User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive07

No degrees in the first sentence please
Is that so? Could you point me at the guideline that says that please? And also, could you point me at the guideline that says where you do put degrees? Thanks in anticipation, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, if I can help you; section 2.4 (Academic titles) of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) descibes the following:


 * Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.


 * Further in the text it gives examples. You will find it here: WP:MOSBIO. Cheers! Demophon (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. (Interesting how it doesn't seem to have been applied with any particular uniformity, isn't it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tools
On a completely different topic, and addressing technical process rather than encyclopaedic content, your edit summary says: "Revert to the revision prior to revision 209834926 dated 2008-05-03 03:11:47 by 121.97.215.246 using popups". Several questions: Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at Tools/Navigation popups. I'm not altogether sure what value it would add to my wiki-life. (Or should that be wiki-get-a-life? I digress.) Can you give me a one or two sentence summary of why you use it?
 * Is that edit summary message generated automatically?
 * Why "Revert to the revision prior to revision ... "? Why not "Revert to to last version by Katalaveno"?
 * And my pet peeve - it only says what you did, not why you did it. (That's not a question, is it.)


 * I have several vandal scripts installed. Popups is a little more than a vandal script. It also works quickly with "reverting the format breaking/consensus ignoring/trolling/outright dumb" edits. All of these embedded scripts create their own edit summaries automatically. Some, like Twinkle, prompt for more summary information. Some, like popups, do not. When you(I) have been away from Wikipedia for a while. Popups is an excellent quick review tool to browse though the overnight watchlist to to if any damage has been done. Twinkle and Lupins Tools etx can be used to issue warnings. I have been a Wikpedian for a long time. I pick and choose, based on my experience, when a vandal warning is going to have an effect or not. One time "testers" will liely not edit again (kids) So why clutter up the Wiki server with another populated page. I also use VandalProof. With that tool I can blacklist every editor whose ever commited vandalism. Even if they only do it once a year. If I catch them the first time and blacklist them. A year later when they try it again, I will catch them. If I use popups to revert something that has a completely obvious Wikipedia/encyclopedia/policy reason (like the dude revert) I just move on. If it isn't so obvious I follow later with a talk page post. I have been here a long time. I took a year off due to work and extreme amounts of travel. But I am back now. If you have any questions feel free to ask and I will help out where I can. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting reading! Thanks for going to the effort - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Omaha
Long time, no see! I just started this project and would love to see your name on board - serious music-oriented editors in Omaha-related articles are hard to find. Let me know what you're up to sometime?! Invite follows... • Freechild   'sup?  
 * With support from a number of editors, WikiProject Omaha is now live. Feel free to add your name to the list of editors and to add one of the spiffy templates to your user page. There is a list of open tasks and a resource list you can contribute to or help with, as well! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to working with you to make WikiProject Omaha a success. • Freechild   'sup?   17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Long time, no see! I just started this project and would love to see your name on board - serious music-oriented editors in Omaha-related articles are hard to find.''
 * Hi Freechild. I hope you're enjoying "the big smoke". Yes, it has been a while.
 * I don't think anyone has called me a "serious" anything (polite) for ages. Flattery (and politeness) will probably get you exactly what you want!
 * As you know, Omaha has never been my primary interest, but I'm happy to assist in the Category:Music in Omaha space if you would find that useful.

