User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive06

!
A matter of no great importance, but I was wondering why you put so many exclamation marks in your edit comment? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a weird habit I started when editing wikis like Halo Wikia, it started off as "added stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" but its slowly gotten better, sorry if it bothers you people have mentioned it before and ill stop one day.  -- Climax   Void    ☭   01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC).


 * It doesn't bother me. It just puzzled me. I was wondering if I'd missed something. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Late reply
The discussion was archived. And someone's been tardy in cleaning up the template guideline page. I will email an admin friend and see if they can't bring it all up to date. Just to bring you up to speed... for some landscaped images... changing the landscape field to Yes doesn't actually alter the infobox width too much. But for others... the really really wide and narrow ones... the result was that the infobox ended up stretching across half the page. Landscape=Yes will fill the 'white-space' on either side of the image nicely... but it will cause an uncontrolled widening of the infobox. The original 220 px was chosen because for for smaller profile images it just worked out nicely and resulted in an infobox that was uniform in width to most other infoboxes on Wikipedia.(it's all in the internal coding of the box itself) When the landscape field was introduced to help improve the look of the wider images... the super-wide box was expected. It was prosed by Kameelj(an active member of the musician project and the one who actually designed the box upgrade) that 250 be introduced to control the box width and make it match the width of the 'profile' box... and match the width of other boxes(like the musical instrument box which is set to 250px...and so on) I seconded the proposal. It was chatted up a bit on the /doc 'control page... and no one ever whined or complained or rejected it. So... after about a minth of just sitting there... without a single rejection... a number of music related editors and admins started correcting the boxes to make them all the uniform width. Both Kameelj and PEJL(the other 'creator') are on hiatus as are a couple of other key musician project members who know how to code the box AND can edit the /doc page to put the proper guidelines in place. I prodd'd and poked one editor to clean up the guide page a long time ago but he's one of those 1500 vandal reverts/day editors so it must'ce slipped through his cracks. I will email an admin directly to bring everything into order. Hope that fills in all you blanks. Have a nice day. 156.34.222.210 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Admiral's shoulderboards - Commonwealth Navies (From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history)
Some time in the last 20 years (maybe 5 or 10), the Australian and British Navies changed the shoulder boards of Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral and Admiral from containing 1, 2 and 3 stars to containing 2, 3 and 4 stars. (Refer http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6020/changeNav/3533 and http://www.navy.gov.au/general/ranks.html) Can anyone tell me when this happened? If you can point me to some references, that would be useful too. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to find the current rank insignia on the RN's official site with no success. However our WP page at Royal Navy officer rank insignia appears to show the old system is still in use for the RN - not sure whether it's up to date or not. Also, my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 99-00 shows RN sleeve insignia, apparently with the old system as well - 3 bands for a Vice Admiral. Nick Dowling has a more up to date copy of JFS, but that won't solve your collar insignia issue. I think my point is that you might be wise to double-check whether the RN has changed, whatever the RAN has done. (Just checked the RNZN official site, and it retains the old British system for it's single Admiral of the Fleet, the Duke of Edinburgh.) Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to shoulder-boards, not sleeve or collar insignia. The sleeve insignia remains unchanged; it's the shoulder boards that have changed. (I don't think Commonwealth Navies have collar insignia.) I tried to find the current rank insignia on the RN's official site with no success. - Pardon? Isn't that what's at http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6020/changeNav/3533? Or does the RN have some other official site? (As for the RNZN, they have a different shoulder board format to both Aus and UK!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse my fumbling - of course you're right. Quite surprised to the RN of all people doing this. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you badly want to know, you can send an email to Gieves and Hawkes, the naval officers' tailors in Savile Row, London. (They made Nelson's uniforms and still provide them for the royal family.) They will know and be able to tell you which warrant, if any, is applicable. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was when Commodore was made a substantive rank, some time in the late 90s I think? Commodore is the One star rank, hence altering the boards.
 * ALR (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The late 90s is consistent with my expectations, but if that's the reason, why doesn't the Commodore have a "shoulder board" with a star on it? (Also, are those who are adamant that the RN doesn't have "star" ranks correct?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall Cdres do have starred shoulder boards, but I'm groping around in memory to remember how they look.
 * In the officer corps most jobs get talked about using their grade equivalence; SO3, SO2 SO1 etc and at the flag level jobs there are references to 1*, 2* etc at the flag level; mainly because of working in a joint environment. So whilst the RN may not formally have Star ranks, the grades are.
 * It's difficult to say for sure, the real armed forces tend not to resemble the books too closely ;)
 * ALR (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What you say is definitely the case for the RAN, but I don't know about the RN. (i.e. http://www.navy.gov.au/general/ranks.html shows a shoulderboard with 1*, but http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6020/changeNav/3533 doesn't.)
 * But as you say, It's difficult to say for sure. Even if I can find something written, the real armed forces tend not to resemble the books too closely! Never-the-less, I would like to find something written explaining why the RN, RAN, or any other Commonwealth Navy, went from 1, 2 & 3 stars to 2, 3 & 4 stars.
 * Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Epilogue?
So, R OGER D AVIES   talk says: "send an email to Gieves and Hawkes" (thanks Roger), and ALR (talk) says: "I think it was when Commodore was made a substantive rank, some time in the late 90s I think?" (thanks ALR). Doesn't anyone have a reference? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The change to a substantive rank for Commodores was probably via the Privy Council, as generally HM has to sanction any changes to her Officer Corps. That order would have annexes which describe the detailed consequences of the changes.  As an alternative there might be an associated Defence Council Instruction which you might be able to track down.
 * The National Archive might have those, but it's more likely that the Naval Historical Branch could identify the document.
 * Naval Historical Branch
 * Admiralty Library,
 * Naval Historical Branch (Naval Staff),
 * No 24 Store (pp 20),
 * Main Road,
 * HM Naval Base Portsmouth,
 * PO1 3LU.
 * Tel: 023 92 724327 or 725300
 * Fax: 023 92 724003
 * Alternatively you might have to trawl through the various amendments to the dress regulations to identify which one identified the changes. I don't imagine that they're records per se, but I wouldn't imagine anyone quibbling over the OR required to use a transition as a reference.
 * ALR (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More information
I got this reply to an email to library@royalnavalmuseum.org:
 * "The design of the shoulder boards changed in 2001 but unfortunately I have no references to the change. It would have been announced in a DCI (Defence Council Instruction)."

