User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive10

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

Scpence23

I just happened to be checking out the new usernames and noticed the guy had nothing better to do than troll. Blueboy96 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide

One of many reliable sources www.clw.csiro.au/division/adelaide/ (Which seems to have an issue ATM which is why I've not used it as a source yet). Bidgee (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Uhh, thanks for what? Sorry if im kinda slow. ;) II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

No Problem,. ^^ II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 13:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Train Nav Boxes

I've done a Belair Line-like navigational box for all the lines now... check it out :) normangerman (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at User talk:IRP#Thank_you.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Wonders of electronic communication

Hi Pdfpdf, yes I received that email a few days ago, sorry I didn't respond in any way but I went away to wonderful Snowdonia for the weekend. I agreed with much of the email and didn't feel the need to respond really, I read it and accepted your points and I hope I have taken them onboard. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wells (name)

I saw your edit summary for Wells (name) here: "Hmmmm. Regretfully undo transclusions - independent edits of transcluded pages stuff up the format of this page. (e.g. William Wells)."

I have removed transclusions from similar page myself (Wallace (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)); in that case, people added "See also" sections to the transcluded pages without adjusting the <noinclude> tags. But because those sections can be helpful, I came to the conclusion that transclusion was probably not the optimal method.

In your case, it seems that the unusual structure of William Wells is the stumbling block. Frankly, I think that structure is not very helpful for the reader — I think a strict alphabetical listing will help the mental disambiguation process much more. I suggest to change that page. That does not mean that I recommend going back to transclusions; I'm very much on the fence on that these days — there are pros and cons either way. But the page "William Wells" should be restructured (IMHO). Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilton

  • (diff) (hist) . . John Wilton (general)‎; 00:23 . . (+16) . . Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) (←Redirected page to John Wilton (Australian Army officer))
  • (Move log); 00:23 . . Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) moved John Wilton (General) to John Wilton (Australian Army officer) (standard naming)
  • (Move log); 00:23 . . Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:John Wilton (General) to Talk:John Wilton (Australian Army officer) (standard naming)

Yuk!
"(standard naming)" Which standard? / Who's standard?
(In my completely unbiassed opinion, it's an ugly and stupid standard ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in mine. "General", apart from being incorrect (it should be lower case), implies that he only ever held that rank. His profession, which is what should be reflected by the disambiguator, wasn't general, but army officer. Take a look at Category:British Army generals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Take a look at Category:Australian generals
Yes, it should be "general", not "General".
But I really can't agree that it "implies that he only ever held that rank"!
"His profession, ... , wasn't general, but army officer." - Another "Hmmmm". I would say that was debatable. However, I'm not in the mood to debate it.
However, I will ask again: Which standard? / Who's standard? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which produces the following disambiguators: Australian Army officer = 2, Australian soldier = 1, major-general = 1, general = 6, Australian general = 1, soldier = 2. Hardly either conclusive or a great beacon of consistency! That's why I pointed you towards Category:British Army generals. We generally try for consistency on Wikipedia. I'm a little puzzled as to why you would think his profession was his rank not his...profession! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hardly either conclusive or a great beacon of consistency!" - Yes indeed. (That's what the "Hmmmm." was about.)
Note, however, that the Americans aren't consistent either. One is forced to wonder how the Brits were able to get consistency!
"We generally try for consistency on Wikipedia. - Agreed, but the success rate in achieving consistency is not consistent ... ;-)
"I'm a little puzzled as to why you would think his profession was his rank not his...profession!" - I don't. To me, what is debateable is whether "profession" is the "best" thing to be disambiguating upon. For example: John Raymond Broadbent (major-general) and John Raymond Broadbent (brigadier) - If you don't use the rank, what would you propose using to distinguish them from each other?
And for a third time: Which standard? / Who's standard?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got consistency by having a core of people who are interested in it. I also used to disambiguate as "general" until someone came along who suggested that "British Army officer" sounded better. On reflection, I agreed and so did a number of other people who write these sorts of biographical articles. Hence the level of consistency. Hence my statement that it is "standard naming" - as far as we have any consistency in military officer naming, the British officer categories show it, and I think that's a good thing. As to disambiguating officers with the same name, obviously a bit more creativity has to be shown there, but the occasion doesn't arise that often. I would disambiguate the two officers you mention as John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army infantry officer) and John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army cavalry officer) - after all, the major-general was also a brigadier once! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm. You have a number of points, but I'm afraid I haven't changed my opinion. "Australian Army officer" sounds like a category to me - it's too clumsy. "general" is concise, and there's no ambiguity that a (British or Australian) general is an Army officer. (And regarding "duplicates", I agree that "obviously a bit more creativity has to be shown there, but the occasion doesn't arise that often.")
As to "standard", well, I think you're being a bit "creative" with your language usage ...
When I'm in the mood, I'll raise the matter on one of the Milhist discussion pages and see what sort of responses it draws. (No doubt one of them will be yours!!)
Thanks for the "discussion" - interesting, entertaining and food for thought. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Peter Fisher (physician)

