User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy New Year 2009!!!!

I don't think I've met you before, anyway,

Happy New Year Pdfpdf/Archive11!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!

Happy New Year!!! :-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 13:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. I was adding a greeting to the Yellow Monkey's page, and there's a </div> missing from the end of your edit.
As you're active at the moment, and as it's obviously near midnight where you are, I saw no reason not to spread the goodwill.
May 2009 be all the things you want it to be!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!!! :-) I'm in India and it's 7:33 PM here-RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry. I wrongly assumed you were in a similar timezone.
OK. Happy New Year in approx 4.5 hours!!
BTW: Did you realise that (as far as I know) there are only three "half hour" time zones, and that you and I are in two of them? (The third is in Afghanistan.) I'm in Adelaide, a beautiful place to live. Where are you? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chennai. I dunno how many time zones you've got in Australia. Do you have more than one?-RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it must be midnight now for you. So its already 2009 for you, I guess. Just saw pics of celebrations in New Zealand, on TV.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another sorry - I have 5 windows open at the moment! I will be with you in 5-10 minutes.
And yes, it's about 12:50 on 1/1/2009 here at the moment. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! :-) I'll be logging out in a few minutes. Once again, HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and your family! Wish you a great 2009. Have a blast!!!! tc. :-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. OK. I'll catch up with you at another time then.
Quick answer:
We have 3 time zones in Winter: GMT +8hrs, +9.5hrs and +10hrs
And in summer, we have 5 time zones!! (Yes, five!): GMT +8, +9.5, +10, +10.5 and +11
If you wish, I'll explain in more detail when you are back on-line.
Meanwhile, in 4 hours, Happy New Year!
Pdfpdf (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bye and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! :-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A certain editor

An RfC may be in order. Or WP:EQ discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: abbreviation vs expansion

Hi Pdf. I prefer the expanded variant as it looks more formal and professional. To me, the abbreviation just looks a little too messy and informal. I just went around a little while ago and made edits on several former and present senior ADF personnel in an attempt to make the succession boxes uniform. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

Hey there Pdfpdf, Happy new year. I hope 2009 will be an excellent 365 days for you. Didn't party too hard, I trust. Have a good one, Reyk YO! 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Museums

Because Category:Museums in Adelaide is already a subcategory of Category:Visitor attractions in Adelaide. Articles thus shouldn't be appearing in both categories simultaneously. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I know exactly how you feel

Is this supposed to be some form of sarcasm or an attempt to WP:TROLL my talk page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. (More detailed answer on your talk page.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Pdfpdf, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks again, another fun year in Adelaide no doubt? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IOOF Building (Adelaide) etc

As I said at Talk:Odd Fellows Hall#Proposal: Wow! You don't muck around, do you! I'm very impressed!
Also, thank you for inadvertantly bringing to my attention that prior to becoming "The Advertiser", the paper was called "The South Australian Advertiser", but more importantly, that the papers are on-line!
Also, thank you for creating the IOOF Building (Adelaide) page. Having been shamed into activity by your impressive productivity, I have added (considerably) to the page. If the mood takes you, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of what I've done; I've not written an article about a building before, and I gather you have written many.
I just have one minor problem - As far as I can determine, "MacDonnell Lodge" was sub-entity of the IOOF, not a building. Do you have any evidence of its location?
Once again, thank you so much for your valuable ideas and motivation. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, u r perhaps too easily impressed :) but it is always nice to be appreciated. Glad u like what i have done so far. Will fix up the rest of the Odd Fellows dab pages system within a day or two. About IOOF Building (Adelaide), I did want there to be an article, otherwise dividing the dab page between Australia and United States did not make sense, and I wanted to support ur interest in having there be an article anyhow. What you have done with it seems great. About MacDonnell Lodge being "a sub-entity of the IOOF, not a building", I am sure u r right. No, i have no evidence of its location. What I did in the first draft of the article was blow smoke, really, it was nearly nonsense fluff intended to survive the deletionists on Wikipedia new page patrol. I just ran a quick google search on "IOOF Building Adelaide" and found some probably-nonreliable webpage that mentioned MacDonnell Lodge. I thought it sounded reasonable to assert that it was an alternate name, and i put in a kinda garbage footnote intended to look like a proper reference. Again, glad u have fixed it up. doncram (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Wow!". You clearly have a good working understanding of the minds of WP deletionists!! You are also very good at blowing smoke! You certainly had me convinced until I actually found the clip you alluded to and read it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: If the page you're refering to is: "a (http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/790987 newspaper clip) from page 3 of The South Australian Advertiser, 31 March 1859"; nla is the National Library of Australia - if it's unreliable, I don't hold much hope for the future reliability of information in Australia! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a google on "IOOF Building Adelaide" - it never ceases to amaze me how many copies/mirrors there are of wikipedia! (Why do they do it!?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the google hit again that i was using; it's not the link u just provided. I don't really mean to be disrespectful of Newpagepatrollers, they have a real job to do. I did expect/count on ur wanting to fix up the article. About the article, it is better now, but it remains a bit confusing that it covers two buildings but it has a title seemingly referring to one building. In general, i do one article per notable building. If the 2 you cover are distinct, they could deserve separate articles (which could link to each other if they are related). Just a thought. Anyhow, it is rather late where i am, that's all for me tonight. Cheers, doncram (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General:

