User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive17

curious

Regarding your Notable Rhodes Scholars edit: 13:44, 17 November 2009 Pdfpdf

"Add it back when it's a blue link"? When what's a blue link. The req's for this page continue to evolve. Nice. 68.33.222.103 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC

Hi there! My full comment was: "Notability? - add back when it's a blue link".

You'll notice, at the top of the List of Rhodes Scholars page, it says: This page provides a list of notable people who are also Rhodes Scholarship recipients. i.e. To be listed on this page, the person has to satisfy wikipedia's notability requirements.

It is not clear if this person is "notable", or what they are "notable" for; in and of themselves, neither being an "American educator", nor a "Rhodes Scholar" are, by themselves, "notable".

Also near the top of the List of Rhodes Scholars page, it says: The name of the scholarship recipient, including link to their Wikipedia page. (As this is a list of notable people, all are eligible for a Wikipedia page.)

If no wiki page exists, the text of the link to the page will be red - this is called a red link.

If a wiki page does exist, the text of the link to the page will be blue - this is called a blue link.

I hope I've answered your question. If not, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Under Construction label

Hi there! I noticed your are creating some articles and placing a large "under construction" notice at the top. Please consider using one of the templates for this. Template:Under_construction and Template:Inuse might be of help. There are instructions on both of those pages for how to use them. Thanks. ./zro (⠠⠵) 10:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

nuisance edits

You are changing non-American-format dates into American-format dates. (Example.) Please stop doing so. You are simply creating work for other people, and risking people using rollback or reverting the whole edit, because all your edits seem to be cosmetic rather than functional, and are adding no real value. --Pdfpdf (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding the birth cat is not a "nuisance edit" as you put it and if you choose to revert it thats on you. If you don't like the way that the dates display in the format you can change the way it dislays.--Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

a) Don't be rude and arrogant. I have been polite and explained the problem. What is there is in the format that the editors who work on the page want it to be in. You changing it is, indeed, a nuisance. Please mind your manners and assume good faith. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

b) What do you mean "Adding the birth cat"? Do you mean that by using the "birth date" template you were adding the birth cat? The birth cat was already on that page - it didn't need to be added. It certainly didn't need to be added in a way that changed the format of the date.

c) "If you don't like the way that the dates display in the format you can change the way it dislays" - I, and my colleagues, were perfectly happy with the way it was displaying before you came along and performed your adds-no-value edit.

--Pdfpdf (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing your edit. But why did you make it in the first place? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Using this template rather than simply inserting the date into articles allows for the inclusion of hidden metadata about the date. This metadata can be used by web browsers and other software tools to extract the details, and display them using some other website or mapping tool, index or search them. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thank you for explaining it. --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and have a good night.--Kumioko (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And to you, too.

But, at your convenience, I will be interested to read your answers to my questions above (User talk:Kumioko#line break edits) and below. --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I appeared to be arrogant and I misspoke when I said birth cat, I meant birth date, as in the birth date template. I also understand that I am not a routine editor of this but I don't apologize for making the edit and I am a little surprised at your sense of "ownership" of the article. --Kumioko (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to you; you have not addressed any of the issues I have raised. Never-the-less, I will try.

First, I have no "ownership" of the article, so I'm not sure what point you are making.

Second, I have already thanked you for fixing your edit. And thank you for apologising. However, "I don't apologize for making the edit" still sounds rude and arrogant, and somewhat agressive and confrontative, so I'm not sure what point you are making there, either.

Perhaps if you respond to the issues I raised, and explain what points you are trying to make, I can make a more useful response? --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do about active vandals?

{{help me}}

Can somebody please remind me of the process to bring active vandals (User talk:74.66.22.135) to the attention of administrators? Thanks in advance. --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All the steps for dealing with vandalism are explained in detail at WP:VANDAL. Let me know if you still need to know anything. —Akrabbim^talk 05:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - much appreciated.

Thanks also for my newly stolen page header - also much appreciated.

FYI, I didn't find either Wikipedia:Vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism particularly helpful in telling me how to REPORT vandalism. (Let me hasten to say they're helpful for identifying vandalisim, and telling you what to do, initially, about it.)

After fluffing around for a while, I just copied and edited another report. Would you mind having a look at WP:AIV and telling me if I've achieved the right end result? And then, can you point me to the instructions that would have told me how to do that? Thanks again. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha. I eventually found the instructions - You have to edit the whole page, not just add to it. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

<!-- The following are examples of how to report a vandal on this page.
Please copy and paste an appropriate example to the very bottom of the page.