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that the Hysterical section doesn't hold DCIs, they may be available from the National Archive or the MOD records organisation in Main Building. If they're not openly available then a Freedom of Information Act request would gain access to them, they're RESTRICTED so fairly esy to de-classify and I wouldn't see any need for a FOIA exemption.
 * ALR (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Records from 2001 almost certainly won't have been transferred to TNA yet, so I'd try MOD first. David Underdown (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

MRAF
MRAF is a 5 star rank Although I agree with you, there are many who don't and insist on removing such statements. Hence my statement: Marshal of the Royal Air Force is equivalent to a 5 star rank, which is indisputable whatever one's point of view is. Can you supply a reliable source to support MRAF is a 5 star rank? If not, might it not be less contentious to restore the statement Marshal of the Royal Air Force is equivalent to a 5 star rank? What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful comments on my talk page regarding the Marshal of the Royal Air Force article. I've provided a reference for the "MRAF is a 5 star rank" statement - hopefully this should settle the matter with the doubters.  I must say that the counter argument is rather hard to sustain in the face of the MRAF star plate.  On the equivalence point, I would observe that "5 star rank" is not an actual rank; it describes a number of ranks.  Therefore we should say either "MRAF is a 5 star rank" or "MRAF is equivalent to a 5 star general".  Finally, as MRAFs are not often referred to these days and as I suspect that the "star rank" terminology came accross the Atlantic in the last few decades, there are not many references to MRAF being a 5 star rank.  However, there are lots of examples of Air Vice-Marshal being a 2 star rank or Air Marshal being a 3 star rank.  Greenshed (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Service chiefs (From User talk:Ian Rose)
Hi mate, read your edit summaries for See Also recently. Consistency is great but the way things are, two guidelines are ignored, both of which I alluded to in my earlier edits on CAF and CN (hadn't got round to CA before you switched things back): firstly, you don't need to link something under See Also when it's already linked within the article; secondly, the items should be bulleted, same as References, External Links, etc. If you still feel strongly about VCDF being in there for the service chiefs, I'm happy to hear the reasoning - CDF makes sense for the service chiefs as he's one of their bosses, along with Secretary of Defence, and the other service chiefs make sense as they're peers, but I don't think VCDF has the same level of relevance for them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian,
 * -You raise a number of points; let's deal with the easiest one first - User:Abraham, B.S. (Talk) re-vamped Chief of Army (Australia) and, at the bottom, added Chief of Army (Australia). I saw it and thought, "That's a good idea. That would be useful at the bottom of all of the "Chiefs of the Australian Defence Force" pages. (However, it looks a bit funny without the bullets ... )"
 * So, feel free to put the bullets in; I was just being consistent with Abraham, B.S.
 * -you don't need to link something under See Also when it's already linked within the article - I agree you don't need to, but it makes navigation simpler when all the relevant links are adjacent, and to me (in my no-doubt-biassed-POV), it seems to add value to have a copy of them all in the one place rather than scattered through the article.
 * -If you still feel strongly about VCDF being in there for the service chiefs. I do. VCDF is one of their peers, and is one of the "Chiefs of the Australian Defence Force" (e.g. see http://www.defence.gov.au/cdf/ and http://www.defence.gov.au/vcdf/). VCDF, in the role of CJOPS, actually commands the operations (or at least on paper, that's what his role is supposed to be), whereas the Chiefs of Service role (on paper) is only to "Raise, Train and Sustain" capability. So, in theory, in a number of ways, VCDF is "superior" to CN, CA and CAF.
 * Now that VCDF & CJOPS are two positions, it's not clear who the "Chiefs of the Australian Defence Force" are; my guess is that there will be 6 in the team, with VCDF having the strategic role and CJOPS the operational role. If you want to discuss it some more, feel free to email me. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)\
 * Post Script: When the ADF sort out CJOPS (e.g. http://www.defence.gov.au/leaders.cfm#hurley doesn't have a bio page and http://www.defence.gov.au/alpha_structure.cfm doesn't have an entry for CJOPS), then WP's VCDF page will need to be split into two. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Okay, we don't have a prob with the bullets...!
