User talk:Bidgee/Archive 20

Thanks
I'm getting careless - I have made a few mistakes the last couple of days. I copped heaps of edit conflicts on the Virgin Aust article yesterday afternoon, very frustrating! YSSYguy (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is something wrong with the way WP is working on my computer and I can't add the Licencing tags, are you able to help? YSSYguy (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the tags, thanks very much for your help. I don't know what's going on with my computer, everything about WP looks different. Even the [edit] tags are on the other side of the screen to normal, the edit summary box is half the normal width, and if I want to italicise or bold anything I have to copy-and-paste the marks. YSSYguy (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that, sometimes it displays as normal, sometimes not. Ten minutes ago it was misbehaving, five minutes ago it was OK, now it isn't. The problem has only arisen in the last day, I suspect it's RAM-related - I think it's time for a cleanup. YSSYguy (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Computer was still giving me grief early this morning but now it's fine. Have noted the to-and-fro on the QantasLink article via my watchlist and I will help you to keep an eye on it. YSSYguy (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

COI issues
Just because the user is citing their own work does not mean it should be removed - my own work is the citation for everything on arboreal snake locomotion here (and everywhere else, for that matter). If WP genuinely wants experts contributing, you have to accept that being an expert means that a) you've published in the field and b) your own publications are, if not the best source, at the very lease a reliable source by definition. Given than the user is sufficiently notable to have their own WP:BIO, that the added text is accurate, that the added text is not an advertisement of any kind, and the user is openly identifying themselves via their username, this clearly comes under the COI policy on subject professionals editing, as well as Ignore all rules if it improves the encyclopedia. Mokele (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact is he is that he is only a photographer and publisher, not a person who has undertaken any expertise in the field. Just because he has an article doesn't mean he is a expert. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: May 2011
Thanks for the reminder Bidgee, I had forgotten to detail changes on Virgin Australia page. Will make sure any further edits have description. Jadonm 12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Telstra
Howdy! I thought it was a bit strange that the IP user changed the thousands of millions into billions, but I can't work out why you bothered to change them back. Am I missing something? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple, for 1 million it has to be 100 thousand, the same goes for a billion, 100 million equals 1 billion. You can't have say 24 million becoming 24 billion as it would be 0.24 billion, anyway the source uses million. Bidgee (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought your edit comment was a typo - apparently not.
 * one thousand = 1,000 = 10^3
 * one million = 1,000,000 = 10^6 = 1,000 * 1,000
 * one billion = 1,000,000,000 = 10^9 = 1,000 * 1,000,000
 * 1 million it has to be 100 thousand - 1 million is 1,000 thousand
 * 100 million equals 1 billion - 1,000 million equals 1 billion
 * 24 million = 0.024 billion
 * anyway the source uses million - Uh huh. Fair enough, I guess.
 * Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, ok, powerful math curiousity here, so I just has to know...what is this about? :) I thought a million was a thousand thousands. Dreadstar  ☥  03:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are actually two different sets of meanings to some of these words. It depends on what side of the Atlantic you are standing at the time.  See Long and short scales.  Dolphin  ( t ) 05:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So this is long scale math terminology? One hunded thousands is a million?  100 x 1,000 = 1,000,000? I'm on the...west side of town.. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadstar (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it has nothing to do with long and short scales, nor on which side of which pond you live.
 * 10^6 = 10^6 in both long and short scales. 10^2 * 10^3 = 10^5, not 10^6.
 * long and short scales become relevant at 10^9, and above. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did do a typo but you worked out what I meant. I knew that it was right and the source states million and not billion. Bidgee (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I admit it. I'm confused. I understand the bit about the source using millions, and have no problem with that. It's the other bits that confuse me. However, I suspect it doesn't really matter! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just put it this way, 24 million will never become 24 billion, otherwise all those millionaires would be richer overnight. ;) Bidgee (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: edit summaries
Hi Bidgee - thanks for the reminder. I always try to add edit summaries, and my incidence of not doing so must be way under 1%. However, it is possible that I have occasionally slipped while trying to save an edit against a background of connection problems or edit conflicts. Cheers. Maias (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your going to need more then just "+", "tidy", "link", "tidy link" ect. You needs to give an idea on the type of edit you have made, so that others can understand what you have done without having to look at the diff. Bidgee (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking
I'm posting here because I can't be bothered edit warring over such a simple matter, but I don't think linking Western Australia in the Perth article is a case of overlinking. It makes no sense to not link to the state of which Perth is a capital in the introduction of the article. Convention on basically all other Australian place name articles, including all of the other capital cities' articles, is to link both the state and Australia in the introduction, regardless of whether the state is already linked in the infobox. As I said before, this is a very trivial matter, but I think it would be best if it was linked. Cheers, IgnorantArmies?! 11:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise; there has certainly been much argument and disagreement over the linking matter, but keep in mind that in these articles we are discussing basic geographical matters and as such the links are directly relevant. If a reader is taking the time to read an article about one Australian area, there is a good chance that they will find links to the related areas helpful. --Ckatz chat spy  16:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I'm not the only editor who has delinked "common" names/usages and stand by what the policy WP:OVERLINK states. Bidgee (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

