seems that neither of you interpreted what I intended. Oh well.)
 * "also don't think the abbreviations of the awards following the citations add much." - No, they don't add "much". They're not intended to add "much". They are simply intended to facilitate the reader's ability to distinguish which is which. And I think they do tis quite concisely - (VC) is four characters, and (DCM) is five characters. I don't understand why anyone, even Bryce, is making a fuss over 9 characters.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The revert was in no way a "POV reversion". The cites are not required in the infobox as they are covered in the prose; I never mentioned MOS in my comment, or my "friends", stick to what I said please. Having cites tacked randomly on the end are not very attractive to the eye, and it does clutter the infobox. The infobox traditionally follows the same quidelines as the lead, in that cites are not required in either as it should&mdash;and in this case is&mdash;cited in the prose. I am more than aware that the identification of medals from an image is original research . You have brought up this on the Tom Derrick article, not anywhere else, so, again, stick to the article at hand please. The wording you put in place was confusing and mixed up. The previous wording was not wrong, and is much the same as you have tweaked it to now. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Bryce. If you consider the above to be "a discussion", then you have a very different definition of "discussion" to the dictionaries.
 * You also appear to continue to be blissfully ignorant of the definitions of the words "fact", "opinion", "subjective" and "objective".
 * Further, you seemed to have forgotten about WP:AGF.
 * It appears to me that your only interests are that "you don't like it", and that you have an absolute requirement to be "right".
 * "The revert was in no way a "POV reversion"." - Is that a fact? It doesn't sound like a fact. It sounds like a petulant child saying: "I'm right because I say that I'm right". For your information, I hardly think that you are an objective judge of the matter.
 * "stick to what I said please" - I did. You chose to ignore it. You have not replied to even ONE of the requests I have made or questions I have asked.
 * "I am more than aware that the identification of medals from an image is original research ." - A typical irrelevant Bryce response!! I SPECIFICALLY stated that the identification was NOT from the image, and asked ... nah, I'm not gonna repeat it - go read what I DID say.
 * "The previous wording was not wrong," - Errrr. Yes it was. Is it your opinion that it was not wrong, or do actually have some facts and evidence that Port Adelaide and Adelaide are the same place?
 * Now. I have income tax to do, so I am going to forgo the pleasure of your company until the end of the month - I don't know how I'm going to manage not having to deal with your illogical, irrelevant and unsupported-by-evidence opinions for a month. I guess I'll just have to keep a stiff upper lip. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow Bryce! Your silence is deafening. Preferable to a load of irrelevant crap, but never-the-less, deafening.
 * But I'm letting you waste my time and distract me.
 * Failure to lodge on time
 * We may apply a penalty for failure to lodge on time if you lodge your tax return late.
 * Generally, we apply a penalty of $110 for every 28 days (or part thereof) your return is overdue, to a maximum of $550. Etc...
 * Personally, I find watching paint dry absolutely fascinating when compared to doing Income Tax returns. But in the event of you failing to come forward and supply "$110 for every 28 days (or part thereof)", I'm afraid I am going to have to forgo the pleasure of pointing out the gaping holes, inconsistencies and hypocrasy of your "pronouncements".
 * Never-the-less, do not fear. I will be back in November and will continue to take great pleasure in mercilessly pointing out the absence of logic and lack of supporting evidence in your self-riteous and opinionated statements. In case you hadn't noticed, I take great pleasure in pointing out the idiocy of many of your pontifications.
 * Until then, fare well! Pdfpdf (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you on about? You have been told by two editors, not just me, that this is unreferenced original research. I find your rude, personal attacks and inability to understand sinply policy appaling. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Let`s sort things out here
Disclosure: I was notified by Bryce per this edit to give my opinion on this matter. In short, both sides need to stop the ad hominem attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and work on the actual problem.

Edit summaries like
 * "Jeez Bryce. Are you stupid or obstinate? (Or both?)" diff have no place on Wikipedia, and some admins would consider it blockable per the no personal attacks policy.
 * "YOU [Pdfpdf] read the talk page and Wikipedia policy, for once" diff, shows a lack of assuming good faith, though this can be partially forgiven through past interactions between you too.

Moving on, the primary issue seems to be the inclusion of the medals' names in the photo caption, without citations. However, both Pdfpdf, and Bryce (diff seem to agree that the identification is correct. While it is technically original research, this should be able to be easily verified (e.g. through online images of the same medals).