Let me know what you're up to sometime?!
 * I've mainly been concentrating on various closed Adelaide & South Australian railways, current Australian Defence Force general staff, Heart (band), and, for reasons I'm not sure of, Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Wells (a somewhat "unusual" pair of individuals).
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear from you - glad to know you're still chopping away on the tree of knowledge! Your Oz railroad folks are pretty intense. I once clashed with a few over an engine built in Omaha they wanted singly associated with Victorian Railways. It was strange, to say the least, to interact with the "rail-heads." I've done a little work focused on Omaha but I couldn't claim to know anything of too much depth; trains seem to be their own world of depth. Hope you have fun with that! Oh, and I live just south of Seattle; this proximity has given me a chance to meet people to knew the Wilsons or went to their concerts back in the old days or whatever. That crazy Heart mythology. Oh, and your interest in the Static couple? That perplexes me - but its fun. Hope alls well then - take good care. • Freechild   'sup?   12:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey PDF, I stumbled across this article and thought you'd appreciate it... a little more background on Vaughn Chapman and how the OBMHOF ties together with North O. here. • Freechild   'sup?   11:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Chapman is trying to be everything to everybody, and because of that his selection of members for the OBMHOF is weakened. As a youth I found the community to be full of "characters"; that is, folks who hold a lot of persona within them. I am sure he falls into that category. As a music fan I'm sure its can be a bit disheartening to see that kind of... disjunction in such an organization's mission. But man, from the way they describe the parties that go along with this, I am sure it might be a good thing for the community to get that kind of "shot in the arm". My big concern is that he might run out of people; it makes me question both the sustainability and purpose of the event. Is he trying to squeeze in as many folks as he can before he doesn't run it anymore? Hmmm... • Freechild   'sup?   12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chukwuma
Hi Rich. I'm puzzled by your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_C._Soludo&diff=prev&oldid=210309567 Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What does "Copyedit. BAh Humans." mean?
 * The "diff" shows lots of edits with no apparent differences. Given that the edits which do have apparent differences are generally the removal of spaces, are the others also removal of spaces?
 * Why are you removing the spaces?


 * Someone had put a date of May 2003 instead of May 2008 in the fact tag. Rich Farmbrough, 12:53 5 May 2008 (GMT).
 * Had they put no date at all, a bot would have put the correct one. As it is I have to trawl through and fix these errors. No big deal really. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54 5 May 2008 (GMT).
 * Actually, I did put no date at all, the bot did put the correct one, then some "helpful" person changed it.
 * And why is it that you "have to trawl through and fix these errors"?
 * Because after each User:SmackBot run there are always exceptions, and I need to constantly be improving the code to take into account new templates, new syntax and new redirects, among other things. If I let the exceptions build up, even with "oh yes I know what that is" type exceptions, then a.) the articles won't be correctly date categorised, and b.) I won't be able to see where I need to improve SB's code to allow for the changes in WP, and of course general improvement to deal with user errors, sytntax mangling etc. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:26 5 May 2008 (GMT).
 * I see. Good luck with it all then. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (P.S. I still don't know what "BAh Humans." means, nor why you're removing spaces ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, but that's the one edit I wasn't asking about. :) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes they are spaces, and just a general fix. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57 5 May 2008 (GMT).

And what does "BAh Humans." mean? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And why remove the spaces? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit
Someone had put a date of May 2003 instead of May 2008 in the fact tag. Rich Farmbrough, 12:53 5 May 2008 (GMT).
 * Had they put no date at all, a bot would have put the correct one. As it is I have to trawl through and fix these errors. No big deal really. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54 5 May 2008 (GMT).
 * Yes they are spaces, and just a general fix. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57 5 May 2008 (GMT).

BAh Humans?
Me again. What does "BAh Humans" mean please? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Bah Humans" was a joke at the way they (from SmackBot's point of view) keep getting the dates wrong or wrongly formatted.  In addition to the rump of errors that I correct manually, SB corrects a whole slew of standard errors, from mis-spellings of "date" to wrongly formatted dates. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48 8 May 2008 (GMT).

User talk:81.145.242.67 (Again)
This is OK, I should have subst'd the block template when I put it in. WP:SUBST explains why it's a good idea to do that. The Bot just trawls round making the corrections. I will keep an eye on the IP, though. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  12:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Odd Fellows
The content of Talk:Odd Fellows was. It was deleted "speedily" under the Criteria for speedy deletion, specifically the test page section (thus the edit summary 'csd g2'). Unfortunately, non-admins cannot view the contents of deleted pages. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

IOOF
re: ''Thank you for the useful and helpful additions to IOOF, but you didn't proofread (copyedit?) your changes, and now some of the sentences don't make sense. Could you please review the page and make it say what you intended? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)''


