User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive23

Jan-Feb07 Mar-Apr07 May-Jun07 Jul-Aug07 Sep-Oct07 Nov-Dec07 Jan-Feb08 Mar-Apr08 May-Jun08 Jul-Aug08 Sep-Oct08 Nov-Dec08 Jan-Feb09 Mar-Apr09 May-Jun09 Jul-Aug09 Sep-Oct09 Nov-Dec09 Jan-Feb10 Mar-Apr10 May-Jun10 Jul-Aug10 Sep-Oct10 Nov-Dec10 Jan-Feb11 Mar-Apr11 May-Jun11 Jul-Aug11 Sep-Oct11 Nov-Dec11
 * Archives

=2001-01-03=

Talk:Xavier College
Greetings! I see your refactoring of Talk:Xavier College triggered a bit of an edit war. I've contacted the other editor with a suggested course of action to resolve the situation—which turned into an WP:AN3 report on him.

One of the items pertinent to you:
 * Remove entirely the Talk:Xavier College as a comment about an editor and not the article

The comment appears to have the same problem as the "off-topic" thread above: it's down the slippery slope of talking about an editor and not how to improve the article. While I think you were acting in good faith when you left the comment, it does read as targeted at a single editor and not in the full spirit of collaborative editing, and I think removing the comment would be a gesture of goodwill.

Accordingly, if offers my proposed resolution to the AN3 report, I'll be removing the comment. If you object, please reply here, on your talk page. (I'm watching it, but if you reply in the next hour, please leave a Talkback on my talk page, as I may be in the middle of wrapping up the report, and I'll want to see your reply ASAP.)

Again, I agree with your reasoning for refactoring the talk page comments, and nothing in this should be implied as a warning or sanction for any of your behaviour.

Thank you, Happy New Year, and happy editing! —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've only just noticed this edit of yours! (I wish I had noticed it before I'd posted to AN3. Oh well. C'est la vie.)

I agree with just about everything you say, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify for me why highlighting off-topic material, without making any changes to it, is "refactoring"?

In principle, I'm happy to remove the section, but as I have argued at AN3, I feel that if you are going to remove that section, you should also remove the other off topic material. (And if you intend to do that, you should probably seek HiLo48's feedback first.)

However, I'm open to your suggestions and advice. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:REFACTOR, hiding text from view is part of pruning text. Since collapsing removes the text from ready view, I'd argue that yes, it's within the scope of refactoring. Also, unless I missed some text on the talk page, my offer to Danjel included collapsing the discussion in question.


 * Then again, rather than just saying it's off-topic, I proposed a collapse message that got specific, saying that the conversation turned from improving the article to specific editors at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Refactor) Thanks.
 * (Removal) I'm a confused by your reply. Are you suggesting: hiding "The Last Post", or having me delete it, or having you delete it, or are you suggesting a 4th course of action that I haven't identified.
 * (BTW: To repeat/clarify: I agree with your assessment/categorisation of "The Last Post".)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Had Danjel accepted my offer, I would have deleted it. If you want to delete it (i.e., withdraw the comment), I think that would be perfect. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm not happy to have it completely deleted. I have refactored it to remove my "attacking the person" comments. Thanks for your help and advice. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at AN3
This is to let you have been mentioned by me at the Administrator's Noticeboard []. - danjel  (talk to me) 17:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The report is actually the WP:AN3 report I mentioned above, and not at the general incident board (ANI). I have re-subject-lined the discussion accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-01-05 =