Anonymous Users (IP addresses):
* {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~

Registered Users:
* {{Vandal|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
* {{Userlinks|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~

List begins BELOW this line -->

Glad I could point you in the right direction. It looks like you're all set, so I'll stop watching here. Let me know on my talk if you still need anything. —Akrabbim^talk 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Honours section

Happy New Year, chum... I don't know if you've been following the FAC for Frederick Scherger but, though it's not quite got the stamp of approval yet, it doesn't appear that anyone is raising concerns about the collapsible honours section. So at this stage it looks like it's been a successful compromise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anderson VC

Fine & thanks for asking. Initially I made more additions than just the VC citation but they got over-ridden (and I lost them) when you and I were both editing that page at the same time. I redid the citation but didn't bother with the other detail about the Muar River campaign but I might get back to it. -Sticks66 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Pdfpdf/Archive17! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Pdfpdf! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Pdfpdf! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John Wilton (British diplomat) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ozzie Ruwels

No problem. It's annoying that HotCat doesn't let you leave edit summaries, and as it's only laziness on my part that makes me use the tool, I'll try and be clearer in future. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee! And as for the Rhodes scholarship not actually being an award or prize of the university, it seems odd not to categorise it in that sub-cat when it's probably the widest-known OU scholarship and you can't be a Rhodes scholar anywhere else. Just a thought. Bencherlite^Talk 11:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the merits of discussion and consensus-forming. We're on fire today! Bencherlite^Talk 11:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your reply.I fully respect your right to your opinion.My apologies for your reverting you the first time inadventently.Cheers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Birks

Done, slightly surprised given your editing in milhist articles taht you hadn't come across cwgc for Commonwealth War Graves Commission before. Don't knowhow I'd missed the Birks article up to now actually, as I normally always check the CWGC data for any Commonwealth war casualty. David Underdown (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cooper

There's just a brief mention in the ODNB article you mention, however, he has his own article too, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6220, so he's almost certianly notable. David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you drop me an email, I should be able to send you a link tothe article which will giev yo free access for five days. David Underdown (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be great! Thanks!! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
(Email sent.)

Wilton

He's still alive, so he won't be in ODNB (you have to been dead five? years before you get an entry!). It looks more like an expansion of his Who's Who entry. Looks like that has email funcitonality too though, so I should be able to send somethign for that too. The bit about his military service can of course be expanded form the Gazette - his diplomatic postings will probably show up in there too. David Underdown (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

3 emails enroute. ODNB entry link for Cooper, Who's Who text for Wilton, and as a bonus the original MC recommendation for Wilton too. David Underdown (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Navy Ranks and Insignia

Thank you for your concern. I have fixed all I changed, to the best of my knowledge.Jmfriesen (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Australian Boarding Schools' Association

I have nominated Category:Australian Boarding Schools' Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Air Force Ranks and Insignia

Again, thank you for your concern. However, they are correct, as the ranks and insignia of the Canadian Air Force are identical to the ones used in the Canadian Army. The only difference is the blue and green(only on the dress uniform, on combats they are there is no difference), as well as the eagle on the Air Force insignia(only on the dress uniform also). Jmfriesen (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely see what you mean, with the green not looking right. As soon as I can muster up the free time to make the changes, I will. Good day, Jmfriesen (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

David Jones (footballer)

Hi - thanks for the note. Sorry for the delay in replying. I think you'll find that you cannot have a Dab page with suffix "footballer". As "David Jones (footballer)" redirects to David Jones where the players are listed, that is the correct treatment. Cheers. Enjoy your break. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rann

I don't like to see a standalone "citation needed" in the article of a Premier less than 2 months away from an election. It wasn't a critical piece of info, it wasn't fixed up, on balance I thought it was best removed. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really think about it to be honest. Sometimes it is out of laziness. Timeshift (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Loose end - as I said, I didn't like seeing a singular citation needed for something that really wasn't that important, in an article of a government leader less than 2 months from election. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Full converstaion

Regarding your revert. Given the current circumstances, I'm OK with it. But normally, I'd think you were being a bit "pushy".
Do you think the claim is questionable?
Or are you just reacting to the laziness of the guy who posted it?
Or is there some other factor I haven't thought of? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to see a standalone "citation needed" in the article of a Premier less than 2 months away from an election. It wasn't a critical piece of info, it wasn't fixed up, on balance I thought it was best removed. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. I agree completely. But you haven't addressed my question. From your reply, I'm guessing you're saying that you're "reacting to the laziness of the guy who posted it". Yes? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really think about it to be honest. Sometimes it is out of laziness. Timeshift (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(You wouldn't be a politician yourself would you? (Attempt at humour.))