 * Can't imagine what you're saying is likely as I preview constantly, but I'll take a look... spelling gaffs yah, incomplete phrases not too likely ... smells like a misplaced bracket or something in one of the cites... (perhaps an inline comment?) Sorry and Thanks // Fra nkB 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok--now proof read that-- better I think. Got dinner on a plate getting cold with wife's raised eyebrows (and temper!) to deal with... All yours now! // Fra nkB 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why
It originated from having to fix the link of Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wells, as it went to another page of a man named Henry Wells. So, while I was fixing that up, I placed the "Sir", where applicable, under the link for their name, as the "Sir" title is a part of their name, and in my mind it does look tidier. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ken Gillespie
Ken Gillespie's two missing ribbons are both United Nations medals. The first being for Gillespie's involvement with the United Nations Transition Assistance Group in Namibia, and the other for the United Nations Mission in East Timor. However, as far as I know, there are no ribbons for these medals on Wikipedia at the present time, so perhaps it would be best if the Honours and Awards section was disbanded for the moment, until images of the ribbons can be obtained, so as that section doesn't look a mess? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can obtain images of the ribbons fairly quickly, and have the section completed soon, then all should be fine. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jeffery
G'day Jack! "CVO - correct person?"
 * "he was awarded the CVO in 2000 so there's no need for this note, which might be misinterpreted as meaning it was for a different Michael Jeffery"

Well, that was sort of the point. Was he awarded the CVO in 2000, and is that "Michael Jeffery" the same person as "Philip Michael Jeffrey"? I gather your reply means "Yes", but I couldn't find anything to confirm it. Do you have a source other than "It's an Honour"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pdfpdf. Nothing explicit, but we read on his website  that he "became a Companion of the Order of Australia, a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and a Citizen of Western Australia for his services to the State. He was Governor until 2000".  This doesn't say exactly when he got the CVO, but it would be totally consistent with normal practice for the Queen to give him a CVO at the end of his term as Governor in 2000 in gratitude for his services.  Further, only one Michael Jeffery has ever been given a CVO, and the GG has a CVO, so the conclusion is inescapable.   Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

so the conclusion is inescapable - So it would seem! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Just theorising here (that’s what I do for kicks, such is my life).  You may not be aware – I wasn’t till late last year– that not all honours are on It’s an Honour.  See Talk:Fred Schepisi for a bit of a story about my research to discover why Schepisi mentions his AO on his website but it doesn’t appear on It’s an Honour.


 * So, it’s possible that (a) G-G Jeffery got his CVO at some time other than 2000 and ticked the box that said not to publish the details, and (b) the Michael Jeffery on It’s an Honour really is a different Michael Jeffery. Possible, but I think extraordinarily unlikely.  CVOs are in the monarch’s personal gift, and tend to be given to people who work in vice-regal households, or behind the scenes planning royal visits, etc.  How likely is it that a different Michael Jeffery has had some connection with such things?  Not very.  Surely this hypothetical person would have come to attention before.  Jeffery is hardly a common surname for starters, and 2 Michael Jefferys would really be stretching it.  Thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found the original publication in the London Gazette (for "Imperial" honours this is the defintive source) and added it as a reference, the fact that the CVO is to His Excellency Major General Philip Michael Jeffery rather removes the last scintilla of doubt...


 * As I say for awards deriving from the British Honours system, rather than the independent Australian system, the Gazette is the definitive source, and can be searched here. Unfortunately the indexing can be a bit hit and miss, the only award I turned up on a straight name search was his MC, but given that the award date was known, I restricted by date and searched on Royal Victorian Order, which turned it up.  I also followed a similar process for confimring the appointement as a Knight of St John - though in this case I eventually discovered that the award was made in 1994, not 1993 as the article originally stated.  David Underdown (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Heart Table

 * Very nice! Where is such technical material documented? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The procedure for sorting based on an invisible header is mentioned in Help:Sorting in regard to the Sms template, which does basically the same thing as. I actually just copied the idea from List of songs in Rock Band, where they use the table sorting method for the Downloadable songs table. Though the concept of sorting the artists by last name rather than first name was a good one, I thought that the execution of the idea could be better handled using the Rock Band article's method. Glad you liked it! oobugtalk/contrib 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) original message

Davyd Thomas
The following two sites contain images of Rear Admiral Thomas. In one he is wearing all eight ribbons, and in the other all eight medals: &  Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How sad. I found those pictures, and although the medals are (very) clear, I couldn't distinguish the ribbons. (Don't laugh, one day you too will need to wear reading glasses.)

