User talk:Pdfpdf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you post here, I'll receive an email notification, and will respond accordingly.

Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: 23 July 2014
Last: 25 June 2014
This box: view  talk  edit
Newtons cradle animation book 2.gif This user enjoys watching pointless animations.
Most recent archive; Archives; Commons: Upload; Talk page; Tools; WP:EIW; send Email; sub-pages: User User talk; Get a page deleted: {{db-g7|rationale= ... }} aka {{db-author}}

Web archive[edit]

Hi! I was looking through William Refshauge, and saw something I hadn't seen before which raised my level-of-interest enough to cause me to ask you a question - actually, a number of questions.
(The main reason for my interest is that, with continually changing its website structure, this looks like a way to "prevent" links to references going "stale".)
You have expanded
  • How did you know this page had been archived?
  • How did you discover the web.archive url for the page?
Or is it more the case that you "forced" the page to be archived? In which case, how do you "force" a page to be archived?
Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf, thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words.

To archive pages, I use I just go to that page and type in whatever page I'm looking to add to wikipedia, then it either tells me the dates that the page has been saved on, or else I can chose to save the url to the wayback machine. The machine generates a permanent web-archive url for users. It's a US nonprofit organization.

I try to use web archiving for all references I add to wikipedia because it helps to prevent link rot. You can read more about other options at Wikipedia:Link rot. One bit of info is that you can choose to add a parameter |deadurl=no to your citation template if you want users to go to the live version of the page, it just alters the way the citation appears. Also, you need to include the archivedate parameter if you use the archiveurl parameter.

Hope this helps! Clare. (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It does! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

images of Adelaide
Thank you for quality articles and images of Adelaide, such as Adelaide city centre, for inviting to talk rather than edit war and for thoughts on Wikipediholism, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 496th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,

Again, unexpected, and again, a pleasure to receive. Many thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dummy spit[edit]

Thanks for the message. Not sure what this is about - yes, I know, Leader of the House - but it hadn't really engaged my attention. Now there's edit-warring and anger being lobbed around. This is one of those things where I'd look to see what wikipolicy says, and in the event that it's nothing, I'd look to see what we've done in the past or with other articles. Getting upset with other editors seems pointless. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Defence Force Service Medal Sixth clasp[edit]

Hey, so in the Navy News today, an article stated a sailor was awarded a sixth clasp to his DFSM. I was unaware of anything after the Federation Star. [1] Thoughts? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 13:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like I have answered my own question. Six or more clasps are denoted by an extra federation star. [2]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 13:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I had read somewhere that 4 clasps = 4 clasps; 5 clasps = 1 Fed star; 6 clasps = 2 Fed stars; but despite searching, I could find no supporting reference. It seems you have.
Yet again it seems you've solved a longstanding issue. (I think you're probably entitled to feel smug and self satisfied.)
Once again, Good Work! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Excellent work on the Spratly Islands articles. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is VERY kind of you, and is appreciated. Thank you. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Swallow Reef[edit]

By the way ...

Where did you find the 35 ha area figure? (i.e. A useful reference would be ..., "useful".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Some info on Chinese bbs, no official source.-Lisan1233 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you have the URL handy? (I'm interested to read what was written.) Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC) - Lisan1233 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! (Most appreciated.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


I could hit the google "translate" button, but I have more confidence in your ability to provide a relevant and useful analysis ...

What is this a photo of? (Given that there's no runway, one assumes it ain't Swallow Reef ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That pic is not swallow reef as I see -Lisan1233 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed! So the blog text gives no hints as to where and/or what it is? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Although I can bumble through French, Dutch, German & Italian, I've no skill with languages using other character sets. Which bit of the article mentions the area of Swallow Reef? Thanks in advance! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"陆地面积大约0.35平方公里(原有沙洲面积不足0.1平方公里)"-"land covers 0.35 km2 (natural cay less than 0.1 km2)"-Lisan1233 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Humpf. I obviously didn't look hard enough! Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Calm down[edit]

You've been pointed to the policies that your edits have been in breach of, and now you need to read them if you want people to continue to assume good faith. Throwing tantrums at me or anyone else will get you nowhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ummmm. Get real?
a) It astounds me that you persist in irrelevant bullshit. (I'm dubious that you are stupid, so I'm perplexed.)
b) This is (I think) our 5th interaction, yet you STILL won't (note: not don't, won't) be explicit.
c) Throwing tantrums ... - ROTFLMFAO!!! (Hey - WHAT CAN I SAY? - You, apparently, know everything. Tell me?)
When you are ready to indulge in rational discussion, please reply and inform me. (I'm waiting.)
(Until then: Fuck off.)
At some time when you are prepared to listen an opinion that is not identical to your own, I would be VERY happy to engage in a sensible discussion with you. I know that you are not stupid. Please. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll once again point you in the direction of Wikipedia:Original research and suggest thack's saket you read and familiarise yourself with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
For F***'s sake!!! I addressed that ages ago. I sincerely doubt that you are stupid, so why are you making stupid replies?
Enough!!! (Goodnight; it's past midnight.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
(BTW: "and suggest thack's saket you read" is incomprehensible.)