A tag has been placed on Peter Fisher (physician) requesting that it be speedily deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. Clubmarx (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first line says:"Peter Antony Goodwin Fisher, FRCP (1950-), has been physician to the Queen since 2001.". csd A7 is NOT applicable. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry

I just got to the article in the queue of speedy deletion candidates and was declining but saw that you had already removed the tag. Tagging for deletion and the actual deletion are two separate processes. Anyone can tag; only administrators can delete. There was absolutely no chance that article would have been speedy deleted given the first line.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia

Howdy. This is weird; generally I find myself supporting you or following up to support our joint POV. However, this time I really think you've got it wrong. Are you acquainted with the school? If not, please take my word for it - the student leadership is highly relevant. If so, please explain to me why you feel it is "unencyclopaediac". Looking forward to receiving your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why prefects and SRC etc are relevant. Why is it different from other schools. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoot

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zoot. ... Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a warning on your page because you are disruptively edit warring. And yes, I placed one on the other users page also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
I have repeatedly tried to engage the other person in discussion, on talk:Zoot, but they refuse to AGF, refuse to discuss the matter, refuse to answer any questions, and refuse to address the issues I raise. Further, there history seems to suggest they enjoy making points and editwarring. His edits are unpredictable and inconsistent, and he chops and changes in his decisions on which parts of the MoS he is going to follow or ignore, and when, and contradicts himself. I am attempting to discuss the matter and address the issues he raises,but don't seem to be having any success. Further, I have made a number of compromises, but he refuses to entertain the idea of compromise. (Or even the idea of discussion, for that matter.)
Relevant pages are:
I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should proceed with this matter.
With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the only advice I can offer is that you pursue Dispute resolution. I do not get involved in editing disputes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not get involved in editing disputes." - Very wise of you. (I wish I wasn't involved!)

Notes

    • User talk:Rodhullandemu#Request for opinion 03:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just taken a look at this, and agree with Seraphimblade; it seems a little silly to edit-war over a DAB page and I'm not assigning blame to either of you. But yes, I would recommend WP:3O. --Rodhullandemu 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your response.
        After having thought about it overnight, I came to the conclusion that it's more than just a little silly to be editwarring over a DAB page. Your response, which I read this morning, indicates support for this conclusion!
        Your response has provided me with all the 3O I need. I'll stop wasting people's time.
        Very many thanks for your time and effort, and particularly for your good advice.
        Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User talk:Seraphimblade#Request for advice 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would tend to agree with the dispute resolution suggestion. I would suggest requesting a third opinion as a starting point, sometimes just having an outsider to the discussion comment can help break a deadlock. I'm afraid I'm not in much of a position to offer such an opinion myself, I'm not very familiar with the MoS guidelines in this scenario, but someone will likely run across it who is and be able to offer some advice. I also certainly advise that you not edit war, the page will be fine left at the wrong version until consensus can be reached. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the response. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough - sadly, it seems to me that "dispute resolution" is the only way ahead. The intent of my poorly worded request was "How?". Fortunately, you have addressed that issue! So, "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to 3O I go ... ". Many thanks for your time. Cheers, ~~~~. (Or perhaps that should be ~~~~~?). Pdfpdf (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        After having thought about it overnight, I came to the conclusion that it's more than just a little silly to be editwarring over a DAB page. Never-the-less, your help in my "hour-of-need" was indeed what I needed, and has been most appreciated. I'll stop wasting people's time. Best wishes, and thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoSDAB References