Sorry, but I must indulge myself with a little chuckle at the moment. I do wear reading glasses, and have since I was in the 5th Grade; so for nearly six years now. Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! I see. (metaphorically) So you're a more experienced user than I am. That must explain it!

Although, I must say, I wasn't wearing my glasses when I viewed the photos containing Rear Admiral Thomas, yet I could still distinguished the ribbons quite easily, lol. Regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bonnitcha
The page was referring to fr:Alexander Jonathan Bonnitcha, which doesn't exist. Therefore, the interlanguage link should not be. More information can be found here and here. Drbreznjev (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

ADM

 * Good evening young sir! I gather you've found a source of information about ADM awards?

??? Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I have viewed several images of Lieutenant General Hurley wearing the ribbon of the ADM; you just need to use Google Images. As for Admiral Barrie, he is obviously eligible of the medal, and would no doubt have received it by now. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel
I have nominated Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel, 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/Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel. 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of the least justified AfD nominations I've seen in a long while. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think that this is a fantastic article. If I ever become mad enough to understand the ADO's org charts I'll create a Structure of the Australian Defence Force article to sit alongside it - the description in the Australian Defence Force article is somewhat lacking and a bit outdated now. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel

 * Hi Pdfpdf. I've just added my vote to keep this page. You don't seem to list 2-star reserve officers at all, as Cdr 2 Div isn't there. I don't know whether this is intentional or not, but if it is, you might want to consider noting that only active-duty senior officers, not reserve senior officers, are included. Great work overall on the page; I hope people start copying the format; I'd love to see a similar page for the US, or UK, or China or Russia or France etc. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 10:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've just realised. Being in Wellington with access to our Defence Library, I can access the Army, Navy and Air Force Lists. You should be able to too, in some fashion - your State equivalent of the National Library of Australia? That or your public lending library should be able to get hold of them in some way, and they'd be reliable sources, which direct inquiries to Defence wouldn't be (OR). Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 12:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a Canberran and can access this stuff if you can provide the publication titles. I guess that ringing the Defence switchboard and asking them would be OR, but it would also be a very effective way of filling the blanks as they're happy to provide these kind of details. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I must confess to having rung a few XOs and PAs. I find it interesting that the stuff they email me usually appears on the "Leaders" page within the week, thus so far, OR hasn't been an issue! Yes, the switchboard is generally very happy to provide these kind of details - EXCEPT where the intelligence organisations are concerned. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the status of unclassified information that comes off the Defence Intranet? (i.e. It's not OR, but it's not publicly available either.)
 * And what's the status of "personal correspondence"? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No to both, I think. WP:RS states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The intranet is borderline (it's not really 'published' as it is impossible for third parties to access it) but personal correspondence is definetly not allowed. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what info you are hoping to source, but in general the Australian Air Force and Navy Lists (never seen an Army List) only contain the members name, and the date they were promoted to their most recent rank. They don't necessarily have the most up-to-date medal post-nominals, and only include other post-nominals (eg, BSc, BE) if the member themself has gone out of their way to notify their qualification for inclusion. A fairly bland and boring read then! PalawanOz (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, ADO structure information down to 2-star/SES2 level. In particular, ADF structure info, and Intelligence Organisations structure info. The information I'm seeking would also contain position information. (And, of course, the names of the people in the positions.) For example, the fact that Ash Power and Richard Wilson swapped chairs wouldn't show up in the data you're referring to (would it?) because no promotions were involved.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And Buckshot keeps pointing out I don't have information about the Reserves, and I can't seem to find any, either. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's definately no position data in the Lists - and in fact the most recent issue of the RAAF List is only from 2006 - so a lot of the ranks are wrong too! I will have a look and see what I can find out re Reserves and an ADO structure outline. PalawanOz (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got ADO structure down to 3-star/SES3, and DMO and most of AusDoD to 2-star/SES2.
 * What I'm missing is structure & people (at 2-star level) for CFO, CIO, Navy, Army, Air Force & Reserves, and people at 2-star for IS&IP.
 * And then there are the unfilled gaps in the table ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notables
Greetings and apol's for the delay in replying. I don't get there often these days possibly because it got inadvertently dropped off my watchlist last time I did a cleanup. I will try to swing by sometime. Regards. Moondyne 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