 * 2. I take your point about it being nice to have all the links in one place but a better way of doing that is a template for the command structure of the ADF, which I might look at - I think we could improve ADF-related articles in general with some decent templates.
 * 3. Thanks for your reasoning re. VCDF. First off, if we go with a template for related ADF command links as above, there'd be no question of including VCDF along with CDF, CA, CN, CAF (and CJOPS) so any disagreement we have re. See Alsos in the service chief articles would be irrelevant. However, on that note, I think you'll find that CJOPS (or VCDF in the CJOPS role) doesn't ever assume any 'superiority' over the service chiefs. What he does is exercise operational command over air, land and maritime forces, and he does so through the Air, Land or Fleet Commander, rather than through CAF, CA or CN (who are, as you say, primarily responsible for raising, training and maintaining their services). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, it sounds like we agree on all three: 1) Resolved. 2) Sounds good to me. (It also sounds like my next learning step in WP is templates.) 3) Yes, I agree VCDF/CJOPS "doesn't ever assume any 'superiority' over the service chiefs". (What I said was "in theory, in a number of ways, VCDF is 'superior' to CN, CA and CAF" - yes, it's pedantic, and splitting hairs, and in my POV, not the most important of the points we're discussing.) And I agree with the rest of what you say; in fact, I almost added a 2nd postscript saying the same thing.
 * So where to now from here? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a scout round similar articles - actually looks like categories are favoured more for this sort of thing than templates (though that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't start something new). See Category:British military appointments. I'd say we create a similar cat for ADF appointments that includes CDF, VCDF, CA, CN and CAF and drop them from the See Also. Then we can put a bit more thought into appropriate templates for ADF articles. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly familiar with templates, but they seem to be a much more elegant tool than caregories which, in my-biassed-POV, seem to be a bit of a "blunt instrument". Re: I'd say we create a similar cat for ADF appointments, that wouldn't be my preferred option. (Note there's already a Category:Military ranks of Australia.) However, I'm happy to defer to your superior knowledge in this area, if that's what you really want to do. And yes, I'm very interested in the templates. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it some more, I'd prefer the "see also" remain there until the template can replace it. But as I said, I'm happy to defer to your superior knowledge in this area, if that's what you really want to do. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Decided to just go for the template, see what you think (pretty basic but does the job). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You may think it's basic, but I think it's impressive! (i.e. Good stuff. Well done.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Minor point: Order should be CN, CA, CAF Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback about the template, I think you're right about the order and will update. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you've solved that one. (Now on to the next problem, whatever that may be?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Flicker
See User talk:71.35.161.45 and/or User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive06-Mike-Flicker

Concordia (From User talk:Loopla)
How about waiting till I've finished before you vandalise my changes? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor problem - Yrs 7-10 inclusive follow the IBMYP. To say "students from Year 10 follow the curriculum mandated by the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia" is not correct. (Yes, I know you didn't say that.) I'm considering presenting Yr 10 separately from Yr 11-12. Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it's necessary to say something about SA secondary being Yr 8-12, and Concordia's addition of yr7 to a secondary school is new (less than 5 years ago) and although not unusual, is not common practice in SA. (yet!) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And last, (which is what I had intended to say first ... ), excellent job. I like what you've cut out (I wasn't brave enough to do it myself!), and I really like what you've added. By comparison to what you've done, my changes are simply "titivation", and perhaps just pedantic detail. Well done, and thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to Marshal of the Air Force, and cats. (From User talk:Necrothesp)
18:49, 31 March 2008 Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) (12,398 bytes) (del cats; not a rank in any of these countries; actually a generic rank category)

Strictly, you are quite correct.

