User talk:Pdfpdf

Commons Upload
Most recent archive: User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive23
Useful: Templates, {{db-g7}}, Tools, Commons, sub-pages: User User talk
Sandboxes: W. Herbert Phillipps; Adelaide Educational Institution; George Debney; W Everard; W. B. Carr; George Morphett; Stow Smith
Current:

List of elections in South Australia
Adelaide Historic Houses; Category:Historic Houses in Adelaide; Alvington; Benacre; Cummins;Essenside; Tranmere; Undelcarra; Urrbrae
Adelaide Park Lands; Former Metro-SA LGAs; Lord Mayors;
Category:Companies based in Adelaide; Bickford's Australia; F. H. Faulding & Co; Category:F. H. Faulding & Co; J. Hallett and Son; Farmers Union
Stuart's sixth expedition; Category:Stuart expedition (1861-1862); W. P. Auld; Stephen King jr; Frederick George Waterhouse
Charles Willcox; Andrew Tennant (pastoralist); George Charles Hawker; Simpson Newland; Alfred Allen Simpson; John Morphett

W. Herbert Phillipps

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

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

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

Urrbrae

Another diversion: Urrbrae, originally Urr Brae, was built by Robert MacGeorge (whose daughter Eliza married F. H. Faulding) sometime before 1850.Doug butler (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Oh dear me. Adelaide is a small town, isn't it ...

(I've been messing around with Oz mathematicians, Essendine and Category:Stuart expedition (1861-1862) this week.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayors of Toowoomba with fur

Sorry, I meant possum, in German the is same word for possum and opossum. But it is definively no mink, to long hair, other colour of the ground hair than the upper hair. But thank you for help. --Kürschner (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Brewing and Malting Company

F A Chapman didn't seem to warrant an article, but have started page on the company he worked for for 50 years, and Oakbank Brewery to which it is related. Quite interesting and a long way to go. Any contribution would be welcome.

OK, I'll have a look. However, as you can see from the top of this page, my list of active articles is becoming unmanageable and now contains articles I haven't touched for months.

BTW Oliver Young was nicknamed "Cocky". Any idea what his deformity might have been? Hunchback perhaps? Doug butler (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find anything useful - he seems to be rather "low profile". e.g. The only mention of him I have found between his departure from Adelaide and his death, is the family's visit to England. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6 star rank

Moved to Talk:6 star rank Pdfpdf (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your reversion of my edit to to South Australia

Hi Pdfpdf, I see that you have reverted my effort to improve the earlier edit by Shurlocksam86 (which you had also reverted). No skin off my nose really, I was just trying to do the kid a favour by adding the additional reference, based on my experience of having worked for 10 years in the ABS 20-odd years ago (with two years spent in the Publications Section, where I had to proof-read the SA Yearbook as well as all the other State office publications, including Labour Force). I certainly have no interest in trying to write an encyclopaedic article on the economy of South Australia - my interests lie elsewhere and there are too many other calls on my limited time. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Bahudhara. Your improvements are appreciated, but as I have said several times, the raw material (although accurate and well cited) was out of place and out of context. You improved the situation notably by putting the comment in an appropriate section of the article. However, I gather you agree that reporting one quarterly statistic from over a hundred years history, and probably at least 200 quarters of statistics, is not encyclopaedic. It's unfortunate that you don't have the interest to write it - it would appear that you are more than "well qualified" to do so. Perhaps we can ask you to review it if it ever does get written? Again, thanks for your contributions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George T. Bean

Another change of mind. I reckon this page would be better titled "Bean Brothers" or possibly "Bean Brothers Ltd". If you concur, could you please do the move? Doug butler (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of South Australia

Hello again. I saw you created the above article and thought you might be interested in this little navbox. Perhaps the basic laws of the various territories could be added (assuming they have any such thing). -- LordVetinari (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G'day! Thanks for that. I found it hard to believe that "South Australian Constitution" was still a red link, but your navbox provides the explanation!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Lavington Bonython

Hi! I've been thinking about the John Lavington Bonython article. At the moment, especially with all the subheadings, the article isn't really about John Lavington Bonython so much as his family - more time is spent discussing each of his children then is spent discussing him. :) This seems a bit off balance, but I'm not sure of the best fix. However, looking at them, it seems that Elizabeth Bonython may be important enough to warrant her own article, especialy as she has a CBE. Do you think it is viable to spin her out into her own article, which would leave just Ada and Katherine as only redirects? Given that neither of them stands out, we could then kill their redirects and reduce the focus on all of the children to just a line on each, drop the subheadings, and let their articles explain their relevant histories? - Bilby (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, Lady Bonython would also warrant her own article. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, especially with all the subheadings, the article isn't really about John Lavington Bonython so much as his family - Agreed. I'm working on expanding it.

At the moment I'm beefing up Keith Wilson - I have at last found a brief bio at http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4925297

This seems a bit off balance - Agreed. I'm working on expanding it.

it seems that Elizabeth Bonython may be important enough to warrant her own article, especialy as she has a CBE. - Yes, either that or a joint article with Keith Wilson - I think I prefer two articles, but I'll get Keith finished first.

which would leave just Ada and Katherine as only redirects? - No, Lady Jean is still a redirect, too.

Given that neither of them stands out - Given that they were Bonythons, I wouldn't be to surprised to find them worthy of their own articles, so let's hold off on them until we've got the other four kids and Lady Jean sorted out.

I should add, Lady Bonython would also warrant her own article. :) - Perhaps two! (She was as least as active as Lady Wilson) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons

Thanks for helping with the Herbert Angas Parsons page, I felt that it was long overdue for him and his father to get articles.Bodrugan (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Anybody who "spent many hours at the Adelaide Club, preferring its convivial atmosphere to his wife's Methodism" can't be all bad ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I admit it - I'm confused ...