This is a disambiguation page, for directing readers quickly to intended articles. For details, see the disambiguation page style guideline.
Some noteworthy differences from articles:

  • Generally only one navigable link ("blue link") belongs in each bulleted entry.
  • The full article name should be visible; do not pipe entry names.
  • Entries are sentence fragments; do not end them with periods or other punctuation.

WP:MOSDAB => Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
1 Page naming conventions
2 Linking to Wiktionary
3 Linking to a primary topic
4 Introductory line
5 Individual entries
5.1 Examples of individual entries that should not be created
5.2 Given names or surnames
5.3 Misspellings
5.4 Piping and redirects
5.4.1 Exceptions
5.5 Specific entry types
5.5.1 Foreign languages
5.5.2 People
5.5.3 Places
5.5.4 Red links
5.5.5 Synonyms
5.5.6 Items appearing within other articles
6 Order of entries
7 Longer lists
8 Images
9 "See also" section
10 The disambig notice
11 Categories
12 Exceptions
12.1 Set index articles
12.2 Disambiguation pages with only two entries
13 Break rules
14 See also

Category:Old Adelaide Family(ies) - (originally "OAF")

"totally unreferenced - without references this category should be deleted)" - I'm afraid I don't understand. I have looked at many hundreds of categories, and I don't remember ever having seen a category referenced.

Can you show me an example of a category that is referenced so that I have some idea of what a referenced category looks like?

Do you think you could explain to me why any category should be referenced, then why this one should be, and why thousands are not?

Signed, Puzzled from Adelaide. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? See WP:CAT, for instance it says, "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories". Now the problem I have with the "OAF" acronym is that I have lived in Adelaide for decades, and have never seen, heard or read the term "OAF" except on Wikipedia (not by you, it was sitting in the Alexander Downer article for a while). So to demonstrate that "OAF" is a real term - and not just something someone made up one day and put on Wikipedia - you need references demonstrating that "OAF" is moderately widespread and important. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So your concern is not that the "category" is unreferenced, but that the term "OAF" is unreferenced. Is that correct?
If so, would your concerns be addressed by renaming the category from "OAF" to "Old Adelaide Family"?
In fact, I will rename it anyway - OAF is too cryptic and also is not sufficiently distinguishable from oaf.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a double concern: (1) that the term is unreferenced, and (2) that it's a little derogatory as a category name. I think the rename to Category:Old Adelaide Family adequately addresses the second, but the first is more important: references need to be produced to show the term is sufficiently notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
references need to be produced to show the term is sufficiently notable.
Which term? "Old Adelaide Family"? Will these do?
Google pages from Australia for "old adelaide family" returns about 35 results. E.g. Bickford, Pru Goward's mother, Barbara Cleland, daughter of a distinguished Old Adelaide Family, Michell, Menz, Barr-Smith, (An interesting read), Aherns, Barro? (probably too "new"), Crawford, Simpson, etc., etc.
Of more interest to me, How would you one demonstrate notability? i.e. Where would you put the references? As I said, I have never seen a category referenced, and your information supplied above suggests I never will, so how/where?
Pdfpdf (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references belong in the article which has the "Category" line, not in the "Category" article itself. So returning to my example of Alexander Downer, he's in a number of categories, and the references for all of them are (or should be) in the article. For instance, he's in Category:Australian Leaders of the Opposition, and the article documents that. He's in Category:Alumni of Newcastle University, and the article documents that. etc.
As for "Old Adelaide Family", I've looked at a couple of your references, and I'm not yet convinced that it exists as a special term or acronym. Perhaps I'm wrong. I think the best way for you to proceed is to create an article called Old Adelaide Families or Old Adelaide Family, and there explain (with references) why the term (and its apparent acronym "OAF") is notable. (e.g. presumably every city in the world has long established families - why does it matter in Adelaide?) This is what you've started already at Category:Old Adelaide Family. I think a general rule is that the "Category" article shouldn't have too much text (I'm sure I read that somewhere in the WP guidelines, but can't find it now!) So why not see what you can put together for an article, and that (including how much you can support with references) might be a guide to whether the Category is worth while. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the opposite of "indent"?