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies
Sorry, but why are you requesting speedy deletion of these templates? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * nor can I figure it out--they are named as sub[ages, which is not a good idea, but not   subpages in the usual sense--renaming might be appropriate, not deletion. some of them are empty & will apparently be permanently empty (for example, a navy ranks subpage for a nation that has no navy), and tfd would be appropriate for them.  Some need editing. This sort of way of doing things is not a reasonable way to proceed--no admin can be expected to know what you have in mind, and speedy deletion is only for things that are obvious, even to unsophisticated people like us Wikipedia admins. Before you do another batch like this, consult and explain. This sort of nomination is disruptive, and I warn you against continuing. I am prepared to do a block to stop it until an explanation is forthcoming if I see any more such--there will be an undue amount of cleanup involved.  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not requesting speedy deletion any more; you're planning to list at TfD. Sorry, but why are you requesting deletion of these templates? I'm looking forward to understanding what is going on. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The ones I tagged aren't being used anywhere... I don't have a problem with the others (e.g. Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/United States) - I wouldn't want to see them deleted. But how is this useful to anyone? Mhiji 18:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh! Well! Now I think I understand! (Your explanation is much clearer than the edit comment.) Thanks.
 * Hmmmm. Interesting. I can understand that the Royal Australian Air Force would (should?) NEVER appear on a page of NATO members. Regarding Italian Warrant Officers, I have no knowledge (or interest), so I can't usefully comment.
 * However, I'm very surprised that the "blank" ones are unused - I'll look into that.
 * Meanwhile, thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The other unused one are listed here if you want to look into them too. Mhiji 11:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's useful. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete request of templates
He's been busy! (Have a look at his contributions list.) He's obviously "automated", (and I'm not!) Placing the "hang on"s is considerably more work than placing the CSDs! Is there some way you can do a mass undo? Or failing that, can you wave your magic wand over: Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 12:13, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and insignia/OR/Thailand ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:13, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Blank ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:13, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Blank ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:13, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Portugal ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:13, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Luxembourg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Belgium ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Slovakia ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Luxembourg ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW)) (top) [rollback]
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Hungary ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Czech Republic ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/Italy ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/RO/Greece ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OR/Thailand ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OR/Kingdom of Greece ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Air Forces/OR/Portugal ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:12, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Air Forces/OF/Australia ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))


 * P.S. I didn't design or create these templates, (and there are dozens of others similarly named), but I don't want to see them deleted. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. These two are two of the "boiler plates". Pdfpdf (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 12:13, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Blank ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
 * 12:13, 4 January 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Blank ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))


 * I think I caught most of them--see my comment on User talk:Mhiji, and also on the many similar TfD's he has been placing.    DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-01-07 =

Nancy Wilson and Heart
I have no problem with your edit--it is as accurate as mine. My problem was with the previous version, which asserted that she and her sister were merely a "part", which, while technically accurate, dramatically underplays their pivotal role.

Your edit is better than mine, but not because of what you appear to perceive as inaccuracy, but rather, because of the ambiguity of mine. When I said "formed", you appear to think I meant definition 31 or 32. And you are correct in saying that would not be correct. But for the record, I was using the word with definition 33 in mind, which is accurate. We'll leave your wording in place, which eliminates the ambiguity. 98.82.21.92 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jolly good. Thanks for your note. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  14:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint
Please see WP:AN3. The case is closed (for now) on the assumption that the reverts have stopped. If there is more warring on this topic, all bets are off. You are urged to use noticeboards such as WP:MCQ to get consensus on the NFCC issue before touching the article again. Feel free to present more reasoning on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-01-08 =

Request regarding "Fair Use"
I have read the pages I have been pointed to, but can not work out what the problem is. Are you able to explain to me (simply, please) why File:CA-Army-OF9.gif may not appear on page Canadian Forces Land Force Command? (If you are able, I will be extremely greatful.) Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I can't. I'm not very good at dealing with files so I can't help. I think you were questioning why I reverted the edit again. Technically I only reverted Lerd's edit (which had no reason) and came up with an edit summary agreeing with delta and Black Kite's point of view. You could ask one of these two if you're looking for help. Minima  c  ( talk ) 14:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply.
 * "I think you were questioning why I reverted the edit again." - No.
 * You had not been involved in the kerfuffle, and therefore seemed to be independent. I just assumed that, as you had done the revert, you had knowledge of the subject matter.
 * No big deal. Cheers (and thanks), Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian insignia