Also, I would have to agree with both sides on the inclusion of the information on their main points. For Bryce, it does clutter up the caption, and for Pdfpdf, it is information which is highly relevant to the article. I would suggest two solutions:


 * 1) Bump up the picture size to reduce the vertical space taken up by the caption. Feel free to ignore if this is something which goes against the FA criteria
 * 2) Add a section (or subsection under "Legacy") which deals with any awards he's been awarded, and cite this section. This would allow the caption to be converted to prose. And ideally, the medals in the image would be in order of precedence, as would the the list of medals in the prose, allowing a direct reference from the prose to the caption or vice versa (e.g. "in order of precedence per Awards&Decorations section" or "Awards x-y are shown in image z")

Just my thoughts on the matter. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that this is OR because then we'd never be able to ID stuff in a photo when the original caption was very general. Forex, IDing a particular type of vehicle when the original caption just refers to a "half-track". But I'd certainly prefer to rely on a RS that quotes his military records for a list of what he's entitled to as people have been known to wear stuff that they're not entitled to. Not saying that this is the case here, but a photo of the guy with his medals only shows what he, or some curator, thought he was authorized to wear. Differences could be discussed in a footnote or something. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input; I appreciate it. My thoughts, which I hope can satisfy everyone, is that, firstly, gain a reliable source that explicitly states Derrick's medal entitlement. If this is done, I think the identification of the medals in the caption should be removed, and placed on the image's file entry, then, in the "Legacy" section, state and cite Derrick's medal entitlement in prose. I think creating a whole new and separate section for his medals is over kill, and can somewhat verge on undue weight. However, I do not possess or know of a reliable source that contains this information. If it cannot be sourced, I think it should be removed, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as sourcing goes, I stick to what I've said here earlier, which is that unsourced information be removed, no matter how obvious it may appear to be. If a source is produced, I tend to concur with Bryce's thoughts on presentation in the article, though I'm bound to add that while a separate section of itself would overbalance the article, we have used collapsible sections to present medals as a compromise elsewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did consider the collapsible section here, but I don't think it would work that well becasue we would be duplicating information several times, with the image and all, and I think it would be best if the basics were kept altogether. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been over two weeks and no source has been presented, I think it would be best if I removed the contentious material within the next twenty-four hours per my and Ian's comments above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now removed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) "Since it has been over two weeks" - I informed you, very publicly, that I would not be around again until November. I find it fascinating that you performed these actions on the last day of October. If you are in the mood to explain, I would be interested to learn why you left it until the day before my advertised return to do this.
 * 2) "I think it would be best if I removed the contentious material within the next twenty-four hours". Do you mind explaining why you think/thought that?
 * 3) If it makes any difference to anything, I will state: I do not think that is the best option.
 * 4) You described several options, and others also described options, as well as the independent admin you enlisted. The option you say you think is best is not even on the list of options the independent admin suggested, so clearly, he does not think it is the best option.
 * 5) I do not know which is the best option. (Though, of course, I have my own opinions. Which, by-the-way, I have not yet expressed.)
 * 6) It seems reasonable to me to ask you, to undo your edit, to determine by discussion on this page what the consensus opinion is about which is the best option, and to not make any edits until that consensus has been reached. Do you think that me making that request is reasonable?
 * If you do think it is reasonable to make that request, then I will make that request, and will ask you if you think the request is reasonable.
 * If you do not think it is reasonable to make that request, then I would ask you to explain why you think that.
 * 7) Now, as you have been informed several times, I have other matters to deal with this month. Also, there is a recorded message on the ATO help line saying that tax returns do not have to be lodged until Friday 6 November. Hence I am informing you, and (by virute of having altered my user & user talk page) everyone else, that I am extending my return date until after 6 November.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I think it is rather unreasonable of you to have seemingly ignored this until now, despite that you seem to have been editing at full compacity. The timing was baised on the "over two weeks" factor, nothing to do with you.
 * 2) As I stated, no reference has been supplied.
 * 4) This option is outlined above: "If it cannot be sourced, I think it should be removed, though." (Me) and "... unsourced information be removed, no matter how obvious it may appear to be." (Ian)
 * 6) Unless an alternitive is reached, I do not see any benefit of undoing the edit. The reason no edit had previously been preformed was on the basis of consensus and a reference. However, as outlined above, Ian and I both stated this should either be referenced or removed, which I think is fair, but no referenced has been forthcoming and no post made in over two weeks. I posted the above note, and allowed the provision of 24 hours for objection, of which there was none.
 * Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)