I can't find the google hit again that i was using; it's not the link u just provided. - Oh :-( Now I'm intrigued. If you ever come across it again ...
I don't really mean to be disrespectful ... - I didn't think you were.
I did expect/count on ur wanting to fix up the article. - Well, you were 100% spot on with that thought!
It's getting late here, too. From your comment, it doesn't sound like you're in the U.S. Again I'm intrigued. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the article:

it remains a bit confusing that it covers two buildings - Agreed. I couldn't think how best to address that. The first building no longer exists, and it was because the first building was demolished that the second building was built. Hence, at any given point in time, there has only ever been zero or one IOOF Building (Adelaide).
I'm not sure the first building is (was?) sufficiently notable to rate a separate article - How do you create a convincing case that a building that was flattened and turned into a back lane is "notable"?
Any advice will be greatfully received!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg

I finally got around to addressing this. It'll be interesting to see the discussion and how this eventually plays out. Here's the standard notice:
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Request for clarification

You are correct. Viewers will likely assume that the blue linked term is an article, not a link to a section. They shouldn't be surprised when clicking on it. The third option you gave is no different than the first two. You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding? I think so, and my mentor User:JHunterJ concurs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wayne Static Article Tags

If you feel that there is sufficient work done to the Wayne Static article that would warrant the removal of the cleanup and citation tags, then go ahead and remove them. I would see if you could find a citation for the edit that talks about Skip to My Lou, and maybe try to find some citations for the edits in the equipment and collaboration sections of the article. I will take a look for those as well. Hope that you have a very Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous 2009! Always great to edit along with you. Regards, Denise :) --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The coming year

I would expect so - as long as the Oz cricket team and the economy can get over their woes, and as long as we can keep away from politicians.
(And it would be nice to be allowed to water the garden ... )
Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see a correlation between the Australian cricket team and the slowing up of WP:AUS
  • McGrath <-> Casliber (bird lovers)
  • Adam Gilchrist <-> Giggy (dashers with the same initials)
  • Shane Warne <-> Mattinbgn (Victorian and cricket)
  • All have slowed down on the FAs dramatically in recent times and they stopped writing FAs in the same chrono order as the cricketers retired. Warne-McGrath-Gilchrist and Mattinbgn-Casliber-Giggy as far as Aussie FAs. And, we've started struggling without them. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived recent discussions:


Questions and answers

Q ii) But, it is a link to that page, isn't it? (Albiet a link to a section on the page, but still a link to that page.) What am I missing?
Answer: It is a pipe link to a section, yes, so it would be less confusing to link the description other than mislead the viewer by linking to a single word. That's what me and my mentor think.
Q iii) In example 2, it clearly doesn't suggest it's a link to the page; it suggests it's a link to information about the character(s). (Doesn't it?)
Answer: That's correct. As I implied, it suggests that it is a link to character rather than a piped entry.
Q iv) What is it you don't like about example 2?
Answer: Yes, the horrid "surprise" element. You got it ;)
Q v) Is example 2 the same as example 3.
Answer: (my wording) "Yes." (your words) "The third option you gave is no different than the first two."
Comment: Interesting! I think examples 1) and 2) are different. You think they are the same.
Do you understand why I think they are different? (Or do I need to explain further?)
I'm afraid I don't understand why you think they are the same, so, new question
Q vi) Why do you think examples 1) and 2) are the same?
Answer: Um, because they're misleading? Like I said, the viewer will presume that those are redundant links.
You have asked the question:
Q vii) You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
Do you mean: "Do you think it's mundane and confounding?" ?
If so, to which "it" are you referring?
If not, I don't understand the question.
"I think so" - I assume you mean "I think it is mundane and comfounding."?
Again, which "it" are you referring to?
"and my mentor concurs" - With what does you mentor concur?