Well yes, but you must have had a reason. Did you revert it because it was a "loose end", because you felt the claim was questionable, or for some other reason? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Loose end - as I said, I didn't like seeing a singular citation needed for something that really wasn't that important, in an article of a government leader less than 2 months from election. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)

Rann's behaviour

this fails noteability, we aren't starting a list of places
Yes, the contribution should have been reverted, because of lack of relevance to the article in general, and to that section in particular.
I disagree that it "fails noteability", and it has absolutely nothing to do with "a list of places".
If the article had a section addressing Rann's behaviour, it would be highly relevant. But the article doesn't.
Given the sensitivity & timing of the topic, I think you should choose your words more carefully.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It does fail noteability in regards to the section. The section is meant to be concise. It is not meant go to over stuff that really doesn't assist in giving a picture of the issue, it's just fluff. It is not a place for a WP:LAUNDRY list of places Rann allegedly avoids/avoided. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? As I said, it's irrelevant, but I don't see what that has to do with "notability", nor how it "fails notability".

The section is meant to be concise. - Yes.

It is not meant go to over stuff that really doesn't assist in giving a picture of the issue - Yes. That's what "relevance" means.

it's just fluff. - No. I disagree strongly. As I said: If the article had a section addressing Rann's behaviour, it would be highly relevant to a behaviour section. It's just irrelevant to this section.

It is not a place for a laundry list of places Rann allegedly avoids/avoided. - 1) It's not "alleged". 2) Rann didn't avoid the place, he avoided the event in order to avoid the person.

I repeat: Given the sensitivity & timing of the topic, I think you should choose your words more carefully.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your latest foray

[1], [2] - Come on, get a grip. If you revert with nothing better than WP:I just don't like it, you're going to get hammered from ALL sides. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

. Timeshift (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. I don't understand what you are trying to communicate with this edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I was alerting you to the update at Talk:Rann. Timeshift (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rann

Hi, I've made a comment about your reversions at the talk page. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In your latest posting, you've said: "I believe the Advertiser poll can be used here" - I'm guessing that's a typo?

(If not, then I'm really confused by your posting.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Modifying for clarity now. Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps after that bit of venting on Talk:Rann, you can see why I didn't reply to the post about my revert properly. Nine out of 10 edits these days are a revert. Everything is a revert. Wikipedia has more nefarious/dishonest activity than ever (and unfortunately will probably only get worse). At that point in time, I wasn't prepared to once again play the whole accuse and counteraccuse, policy and (hopefully but doubt it) counterpolicy game, be they genuine or not - but at the same time, I wasn't prepared to see such an edit remain. I still don't know why you took such exception to it, was it simply due to my lack of response or do you honestly believe such SYNy POINTy rubbish can remain? I hope it's the former. Timeshift (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"I still don't know why you took such exception to it" I assume you are referring to the following posting?

I agree with you, particularly in the absence of User talk:Timeshift9 actually explaining what he's complaining about, (as distinct from just complaining, spouting POV, and reverting). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't (and for that matter still don't) think of that as "taking such exception to it". (Though on reflection, I have to admit that its tone is a bit snarky.)

Anyway. In answer your question: Yes, it was due to your lack of explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. Yes, perhaps you do need a wikibreak - currently, your sense of humour doesn't seem to be playing much of a role in your postings. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

I think my desire to keep wikipedia pages free from vandalism and ignorant edits (ones that breach policy knowingly or unknowingly) is too great in both a state and federal election year. It would be nice if I could just fix the article and never have to justify the same stuff over and over and over like a broken record. Perhaps wikipedia needs a new group of volunteers who will go in to bat when it comes to the diplomacy? Not likely! But seriously, I stand by my record and history. Please don't assume that a lack of justification means anything whatsoever. Please try and see it from my side and if you feel the need, bring it up on the article talkpage so I can come back to it at some point in time. I hope this doesn't sound critical. Timeshift (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't assume that a lack of justification means anything whatsoever." - I haven't. On-the-other-hand, I think lack of sense of humour is very indicative ...

"Please try and see it from my side" - Sorry, you've lost me. "bring it up" - Bring what up? All I complained about was that you were doing things without explaining yourself. (Subsequently you have explained your general rational and reaction to wikipedia, which, by-the-way, bears striking similarities to mine - you may have noticed that I'm trying to convince myself to go on wikibreak?)

