User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive20

John Whitelaw (1921-2010)
Hi Pdfpdf, how are you? Just reading the new article, sorry for not responding sooner, been busy. I was wondering about the lead para, "In retirement we was very active on many councils and committees". Is this supposed to be "In retirement he was very active on many councils and committees???? Do we know what Council's (I am assuming local government) and committees he was on??? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Pdfpdf, how are you? - Well, I really hate all the data entry and catchup required before I do the income tax. (Once it's done, the Income Tax itself is easy.) So, I guess you could say I'm bored and unmotivated. It's only the thought of getting the refund cheque now, rather than in 4 months time, which is motivating me.
 * Is this supposed to be ...  - Yes. (I missed that one.)
 * Do we know what Council's (I am assuming local government) and committees he was on???  - Yes:
 * Following his retirement from the military, Major General Whitelaw maintained close ties with veteran and Service organisations. On 20 July 1979, he became the inaugural executive director of the National Farmers Federation. He was active with the Department of Veterans Affairs and served on numerous councils including the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, and the Australian Capital Territory Treatment Monitoring Committee.
 * No, it seems that none of them were Local Govt.
 * (Back to the tedious data entry.)
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Division of Boothby

 * See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics

I'm going to answer this for you, since Timeshift is short on time. You ask about "standards" - take a look at the category with over 150 pages of election results, although the fact that there were fully formatted tables on the Boothby page itself was surely a bit of a hint. The criticism regarding "2-bit operation" is probably a reference to the fact that your tables had something in common with the tables we were using three or four years ago. Take a look at how the other pages have been done - I've been ploughing through them (it takes ages) for a couple of years now and I'm almost done WA, so alternatively you could wait until I get up to them, but by all means go ahead and do Boothby if you want to. But please follow the established conventions unless you have a very good reason to change them, and if you do please discuss it at WT:AUP first. I'm not exaggerating when I say that what I've done already has taken at least 100 hours, so any change is also going to be a massive undertaking. (As an aside, in one of your edit summaries you questioned my assertion that "trust me, it's easier this way". Well, hopefully from above you can see why it might be rather galling to be told that. :) From my experience having them in separate lines makes it much easier to fill in the information with copy-and-pasting and such.)