 * (Deletion log); 16:25 . . Courcelles (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Navy sleeve Adm Can pre2010.png" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (CSDH))
 * (diff | hist) . . User talk:Pdfpdf‎; 16:22 . . (-1,544) . . Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) (Thanks. db-g7 - A free use .svg now exists) [rollback]
 * (diff | hist) . . File:Navy sleeve ASlt.png‎; 16:10 . . (+45) . . Courcelles (Talk | contribs) (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) [rollback]
 * (diff | hist) . . File:Navy sleeve Cdr.png‎; 16:10 . . (+45) . . Courcelles (Talk | contribs) (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) [rollback]
 * (diff | hist) . . File:Navy sleeve Lt(N).png‎; 16:10 . . (+45) . . Courcelles (Talk | contribs) (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) [rollback]
 * (diff | hist) . . File:Navy sleeve SLt.png‎; 16:10 . . (+45) . . Courcelles (Talk | contribs) (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW)) [rollback]

Hi. Can you delete the others too, or do I need to individually put a db-g7 on all of them? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No need for tags- I've G7'ed those four. Thanks.  Courcelles 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-01-20 =

Canadian insignia
If you can go by http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-img_timestamp&img_user_text=Jackytar&max=25&ofs=0&max=250 and help me replace the old images that I have redrawn, that would make my work a lot easier. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Zscout370/gallery has what I created so far (need to add File:CDN-Navy-Adm-Shoulder.svg that I recently uploaded). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Air Force insignia done too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it seems you also dealt with a user who uploaded a lot of NZ and AU medals and ribbons too. I guess I will focus on that shortly to also get you more free images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

CSD G7
I'm missing something. You've tagged a number of files with G7, yet they were originally uploaded by User:Jackytar.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm missing something ... Yeah, and me too.
 * Nothing's ever simple, is it! Over time, Jackytar has uploaded a large number of non-free images to Commons and en:WP, marking them as "own work". I put "fair-use" on some of them, and created "fair-use" copies of others. Zscout370 has been making free-use .svg versions. Thus, I've been adding G7 to the non-free ones I uploaded. Seems I've been sloppy, and also added G7 to some of those uploaded by Jackytar. I guess they need a different tag. (The one that says "this non-free image has been superceeded by a free-use version". Thanks eagle-eyes. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. As a new admin, I've missed a couple things, and just wanted to make sure. I figured there was probably a good explanation. -- SPhilbrick  T  14:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very polite of you! (I'm not altogether sure that "Oops, I screwed up" is a good explanation ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Meetup/Adelaide/WP10 Adelaide

 * Time: 11:30am
 * Duration: 2 hours
 * Date: 15 January 2011 (Saturday)
 * Location: Scoozi Caffe Bar, 272 Rundle Street, Adelaide SA 5000
 * RSVP: 8 January 2011
 * Note: Pizza and drinks to be provided

Elizabeth
Hi, I see that you recently edited parts of Elizabeth, South Australia. I'm just letting you know that I've recently removed material that unfortunately happens to include your edits. I did this because the material relates to the former City of Elizabeth more so than the suburb of the same name. In regards to these suburb articles (indeed all articles), my view is that if it doesn't directly relate to the primary topic, it should be moved to where it is directly relevant. Nonetheless, I don't want the removed stuff to disappear entirely. Accordingly, do you think the material would be best added to a new article (City of Elizabeth) or to a City of Elizabeth section in the City of Playford article? Or do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks ~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~  ~ (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * " ... I'm just letting you know ... " - Thanks. Very much appreciated.
 * " ... I did this because ... " - Fair enough.
 * " ... my view is ... " - I agree.


 * "Nonetheless, I don't want the removed stuff to disappear entirely." - That's good to read.
 * "Accordingly, do you think the material would be best?" - Hmmm. Good question!