Thanks, that's useful. (It also overlaps with my opinion of the only sensible/practical way to do it.)
Not wanting to be rude, but "Old Adelaide Family" is a well established term that is independent of your opinion of it, and yes, I believe you're wrong, but then, that's only my opinion.
"OAF", on the other hand, isn't worth any further discussion - the fact that it is only 3 keystrokes is out-weighed by its obscurity and ambiguously derogatory associations (which is no doubt part of the justification for its existence). So let's just drop "OAF" from the conversation.
(On a tangent, thanks for bringing <u> </u> to my attention; I've been looking for a way to do that, and it never occurred to me to try basic html!!)
Yes, an article is probably a good idea. I'm reticent, however, because to do it justice would require a lot of work. (I've just started on The Adelaide Steamship Company - that will keep me busy for the next month. I would guess that a decent OAF article would require over 40 hours work.)
presumably every city in the world has long established families - why does it matter in Adelaide? - Wow!! That's a $64,000 question! Interestingly-to-me, I think I can answer it!! However, it would take me at least half-an-hour of talking to do so. Briefly: Yes, "presumably every city in the world" does have long established families, but I think, in general, "So what?". why does it matter in Adelaide? - I think that's the question that "hits the nail on the head". The answer is complex, and is tied up in the fact that Adelaide was a "free" (non-convict) and privately financed settlement, the economic "travails" of the colony, and the fact that the "founding fathers" were able to become so ridiculously wealthy that a culture of philanthropy developed. Then, through various droughts, depressions and periods of horrible disease and death, these families continued to put back into the community. e.g. Moonta's copper kept SA going when otherwise everyone in Adelaide would have packed up and either returned "home" to England, or moved East. e.g. The Hayward family starting up the John Martin's Christmas Pageant and the Magic Cave.
This is what you've started already at Category:Old Adelaide Family ...
Yes, I think you are right, and yes, I think it does say something like that somewhere.
So why not see what you can put together for an article ...
Flipant answer: Because it's too much like hard work, and I'm too lazy!!!
I have absolutely no doubt that it is worthwhile, and easily justifiable as such. Further, you have convinced me that the way forward is to write an article.
However, my wife wants our grey water diverted onto the garden, and that has higher priority!
Thanks for the discussion-to-date. I've found it interesting, useful and thought provoking.
I expect I will probably bother you again when I want someone to bounce ideas off of.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Question regarding Nulka

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive09#Question regarding Nulka - 71.118.222.75 (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I took the photo myself last Sunday, so I own it. I was standing on the top deck of the USS McClusky with my kids and took a picture of the launcher from about 30 feet away. I also had an interesting talk with one of the officers about how it works, backed up with online research. I should be able to flesh out the article a bit. I will set up an account and then talk to you again soon. 71.118.235.109 (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VC

Hi PDF, Here's where I got the 16 medals at Richmond from [1]. Have a look about 1/4 of the way down the webpage. Maybe the museum has returned one since 2001 but I can't find any evidence. You make some good points. It irritates the hell out of me that some editors revert perfectly good changes for perfectly bad reasons. I'm not bothering editing the page again. 86.24.116.38 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did start looking at it, but I knew we had been discussing what this number should be on the talk page, and hadn't really decided where we were going with it long-term. 50 does seem to be "closer" to the true number than 40 so I hadn't quite got round to bothering to reverting. Trying to sort out the over-emphais on VC and bars, and museums whichc clearly don't meet the stated criteria seemed more pressing. David Underdown (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

Infobox Update

I've done a few changes to the way the Infoboxes work and display data. Also updated the header/logo. normangerman (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do :) normangerman (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:OAF

"totally unreferenced - without references this category should be deleted)" - I'm afraid I don't understand. I have looked at many hundreds of categories, and I don't remember ever having seen a category referenced.