Exactly what part(s) of my questions do you not understand? I'm sure I was pretty clear. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how you've apparently returned from your wiki-break, I'd like to know if you'd want to continue our discussion before I get to archiving my talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer all of your queries, Yes. And when I said "You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding?" I meant that I wanted to hear your POV on my choice of style, especially since you haven't exactly said why you preferred this layout. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

more on IOOF Building (Adelaide) etc

Okay, i edited the various articles, moving the big draft from IOOF Building to Odd Fellows Hall, and stripping down the various others. I like your addition of alphabetic capital letters to the big list. I think it is all okay and done now. Thanks for your interest and help in getting this system set up properly. Cheers, doncram (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

short (I hope) wikibreak

Sorry for any delay in replying. Non-wiki-life is occupying me almost full-time at the moment; it may be a few days before I reply.
My apologies, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Cleanup or Citation Tags

I think the citations are the main issue with the Wayne Static article, so I would take down the cleanup tag and replace it with the citations tag. Sorry I'm late with this reply, but my time on the computer has been limited to work lately. *Sigh* Hope that you have a great weekend. --Candy156sweet (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Schools in South Australia

Hahaha!! I'm not really the "post-Year-12" partying type. Progress has been slow due a lot of schools taking down their websites for updating, and of the ones that are up - it's amazing how many lack decent usable information. I have a few stubs to upload. Thanks about the Norwood Morialta one, I was editing it for days over and over again, but I'm sure I haven't referenced properly. Cheers! Natski-asnd8 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blamey and my edits

Hi, Pdfpdf. OK, fair question, There are no such articles as: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath or Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George. There are simply redirect pages to, respectively: Order of the British Empire, Order of the Bath, and Order of St Michael and St George. It's fine to use redirects; they're there for that purpose. But my philosophy is: why use them when we don't need to? Why take a circuitous route to an article when we can go there directly? Redirects show up as green links on my screen, whereas direct links are blue or purple. There's an instruction you can give to make redirects green, but for the life of me I've forgotten what it is now, sorry. I can spot green links from 20 metres away, and while they certainly make an article colourful, it also makes it look untidy. Hope that answers your question. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects, green links etc

Hi, Pdfpdf. I've moved your new post, and my reply, to a new thread "Edits @ Robert Helpmann", on my talk page. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Down Under

Were you there yesterday? I snapped them all! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! When you have them loaded up, please send me the link. Which location(s) were you at?
No, I wasn't there - I was busy being domestic, clearing gutters and putting in fireproof metal gutter-guard. (The plastic stuff is much easier to work with, but not very useful in a fire - it makes me wonder about plastic rainwater tanks ... )
BTW: 2009 Tour Down Under only mentions 20-25 Jan - perhaps you want to add a "pre-event" section?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At Rymill Park. They got all the teams to line up on stage and that made it relatively easy although the blazing sun and the sunshade made an odd effect where their faces were relatively dark and their torsos and jerseys were glary so that was quite annoying. The race proper starts tomorrow. This was like the prologue and didn't count for anything. I take it you like in the hills where there is a fire danger? Take care for you and your family. I can't say I was in much danger yesterday, except the middle-aged man standing next to me in the second row wanted more than 30 cm radius of room (which nobody had, I had a news cameraman perching his stuff on my head at one point) and he kept on sticking out his elbows and jabbing me in the ribs trying to be get rid of me and mumbling his displeasure. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"made an odd effect" - Hmmm. That's an "interesting" variation on the traditional "backlighting problem"!
"The race proper starts tomorrow. This was like the prologue and didn't count for anything." - Yeah, that's the distinction I was alluding to - i.e. although it "didn't count for anything.", there was a lot of interest; perhaps it deserves an additional section in the 2009 Tour Down Under article?
"I take it ... " - not quite, fortunately, but during last year's fires on Old Belair Road, there were lots of helicopters within sight and sound, and I rushed home to trim trees and clear gutters; I don't want to have to do that again!
"I can't say I was in much danger yesterday, except ... " - I sympathise! Last year or the year before when Rogue Traders appeared at Skyshow, I chaperoned a group of my daughters' friends. Although not a pleasant experience, I'm glad I was there; people in crowds seem to take on unpleasant personalities.
Well, got-to-go. I look forward to seeing the photos. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photos have arrived. In the same way as before. I guess you might want to inaugurate my poll again, although it might take longer to complete this time. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Torrens Park, nice area. According to the govt, my area is the worst and most disadvantaged in the state allegedly. I disagree though, I think the govt just made that determination on the basis of lot of immigrants. At least they still teach proper maths/physics/chem at the local high school and go to uni eventually. In the places down south and up north, some schools only have 1-2 students who do proper subjects. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture request fulfilled. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{tb}}