However, there are a dozen pages which redirect here, of which the following are "a rank in any of these countries":
 * Marshal of the Royal Malaysian Air Force
 * Marshal of the Royal New Zealand Air Force
 * Marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force
 * Marshal of the Indian Air Force
 * Marshal of the Royal Iraqi Air Force
 * Marshal of the Royal Jordanian Air Force
 * Marshal of the Royal Air Force of Oman
 * Marshal of the Royal Egyptian Air Force

One can put a cat on these redirect pages, but as they redirect to the generic "Marshal of the Air Force" page, one does not get given the opportunity to click on that link and be taken to the category.

Putting the cat on the generic page, however, does provide this opportunity; that's why I did it.

What do you think?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think the facility to put cats on redirect pages is a much better way of solving it. I really don't think every article needs to be clogged up with cats that should really only appear on redirect pages. After all, general guidelines are that pages should have as few cats as possible. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the facility to put cats on redirect pages is a much better way of solving it. I agree that it would be if it did solve it, but it only half solves it - as I said "one does not get given the opportunity to click on that link and be taken to the category." Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But I'm not sure one really needs that facility for a generic rank title. You could argue in the same vein that articles like General and Colonel should include every national military cat as almost all (if not all) the world's armies have those ranks, but I think that would be taking things to extremes. Categorisation needs to be a bit more specific than that. I don't think anyone is going to look at the Marshal of the Air Force article and think "I want to look at more Australian ranks", although they may well think that if they look at the Marshal of the Royal Air Force article, which is specific to a single service in a single country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you leave a message here then I will usually answer here, since I think it is more useful to have a complete discussion in one place. Like you, "I think it is more useful to have a complete discussion in one place." (and I have this page on my watchlist).

You seem to have missed my point, so it would seem I'm not making it clearly enough. But I'm not sure one really needs that facility for a generic rank title. I agree, but ... (You seem to have missed my point) You could argue ... I agree, but ... (You seem to have missed my point)

I don't think anyone is going to look at the Marshal of the Air Force article and think "I want to look at more Australian ranks", Here, I disagree. Per se, I agree. BUT, for the person who has clicked on Marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force, and hence by virtue of redirect is looking at the Marshal of the Air Force article, they may well think "I want to look at more Australian ranks". Does that give more context/clarity to my earlier comments? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't missed your point at all. I'm afraid I just don't agree with you! If it's such a big issue then it's easy enough to just write an article on the redirect pages and stop them being redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. That simplifies things considerably! (And yes, it is easy enough ... ) OK, I'm convinced/converted. Nice "talking" to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Easter Eggs
Did you find any this year? One small chocolate, myself jmcw (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Easter
> Did you find any this year? Only in the shops. We used to have an extended family Easter Sunday BBQ lunch, and "seed" the garden for the kids, but with the youngest now aged 12, and the eldest cousin now aged 23, these days we just have the Sunday BBQ. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

April First
Hello? Is there anybody out there? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you watch the requests for wiki admin sideshow? Requests_for_adminship/Kmweber_2 was a great April First bit of wit that the wet blankets killed by lunchtime. Take a look before it is purged. jmcw (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It made it to Featured Article Cantidate: Featured_article_candidates/Requests_for_adminship/Kmweber_2 with support from Jimbo. jmcw (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. Am about halfway through reading it, and am enjoying it! Pdfpdf (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you see this link? Pdfpdf (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When you look, it is endless BJAODN jmcw (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, those links have now turned red. Perhaps I should have made a copy ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a touch of hacker blood in me, I took the liberty of stealing the source for the page ( in case it disappeared ). User:Jmcw37/april2008 will be available for a few days. jmcw (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder how many other copies were made. (And given that there are probably hundreds, I wonder why they create the expectation that it is necessary to make a copy.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He did his own backup: User:Kmweber/Adminship jmcw (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha. I was Jimbo, along with several other people. I contributed quite a bit to that page. It was hilarious, and shows that Kurt has a sense of humor. By the way, Pdf, I replied on my talkpage. They call me X Really 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone else "moved" the page there.

Changing subject, but only slightly, have you been following Talk:Foster's Lager? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins
Is there an easy way to tell if a user is an admin? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If they're an admin, it will say so on their userpage on the bottom. Check the bottom of a userpage and see it lists categories. If one is Wikipedia administrators... There's also a list of administrators. User:Enigmaman Really 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ta. So, testing the theory, Enigmaman is not an admin. Correct? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. Anyone who becomes an admin has to be included in the category and they are as soon as they pass their WP:RfA. They call me X Really 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that some admins refuse to add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators. Thus, the only sure way to know if someone is an admin is to check WP:list of admins.  Enigma  message Review 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm sure that will save me some confusion. Good of you to follow up on it - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

dog flavour (From Talk:Foster's Lager)
Question about Foster's: It is more or less similar to American beers, with one important difference: It has a distinctive dog flavor to it. What exactly accounts for this dog flavor and just what is it that makes the dog flavor so different, so appealing? The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sceptical, but "Assuming Good Faith" ...)
 * What is a "dog flavour"? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have been clearer. Of course, I've never tasted dog, per se, but of course everyone is familiar with the smell of dog. As an experiment, you might try a comparison: First, take a taste of your standard issue American beer, say Budweiser or Miller, then a taste of Foster's. Try to pinpoint the difference.