 * What have the other amalgamated council articles done? (Local Government Areas of South Australia)
 * City of Charles Sturt - ''It came into being on 1 January 1997 as a result of the amalgamation of the City of Hindmarsh Woodville and the City of Henley and Grange. (City of Hindmarsh, City of Woodville)
 * City of Holdfast Bay - The council was formed in the mid 1990s, when the former local government councils of Glenelg and Brighton amalgamated. (City of Glenelg, City of Brighton, City of Brighton, Victoria, City of Brighton, South Australia)
 * City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters - Nothing! City of Norwood, City of Payneham, City of St Peters
 * City of Playford - ''It was formed in 1997 through the merger of City of Elizabeth and City of Munno Para, which were formed in 1955 and 1988, respectively. The City of Munno Para had previously been the District Council of Munno Para, originally established in 1853.
 * etc.
 * etc.


 * Well, nothing to go on from South Australia! Looking at other states:
 * Qld: City of Brisbane - ''" ... the Brisbane City Council, in 1925 by amalgamating twenty smaller LGAs ... ", followed by a string of separate articles.
 * Vic: City of Brighton - i.e. a separate article.


 * Conclusion: (i.e. "What do I think?") My suggestion: New separate article (City of Elizabeth). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Being a planned city, a City of Elizabeth article certainly seems notable. I suspect, though, that it will remain a stub for quite a while, until someone with more interest in the topic decides to fiddle with it.
 * If it's okay with you, I'll copy excerpts from our discussion to Talk:City of Elizabeth. This should give future editors some idea of the reasoning behind why an article was created about a dead LGA. It might also encourage the creation of similar articles (e.g. City of Norwood, City of Glenelg).
 * Anyway, thanks again for your help.~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~  ~ (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That all sounds good to me. Give me a "hoi" if you think I can add anything useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-01-22 =

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember: If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it


 * Congratulations on your new bit! jmcw (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Errrrrr. Thanks to both of you! (I think?) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuisance editors
What are my options with respect to a nuisance editor who repeatedly places "stuff" on my talk page despite repeated requests for him not to, and despite repeated statements that he is not welcome here? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Pdfpdf. There's a little bit more to this than just nuisance editing. I should point you towards WP:CIVILITY on how you handled yourself at Talk:Concordia College, Adelaide, specifically this edit. Having said that, you are allowed to remove any messages from your talk page (except certain notices), and I will be putting something on Danjel's page to that effect. I suggest you stay away from him if you can, otherwise follow Dispute resolution. I hope this helps but feel free to ask if it doesn't, either on my talk page or with a new helpme tag.  Worm   14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi "Worm". Thanks for your reply, but not surprisingly (due to lack of information about long ongoing past history) you have been distracted from the point. I am fed up with Danjel. I (and numerous others) have been polite, reasonable, rational, tolerant and civil to him on many occasions. We have all wasted our time - Danjel does not read what has been written, and goes to tortuos efforts to avoid anything relevant that does not match his own view of the world. I want nothing to do with him. I want him to get out of my life, and stay out of my life. Permanently.


 * Hence, I will ask again: "What are my options with respect to a nuisance editor who repeatedly places "stuff" on my talk page despite repeated requests for him not to, and despite repeated statements that he is not welcome here?"


 * Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I see you've gone past the point of assuming good faith. I'll have a look back through past interactions, see if I can see these efforts to ignore what's happening. As to your question, unless an administrator is willing to impose an interaction ban, I do not believe there is any way of forcing danjel to comply. Be aware that an interaction ban is generally placed when both parties are causing issues, and look bad on both parties. If there's any way you can, just ignore it. Take a break for the night and try to relax. Oh and yes, I am aware how pithy this sounds, but it is the best advice I can give. Worm   15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Yes, I agree that ignoring him is probably the best approach. OK. Will do. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a discussion with User:Danjel and reviewed your interactions. I am afraid just don't see the issues you do and would advise you to try and keep a cool head. I have suggested the following voluntary "interaction ban" which I hope you are both agreeable to.
 * User:Danjel and User:Pdfpdf voluntarily agree to refrain from commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each others user talk pages for an indefinite period of time. Both are reminded to remain civil in any discussions of each others edits.
 * I do have to say that your reaction was out of proportion to the situation, and you would do well to remember that we are a collaborative project. Please try to remember that people are trying to help.  Worm   17:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I don't post on Danjel's page, that's easy to agree with.
 * OK, I have no problem with I "voluntarily agree to refrain from commenting on Danjel at any venue on Wikipedia for an infinite period of time." Pdfpdf (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Worm": Thanks for your efforts - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Danjel has also agreed to the same, as long as you keep to this - staying off the other's talk pages and commenting on edits not the editor (remaining civil!) - we should be able to get back to building an encyclopedia. If anything goes wrong, you know where to find me.  Worm   10:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-02-16 =

Tagging userpages
No worries It happens all the time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:OzVC2
FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I've been watching all the related pages but I've been too busy to get involved in it all. Seems there are a few editors watching all the VC pages now which is great! Regards, Woody (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I don't remember every being able to write that on Wikipedia! Woody (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy listing
I have restored the redirect at Information Operations and listed it at Redirects for discussion. Logan Talk Contributions 15:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fauldings
Thanks for doing the business for me. I do enjoy putting pages together but get terribly confused with the WP: mechanics. I am now thinking of articles on other lost Adelaide icons - Bickfords, Simpson, Pope Products, Amscol, Woodroofe. Thank God we still have Coopers!!!! And one day I'll put up a user page - probably steal yours, replacing Torrens Park with Marion/Bridgewater :) --Doug butler (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Are senior public servants really notable?
Re: Martin Bowles? Seems to just have a job with the government, nothing really notable. Is there something I'm missing? Thought I'd check before PRODing. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Are senior public servants really notable?" - I would have thought so; perhaps there is something you've missing. On-the-other-hand, perhaps there is something I'm missing. I'll review the notability guidlines/criteria and get back to you with a better and more useful answer. You're not in a hurry, are you? (After all, the article's been there since April 2008 ... ) Thanks for your note. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. Butting in, this guy does seem very borderline to me -- Secretary of Defence Support they'd probably be no issue but Deputy Secretary seems to be pushing it, as it doesn't look like he's done anything earth-shattering. On the other hand, if a few third-party sources (i.e. not just his official ADR bio) could be found then he might justify his place here. Just following on from a discussion we had at MilHist on general/flag/air officers, I think third-party coverage is the big thing, not simply the rank or position. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No rush, I understand that we have tightened up a bit on BLP requirements in the past 3 years, so when he popped up on a UBLP list I'd thought I give you a courtesy call rather than jump straight to a deletion discussion. Agree with Ian regarding 3rd party coverage, but think it should also be significant coverage of him, not just trivial reporting of what he said at a senate/dept hearing etc.  To complicate matters a recent news report has him in the climate change dept now... but lets try to keep this away from the CC cabals here! The-Pope (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been reflecting on the topic, and realise that I have changed my "angle-of-view" (if not my "point-of-view") over the last few years since I created the article. The issue I'm hanging on to is "accountability and visibility of people in public office", and that's why I'm hesitant about obliterating all reference to him. Otherwise, I find I largely agree with what both you and Ian have said. Perhaps a brief reference to him in some other article would address my concerns?
 * Regarding your original question (Are senior public servants really notable?), my original answer needs expansion. Perhaps "One would hope so, but it seems to be rarely the case." Personally, I think the numerous factors involved make it a bit complicated.
 * For example, take the SES-level-2 who put together and executed the second and third Telstra sell-offs. I would have thought he should be notable. Searching using his name, it's not difficult to identify his achievements. However, I'd be very impressed if, when searching for information about his achievements, you can determine his name! (i.e. Unlike Ken Henry, he has NO profile.)