"I hope this doesn't sound critical." - I can't comment - I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

All i'm saying is, please don't make assumptions or think i may be biased or whatever you want to call it, just because I haven't added a detailed explanation. That's just the way your msg to me came across. But meh, it's all good. Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaah. I see. No, sorry, not that complicated I'm afraid. I just didn't like the reversion which seemed to be "justified" by what I'd classified as "I just don't like it". Hmmm. The joys of (mis-)communication. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... ok... so I saw the SYN issue and you didn't, and because I didn't explain you mistook it for 'I don't like it'? I would think quoting the particular policy violation in a subject line only, whilst very brief and not that helpful, does at the minimum identify the concern. The voter intention poll in a SYN with Chantelois to further the argument is a clear violation... to me anyway. If you don't agree it's SYN, well that's a different story, and fair enough. If you do and you don't appreciate me being so lazy, I apologise, but it's better to maintain standards with a brief policy quote, than to let it all go to rot. Timeshift (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But really, it's over and done with, it's being thrashed out en masse on the talk page. So debating who said and did what won't change anything, I don't even know if it's worth keeping the above... so let's just put this down to a inopportune encounter, and look forward to the next one. Apologies and take care! Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"so I saw the SYN issue and you didn't" - Well, I saw the SYN isssue. It just wasn't the SYN issue that I responded to. I guess, from your point of view, I "mistook it for 'I don't like it'". Yes, I think/feel that categorises the situation accurately.

In fact, regarding the SYN issue itself, I just sat back and watched the discussion progress. I didn't have anything to add that somebody else hadn't already said, so I didn't add anything.

"I would think ... " - Yes, it does indeed "at the minimum identify the concern", but never-the-less, I had classified it as "I just don't like it". i.e. at the time, I guess I felt that "the minimum" didn't seem a "good enough" response.

"If you don't agree it's SYN ... " - I certainly don't disagree. It just seems to me that others have stronger opinions and are/were expressing themselves better than anything I had to say on the matter.

"But really, it's over and done with ... " - Well, yes and no.

From my POV, the only issue I engaged in dissolved when you started to explain yourself.

As for the SYN issue itself, well, as I said, I just sat back and watched. You, however, were an active participant, so clearly, you have/had a quite different attitude to the topic than I do/did. From my POV, it's not an issue of agreeing/disagreeing with you; it's more a case of me standing back and listening to the people who have strong opinions on the matter. As I said, I don't disagree with you, it's just that I don't feel I have anything to add.

From your POV, it seems to me that you thought I was pushing a particular POV, that I was doing it in a not particularly pleasant manner, and you found this contrary to your expectations, and rather confusing. I did make an attempt to clarify that I wasn't doing that, but I didn't do it well enough, and thus you continued to be confused by my words. And so, I then got confused by your words. It's a little sad that our inter-communication wasn't more effective.

You say, "debating who said and did what won't change anything" - Again, yes and no. My biassed opinion is that if we understand each other better, we'll communicate with each other better. I agree that won't change the past, but it will change our current and future attitudes to the past.

"I don't even know if it's worth keeping the above"' - I share that opinion. I had intended to archive it "soon" - (out of sight, out of mind.) However, if you prefer that I just delete it, I'm OK with that too.

"so let's just put this down to a inopportune encounter, and look forward to the next one. Apologies and take care!" - Yes, I share those thoughts/ideas/opinions/sentiments. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Image deletions

I get the feeling that your comment is not assuming good faith. As my edit summaries say, I'm deleting the pages on the basis of F2, which includes image page for an image on Commons, which all of these are. Images are Commons are not supposed to be categorized on here. If you still have any questions, let me know. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Full conversation

• (Deletion log); 07:21 . . MrKIA11 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Qantas check in at Adelaide Airport .jpg" (F2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons)
• (Deletion log); 07:20 . . MrKIA11 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Australien Adelaide Park Torrens.jpg" (F2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons)

<Unnecessary volume-of-examples removed. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)>

• (Deletion log); 06:08 . . MrKIA11 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Television license area - Adelaide.svg" (F2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons)
• (Deletion log); 06:05 . . MrKIA11 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:AdelaideSkylineAdelaideOvalCloseUp.jpg" (F2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons)

Hmmm. There's a lot of them, isn't there? And they're only the ones on my watchlist. No doubt there are many others, too.
Tell me please - did you give ANY thought as to why there might be so many of them at ANY stage before, during or after your mass deletion exercise?
(When I have your answer, I will ask some more questions.)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that your comment is not assuming good faith. As my edit summaries say, I'm deleting the pages on the basis of F2, which includes image page for an image on Commons, which all of these are. Images are Commons are not supposed to be categorized on here. If you still have any questions, let me know. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're being a little touchy, aren't you? I asked you a fairly simple and straight-forward question, viz: "did you give ANY thought as to why there might be so many of them at ANY stage before, during or after your mass deletion exercise?" Your response COMPLETELY avoids providing ANY information relevant to the question I asked. Instead, you have gone on the attack. And, without AGF yourself, have questioned whether I'm AGF!

