User talk:Pdfpdf

Archives:
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

/shortcuts

Picture of the day

Hübnerite is a mineral consisting of manganese tungsten oxide, with a chemical formula MnWO₄. It typically occurs in association with high-temperature hydrothermal vein deposits and altered granites and in alluvial deposits. Hübnerite is the manganese endmember of the wolframite solid solution series, with ferberite (FeWO₄) the opposite iron endmember. Color differences between members of the wolframite family are clear and marked, with the color of hübnerite varying from yellowish brown to reddish brown. It was first described in 1865 for an occurrence in the US state of Nevada and was named after the German mining engineer and metallurgist Adolf Hübner. This stacked image, composed of 38 individual photographs, shows red hübnerite crystals with quartz extracted from the Pasto Bueno mine in Pallasca Province, Peru.Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

Archived recent discussions:

• Happy New Year 2009!!!! - Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• A certain editor - Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Happy New Year! - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• re: abbreviation vs expansion - Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Happy new year - Reyk _YO! 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Museums - Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• RE: I know exactly how you feel - Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Happy New Year! - YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• IOOF Building (Adelaide) etc - doncram (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Possibly unfree File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg Wordbuilder - (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• RE: Request for clarification - Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wayne Static Article Tags - Candy156sweet (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The coming year - YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tour Down Under

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

{{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)

re:Magic?

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)

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

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)

Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Jørgen

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Little Penguin

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

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)

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)

"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)

Noted - I don't think that there's much more for me to add. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Notability of Rick Neigher

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rick Neigher, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Rick Neigher seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Patton^t/c 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)