 * I'll leave it to you to decide the best solution, (but I would be interested to learn what you'd decided.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Today's amusement
http://twitpic.com/3w989u Pdfpdf (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

United Nations Korea Medal
Edit comment: (a) Do you really believe File:Korea Medaille van de Verenigde Naties.jpg is "own work"?? (b) How/why does File:United Nations Service Medal for Korea reverse.png fail "fair use"?

The front of the medal does state it is an own work (the Dutch were awarded this medal, so it could be from his father's or grandfather's collection). Second, the reverse of the medal has nothing but the text "‘FOR SERVICE IN DEFENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS'" in English. We have the text displayed in the article, and the reverse of the medal is described in the text. Plus, the one main rule about fair use images is if they can be recreated and made free. Given that US soldiers were awarded the medal, it is available in the US to purchase and take photos. Ok, so you don't believe the first image is an own work. Fine, then use http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/images/medals/UnitedNationsMedalsKorea.jpg or want the real thing at http://roskam.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/highresolution/ae282c47-4264-4e65-92c0-b23cef338cf7.jpg (also PD). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Now that I understand, I agree with you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I try very hard, when it comes to fair use, to find replacements. If I cannot find, I will try and make. In the case of medals, they can easily be recreated (unless there is some elements of copyright around that we both do not know about). Ribbons, drawing them is easy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, any medal images we could salvage from http://www.flickr.com/photos/watt_dabney/3022322629/ ? This could replace a lot of fair use images at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Zealand_Crown_Copyright_images User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno, but it sounds like a good idea. It's a beautiful day here - 21C, bright sunshine, blue skies - I'll have a look when it's dark outside. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No hurry, just giving you ideas. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful templates
Can anyone tell me the name of the template that says something like "the quoted reference does not support this claim" or something like "does not appear in the quoted reference", or similar? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed verification. Cheers  CharlieEchoTango ]] 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep! That's the one. Thanks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Tennant (politician)
Wow - I go for some lunch, and come back to find the mess of bullet points transformed into proper text. Nice work. PamD (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Ma'am. We aim to please. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to comment on this too - great work. :) I noticed the article when you first started it, and it is very different now. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Job Hallett
Can you create a Category:Australian manufacturers or suggest one I could use? PS. any idea why I lose half my WP taskbar including the < /ref >?--Doug butler (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug,
 * >"Can you create a Category:Australian manufacturers" - Yes certainly. And so can you, if you wish.
 * The easiest way is 1) go to the page you wish to add the category to 2) hit the "edit" button 3) go to the bottom of the text on the page 4) on a new line, add the text 5) save the page. This will put Category:Australian manufacturers at the bottom of the page. i.e. It will be red.
 * 6) click on the red link 7) Describe what this category is about 8) save the page.
 * Hey presto!
 * You may want to make this newly created category a subcategory of another category. If so, perform steps 1-4 again. i.e. On the page of this newly created category, 9) hit the "edit" button 10) go to the bottom of the text on the page 11) on a new line, add the text 12) save the page.
 * Notes:
 * I'm happy to do it for you if you prefer.
 * If you have any questions, I'm happy to (try to) answer them.
 * >"any idea why I lose half my WP taskbar" - To be honest, no, not really. However, there are lots of helpful people on WP. (Yes, I know. There are lots who aren't, too ... ) On your Talk page, put the template, and then ask your question. As is happens, there is an excellent example above - you can see that it didn't take very long at all before a kind soul replied, and replied with the answer I was seeking.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll give it a go--Doug butler (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One last thing on this subject, I really should have made this page "J. Hallett and Son", and the redirect "Job Hallett". "J. Hallett and Sons" was wrong. Could you please do the switcheroo for me (grovel)?--Doug butler (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC
I apologise for dragging you into this but I cited your experience with at Requests for comment/Bidgee. I would not have done so except it demonstrates a pattern of behaviour by Danjel that I thought needed to be considered at that RfC. It is not my intent to try and drag you into any dispute you would rather avoid, this note is simply a courtesy. Again, my apologies. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you of thinking of me - no need to apologise. If I can, not only am I happy to help - I'm quite keen. FYI, I have entered into an undertaking to avoid pointing out the (adjective deleted) behaviour of a certain (noun deleted) . The truth be told, I looked at the RfC on the weekend, and couldn't work out what to add. I haven't looked at the page again yet, but I'm hoping you have given me an entre. So please, don't apologise - your request is welcomed. The only problem is, if I express my true opinion, it will do our mutual friend more harm than good. Hence, I will try very hard to express an opinion that adds value to our mutual friend's case. The reason for this post is to warn you that, for the FYI reason stated above, my posting at the RfC will not necessarily be what either you or I would expect. In closing, thank you of thinking of me, and for the entre. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Is the Yellow Monkey situation still a train wreck? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for interrupting, but in terms of YM - yes, although if he returns and makes some basic offers about behavior, he should have the support of ArbCom to give him a chance to address concerns that way. ArbCom, if I read it correctly, want him to have a chance to address concerns through normal editing, rather than seeing things escalate without giving him that opportunity. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A very timely interruption! I was about to try to work out what to say at the RfC. Any advice/input appreciated - if you prefer a less public forum, please be advised that my email is enabled.Email go.png Pdfpdf (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be honest, I'd be inclined to hold off for a bit, as the RFC/U was never properly certified, so I'm not sure that it is viable. There's neither a clear dispute nor evidence of dispute resolution - although I think the latter might be tricky, given that there isn't really something that can be resolved, as there was no actual locus to the problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Bilby here. Commenting at this point would only induce drama, and I think it would be less drama inducing to hang back, at least until it's certified.  Worm    TT   10:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)@Pdfpdf. If you choose to comment, be honest, factual and non-abusive and I am sure it will be fine. Regardless of your undertaking, I don't think it should prevent you from participation in an RfC where you have been mentioned. Sadly the eventual result of this RfC if allowed to continue will be much the same as the YM one, the loss of a productive editor who&mdash;like most of us&mdash;sometimes makes a mistake when provoked. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If in doubt, listen to Bilby and not me! :) Bilby is much wiser than yours truly. Probably best to hold off. The only evidence of an earlier attempt at dispute resolution is a third opinion at Talk:Cairns, Queensland after which it appears to me at least that Bidgee disengaged. The RfC is wildly premature. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well this is a happy nest of collusion little private discussion (see User_talk:Jeffro77). :) In any case, it isn't my intention for Bidgee to be banned or some other such action that might result in "the loss of a productive editor". The problem is not that Bidgee "sometimes makes a mistake when provoked". Everyone makes mistakes, myself included. The problem is that, in addition to his initial argument being demonstrably wrong, Bidgee continues to maintain his personal attack tribute.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing improper about this discussion and your continued insinuation that there is, despite your strike-out, should be withdrawn in its entirety. I have never suggested that you wanted to see Bidgee banned but taking the nuclear option of an RfC/U to "resolve" this matter will have a similar chilling effect on his future participation here. We are all supposed to be here to improve the encyclopedia and we do it because we enjoy it. We do not come here to have to spend our time defending ourselves against action taken against us in multiple fora. It strikes me as the most likely outcome of all of this is Bidgee deciding that further participation here at Wikipedia was no longer worth the drama. That would solve the dispute I guess but it would not be my preferred outcome. Mattinbgn (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I don't want to see another YM train wreck, and I don't want to put my foot in either my mouth, or anyone else's. As I am very good at doing nothing, I'll do nothing until somebody suggests something useful that I can do. OK?? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I do intend to "endorse" the two opinions stated on the RfC page. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-02-18 =

RfC/U
Archived.