How about AGF, read what I wrote, and answer the question I asked you? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, obviously we are misinterpreting each other. I took the italics and bold font as being a little over the top. Could you please reword your question, because I thought I answered it. I obviously misunderstood it. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we're not communicating effectively. I'm not trying to pick a fight. At this point of the conversation, I'm just trying to get more information.

My intention was, "When I have that information, then I'll know what question it is I want to ask you."

I could continue on that track and "play that game" with you, but although your responses have not yet provided me with the information I'm seeking, they have provided me with (other) information that is relevant.

I suggest that the most efficient path is for me to start again, using the new information that I now have. Accordingly, assuming that is OK with you (Yes, I know, BIG assumption), here goes: (I suppose I'd better sign this bit first: Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC) )

You have deleted a large number of pages on :en:WP. (As it happens, those pages were associated with images.)

Those pages existed for a reason. They contained more information than just the image. (i.e. they contained "metadata" about the image. Metadata on :en:WP that was "useful".)

You have stated: "Images are Commons are not supposed to be categorized on here."

I'm afraid that I'm not confident I understand what you mean.

My understanding of the situation is that those "file:"s were uploaded on :en:WP and categorised on :en:WP, and then subsequently moved to commons.

Fine. No problem with that.

But then, what happens to the meta-data? (i.e. the categorisation on :en:WP?) That's still useful data.

Why does moving the images to commons suddenly invalidate that (very) useful categorisation data on :en:WP?

Is that clearer?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have a good reason for that. I am just following the guidelines. This might be a good issue to bring up somewhere with a larger audience, possible the village pump. I think the current thinking is that categories are meant to group only pages on this wiki, and not cross-wiki. But as far as I can tell (based on a few images that I checked), the pages were categorized after the image was moved to Commons and page was deleted. So by adding the category, the page was created for an image that was not really there, but actually on Commons. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I re-iterate that I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm still having a bit of trouble following you. You've raised several points. I'll try to address all of them, but obviously I'm more interested in some than others. However, I've just been reminded that at 0200, I really should be doing other things. (e.g. sleeping) So I'll continue this "later". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

On rereading and on reflection, I see that my negative reaction is to the guideline. Criticising you for following the guideline is analogous to "shooting the messenger". So, my apologies for "shooting at the messenger".

(However, using the "war crimes defence", (i.e. "I was just following orders"), is probably not the best modus operandi to employ when embarking on large-scale editing exercises ...)

Yes, the village pump is probably the best place to raise the issue. Thanks for that. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lyndhurst, South Australia

Thanks for merging Lyndhurst, South Australia so quickly. Good to have somebody who knows they are the same place. Incidentally, I'm thinking you must be working unsocial hours since it's afternoon here in UK? Cheers -- Hebrides (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it's Monday tomorrow, too. (Actually, it's already Monday here ... ) Thanks for the reminder! Good night. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Sleep well! -- Hebrides (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New photo poll

Up and running YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. And they're of the feminine gender, too. Well done. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Per your previous sentiments I thought you were going to vote YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indubitably!

But you haven't taken into account that my reply was at 15:00 UTC ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you think that the Concordia College basketball team article is going to survive? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No. In fact, I'm astounded that it's still there. (Have a look at User talk:Braydog.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jmcw37

Hi,

I see you've provided your opinion about quality vs quantity three times in this debate. For the most part I agree with you, but I see that this is giving the perception of badgering. Please don't let your enthusiasm for the candidate harm his or her chances. Generally, saying it once is enough to make a point like that.--otherlleft 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a elegant civility lesson QED. jmcw (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I agree that "it's all about John", not me, and confirm that I do not wish to create a distraction. However ... , Cheers, and thanks for your concern, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling

I notice you introduced a misspelling into my oppose !vote on Jmcw's RfA. It looks like you were trying to fix it, but if you look again I think youll see it was correct the first time (your in this sentence is a possessive pronoun, not a contraction of you are). Even if it were misspelled, though, I'd prefer it to be left that way. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Assistance please