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Green links?

That's the first i've heard of it! I've never seen a green link on wikipedia AFAIK! Timeshift (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Magic?

You have new messages Hey, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep • Talk 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Regarding this edit, how do you identify the white space? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I used Advisor.js for the whitespace and Lightmouse's script to make sure all of the dates were dmy, which was the most predominant form in that article. Hope that helps, §hep • Talk 23:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:VCs

Regarding this edit, the separate versions of the VC are for those countries which still have the Queen as head of state and have not formally declared independence. The Indian and Pakistan awards are distinct in that regard, and shouldn't really be included in my opinion. They haven't instituted "versions of the VC", they have instituted awards for outstanding bravery, nothing to do with the VC. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't like that paragraph anyway; given that no-one had removed it, I was trying to make it more acceptable. It seems I didn't succeed! If you don't think it will start an edit war, I'd like to see you do what you think should be done. Pdfpdf (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See these amendments. I don't see the need to remove that paragraph at the moment, though I could see it being integrated into a larger lead that covers the whole article. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen

Your message got answered Hello, Pdfpdf. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Jørgen" section of my talk page.
You can remove this User:Jerzy/tb -generated notice at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "<!-- START Jerzy/tbnh -->" and "<!-- Jerzy/tbnh END -->".
--Jerzy•t 08:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Your message got answered Hello, Pdfpdf. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Jørgen" section of my talk page.
You can remove this User:Jerzy/tbnh-generated notice at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "<!-- START Jerzy/tbnh -->" and "<!-- Jerzy/tbnh END -->".
--Jerzy•t 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errrrr - why did you delete File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg ?