You're now re-adding blatant original research to the article, which you've been made aware of by the otherwise unanimous consensus that it should be removed, and which ten minutes ago, in response to Frickeg, you seemed to have decided to agree with. I've tried twice to point you in the direction of the policy as to why this material needs to be removed, and you've responded with all manner of talk page abuse. This isn't appropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It's quite difficult to determine if you are stupid, if you are a WP:Dick, if you are pushing a WP:Point, or if you have some other agenda.
It's quite easy to see that you are totally unwilling to give a relevant reply to a relevant question.
As I've said several times, if, when I return, there is no evidence to support false your allegations, and no withdrawal AND apology for your false allegations, then I'm off to ANI. Until the morrow. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
All you were asked is not to reinsert blatant original research into an article. I'm not going to edit war with you if you're prepared to edit war to add material clearly in violation of bedrock Wikipedia policies, but clearly that's a position that's ultimately going to wind up with consequences if you persist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Really? Well, I'll take that "on good faith" at the moment, and address the issue "tomorrow" (i.e. later today)
But let me emphasise that I am encouraged by you reply.
Sleep well, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Murray riverboats[edit]

I've broken the offending Userspace article into two lists Murray-Darling steamboats and Murray-Darling steamboat people to get over the problem you alluded to. Not sure it's the best way but it's done and reasonably useful. Lots of holes in the second list which I'm hoping will be filled eventually, but I doubt I can get much more from Trove. Doug butler (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you planning to be there on Sunday? If so, I'll discuss it with you there/then. (If not ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't make it unfortunately; family commitments interstate. Catch you later. Doug butler (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Any time, and I'm looking forward to it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ADF Ranks[edit]

Hey! I am just after an opinion. A graphic designer has done the various RAN/RAAF & ANC/AAFC/AAC ranks using his awesome skill and I have been given access to the originals and permission to use them on WP. I have added the flag rank hardboards to the RAN page and was wondering (in your opinion) if I should replace the sleeve lace with the SRI (soft rank insignia) versions then add the hard board's as well. I will (in the coming days) add the OR/WO ranks and the WON special insignia to complete the section. Cheers Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversation is (continued at / moved to) User talk:Nford24#Re: ADF Ranks Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide city centre[edit]

No worries, although I'm not entirely sure what I'm being thanked for; I only did the same thing you reverted TDW for. Still, glad that the situation has cooled down; it's certainly nothing worth getting worked up over! Frickeg (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're still posting on my talk page. You were re-adding blatant original research to an article, I asked you not to, and then after someone else also did you apparently decided to stop, which is great. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. I have no desire to get into an argument with you though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, you're spoiling for a fight, and you're not going to find one here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New topic regarding a different page[edit]

I'd hate to see what "less magnanimous" looks like if this is supposed to be you with manners. Once again, it's a matter of basic policy: you added a page that was essentially a copyvio, I nominated it for deletion. I didn't even realise you were the author under your alt-account. You're lining up an ever larger collection of threats, uncivil language and general abuse on my talk page and I'm still not going to bite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd hate to see what "less magnanimous" looks like if this is supposed to be you with manners. - As usual, you can't follow instructions, and you make unexplained comments out of context. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Once again, it's a matter of basic policy: you added a page that was essentially a copyvio, I nominated it for deletion. I didn't even realise you were the author under your alt-account. - Ummmm. Errr. Bullshit??

You're lining up an ever larger collection of threats, uncivil language and general abuse on my talk page and I'm still not going to bite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC) - I don't care if you "bite or not"!!! But a relevant response would be an entertaining novelty!!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the stuff you posted at AfD is literally about 500 times as inflammatory as the comment you're still upset over for some reason (which was a comment 90% of other editors would have just ignored). I've said before I generally find you productive, but, um, please calm down? Frickeg (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Responded (with respect and thanks) on your talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