Can you please assist with the enquiry on my page here? I'm only going by your original postnom reverts based on your edit summary, and it really is out of my depth. Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Timeshift9

CNZM

You reverted my edit mentioning that CNZM are not approved post-nominal letters within the Australian honours system. You are correct, of course, but it is entirely appropriate for Mr Rann to include these post-nominals after his name whether or not they have a specific order of precedence. In fact, the site you directed me to -- [3] -- indicates that foreign awards can be worn, but that they are given the lowest precedence. Surely the article on Mike Rann would not be viewed only in Australia, thus the post-nominal letters should be included.

Lovek323 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirected your query. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lovek. Timeshift has asked me to help answer your question.

This answer is probably going to sound pedantic to you, but hopefully it will explain to you the previous "answers" we have given you.

As you say, "CNZM are not approved post-nominal letters within the Australian honours system. You are correct" - I would have thought that was the end of the conversation, but apparently not.

"but it is entirely appropriate for Mr Rann to include these post-nominals after his name" - Why is it entirely appropriate? (You have just agreed that "CNZM are not approved post-nominal letters within the Australian honours system.")

"whether or not they have a specific order of precedence." - I agree that this point is irrelevant to the discussion.

"indicates that foreign awards can be worn, but that they are given the lowest precedence" - Notice that it says they can be WORN. Not that the post-nomonal can be used. As you've already pointed out, "CNZM are not approved ... "

"Surely the article on Mike Rann would not be viewed only in Australia, thus the post-nominal letters should be included." - I'm afraid that your comment is not relevant. What post-nominals a person can use is the perogative of the country the person is citizen of. (Each country has it's own set of "rules", and obviously, it's own definition of which countries are "foreign".)

This article is presenting Rann as an Australian citizen. Therefore, although he may WEAR his CNZM ribbon or medal on the left side of his chest, (albiet to the left of any Australian Awards that he may have), but he may not use the post-nominal letters. If he is a New Zealand citizen, then of course he is entitled to use those post-nominal letters, but no-one is claiming he holds NZ citizenship. If he is a UK citizen, I have no idea - you would need to examine the UK regulations. Now, here comes the tricky bit: What if he's a citizen of two or more countries? I don't know. But if you're claiming Rann has multiple citizenships, and you can provide supporting evidence, then with a little bit of effort I can find out.

As a different example, have a look at General Peter Cosgrove. He has a collection of foreign awards (including CNZM), but does not use any of their post-nominals, and does not even wear some of them on his military uniform, suggesting that the Oz military have a further set of regulations. (I have seen a picture of him, taken after his retirement, wearing a dinner suit at a non-military event, where he is wearing the GCIH.)

I hope this answers your question. If not, please ask more questions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Although it is indicative that there may be a rule, General Cosgrove's non-usage of the post-nominals is evidence of nothing. There is no prescription that post-nominals be used (nor ribbons worn, for that matter) -- it is always up to the discretion of the individual. Although you are almost certainly correct, I would be interested to see a source to confirm that post-nominals for awards granted by other sovereignties are not to be used by Australian citizens (unless specifically allowed by the GG). Lovek323 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm afraid (with respct to Australia) you are quite incorrect.

"there may be a rule" - There ARE rules, and you have been pointed at them.

"is evidence of nothing" - It is evidence of the rules.

"There is no prescription" - Oh yes there is. Read the references you have been pointed at.

"it is always up to the discretion of the individual" - No, it is not. It is up to the discretion of the individual whether or not they wear something that they are entitled to wear. But it is NOT up to the individual what they are entitled to wear - that is specified by the regulations. (c.f. Cosgove and the GCIH)

"Although you are almost certainly correct, I would be interested to see a source to confirm that post-nominals for awards granted by other sovereignties are not to be used by Australian citizens (unless specifically allowed by the GG)." - Third time - read the quoted references. (viz: http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/docs/order_of_wearing.pdf )

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read the It's an Honour site quite thoroughly and I may just be stupid, but I do not see how there could ever be a prescription along the lines of, 'You must always include all post-nominal letters to which you are entitled after your name', which is what I was trying to say when I said that it is up to the individual's discretion. For example, a close friend of mine is entitled to use the DSO post-nominals after his name, but he does not always do so as he feels it is not always appropriate. Further, he has many ribbons he is entitled to wear, but, in situations that call for ribbons, he does not always wear all of them. You did not point me to any rule stating which may be worn, only a list of those which have a particular precedence (and vague rules for foreign awards). Thus, as there is no rule saying you must always use all your entitled post-nominals, the fact that General Cosgrove did not use CNZM is not evidence that he could not. Lovek323 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. You are attributing to me the exact opposite of what I wrote.