I don't understand why you deleted File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg. It may well have been "‎(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what? Nothing had been resolved, no consensus had been reached, and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished.
I left questions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_5#File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg; no-one answered them.
Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.
And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg was deleted according to the Wikipedia deletion policy. Specifically, an editor had raised an issue with the copyright permission of the file, and this was not resolved. WP:PUI does not require a "consensus" to delete an image. Your question at the page you indicated was answered, and details of what you need to do given, by Moonriddengirl and Wordbuilder within three hours of you asking your question. You have had over three weeks to get the webmaster to send in permission and have not done so. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being polite and accomodating, and for responding so unexpectedly quickly.
"Why not try it next time?" I can't think of any good reason not to. I tried it; I couldn't find a category that fitted. I did try one that seemed relevant, but when I got "inside" the option, I found it wasn't relevant.
"was deleted according to the Wikipedia deletion policy". WP has lots of deletion policies; which one is applicable in these circumstances? (i.e. does it have a code like other policies I've seen seem to?)
"Specifically, an editor had raised an issue with the copyright permission of the file, and this was not resolved." - "was not resolved" is misleading. I feel "has not been resolved yet" is a more useful statement.
"WP:PUI does not require a "consensus" to delete an image." That sounds unusual. I thought everything in WP was by consensus. I gather not. Why doesn't this one require consensus?
"Your question at the page you indicated was answered" - There were several questions, not just one. This question was not answered:
(I don't know the process or etiquette here, there's no example of a discussion to follow, and there's no obvious "help" page. Please provide a link to more information on the process, etc.)
"details of what you need to do given, by Moonriddengirl and Wordbuilder within three hours of you asking your question." - If you replace "question" by "questions", I agree.
"You have had over three weeks to get the webmaster to send in permission" - True.
"and have not done so." - No, I haven't been able to get the webmaster to send in permission. So what? Nobody advised me I had a time limit to satisfy. Nobody advised me that if I was unable to get the webmaster to respond, the image would be deleted. And Moonriddengirl said this was "one of the easiest ways to resolve this." No other way "to resolve this" has been suggested, let alone attempted.
Also, you have not addressed many of the points I raised:
  • It may well have been "‎(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what?
  • Nothing had been resolved, ... and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished
  • Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.
  • And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now?
So what happens now? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is 2am here - it will be at least 18 hours before I read your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address your points in turn:
  • The message wizard section you would have been looking for was Administrative Actions - Deleted Page - Ask me to undelete a page that I deleted - You think I was wrong to delete it. This would have taken you to here.
  • For the official policy that enabled deletion of this page, please see the first item of WP:DEL#REASON.
  • While the issue has not been resolved ("yet" or otherwise), after two weeks images at PUI may be deleted.
  • The PUI process is explained at WP:PUI#Instructions.
  • Those instructions explain that "Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days". PUI is not based on a consensus because a thousand users saying an image is not copyrighted does not make it so.
  • To have the image's use on Wikipedia validated, we need proof that the copyright holder agreed to release it under a free license. Without that, the image is deleted. It can be undeleted when the permission is received and verified. As an alternative to sending permission by email, the webmaster can send it by snail mail or fax (foundation:contact us has the address), or can place a notice on the website stating that the image is released under a free license. As it was already indicated on the main WP:PUI page that the image would be liable for deletion after fourteen days if the required information was not provided, and users are notified of this by means of the Template:Idw-pui, it is not considered necessary to repost this information in every listing.
  • To your final points:
    • It may well have been "‎(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what?
      Images listed on PUI for over two weeks may be deleted by an administrator if the permission to use the image has not been established.
    • Nothing had been resolved, ... and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished
      See above.
    • Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.
      A decision has been reached, by me, to delete the image. As dozens of images are listed for deletion every day, it is not practical to provide any "announcement" of decisions to delete them. The PUI log will shortly be updated to show that the image has been deleted, and the deletion is also recorded in the deletion log.
    • And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now?
      That was a request as an alternative to leaving me a message. As you have left me a message, it is no longer relevant to you.
I hope the above answers cover your concerns. As previously mentioned, if and when a valid free license release is received, the image will be restored. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you for a prompt, polite and comprehensive reply. I apologise for getting distracted and failing to thank you in a more reasonable time-frame. Mea culpa.
I think you have comprehensively addressed every point I raised and every question I have asked. Thank you. And yes, "the above answers [do indeed] cover [my] concerns".
I would say the matter is now resolved. Either the permission will arrive, which will lead to restoration, or it won't. Given that it hasn't yet, and given the amount of time which has elapsed, I would guess that it won't. That will be sad; I think the picture delivers a wonderfully ambiguous message - as such I think it qualifies as a work-of-art. (Yes, I realise that is probably a "minority opinion".) But, without a clear copyright status which allows us to use it, I must sadly and reluctantly accept that we can't use it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Penguin

Thank you. All the best. Figaro (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