National Park railway station
I'm sorry it took long, but I finally found a site with a picture of the station, and some others including what was left of Ambleside. This is the website:



Rhysydude (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Rhodes Scholars
Greetings and apol's for the delay in replying. I don't get there often these days possibly because it got inadvertently dropped off my watchlist last time I did a cleanup. I will try to swing by sometime. Regards. Moondyne 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

National Park railway station
I'm sorry it took long, but I finally found a site with a picture of the station, and some others including what was left of Ambleside. This is the website: http://www.david-phillips.fotopic.net/p18843898.html Rhysydude (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Diarchy
The sources weren't added to the intro. They were added to the India and Northern Ireland sections. Sorry, if the summary wasn't clear enough. Thanks for understanding. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 13:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

General officer move
In light of your objection, I have relisted the proposed move on WP:RM to allow a discussion. However, I don't think your reference to Talk:Rear admiral is helpful in addressing this page. "Rear Admiral" is the name of a specific rank, and should be capitalized as a proper noun. "General officer" is a description of a category of ranks, and therefore is not the same situation. If you do have any references indicating that "General Officer" is actually considered a proper noun, however, please educate me. --Russ (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Russ.
 * From my POV, the topic is broader - e.g. "Xxxx Yyyy to Xxxx yyyy move(s).
 * Given a choice, I'd really rather not get any more involved than I absolutely have to; the "debate" has been going on for ages with no obvious move towards a resolution.
 * "Rear Admiral" is the name of a specific rank, and should be capitalized as a proper noun."
 * 1) I agree that it should be capitalized. 2) However, a sufficient number of people disagree. So the "debate" goes on, and on, and on ...
 * "General officer" is a description of a category of ranks, and therefore is not the same situation."
 * Similar discussions have occurred at talk:rear admiral and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. They, too, are unresolved.
 * By-the-way, "Rear admiral" is the example where "Rear Admiral" was speedily renamed to "Rear admiral", and now the rest of the population are trying to get it changed back.
 * I'm not sure what the way forward is. More later - go to do some other "stuff" now.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. The "big" discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68. -- Pdfpdf (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I didn't mean to provoke you. However, if you believe the Manual of Style (capital letters) is wrong, then I respectfully suggest that the proper course is for you to propose a change to the manual, and try to gather a consensus for it.  Until then, I don't really think it is appropriate to revert or undo edits that are consistent with the existing guideline.  The guideline represents a consensus; I fully acknowledge that consensus can change (although in this case I don't think it should), but a change in consensus needs to be discussed and agreed upon by the community, not enforced by individual editor(s). --Russ (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)
Thanks! :-) I'm not sure, though. I just did lots of editing, but there might be a quicker way to do it &mdash; unfortunately, I'm not much of an expert on wiki syntax, and tend just to work things out as I go along (I found out what to do at Meta:Help:Sorting). Sorry about that. Proteus (Talk) 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ash Power
I saw the under-construction, but they are not always genuine, and since the article was largely copyright, I ploughed on, sorry. There's nothing to stop you recreating, but why not write in a WP program first - easier, and less chance of problems - you can always tidy up the formatting with Wiki Ed when you paste in jimfbleak (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey mate, thanks for the invite, I'll see what I can do. As for my user page, that wording has bugged me since I created the page, I just have been to slack to go and fix it up, but I will do now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There we go mate, I've completed some work on Power's page, and I was able to find a bio but unfortunately it was a little outdate; it was on Power as a Brigadier and commander of the 1st Brigade. It did, naturally, come in handy though. The page is now just waiting for your approval and additional touches. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The eight medals include:
 * Member of the Order of Australia
 * Conspicuous Service Cross
 * Australian Active Service Medal (with 3 clasps, all are obscured, but I'm guessing they would be INTERFET, IRAQ 2003 & ICAT)
 * INTERFET medal
 * Australian Service Medal (1 clasp, I assume for Bougainville)
 * Defence Force Service Medal (3 clasps)
 * Australian Defence Medal
 * Legion of Merit (United States)