It's absolutely a way forward, if you're okay with it! I'm a huge heritage and architecture buff, and I think getting a heritage buildings list for Adelaide (which is way overdue) and including the RAIA's registers into these kinds of articles nationally (which I'd wholeheartedly support as a way of including material we should have that would otherwise get excluded). I'd definitely try and help with it too - though I've been trying to make a start on Wikipedia's really poor coverage of Victorian heritage, I'm sure I can take a crack at SA too if it helps. My concern with the list as it was was absolutely not "I don't think this material should be covered on Wikipedia" but "I'm not sure this particular way of doing it works". The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ummm. Great! Fantasic! (From my POV this is INFINITELY preferable to ... "negative stuff") Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And mine! The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jolly good, but what about reality?[edit]

Whoa! Changing the name to 'List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide' is unwise, as many of the entries may NOT actually be heritage listed! See my comments on the Afd page. Bahudhara (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey! What can I say? (If I agree with you (which is exactly what I do do) ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I posted here before refreshing my watchlist and seeing that it was The Drover's Wife who renamed the list. I've left a message on her talk page, pointing to my comments on tha Afd page. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit late to have further discussion on the AfD page, so here seems like the best place since you're both watching it. (As for the copyright in lists: I'm no copyright lawyer, but lists can and have been deleted before on copyright grounds - it's why, for example, we don't have more detailed music charts on Wikipedia.)

The problem is that this list (pre-move) dives down a verifiability and notability rabbit hole. The SAHRMI example that Bahudhara might be notable for Wikipedia (and really, probably is), but it's not "Nationally Significant" (proper noun) on the basis of that award.

I can see the problems you're bringing up, and I see how List of heritage sites in Adelaide may well be too broad. However, I'm also not a fan of having a muddle of different types of articles - some for types of building, some for time periods, etc. (I also think, for that matter, unless you're setting a fairly high bar for inclusion, statewide or even metropolitan-area-wide articles, even at the existing levels, get incredibly unwieldy.)

What if we went "List of heritage buildings in Adelaide (timeframe)" as a series of articles? This would stop the length being unwieldy, taking the "listings" out would remove any debate over the inclusion of these articles (though still having a clearer basis for inclusion and verifiability than hte article as it stood). It would also avoid winding up with a plethora of "type of building" list articles, which I find (just around Wikipedia generally) tend to get forgotten about. This would take a similar approach to List of heritage places in Fremantle, except covering a broader geographical area.

Alternatively, if you're mostly focused on recent buildings that you don't think fit under a "heritage" framework at all, what if the article shifted to being one on buildings that have won notable architecture awards? This would seem to be possibly more in line with where Bahudhara seems to be aiming, and once again has the advantage that its inclusion criteria are a LOT clearer.

As a third option: what if we did both of those? This would allow for a better coverage of modern architecture and a better coverage of modern heritage buildings, and to better cover both of them where they overlap. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I just need to clarify - the inclusion criteria on the list before was very clearly defined and stated, and as clear as one on buildings that have won architectural awards would be. Moving to "list of heritage buildings" muddles the inclusion criteria, and in that sense is less viable as a general list. It works when we limit it to heritage listed buildings, but if we make it more generic, as is the intent, then what constitutes "heritage" becomes a significant issue. That said, my inclination is to start with the overly broad topic, then spin out subsets when the list becomes unwieldy. It is quite likely that we'll have to end up with a list of 20th century buildings and lists with breakdowns on building type, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to start with a generic list and then spin out groupings as required. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
As for the inclusion criteria on the list - not quite. The initial list had the problem that, to quote Frickeg from the AfD: "For me, the problem is the narrowness of this list. It is basically what one organisation considers important, which is fine for them, but not really for a general encyclopedia." But more problematically, Bahudhara (in his final comment on the AfD) envisaged expanding it well beyond that publication about 120 buildings, which would bring us as I said into a definitional wormhole about what "nationally significant" is. This is why I suggested doing it on the basis of significant awards as something that's a bit more manageable. It also avoids the argument about what is "heritage" (which as you note is another problem we need to avoid) by having another easily-verifiable basis for lists covering significant modern architecture. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Narrowly defined lists are fine - the problem comes when the inclusion criteria is too broad, so that anything can fit. :) Significant awards are problematic, because heritage listing isn't an award. Heritage listing is problematic, because significant modern buildings aren't heritage listed. We'll just need to define inclusion criteria in terms that covers what we want the list to do, and I suspect we'll need more than one standard for inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you, hon. ;) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Woody Island (South China Sea) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 西沙永兴岛调频广播发射台昨天开始试播], [[China National Radio]]}}<br>'''Untranslated references on English Wikipedia are useless.'''{{cn}}</ref>{{cn}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Technical Mentors - Unleashed Adelaide, 11-13 July 2014[edit]

Free this weekend? Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Future meetings#Technical Mentors - Unleashed (GovHack Adelaide) for details. Alex Sims (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)