WP:MOS#Italics and quotations is what you need to read, learn, and inwardly digest. David Underdown (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi, I hope that you don't mind if I respond to your email here - you referred to my credentials as an admin in it, and as part of being accountable I prefer to hold such discussions in public. As I noted in that post, I'm not saying that you or Abraham, B.S are right or wrong, and that post applied to both of you. Given that you've both been arguing recently (I haven't been following these arguments and, again, have no opinion at all on them) and Abraham has indicated that he's upset with you (I have no knowledge or opinion on whether this is justified, but it's clear that he feels that way), I personally think that it would be best if you both avoided one another's talk pages. I was attempting to head off what appeared to be another argument, and I apologise if you feel that my post may have implied that you were, or had previously been, in violation of any behavioral requirements - this was not intended and I didn't think that this was the case. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope that you don't mind ... " - Not at all.
(I didn't quite know how to initiate the conversation, and was concerned you may not wish me to do so in public. Clearly, this was not necessary, but it's usually better to take an approach of "being safe rather than sorry", so that's what I did.)
"and that post applied to both of you" - No doubt that was your intent. (However, unfortunately, that wasn't how I interpreted it.) Thank you for the clarification.
"Given that you've both been arguing recently ... " - It isn't of any great importance, but in fact, we have not been arguing recently. Some time ago I realised that it was pointless arguing with this person, so I stopped. I now just congratulate him on his good work, thank him for adddressing and solving problems, comment on his errors of fact, highlight his unsubstantiated opinion, and attempt to defend myself from his unsubstantiated, false and libelous accusations.
"has indicated that he's upset with you" - Quite frankly, as long as he doesn't make false and libelous accusations, I really don't care. He will soon be an adult, and will have to learn to stand on his own two feet. The sooner he learns, the less painful it will be for him.
"I personally think that it would be best if you both avoided one another's talk pages." - In general, I do avoid his talk page. However, sometimes there are situations where it is useful, and it achieves a useful outcome. (For example: this thread.) However, when he makes unsubstantiated and rudely expressed derogatory statements of opinion which he both does not and can not back up with factual evidence, I am not going to let them go unchallenged.
"I was attempting ... " - I'm sure that was your intent. Thank you. Your intent is praiseworthy.
However, I would have preferred that you hadn't. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted - I don't think that there's much more for me to add. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alias (band) and (I Need You Now) More Than Words Can Say by Alias

Please see this edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Start

Please, don't threaten me, as I have done nothing wrong. Now, as of your comment in my talk page, here we go:

In WP:RPA (not RFA), you see the part where it says Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. You see that is says unquestionable?

In WP:BAND, the article just fails the whole criteria.

In WP:CSD#A7, I can see very well that if fits it. The guy is a person, and the article makes no credible claim of significance or importance. Guy0307 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:RPA. WP:MOS says nothing about owning talk pages.

Secondly, let's have a look at WP:BAND

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. FAILS
2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. FAILS
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. FAILS
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. FAILS
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). FAILS
6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. FAILS
7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. FAILS
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. CLEARLY FAILS
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. FAILS
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) FAILS
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. FAILS
12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. FAILS
1. Go to Rick Neigher and click on "what links here".
2, 3, 4. Dunno, so can't comment.
5. See 1.
6. Don't understand. Think it's not applicable. So I guess that does mean "fails".
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Dunno, so can't comment.
So, it appears to me he satisfies at least 1 and 5, (and possibly some of 2,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,12, and possibly none of those.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Rick Neigher

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rick Neigher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rick Neigher, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hangon" template has been placed. Note has been placed on talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Guy0307. Pattont/c 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See note on your talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to summarise this up...

Please see [1] I removed the speedy deletion template :D Guy0307 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That makes life easier!
So what now?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you should try (I'll see what I can find tomorrow) to source the claims in the article, otherwise it will fall in AfD. Guy0307 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it needs sources. (In fact, I never disagreed.) However, I think I'll continue to populate it first. On the other hand, if you're willing to look for sources (and find some), then please, don't hesitate to add them to the article! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Than Words Can Say & Rick Neigher

I have restored the missing sections to More Than Words Can Say that had been forked off the the non-GFDL compliant version of the article. If you look at this revision of the original, all of those sections were C&P into the new article. This eliminates the need to dig up the text from the deleted article.

As for Rick Neigher, a table listing ALL of the songs he wrote is overkill. I would recommend including this in paragraph form, but mentioning only notable songs (ie. singles released by notable artists). Redlinks are fine in this case, as it could give Daphne80smusic some needed direction.

I hope this helps. Cheers, caknuck ° is a silly pudding 02:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for removing the ref on Neigher's article, it is against guidelines to use other WP articles as sources. It is best to include this in the text of the article (see above) and use an in-line citation to cite the original source. Let me know if you need help with this. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alias Never Say Never (album) vs. Never Say Never (Alias album)

Hi, thanks for helping me with the Alias articles. Is there a way to have the title changed back to Alias Never Say Never (album)? that is the actual title of the album according to shopemi.com order page for this CD. I'm afriad this article the way it's name now will not get found when a fan looks for it using the search engine. Appreciate your help. Daphne80smusic (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Curci article

No problem! Thanks for helping cleanup some of the Alias related articles! Donaldd23 (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Neigher article