"but I do not see how there could ever be a prescription along the lines of, 'You must always include all post-nominal letters to which you are entitled after your name'" - I agree completely.

We started the discussion with "Is Rann entitled to use CNZM as a post-nomial?". The answer is "No."

"which is what I was trying to say when I said that it is up to the individual's discretion" - Perhaps. But that's not what you did say.

And I replied: It is up to the discretion of the individual whether or not they wear something that they are entitled to wear.

"You did not point me to any rule stating which may be worn, only a list of those which have a particular precedence (and vague rules for foreign awards)." - No, that is not the case. The list says what can be worn (if you're entitled to wear it), and if you do wear it, what order you must wear it in. It also states what the valid post-nominals are, and the order they should appear in.

Two examples:

1) KStJ ribbon may be worn and may appear before some Australian awards, but KStJ postnomial may not be used. (c.f. Roden Cutler)

2) South Australian Police can be awarded medals for bravery and service by the South Australian Police, but they must be worn on the right side of their chest because they are NOT on the abovementioned list of what you are allowed to wear on the left side of your chest.

"Thus, as there is no rule saying you must always use all your entitled post-nominals, the fact that General Cosgrove did not use CNZM is not evidence that he could not." - Huh? That is indeed true, and is completely irrelevant.

There IS a rule saying that he may NOT use CNZM and GCIH as post-nomials, and the fact that he doesn't is evidence that he is complying with the rule. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I read the references, but did not see any rule saying that post-nominal letters cannot be used unless authorised by the GG. It indicates that there are awards Australians may not accept (and may not wear), but does not say that it is an exhaustive list. CNZM is obviously an award Australians may accept, as several have. It also obviously does not have a specific precedence, but I have not been able to find any information indicating that Australians may not use its post-nominal letters. Lovek323 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. Viz: CNZM is a foreign award, and hence the post-nomial letters may not be used. If it doesn't say it specifically in that document, then it implies it, and it DOES say it specifically in some other document. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept your point, that CNZM are not post-nominals Australians are entitled to use and that he must wear the ribbon, etc. on his right breast. I now have my copy of 'Australian Protocols and Procedures' (Joel 2007), which basically says what you said. In my recent messages, I was not debating your correctness, I was merely asking for a source. The Special Gazette which authorises the most recent order of precedence for awards in Australia did not provide enough information, i.e., it did not say that any awards not on this list are not authorised, nor did it say that the wearing of them was prohibited. I have now found a source and am happy. Lovek323 (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's good news.

Is there a copy of 'Australian Protocols and Procedures' (Joel 2007), on line?

"In my recent messages, I was not debating your correctness, I was merely asking for a source." - My apologies for mis-understanding your words.

"The Special Gazette ... " - Now that I understand your requirements, I agree that they were/are not sufficiently explicit for your requirements.

"I have now found a source and am happy." - That's good news.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a copy of 'Australian Protocols and Procedures' (Joel 2007), on line?

I thought it was about time I did some proper indenting. There is not a copy of this available online, and it's rudely expensive, but the ISBN is 9780868409467 and you might be able to find a copy on Abe Books or somewhere like that. I'm also planning on getting a copy of 'The National Honours & Awards of Australia' (ISBN: 0864176791), as my knowledge of this subject could obviously use some work. Lovek323 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if the local library can borrow a copy. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Concordia University

Earlier today you performed a move of Concordia University to Concordia University (Montreal). In your move summary, you mentioned that any assertion of a primary topic would be lacking in neutrality? A cursory news archive search indicates that significantly more than half of all references in English-language media refer to the university in Montreal (approximately 11,000 of 17,000 articles, even excluding references to any of the various Concordia College possibilities). I wanted to check with you to get a better understanding of your reason for the move? Did you have a chance to do research into whether there was a primary topic? Perhaps you have some additional information that would better indicate a primary topic does not exist despite the mainstream media references I've been able to research? jæs (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Several questions in there.

"In your move summary, you mentioned that any assertion of a primary topic would be lacking in neutrality" - Indeed I did. And I still do.