a.m. and p.m.
Re the Attack on Sydney Harbour article, who on earth says we don't use a.m. and p.m. in Australia? I see it used all the time. If you Google A.M. you will discover AM is Australia's most informative morning current affairs program. And how otherwise do we tell if an event occurred in the morning or the afternoon? We could use military time, but it would probably not be appropriate in this article for a civilian readership. Rumiton (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never use google search, it is only good for searching for content or sources. See MOS:TIME which states both a.m./p.m. or am/pm can be used, the fact that Australia rarely if ever uses a.m./p.m. and that the article has used the am/pm format makes your change unnecessary, it is like changing the spelling of centre to center. Bidgee (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are from, but I was born in Sydney, and moved to Brisbane when I was 12, and have always used a.m./p.m.
 * I only us am/pm if I am using them in a sentence such as this one, or I believe our current pm won't survive the next election.
 * I understand why you think that the formatting change was unnecessary, but I believe the revert was equally unnecessary.Hypershock (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter where or when I was born, it has no relevance. Common-sense is if you have a number (9 or 9:15 for example) then AM or am it means morning, same goes for PM/pm. My revert was necessary since it was keeping the article with the format it had and what the MOS states. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, but really every one deserves, who worked on the clean-up, this barnstar. :) Bidgee (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI?
Hi Bidgee ;)

That anon. editor (User talk:76.204.89.112) on the Talk: Manhood (Law & Order) keeps on going with the personal attacks. Saying stuff like "Look. I don't know why or how this particular bug got lodged so far up your ass", whether it be not assuming good faith or just a personal attack(s) I don't appreciate the insults, I'm here for the same reason s/he is here for...to edit, not to be bullied. Things like: "Your vow to continue disrupting the project is disturbing. Your willingness to lie in furtherance of your petty agenda is reprehensible. Your claims of victimhood are laughable." don't make me feel any better of my self and infact tarnish my sense of motivation for Wikipedia...low blows.

Also there was the other anon. editor that said a few insulting things to you on that article's talk page "Oh I'm assuming all kinds of good faith, sweetie. I have no doubt that your actions are with the best of intentions, every bit as good as those paving the road to Hell" (User talk:76.201.156.158) and told me to "Get bent". This IP and the one above, I think are the same person...they argue the exact same point as eachother, and their IP's look simmilar. What should I do? I'm sick of talking, I have tried that with him/her, but get a lousy low blow back :/ Thanks -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IP's are from the same geolocation and ISP, very much likely to be the anon. If the uncivil comments and personal attacks continue, further action my be needed (Arbcom). Bidgee (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the uncivilness continues, I shall take it further. Thanks, Bidgee :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Been awhile since I've seen an editor like the Gundagai Anon, you will need to do a WP:RFC (See: Requests for comment/Gundagai editor before it can go to Arbcom (See: Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors). Bidgee (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nearlly or More than 40 different addresses? Geez that's a lot of different locations. If our the Anon. does continue to create a mess by being uncivil to myself or any other editors, I'll be happy to do a RFC. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
I give in! W.P. history has attributed my edits to you, and your edits to me!! (It's getting worse than Microsoft - at least MS is consistently stupid; these days, WP is randomly stupid.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You've totally lost me? As Pauline use to say, "please explain?" Bidgee (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Aside: Has she stopped saying that? What a shame! You can't rely on politicians, or ex-politicians, for anything these days, can you! - OK, you can rely on them to not answer questions, not keep promises, lie, increase taxes, increase spending, increase debt, vote for huge pay rises for themselves ... Hmmm. It seems you can still rely on them for lots of things ... Pdfpdf (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC))


 * G'day Bidgee! Whether you undertood it, or me, or not, it looks to me like you've managed to sort it all out. Shall we just leave it at that, and I'll quietly and sheepishly "just back away"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Australia
I made the edit from "per cent" to % because, if you look at the rest of the paragraph, you'll see that % and not "per cent" is used two more times in the same paragraph. I thought it made more sense to make them all the same format. Erianna (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there were 54 places in the article where "%" was used when MOS:PERCENT says "per cent" should be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (@ Erianna) Urm yes but we have a MOS for a good reason, a lot of the times Anon editors (IP editors) have no understanding or other editors who choose not to read the policies and guidelines change the style of the article. Also please use your edit summary, which you have already been told to use on more then one occasion. Bidgee (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I would think 54 instances of "%" would be a case for using % in "articles where many percentages are reported" (also from MOS:PERCENT), but as a relatively new editor I defer to your experience. I agree I should've used edit summary for this edit that I made, but I pressed "save page" before I remembered to write one, so I left it and moved on. Using edit summaries is good practice, but not required. I'd prefer not to describe every single edit I make as the majority of the edits I make are explained on my user page. Erianna (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fifty-four instances in a seven thousand word article is not a lot. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (@ Erianna) Just because an article has more "%" then "per cent" doesn't mean that "%" should be it. Not using the edit summary may not be mandatory but can lead to RfC, especially when you mark your edits as "minor" and it is good practice to use the edit summary describing what you have done. Bidgee (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)