To me, the difference is dog flavor. Now what is dog flavor? It's a certain je sais quoi I might describe as the flavor of an American lager steeped with dog. That is to say, imagine taking a vat of Budweiser, allowing a small pack of dogs to swim in it, filtering, then bottling. I believe the result would bear a striking similarity to Foster's.

Now obviously, Foster's probably does not use this approach to achieve their distinctive flavor. But what do they do instead? That's what I'd like to know. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmmmmm. I see. Thank you for clarifying that you did, indeed, mean exactly what you said.
 * I presume you're aware that a dog may have several smells? (e.g. wet dog, dusty dog, freshly washed dog, etc.)
 * Is the flavour you're referring to associated with any particular dog smell, or just "generic dog"?
 * But I digress. In answer to your original question, I believe it's something to do with the grain/yeast combination. I will investigate further, but it's difficult to find Foster's in Australia these days, and American-made Foster's probably tastes different anyway; certainly British-made Foster's has a different taste to Australian-made Foster's. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, I imagine a dog flavoured beer would have a certain je ne sais quoi. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I seem to have left out a crucial "ne." Had it a certain je sais quoi, I suppose I wouldn't be asking after it.

As to what sort of dog, I suppose I was thinking something between dusty dog and just-finished-playing-frisbee dog, not so much a freshly washed dog. Of course, the procedure I describe above would certainly result in a wet dog, but a dog wet with beer would pretty obviously smell and probably taste like whatever beer it's been in, so it's not much of a way to describe the beer itself. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suspect the water used by the various breweries makes the difference. As I was a teen, the local Budweiser used water from the Merrimack River. Before the Clean Water Act, one could make beer from the water but not swim in it. Frothing rabid dog corpse flavour would have been an improvement. Considered superior at the time was Carling's Larger ("Hey, Maybel, Black Label"), brewed from the water in Lake Cochituate. Imagine my surprise in the 1990's to find Carling's Black Label Ice for sale in London: quite tasty but a different flavour. jmcw (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

John Wilton (Australian politician)

 * Hi. Not of any great importance, but I was wondering why you removed the "see also" section from John Wilton (Australian politician)? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Links should only be added when they are useful. All those links would do is confirm that he was a member for Electoral district of Broadmeadows, but clicking on the Broadmeadows links would confirm that. The most useful thing though would be to put info in on him, which can be found at re-member (which covers all Vic MLAs amd MLCs).--Grahame (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured you'd have a good reason. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually, I'm interested in the General, which led me to create the disambig page, which led to ... (You get the idea.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:China-Navy-Admiral.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:China-Navy-Admiral.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. STBotI (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * fixed Pdfpdf (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Millswood railway station, Adelaide

 * Why do you think it's more likely that Millswood opened in the 1910s? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. About Millswood I Thought the station was opened in the 1910's because there was something about ther Clapham railway station page that it opened just before 1917, when the Clapham branch closed. The platforms at Millswood look very similar to the ones at Clapham and Hawthorn, and that's why I thought Millswood opened in that period. I'm just trying to help. Rhysydude (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. You are helping, and I appreciate it.
 * Personally, I can't find any evidence of when most of these stations opened, so I was interested to see your change and wondered what your information was.
 * Your reasoning is logical - I, personally, can't tell the difference between those opened in the 1880s, the 1910s, and the 1940s - they all look the same to me!
 * Thanks for your help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