As I am very good at doing nothing, I'll do nothing until somebody suggests something useful that I can do. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

... If there's any way you can, just ignore it. ... Worm 15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. It seems that is going to be more difficult than I expected. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Allied Military Currency
Well, don't use db-hoax then. That's for "pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes", which this was not. A new editor doesn't deserve to be treated like this. Nor was it, as you said, a "fictional article". It needs references, and (assuming good faith) the original author didn't know how to do it properly, but it's not fiction, is it? BencherliteTalk 13:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of talk page blanking
I've reverted your blanking of Bidgee's talk - he needs to do it himself, there's no way that we can tell if he's given you consent or not. --Rschen7754 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm Bidgee's request to do this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

= 2011-03-05 =

W. P. Auld - getting close
I'd prefer to terminate the timeline at WP's sons, but will accept your verdict. I've put a link to the new page on South Australian wine and don't want it to stay red too long. Will expand references tonight and move page.--Doug butler (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Newland family
I've added the names of the two other brothers, plus a little info, on the Simpson Newland article. Jevansen (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentarians
When I originally wrote that comment (goodness, perhaps in 2007) I think most of the articles were pretty placeholderish - X was an MP for Y from A to B, he was succeeded by so-and-so, and was related to Z other person". If it was simply due to the basic sources being out of copyright, I suspect we'd have seen a lot more of them as copy-pasted hundred word short biographies from here and there.

The age issue is certainly true, though - it's a lot easier to write a decent article about someone safely dead for a century than it is to write about one still around and in the public eye. Shimgray | talk | 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Again this year...
Happy Birthday! jmcw (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Andrew Tennant (politician)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Andrew Tennant (politician), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A060273b.htm and http://www.thepeerage.com/p19843.htm and http://www.thepeerage.com/p19844.htm.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Andrew Tennant (politician) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

W. Herbert Phillipps
Me again! Do you have anything on these residences? ... "Lyndhurst" in Somerton (the nearby Tarlton Road and Phillipps Street, Somerton Park may be named for him.) and "Craigmellan" at Gilberton.'''Doug butler (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not much yet, though when I was looking for stuff about The Briars, I came across page 3 of Heritage Plan Amendment Reports, Walkerville News, April-June 2007, The Corporation of the Town of Walkerville, so it won't be long before I'm looking at Edwin Terrace, Gilberton! Pdfpdf (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Drove past there yesterday, and again today. Very impressive! (A bit like Victoria Ave, Hyde Park, but older and without the traffic.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hidden" not working?
What do I have yo do to get working again? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

hidden|Hidden reply|What problem do you find with "Hidden"? It seems to me to work OK, except that the cursor does not take the form I would expect when hovered over the "Expand" link. I will post at WP:VPT about that. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)}}


 * I can't expand any of my "hidden" sections - to get to your reply I had to edit the page.
 * My "hidden"s at the top of my talk page appear as a blueish rectangle with the "title" in the middle - no buttons, hyperlinks or anything else. Your "Hidden reply" appears alone centred on the page below my signature - nothing else you have written on my page is visible.
 * User:AustralianRupert is having the same problem.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. For me (and Rupert), it's much more than just a cursor problem. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's odd - I suggest you post a question at the WP:Help desk. Tell them what system, browser and Wikipedia skin you are using - e.g. I am Windows 7/Firefox 3.6.13/Vector. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. (Yet another reason not to use IE!) Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, It's an IE problem - I just tried and got title only, no links. Chrome is OK apart from the funny cursor. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Watch WP:VPT for any comments. JohnCD (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As a workaround, try Template:Collapse, which produces the same effect, though the parameters are the other way round. That works OK for me in IE. JohnCD (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. "She who must be obeyed" is making domestic demands (e.g. It's bin night.) Hopefully, I'll be back soon. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the new collapsible code. It needs some tweaking. Too bad admins can't hack the code anymore. The 'up-down' arrow you see is the new cursor associated with expanding and collapsing. The actual CSS cursors assigned are 's-resize' and 'n-resize' (arrow down and arrow up), but Windows does not have these cursors and substitutes both with the up-down resize arrow. The code could use URL (downloadable) icons.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)