Hi Pdfpdf, need any help with this article? you can send me a message at daphneho_seattle at yahoo dot com. I emailed Rick Neigher to introduce myself. He appreciates your creating the wikipedia article about him, he said you can contact him at rickneigher at gmail dot com any time if you have any questions. Happy Valentine's Day! Daphne80smusic (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VC metal

Unless or until atruly reliable reference can be found, the info can't go in anyway. So just at the moment, that seems the easier front to fight on. Personally, I do think it's labouring the point anyway, we say where the metal comes from, so it's obvious that it's inherent value is limited (though soaring metal prices have led to various thefts of bronze statues for the scrap metal, so it's not so valueless perhaps). David Underdown (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continued communication

I think we both have come to the conclusion that although both of us have common and sometimes conflicting interests, neither of us are really that interested in devoting lots of effort to explaining our respective POV. You asked me what I don't like about zoot. I've have previously answered with something like "to use your words, I think it looks horrible". Probably not a particularly useful answer. To be a little more specific, I don't like the fact that almost every word in the line has become part of the link. I doubt you find that particularly useful or helpful, but, you asked, and that's my answer.
If you felt that we could have a useful discussion where we could move towards a consensus, I would be happy to participate. But I have the feeling you have made up your mind and have little interest either in my POV, or in discussing my POV. If I'm wrong, I apologise profusely, and look forward to further productive discussion. If, however, we're not likely to make much progress, well, we're wasting each other's time. Aren't we?
I look forward to your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(remove, let us continue this on your talk page so it can be one-sided)

Right, but you never answered my other question. How do you not find linking a pipe link to a single word misleading? The point is not to befuddle the viewer, you know ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I prefer to see both sides of the conversation at once, so that suits me very well.)
"you never answered my other question" - I guess my answer was rather indirect ...
"How do you not find linking a pipe link to a single word misleading?" - Answer: Context.
My thought process: What would be the point, on a disambig page, of linking the word "character" to character? What purpose would that serve? Surely no-one would do that? Surely no-one would expect anyone to do that? i.e. It seems "obvious" to me that if one is talking about a character, then a link on the word "character" would link to information about that character, not to generic information about characters-in-general.
I gather that you don't agree?
And yes, I agree that: "The point is not to befuddle the viewer". And, of course, I don't think it does. I gather that you do think that it does. I'm not sure how to change those two subjective and opposite opinions into something more objective ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pdfpdf, I still don't know how I can say this any clearer. The most neutral thing that may be done (if piping is involved) is to link to the description rather than a "controversial" or "random" word. Haven't you already asked User:JHunterJ for his opinion? He's the one who practically taught me that anyway. Please reply below (this thread is already on my watchlist so you don't have to alert me), Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pdfpdf, I still don't know how I can say this any clearer." - I don't know how you could say it any more clearly either.
What's your point? Are you assuming that if you say it clearly enough, then I couldn't possibly disagree with you? If so, then sorry, that's a false assumption. No matter how clearly you say it, if I have a different opinion to you (which I do), then I'm not going to agree.
"The most neutral thing that may be done (if piping is involved) is to link to the description rather than a "controversial" or "random" word." - I'm very sorry, but that is simply a point of view, and I have a different point of view. I do not agree that what you say is "the most neutral thing". And I am very strong in my opinion that the situation I have described above (to which, by the way, you have provided NO response) is NEITHER "random" nor "controversial". Why don't we take things one step at a time rather than jump three steps and avoid answering questions?
"Haven't you already asked User:JHunterJ for his opinion?" - Maybe. I don't remember, and I don't care. I'm not discussing this with JHunterJ at the moment; I'm discussing this with you. When I want JHunterJ's opinion, I'll ask him/her for it. At the moment, I want YOUR opinion, and want to discuss the matter with YOU.
"Please reply below" - Will do / have done. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(But thanks for the information that I don't need to put alerts on your page.)
Exactly what inquiries do you have? I have nothing new I want to opine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down mate!

I was only doin' my routine check of articles, when I found you still had the under construction template when you haven't edited the article for nearly a week. Just a small suggestion: The tables are wayy too long compared to the rest of the article. Guy0307 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time for serious editing. Sorry. Guy0307 (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Rhodes

On face value, this edit, and the accompanying comment are completely reasonable and, in isolation, justifiable. If I'd come across it for the first time, I would probably have done exactly the same.
Also, you would have been completely justified in complaining about the use of "weasel words".
So you can see that I'm not complaining about your edit per se.