National Park railway station, Adelaide

 * The National Park railway station, Adelaide page says the platform has been demolished, but you've just edited the box saying there's one platform there. Which is correct? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. National park station did have one platform, but it was demolished after the station closed many years ago. My bad? I guess I need to type with more sense. Rhysydude (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. I thought I saw somewhere that it was still standing, but now, of course, I can't find that statement! Do you have any other info?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had more info about this station, but I cannot find any pages on other websites that have photos. I don't think the National Railway Museum website has any of National Park station, I last checked on there about 2 weeks ago, and it wasn't on there. I'll probably have a closer look at some other web pages, and I'll give you the website if I find it. Rhysydude (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That would be appreciated.
 * Is it your impression that the station is still there, or demolished?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the station has been demolished because most of the other stations on the line were demolished when the line closed. I think this is true. Rhysydude (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks again.
 * I remembered where I saw that info - at Bridgewater railway line, Adelaide.
 * It seems I got it wrong; it's Long Gully railway station, Adelaide that's not completely demolished (yet). Yes, it would seem that National Park railway station, Adelaide has indeed been demolished. (Well, I was less than a mile wrong!).
 * Never-the-less, if you do find more information, I'd be interested to read it.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Molan
The first of your three edits adds value, but the other two are possibly the laziest non-vandalism I've seen. (Not to mention that there are references). If you are going to edit, then add value; adding trite boxes which urinate on the work of people who are trying to add value is a waste of your time, and discourages people who are actually trying to do something useful. Think before you type? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies. I had no intention of disparaging your article. I was simply marking your new page as patrolled, and part of that process is to either fix or to tag problems. The outcome varies, depending on the content and the author. Some get marked for speedy deletion. In the case of new editors, I try to be as helpful and encouraging as I can. In the case of experienced editors like yourself, I fix what I can do easily, but where the subject area is beyond my expertise, I have always assumed that tags will be taken in good faith and the issues quickly resolved. I guess I will have to rethink the latter. Best regards. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite reply. I was in the middle of developing the article, and was hoping to go to bed and leave it incomplete. I am embarassed to admit that I over-reacted to your edits. Never-the-less, there was at least a grain of truth in my complaint, just as there was at least a grain of truth in your edits. I have always assumed that tags will be taken in good faith - yes, you should continue to do that, and ignore grumpy old men who over-react. and the issues quickly resolved. - right again - the issues have been resolved. I guess I will have to rethink the latter. - Maybe. Maybe not. People's moods vary, as will mine when I've had some sleep. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that what I will do in future under these circumstances is to mark the page as patrolled, but make a note to come back in a day or two and check that things have moved along. Patrolling new pages seems to be a fast and furious task (it helps keep dross out of WP, and helps prevent new editors from wasting a lot of time) which encourages hasty decisions, when perhaps a slower approach may be more appropriate, but there seems to be no formal way to do this. My apologies again if I came across as a wikipedia nazi. To help those of us who sometimes patrol new pages, you may want to add Template:Underconstruction while you are building a new page; this should be sufficient to get the page marked as patrolled. Thanks for helping improve the way I do things. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

and helps prevent new editors from wasting a lot of time - Agreed. you may want to add Template:Underconstruction - Yes. I'd forgotten about that one. Thanks for the reminder. Thanks for helping improve the way I do things - and thanks for reminding me to assume good faith and not immediately jump to negative conclusions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins - continued
Is there an easy way to tell if a user is an admin? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If they're an admin, it will say so on their userpage on the bottom. Check the bottom of a userpage and see it lists categories. If one is Wikipedia administrators... There's also a list of administrators.  Enigma  message 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ta. So, testing the theory, Enigmaman is not an admin. Correct? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. Anyone who becomes an admin has to be included in the category and they are as soon as they pass their WP:RfA.  Enigma  message 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that some admins refuse to add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators. Thus, the only sure way to know if someone is an admin is to check WP:list of admins.  Enigma  message Review 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm sure that will save me some confusion. Good of you to follow up on it - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel School, Australia
Thanks for reverting the weird changes at Emanuel School, Australia. I didn't know about the second article, but I agree it's very POV, so I have redirected it to the original and more neutral of the two articles. Loopla (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

David Hurley (general) & Mark Evans (general)
Hi, my reference for the changes performed on Lieutenant General Hurley's page was the biography on Hurley contained at the Defence Leaders link on the Australian Defence Force website.

As for my changes on Major General Mark Evans honours and awards section, I did so, as you stated, to tidy the section up; make it more appeasing to the eye. I also removed the (Australia) prefixes as, due to the fact that Evans is an Australian general, I did not believe they needed to be there, it was obvious that they would more then likely be Australian medals, and if not it would be stated otherwise. I would also like to add that I viewed a recent photograph of Major General Evans, wearing his ribbons, but four of the decorations you have included Evans as holding were not present. The Afghanistan Medal, Iraq Medal, Australian Defence Medal and the NATO ISAF Medal were not present among Evans' ribbons, although I will admit he is entitled to, and in the future more than likely will have obtained, the said medals.

Regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) (A 16-year-old from New South Wales). —Preceding comment was added at 08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, not necessarily. For example, the GSM is a British medal.

Yes, the GSM is British, but Australia did use it up until 1962; hence why it is in our order of precedence. How did I know you were going to pick me up on that one?


 * Have you! (Do you have a URL to it please?) All of the photos I've seen are either head shots, or he's wearing "camo", and hence no ribbons.

The pic I viewed of Evans is under the gallery section on the Governor-General's website, it's of Evans receiving his AO, but I must admit his ribbons need a little fixing up in it, as his DSC is placed before his Order of Australia, back when he had still had the AM; hence his ribbon bar is outdated. But the photo was only taken a few days ago nonetheless. The URL is http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/gallery.php?action=view&id=375.


 * (I didn't put them there; I just reformatted.)

That's fair enough then.


 * Ah ha. At last they have put up a bio for him. (That wasn't there when I created the page in March.)