Hi. Regarding your move

(Move log); 17:47 . . Bearcat (Talk | contribs) moved Sortname2 to User:Pdfpdf/Sortname2 [redirect suppressed] (sandbox pages belong in sandbox space)

I thought that had already been done. i.e.

22:59, 24 March 2011 (diff | hist) N User:Pdfpdf/Sortname2 ‎ (sandbox)
(Deletion log); 23:16 . . JohnCD (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:Sortname2" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)

I can't work out what's going on. Can you? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page I moved wasn't sitting at the title Template:Sortname2 — it was at Sortname2 with no prefix. Bearcat (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight. So now I'm even more confused. How/when did Sortname2 get created? There's nothing in my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pdfpdf referring to Sortname2 ... Pdfpdf (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a page gets moved, all of the edits to that page in your contribution history "move" to the new page title too. According to the edit histories, though, you created the deleted template at 12:25, then db-tagged it at 12:28, and then created the page I moved at 12:29 — so my best guess would be that most likely you intended to create it in sandbox space but something went wrong and it got saved at the plain title "sortname2" for some reason. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's logical. Thanks for sorting that out. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military ranks template

I'm interested in your POV. If the template is not going to contain every sub-rank of Admiral/General/Air marshal, then to me it seems inconsistent to include LtCol, LCdr, Sub-Lt and 2Lt. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I am not totally against expanding out the star officer ranks but I am happy to go with the consensus which appears to have been against it. The reason why both Lt-Col/Col and Cdr/Lt-Cdr need to be expanded out is because otherwise the generic equivalences would not be clear. I.e. Col = Capt = Gp Capt but Lt-Col != Lt-Capt !=Lt-Gp Capt (fictional ranks used for illustration). It this were the case then the entire Lt-Col, Lt-Capt, Lt-Gp Capt row could be eliminated. Greenshed (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm ambivalent about what's in and what's out, but I'm a little pedantic about consistency. Yes, I agree that an "entire Lt-Col, Lt-Capt, Lt-Gp Capt row could be eliminated". However, although Admiral & General are 4*, Air Marshal is 3*. I guess I should take it up on the talk page. But perhaps not - there are more interesting things to do! Cheers, and thanks for your time, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Major and linkspam

Hello Pdfpdf! I don't really care if the link stays or goes, but I don't want someone trying to abuse Wikipedia to achieve his wish. Would you mind to share your thoughts? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military ranks and insignia of the biggest Armies in the World

Hmmm. A well presented, well argued and convincing line of reasoning. OK. I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, you've made my day :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AO

I apologize if I was unclear in my edit summary when I cleaned up the AO disambiguation page yesterday. It seems you may have mistook my phrasing to mean that I only intended to remove entries that did not appear to be referred to as "AO", and that the rest of my edits were in error, and you took it upon yourself to undo those latter changes. I assure you that the entirety of my cleanup was to bring the page closer in line with the Manual of Style guideline at WP:MOSDAB, and so I have reinstated my other revisions, unless or until you wish to express disagreement with my application of Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove this without reply again, I will not leave any further contact for you. But seriously, I want to urge you one more time to look at that edit history and try to figure out why I became annoyed (because if this had started out with "I don't think all of these edits are supported by the MOS; can you post some further explanation on the Talk page?", that would not have bothered me at all). Instead you did this:

Me: I'm cleaning up the page and making some helpful changes.

You: I'm rejecting your changes and going out of my way to indicate that you're not worth the slightest explanation why, and of course you'll be happy with that because I'm a special snowflake.

Me: Uh, no, if you're not going to give any reason for removing them, I'm going to put my changes back in, and further explain why they're good.

You: Now I'm going to mimic you and pretend that YOU'RE the one editing without giving any reason (although you have given reasons), and that YOU haven't read the guidelines (although I keep contradicting them).

Me: Okay, here are some of the specific parts of the MOS that you are being wrong about, as you asked for.

You: I don't have time now to respond to this, but I do have time now to revert the page because it's just that important to undo your changes, which you have now defended many times in many ways.

I'm not leaving this last response because I care so desperately about the stupid AO page. I just have this foolish lingering delusion that maybe, someday, a Wikipedian might admit that he or she was being a jerk for no reason. You're probably not going to be that Wikipedian, but since I was expecting to spend this chunk of time discussing the MOS and apparently that's not going to happen, it's not a big deal for me to spend a few minutes on this other last-ditch effort you're going to ignore. (Oh, and I'm not pretending that I've exhibited the epitome of etiquette, but I was only ever responding to you, and I'm pretty sure I've been more reasonable and constructive at every turn.) Okay, go ahead and delete this. Maybe this little skirmish will at least lead you to review the MOS (or not, because 99% of the time nobody cares what it says anyway, right?). 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

Sorry about the ADL ADF mix-up. Thank you for catching it. Jnast1 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yattalunga

Hi. I was wondering if you might be able to help with this. If you can't do you have any suggestions of where else I can search. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rear admiral

Lol! You can always trust us Wikipedians to spend more time arguing about titles that content! Actually military practice I gather is to use "Rear Admiral" when referring to an individual and "rear admirals" when referring to them generically or collectively. But of course if the latter begins a sentence you get "Rear admirals are very senior naval officers". Ideally Wikipedia should enable full lower case so that e.g. "Ford" and "ford" were different articles, but that's a big software and cultural change! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always trust us Wikipedians to spend more time arguing about titles that content! - I hadn't thought of it that way before. Yes. Well summarised! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]