However, what you may not know is that the words that are there are the "consensus" (yes, that's a euphamism for "compomise") of a (in my opinion) tediously long, unpleasant and pedantic "discussion" (yes, that's a euphamism for "edit war") about the difference between "colonialism" and "imperialism".

Given the time elapsed since the heated discussion, I imagine "some would say imperialism" could be replaced by "and/or imperialism" with impunity. However, my fear is that the complete removal of the word "imperialism" will rekindle the "edit war", and to be frank, I really don't want to go through that again!

So, what do you think is a better way to "solve" this combination of problems in order that the minimum number of people (hopefully zero) will be provoked into yet-another-edit war?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest `some might say` is wrong, plus there is also no source to back up the statement `some might say`. The whole basis of the concensus from what i can see is wrong and should never have been en-acted. I personally think its more than covered already by Colonialism but would consider `or imperialism`, with a source. However as an editor can be and should be An WP:Bold, why not leave it as imperialism Colonialism --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that "some might say" is not appropriate. (That's what I was referring to regarding "weasel words".) Absolutely NO disagreement from me on that one!
"The whole basis of the concensus from what i can see is wrong and should never have been en-acted." - I'm afraid you are missing the point. What YOU think TODAY is irrelevant to the discussion that occurred THEN, and the consensus (oops, I mis-spelt it again; thank you for politely not emphasising my mis-spelling!) that was achieved THEN.
However, what IS relevant TODAY is: "What do we want it to say now?"
"I personally think its more than covered already by Colonialism but would consider `or imperialism`, with a source." - Why do you say "imperialism" needs a source, but "colonialism" doesn't? Personally, I think they BOTH need sources. (And if you go back through the history, you will see excessive numbers of reasons why colonialism does AND doesn't cover imperialism! ;-)
"why not leave it as imperialism" - I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean "replace the word colonialism with the word imperialism", then my answer is: "Because I don't want to re-kindle the edit-war."
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I amended my statement above as i quickly wrote (and mistakenly so), i also understand you would like it to just say Colonialism (which is what i meant after my amendment/strike out above). I agree it should remain as colonialism with a source (a source shouldn`t be to hard to find).--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's easier to understand!
However, I fear that removing either of the words will result in rekindling the edit war.
I'm interested that you say "i also understand you would like it to just say Colonialism". As it happens, my personal focus has not been anywhere even vaguely close to thinking about what I personally would want it to say! - I've been solely focussed on averting edit war. To be honest, it's been so long since I checked the definitions that I've forgotten what the significance of the difference between the two terms is! To me, it's clear that Rhodes actively pursued both! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes and Imperialism

I don't understand just which is/are the aspect(s) of Rhodes and Imperialism that are leading you remove "imperialism". After you have actually read the article and the talk page, which quite clearly, you haven't please explain.

The following all make it abundantly clear that Rhodes was an imperialist, and they all have a pile of supporting references:

Do you require more? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some might argue he wasn`t an Imperialist, but rather a `Rhodeist` who beleived in his own profit and standing. As when Rhodes and Britains ambitions were not the same he pushed for his own agenda ahead of Britains.[2]--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused.
I agree that there is very little doubt, and abundant amounts of evidence, that Rhodes was first and foremost a 'Rhodeist'! I also agree that he wasn't the sort of man to let mere reality, or anything else for that matter, get in his way. Those points are not in dispute. (Well, I'm not disputing them.)
The questions we have been discussing are: "Was Rhodes a colonialist?" and "Was Rhodes an imperialist?" To me, there is no doubt, and plenty of evidence, that as well as many other things, he was also both a colonialist and an imperialist.
Is it your point of view that he wasn't an imperialist?
If that is not your pov, then what are we arguing about?
If that is your pov, then can you explain to me what leads you to say he wasn't an imperialist?
Also, regarding the statement "Some might argue he wasn`t an Imperialist, but rather a `Rhodeist`", I don't think "Imperialist" and "Rhodeist" are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the opposite - I think they are mutually supportive. Hence, I guess I'd disgree that aspect of the statement that says he wasn't, or couldn't be, both an imperialist and a Rhodeist.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive11&oldid=1088239104"