I too was waiting for that. It went up quite recently, after the announcement of new leaders in the ADF, as (finally) did the photo of Major General Tim McOwan DSC, CSM that I was waiting for, the new Commander of Special Operations, Australia. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk). —Preceding comment was added at 12:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ribbon image sizes
Hi Pdfpdf, Forgive me, but I recently reverted the changes you made to the image sizes on the Australian Honours Order of Precedence page. The original image width was set at 80px, and you had increased that to 120px. However, most of the images are originally somewhere between 90 and 100px in size, and the increase to 120px introduced all sorts of distortions on my screen, and in particular it introduced false colour stripes across the images which were very distracting. I had chosen 80px as the image size on that page mainly for the purpose of page length - it kept it down a little when printing the page out. You could probably go up to 90px size on individual pages (as it generally is on the medal pages themselves), however I really wouldn't recommend any larger than that due to the distortions mentioned above. PalawanOz (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nadya Hutagalung
Sorry, your imagination was incorrect. User:57.72.66.20 was blocked for massive spamming and I was cleaning after him. A little check on the anon's contribution would have given you a better idea than a mere guess. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Had you used an informative edit comment, I wouldn't have needed to exercise my (faulty) imagination.
 * And I still don't know why you reverted that edit.
 * (i.e. What "cleaning up" (with respect to that edit) was necessary, and why?)
 * (Yes, I am playing silly buggers, and yes I am trying to make a point. But then, so are you!)
 * No reply necessary. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I explained "why" when I said that I was cleaning after the user's spamming, but then perhaps you are new to Wikipedia...? According to New admin school/Rollback, the guideline states that it is appropriate to use rollback (i.e. without leaving edit summary) if a user's contributions consist of inserting the same WP:SPAM. Please let me know if you have any further questions. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply
My comment was add, because I added something to the article. My reason is because, WP:S redirects there, but WP:Sandbox also starts with a S, so some users may find it helpful if there looking for the Sandbox. I'm still making edits because am officially retiring this Friday.  R k O r  T o  N  19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well its helpful at least.  R k O r  T o  N  22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries & Matt Tripovich

 * Hi B.S. Why don't you use the edit summary field?

Hmm, not sure. I never tend to use it, but I suppose I should; you’re not the first to ask why I haven’t used them.


 * Thanks for identifying the "missing ribbon" - I hadn't gotten around to it yet.

Where did you find Matt's full name?

No problem, I knew as soon as I viewed a photograph of Vice Admiral Tripovich what medal the ribbon stood for, hence why I made the according adjustments.

As for the question, I'm not prepared to reveal all the cards up my sleave just yet. Regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk). —Preceding comment was added at 12:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't ask me where I got my information from, and how I managed to get it up on WP before the ADF put it up on the Leaders page.

I just assumed you put it up upon seeing the bio at the Leaders' page, but now that I know differently I'm assume you got the info from the bio of Tripovich at the Capability Development Executive Group page. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I phoned his PA . ..

I applaud your innovation, nice work. It's about time they got that bio up on the Leader's page too! I have been thinking for quite some time now that it should have been posted up there long ago. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I just thought of something you could do, if you are ever in a phoning mood again. Ring up and ask why the hell there is a bio of the Warrant Officer of the Air Force on the Leaders' page, but not ones for the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army or the Warrant Officer of the Navy. Lol, thanks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ADF Leaders page
There are, of course, many Warrant Officers at one time in both the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force, the same can also be said for Warrant Officer Class Ones in the Australian Army. And, yes, each Regiment has their own RSM. However, there is only one Warrant Officer of the Navy at one time, only one Warrant Officer of the Air Force at one time, and, again, only one Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army at one time. All three are special ranks, making the person holding the said ranks and offices in their service the head NCO of their branch of the Australian Defence Force. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dakward
There's a post on User talk:Dakward (by you) warning speedy deletion of Whore Mongrols. However, there's no reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dakward to Dakward editing the "Whore Mongrols" page. This makes me wonder about the connection between Dakward and Whore Mongrols. Given that the evidence I've looked at suggests there's no connection, I deduce there must be other evidence I don't know about. Can you enlighten me? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Whore Mongrols" was some nonsense page he created. I spotted it on the "New Pages" special page and tagged it for speedy deletion. An admin deleted it shortly thereafter (I don't even remember what was in the page). Once the page was deleted, any contributions from him made to that particular page disappear. Unless, of course, you're an admin, and then you can see his deleted edits. That's why the CSD notice is on his talk page but you don't see anything in his contribs. Gromlakh (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Once the page was deleted, any contributions from him made to that particular page disappear. Well there you go. I didn't know that. As they say, "you learn something new every day". And thanks for explaining what the other evidence is, too. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Run Devil Run (diambiguation)
I have nominated Run Devil Run (diambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Run Devil Run (diambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tan  |   39  15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Run Devil Run (disambiguation)
Run Devil Run may refer to:
 * Run Devil Run, a Paul McCartney album
 * Run Devil Run (song), a song on the Rabbit Fur Coat album
 * Run Devil Run (band), a former Hare Krishna punk band who recorede on the Victory Records label