Regarding the AEC classifications: as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. We give the classification given by the AEC, end of. If there are well-referenced doubts about that (as in published sources, not our own original research), then perhaps a note somewhere would be appropriate. As for the number of electors - I suspect Barrylb's reasons are that this is a constantly fluctuating number and it's therefore difficult to have a number that is not out of date. I hope that this has helped with your questions, and please do feel free to dive in and have a go with Boothby, but sticking to the established standards please. Frickeg (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for such a useful answer. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We give the classification given by the AEC, end of. - End of what?
 * If there are well-referenced doubts about that (as in published sources, not our own original research), then perhaps a note somewhere would be appropriate.
 * As I wrote, there are well-referenced FACTS to the contrary, therefore "a note somewhere would be appropriate".
 * However, when I placed such a note, it was removed.
 * How do you suggest I address such a situation where the quoted information is incorrect? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Frickeg.
 * Re the classification system: the seat appears to include several outer metropolitan locales like Marino and Belair, and several inner metropolitan areas like Daw Park and Marion. Pearce in WA only includes a few stray suburbs in the outer north and also contains several rural shires and at least two major rural towns, yet is also classified "outer metropolitan". Orderinchaos 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Frickeg - So do I.
 * Re the classification system - Neither Marino, nor Belair, are outer metropolitan - there are at least 10km of suburbs south of them.
 * Nor does Boothby contain ANY rural shires or rural towns. The "comparison" with Pearce is NOT a useful comparison.
 * Also, there are NO developing suburbs in Boothby; they are ALL well established.
 * Quite simply, Boothby is NOT "outer metropolitan".
 * This is NOT my opinion. It is NOT original research. It is FACT - easily demonstrated fact.
 * How do you suggest I address such a situation where the quoted information is incorrect? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you entirely misunderstood my point - I was saying Pearce is really "rural", not "outer metropolitan" at all, but is also classed outer metropolitan by the AEC. I disagree re Belair, it's the equivalent of our hills suburbs like Kalamunda (it backs onto a national park and roads from it immediately leave the metro area), just Adelaide has a much smaller metro area so it "seems" more inner. My personal opinion is we shouldn't carry the AEC's designations at all and should simply state where it is located factually, without subjective comparative references. i.e. "It is located between 6 and 15 km south of Adelaide, extending from the beachside suburbs of Brighton, Seacliff and Marino to the Belair National Park on Adelaide's eastern fringe, | and includes the suburbs of Marion, Mitchell Park, Daw Park, Mitcham, Pasadena, Belair and Blackwood | [major suburbs only; either this or leave it out and follow with a list under a heading]. It is home to the largest shopping centre in Adelaide, Westfield Marion, and the main campus of Flinders University, and until 2008 also housed the Tonsley Park Mitsubishi plant. At the 2006 census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that the median income for Boothby was slightly above average for both Adelaide and the state, while Boothby's median SEIFA index of advantage-disadvantage for the 2006 census was between 1000 and 1025 (56th decile). The median age was 42 compared to 38 across Adelaide." I provide this only as an example, if you want it and the sources that go with it, let me know. That sort of reportage is factual, neutral, sourceable and covers a few bases without a need to resort to vague (if sourceable) terms or WP:OR explanations. It would also not be too much of a stretch to do for every metropolitan electorate in Australia, unless it's a really odd one like the ultra-outer-metro ones like Pearce, Canning, Macquarie, McEwen, etc. Orderinchaos 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "I think you entirely misunderstood my point" - So it would seem! Thanks for the clarification.
 * "My personal opinion is we shouldn't carry the AEC's designations at all and should simply state where it is located factually, without subjective comparative references." - You make a good point. I'm forced to admit that I'm not sure what my opinion is. You have given me food for thought. Again, thank you.
 * Hence, I'll think about it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, How do you suggest I address a situation where the quoted information is incorrect? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, you'll need to source it - and not just with facts, with an source actually stating that the information is wrong. Just citing the "facts" makes it original research. Looks like it may be irrelevant anyway, though, since a consensus to abandon the designations altogether appears to be forming. Frickeg (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Whatever it is, you'll need to source it" - Of course.
 * "Looks like it may be irrelevant anyway ... " - It's convenient when that sort of thing happens, isn't it!
 * Again, thanks for your useful and polite replies. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pacific Star & Pacific Star w rosette (clasp).
Colours corrected. Thanks for alert ;)

Cheers. Mboro. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing them! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the best way to get a set of svg ribbons 100:30 is the upload of the new svg files with ratio needed... Most of the biograms on pl-wiki (I would rather say, that all of them) used 218:60 (most of them: uploaded by Orem) and for that reason I won't upload ribbons with different ratios... Sorry... Best regards. Mboro. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To create (and modify) svg files I use Inkscape. Cheers. Mboro. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Boothby again
Um ... you agreed with the decision to leave out the 2010 candidates. And as for the formatting - I'm sorry to be abrupt, but it is pointless. The headings are contained within the tables. What purpose do a whole heap of hidden "2010"s serve? I wasn't trying to be rude, I was trying to explain why I was getting rid of them. Frickeg (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. What can I say? "You were unsuccessful in explaining your rationale." No big deal, but you might want to consider how others might respond BEFORE you hit the "save page" button ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think you're being a little thin-skinned. My summary was not intended to be personal or insulting, it was intended to be brief and explain why I had made the changes. And you might like to try assuming some good faith yourself - accusing someone of an edit war is hardly helpful. None of my comments have been directed towards you or your behaviour, only to content. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. Frickeg (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. 1) I don't agree with your point of view. 2) I don't agree with your assessment or summary.  3) It's pretty effing obvious that somebody who reverts something that's under discussion is starting an edit war. 4) I'm going to bed. I will respond in 24 hours. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I apologise that I upset you. It honestly wasn't my intention. I look forward to hearing your position at WT:AUP. Frickeg (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, and more importantly, your intent. It is appreciated.
 * (If it does disappoint you, I'm genuinely sorry, but) I see no point in continuing the discussion.
 * It appears (to me) that you've already made up your mind; it seems unlikely (to me) that anything I might say would cause you to change your POV.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that wiki-policy-documents say that no-one "owns" a page, it seems blatently obvious to me that somebody who has put a lot of work into an area would be irritated by a newbie doing "things" that the are contrary to "things" that were previously agreed by others (at least once before).
 * The contradiction / conflict here is that although it might be an excellent idea and an improvement, the status quo was achieved with much blood, sweat & tears, and those that have put the effort into bleeding, sweating & and crying are unenthusiastic about relinquishing their achieved-with-considerable-personal-effort status quo.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm unimpressed & unaffected by your personal attacks and statements about "good faith", because I expect they have more to do with preserving the status quo, than they have with me and my actions. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you have been working hard and making many useful contributions, and your work & efforts are obviously appreciated by your colleagues. (Congratulations.)
 * Also, you manners, attitude and (it would seem to me) general approach to life is a vast improvement on Timeshift's "grumpy old man" attitude. (And I applaud you for that, too.)
 * If you care, my motive was to lighten 1/200th of your load by contributing to the Boothby page. After some "ructions", (is that a word?) I found that there were some conventions that I hadn't complied with. So I made efforts to comply with them.
 * But I've now decided that you-and-your-colleagues-"rules" require too much effort to comply with, and seem to be inflexible, so I've decided to go back to contributing to areas where my contributions not only add value, but the value they add is actually appreciated.
 * So, I thank you for your substantial efforts in adding to WP in an area that is of interest to me, and wish you continuing success. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NSW cricketer photo poll
Right, I've set it up. I made some adjustments to my technique, so hopefully it's better. Many thanks again  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  09:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Houston, we have a problem ...
My apologies, I didn't realise that the images were not free use. Thanks for pointing that out.  SCΛRE  CROW  10:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Helpme templates
Hi there, when using helpme please place it on a User talk: page and not and article Talk: page. I'm afraid I don't have the answer to your question, but by placing the template here I'm sure you'll get an answer from someone who knows soon. §hep Talk  16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Charles Groves Wright Anderson