The Afghanistan and Iraq Medals are not included, but I presume he would be entitled to them, but at the stage this photo was taken he had yet to receive them. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New Australian military history articles
Hi Pdfpdf, you might be interested in adding new articles you create on senior figures in the ADF to the listing at Portal:Military of Australia/New articles relating to the Military of Australia‎. I scan the new articles list most days, but some slip through - like Richard Gary Wilson which I only spotted today! regards, Nick Dowling (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ADC
ADC usually refers to the person being an aide-de-camp to a vice-regal position - but I have only ever seen it used in situations where the person is acting in the ADC capacity. I also thought that you lost the post-nominal when you left the job.... and as CN I am pretty sure he wouldn't be a lowly ADC (except to the Queen perhaps????). Just guessing though... PalawanOz (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I forgot to mention thanks for the message you left on my talk page earlier.Moonbada (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard Webb
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Webb [section UEFA Euro 2008] and obviously here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Howard_Webb and here: http://nonsensopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Grafika:WebbNK1.jpg 83.175.191.128 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've looked. So what? WP is about fact, not opinion. Where are the facts that he "cheated"? How can what he's done be classified as "cheating"? Maybe "ill-advised", or "wrong" or even "stupid", but how is that "cheating"?
 * Also, if he were "a cheater", he would have a long reputation of cheating, and would never have gotten to the point of being a UEFA referee.
 * And even if he did "cheat" on this occasion, that doesn't make him "a cheater".
 * And then, quite simply, you can't go around saying those sorts of things in public and not expect legal action. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree. So "controversial" is most suitable word in this case. 83.175.191.128 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, his actions certainly seem to raise a lot of controversy!! Pdfpdf (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments, and unreferenced information
I refer to your comments on User_talk:Rhysydude

Please note that this sort of discussion is completely inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia (user pages included), as per WP:NPA. Comments such as "It seems to me that Xt881m is one of those people who would rather complain than actually do anything useful" and "Unlike Xt881m, you are actually trying to add value to WP" are an unhelpful, quite unnecessary, and quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy of "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Incidentally, I came across these comments while attempting to edit Yantaringa railway station, South Australia. I removed an edit that read "It is not known when the station/siding opened, possibly in the late 1800s (probably c1883)." The editor himself appears to have had no idea when the station actually opened, and merely guessed or speculated a date (leading to Xt881m's perfectly reasonable request to him to stop guessing information and back his edits up with actual verifiable fact). You then effectively reverted the edit by inserting the same information. Contrary to your assertion that "an indicative statement is better than no data at all", WP:V makes it quite clear that unreferenced, speculative information should be removed.

Do you have any verifiable sources which back up your edit? If so, please cite them. If not, please do not re-insert information which was an educated guess at best and was rightly removed from the article. Note that the burden is on you to cite verifiable sources for the information you want to include on Wikipedia, and is not on other editors to cite sources that disprove it. Zzrbiker (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me your point-of-view. I imagine that it is fairly obvious to you that I have a different point of view, and I don't agree with most of your POV.


 * "You then effectively reverted the edit by inserting the same information."
 * No. I didn't. I chose those words very carefully. If you re-read them, you will see that although the data is similar, the information is different.


 * "Contrary to your assertion that "an indicative statement is better than no data at all", WP:V makes it quite clear that unreferenced, speculative information should be removed."
 * "WP:V makes it quite clear that unreferenced, speculative information should be removed". Agreed. However, that statement is in no way contrary to my assertion that "an indicative statement is better than no data at all". If my edit was "speculative" (and unreferenced), then yes, it should be removed. But it isn't. It's just unreferenced. And when I find a precise reference, it will be neither speculative nor unreferenced.


 * "Do you have any verifiable sources which back up your edit?"
 * Yes. (I am now looking for a precise reference.)


 * "If not, please do not re-insert information which was an educated guess at best and was rightly removed from the article."
 * I actually agree with this sentence. However, as I do know of a verifiable source, the "If not" does not apply in this case.


 * In the fullness of time I will have that specific citation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)