General Peter John Cosgrove AC MC
Hey mate, I've seen a better photo of Cosgrove, with all his ribbons, just before his retirement, and I would have to say it more then likely is the Tong-il Medal, just the ribbon that Wikipedia has is a bit dull compared to the actual ribbon. Although, in the photo I have seen, as I said that was taken just before Cosgrove's retirement in 2005, among his ribbons it does not display the Legion d'honneur or the Grand Cross of the Order of Infante D. Henrique, strangely enough. I suppose the Australian Government did not approve them for wear, even though the Government would normally approve French honours. For example, they did for Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston when he was awarded the Legion d'honnour last year. Regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, it would have to be the Tong-il Medal. I just viewed a pic of Cosgrove wearing his medals, and on his chest is the breast star for the Tong-il Medal. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The colour match I did for the Tong-il medal was based on several pics on various sites Diggerhistory, Gen Pave presentation, Gen Casey presentation, all of which show it to be more 'pink' than 'red' - Cosgrove's official portrait did seem a little washed out (for colours), so I wasn't depending on that so much. If you find a good resolution shot of the Korean ribbon, I am happy to amend the image I created. PalawanOz (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Evans
Yes, that's what I was thinking of. It had bugged me slightly before, and with the quote of the citation that was added, it became more obvious that the wording wasn't quite right. I assume that in the Aussie army,. as in the British Army, Company OCs are Majors anyway? David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well infantry battalion=cavalry regiment, CO is Lt-Col, yes

Mount Barker Junction
Re this: here - I split it off to a separate article at Victor Harbor railway line, South Australia which was more apropriate. I hope that explains matters. Wongm (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes
I entirely concur with your statements concerning Cecil Rhodes's attitudes towards race. Nevertheless, from what I have known of him, he held strong views concerning the superiority of Europeans vis-à-vis Africans, and had a general bias in favour of his own people, the English. Therefore, in my opinion, it is unjustified to claim specific attitudes of Anglo-Saxon superiority when his opinions of racial superiority were much wider than that and his Anglo-Saxon pretensions played a rôle only when questions of Empire came in. Although I very much appreciate your having taken the trouble to intimate your opinions to me, perhaps it would be much more helpful, if your statements could be a little less presumptuous. Voltigeur (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to throw some light. When I wrote 'presumptuous', I meant more or less what you have inferred - that your statements assume a few things that are not necessarily true. I look forward to further co-operation. Voltigeur (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Coates
Nigel Coates may refer to:
 * Nigel Coates (admiral) - Australian Rear Admiral Nigel Stephen Coates - see Australian Defence Leaders, Davyd Thomas
 * Nigel Coates (architect) - British architect - see António Lagarto, Katharine Hamnett,

The "Australian Defence Forces" redirect
Since you asked, please see Help:Redirect. Redirects like Australian Defence Forces are there to catch plausible typos and common mistakes. Editors and bots find and fix these mistakes in due course. Redirects are cheap. They consume few resources and they deter article re-creation from red-links. I suggest leaving this redirect to do its job. Your edits keep putting the page on the cleanup lists. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to the cleanup lists question, to name two: "Australian Defense Forces" is #124 on the latest Uncategorized pages list. It will also qualify for the Short pages list if it is not fixed soon. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * update: The page now a redirect. Anyway, explaining a self-revert usually avoids the 3RR problem. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Molan
My sincere apologies. I had no intention of disparaging your article. I was simply marking your new page as patrolled, and part of that process is to either fix or to tag problems. The outcome varies, depending on the content and the author. Some get marked for speedy deletion. In the case of new editors, I try to be as helpful and encouraging as I can. In the case of experienced editors like yourself, I fix what I can do easily, but where the subject area is beyond my expertise, I have always assumed that tags will be taken in good faith and the issues quickly resolved. I guess I will have to rethink the latter. Best regards. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Interests & Edit Summaries
Lol, yes, it does appear that we have very simular interests in regard to the Defence Force.

As for the edit summaries, thanks to you I actually have been using them, just in some areas I am/was unsure of what I should put, hence why nothing was.


 * two of which were honorary - Perhaps a footnote to say which two?

Hmm, would have been a good idea. I should have written which two (Field Marshal Birdwood & Prince Philip), but I would have had to rewrite the whole footnote, and at the time I was a little lazy. Regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for populating the "bio" and "photo" columns - I was putting that off!

Lol, I thought that might have been the case. I don't blame you; it was quite a tedious task! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)