wikipedia display bug
helpme

There is a solution to the wikipedia bug where the "[edit]"s are bunched rather than at the correct place, but I can't remember what it is. Can anyone else? (Thanks in advance.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See How to fix bunched-up edit links. :) Avic ennasis  @ 16:47, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan
Regarding your edit and the associated comment, a light edit of the article, I appreciate the effort you have gone to, but I'm afraid that I can't recognise any value that all that effort has contributed. (In other words, if I reverted your edit, I can't see that any value would be lost.) I'm extremely uncomfortable about this, because it seems to me that you have gone to considerable effort, but it seems to me that you haven't achieved anything. Hence, in a state of confusion, I make this posting and ask: "Please excuse my ignorance, but what did/does your edit achieve?" I await your reply. In good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would you be tempted to reverse an edit that does not have errors in it? 83d40m (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question! However, you seem to have misinterpreted my words and/or intent. I wasn't, and am not, suggesting reversion. Please re-read what I wrote. So, not wishing to engage in a longwinded and somewhat pointless interchange, I'll just move to the endpoint: "Please excuse my ignorance, but what did/does your edit achieve?"

I await your reply. In good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

responded to your note
I responded to your note as requested, have found no reply as indicated by you (above) as preferred there -- will dump it after another week without reply 83d40m (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I don't wish to sound brain dead - but I'm not sure I understand your reply.
 * That is, unless you are saying: "As you requested, I have replied. Promptly. But you haven't responded. If you haven't responded within a week, I'll "dump it".
 * If that's the case, then: Sorry, I didn't notice your reply. Mea Culpa. Thanks for the note on my talk page.
 * If otherwise: Sorry, I don't understand.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but without some issue that needs to be resolved in my edit, I feel no need to defend or explicate it. Patently&mdash;values, standards, and motivations differ among editors. I am not inclined to chats on talk pages that have no benefit for articles or relate to the topics, being more interested in spending my available time editing. Tempus fugit. Thanks for your inquiry and apologies for my failure to respond as you expect. 83d40m (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Regarding your question, I granted rollback to Ronz because he asked for it, and when I reviewed his contributions, his reverts of vandalism were good, and his reverts of non-vandalism were explained rather than reckless (and as such, he wouldn't abuse rollback by reverting non-vandalism). I know it's been well over a month since you asked, but I haven't logged in until the last week or so. Thanks. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 11:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

General officer
Comment on talk. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)