User talk:Catagunyah

welcome [User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolic[edit]

The Liberal Party have => He has
Good! That completely removes the need for a debate on grammar over whether "The Liberal Party" is singular or plural ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edit wars that go on in these pages, I think subject-verb agreement for collective nouns is the least of our worries !

<grin>. True. (But that doesn't stop them from happening!) Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at Andrew Nikolić[edit]

a) According to WP policies and guidelines, these edits could be classified as edit-warring. You are probably quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, but in case you are not, if your edit is reverted, the policy is to discuss the matter on the talk page - not to revert the reversion.

b) You and Autumnal Monk seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. I am trying to achieve a compromise. What was wrong with my compromise?

c) Reversion to previous content which was already within WP guidelines; edits should be according to guidelines and not based on personal value judgments - I find this slightly offensive. Please refamiliarise yourself with WP:AGF and WP:NPA

c.1) I'm not convinced that your edit satisfies WP:UNDUE.

c.2) Which edits are you asserting are based on "personal value judgments"?

d) You may wish to reconsider the abovementioned edits and revise them. Should you not do so, as specified in WP guidelines, I shall open a discussion on the article talk page.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been reviewing Wikipedia guidelines but it's probably incorrect to assume that I'm an experienced editor. No doubt my profile shows that. Guidance is of course appreciated.

Thanks for the clarification. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of tracking down an updated link to source no. 4 which is currently dead. Seems this is an important document to have publicly available as it is referenced quite a few times. Once I've done this, I will review what's going on. If I can undo my latest contentious edit in the meantime, I will do so.

Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Nikolic's appointment to a civilian post in 2008 did not automatically mean he resigned from the army at the same time, even though the civilian appointment was out-of-uniform. This is a common-enough arrangement. I understand Nikolic actually resigned his commission two years later in 2010, hence his period of service was "over 30 years"; However, again I will endeavour to confirm this via a publicly-accessible source.

It is my understanding that there are a number alternative scenarios, depending upon a number of factors. (For example, whether he went onto the active reserve.)

Yes, it is not uncommon for a uniformed person to go to a civilian position of a higher pay-grade, but commonwealth regulations do not allow the holding of two positions simultaneously. When you say "This is a common-enough arrangement", what situation are you referring to? Also, I await with interest to read what you find. (Sometimes it worries me when I realize that I find such esoteria fascinating.) Thanks for your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]