"I wanted to check with you to get a better understanding of your reason for the move" - I had/have several reasons. The primary one is/was that there are many institutions in the world named Concordia College or University. Although Montreal may be the primary for Canadians, many people outside of Canada have never heard of the Canadian university, (unlike, say, Oxford, Cambridge, The Sorbonne, Harvard, MIT or Stanford), and to them "Concordia University" refers to a more local institution.

In other words, in this case, the choice of "primary" is POV.

"Did you have a chance to do research into whether there was a primary topic?" - Yes, I did investigate the matter using other criteria than number of google hits.

Like many wikipedia editors, I do not consider a Google Popularity Contest by itself as sufficient justification for making a decision. (Conversly, if Google returns zero hits, I do consider that as evidence of unlikelihood.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, do you intend to work on fixing the hundreds of links to Concordia University from other articles? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my list. Today I have been working on Concordia and Concordia University (disambiguation). As some opposition to the move has been expressed, I thought I might wait a little while to see how (and to where) the matter progressed. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just passing through, and wanted to let you know that I would be happy to help with the link repair if it's still needed - I find that type of work strangely satisfying! Just ping my talk if you need a hand, no worries if it's all done.--~TPW stands for ^{(trade passing words?)} or _{Transparent Proof of Writing} 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Given my current involvement in discussions at Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move?, I've been somewhat distracted and diverted, but it remains a worthy task - I'll accept any and all help offered with greatful thanks. (My modus operandi has been to go to here, click on "What links here", and start "dab"ing!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. I've been ignoring User pages, Talk pages, WP pages - just concentrating on articles. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

That's the strategy I use for such projects, too. I'll put it on my to-do list!--~TPW stands for ^{(trade passing words?)} or _{Transparent Proof of Writing} 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rann

In case you haven't already looked, check the talk page. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For putting unsightly tags on Rann's page that seem WP:POINTy if not anything else. Timeshift (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL!

Thank you for being more concerned about appearances than about facts, accuracy and unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that what is there is factual, accurate, and substantiated. It was taken out of the source used. Don't dare accuse me of not caring about these things. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't/haven't. Read what I wrote. Have a look at Talk:Mike Rann. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (Rann)

• {{talkback|Lear's Fool|Rann|ts=06:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}} -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• {{talkback|Lear's Fool|ts=10:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}} -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• {{talkback|Lear's Fool|ts=10:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}} -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Festering edemic wikipedia articles

Good day! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Cleaning_the_MA_Project jmcw (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness gracious me! (And I thought I needed to "get a life" ... )

Now I much better understand your edit-rate!

Keep smiling ;-), Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems there is an Easter Bunny: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#A_plan and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Olive_branch_for_the_Inclusionists_and_Deletionists. jmcw (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo offerings

More added. Female kiwis YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 04:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Kanck

Per my description. Anyone running for legislative office, per Politician, is considered a current and not a previous politician. I may currently be drunk, but I am also correct per wikipedia description. If you take issue with this, take issue with Politician. Best regards, anticipating a sober-reading response and an anticipated reply, Timeshift! Timeshift (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As with the last time you thought we disagreed, you are not talking about the same matter that I am. I'll say it once again:

Knack is not currently a member of the Legislative Council.

Nor has she been a member since November 2008.

To say that she is currently a member is a false statement.

Also, being in third position on the Democrat ticket, it is almost a certainty that she will continue to not be a member of the Legislative Council.

(As to whether or not she is or was a politician - I couldn't care less.)

Pdfpdf (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If the wikipedia of Politician is someone, who at a minimum, is running for political office, then shouldn't she be defined as current and not past? For the record, my personal opinion, it's the complete definition of beating a dead horse. This is not anything to do with bias (nor is it ever). Timeshift (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reply.

You seem to be continuing to talk about whether or not she is or was a politician.

I have said: (As to whether or not she is or was a politician - I couldn't care less.)

The point that you do not seem to have noticed is that you were/are changing the article to say that she is a member of the Legislative Council. Currently she is not a member of the Legislative Council, and as I expect you are aware, she has not been a member of the Legislative Council since November 2008. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(And while not entirely relevant, just for the record, it is highly unlikely that she will become one again any time soon. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any time soon, anybody will be able to truthfully say that she is a member of the Legislative Council. So the fact that she is not currently a member is unlikely to be "a temporary situation".) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to say she currently is a politician, please yourself. As I've said, I couldn't care less about whether or not she is or was a politician.

"This is not anything to do with bias (nor is it ever)." - I probably agree, but as I said, I couldn't care less about whether or not she is or was a politician. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

talkback|Lear's Fool|ts=04:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)