Can you show me an example of a category that is referenced so that I have some idea of what a referenced category looks like?

Do you think you could explain to me why any category should be referenced, then why this one should be, and why thousands are not?

Signed, Puzzled from Adelaide. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? See WP:CAT, for instance it says, "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories". Now the problem I have with the "OAF" acronym is that I have lived in Adelaide for decades, and have never seen, heard or read the term "OAF" except on Wikipedia (not by you, it was sitting in the Alexander Downer article for a while). So to demonstrate that "OAF" is a real term - and not just something someone made up one day and put on Wikipedia - you need references demonstrating that "OAF" is moderately widespread and important. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So your concern is not that the "category" is unreferenced, but that the term "OAF" is unreferenced. Is that correct?
If so, would your concerns be addressed by renaming the category from "OAF" to "Old Adelaide Family"?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google pages from Australia for "old adelaide family" returns about 35 results. E.g. Bickford, Pru Goward's mother, Barbara Cleland, daughter of a distinguished Old Adelaide Family, Michell, Menz, Barr-Smith, (An interesting read), Aherns, Barro? (probably too "new"), Crawford, Simpson, etc., etc.


Category:OAF - part 2

{{help me}} Category:OAF

  • How do you "redirect" a Category?
  • If possible, please redirect this to category to: category:Old Adelaide Family
  • If not, well, I suppose it should be deleted.

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been noted that category redirects could give navigational problems and have nominated it for deletion. Hope the method for making a redirect[2] was understood and apologies for deleting your work (or at least proposing it for deletion).
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC) link 13:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdSteam

DJs, Charles Birks, John Martins

/AdSteam, /Charles Birks

David Jones Limited, John Martins

FYI, I'm starting work on the Adelaide Steamship Company here. If anyone else is interested, could you point them there please?
BTW: Is there some mechanism in place where such "announcements" are posted?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually replied to your question. --[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] Talk 13:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest any of WP:AWNB, WT:AUS or WP:BUSINESS talk page, or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian history depending exactly what kind of focus you're looking for. --Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (Just the sort of information I was after.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Font

I think it looks better. Used on many pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Walker (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IslingtonRailwayStationAdelaide.jpg

normangerman (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)That's a better photo! Taken from the Regency Road bridge? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: My personal (completely unbiassed, of course) opinion is that both pictures should appear on the page. i.e. Instead of replacing the old photo, you should have just added the new photo. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, taken from the Regency Road Bridge. I replaced the old photo, so I would have to re-upload the old one. Might do that sometime in the future :) normangerman (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Skyline

Nope, Carrick Hill. Hope this one people will like hehe. normangerman (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singaporean Rhodes scholars

You make good sense. I don't know what I was thinking and so have removed it. Thanks and cheers. –Moondyne 13:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters, too?

Sorry for the incomplete move of people from the Mitchell page. I didn't realize it was OK to put fictional people on the surname page, too. Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I did the division on the basis of anything using a surname of Mitchell went on the surname page; it didn't seem to me to be logical to leave surname entries on the Mitchell page when there is a "surname" page. The idea of fictional/non-fictional didn't enter my head! (No doubt there will be others who disagree with me, in which case there will probably be a "discussion" on the talk page ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Date Autoformatting

Hi Pdfpdf, I am glad you asked about date autoformatting. Unfortunately, people on both sides of the debate don't fully understand the issues and make false assumptions. Currently, date autoformatting is a mechanism in which registered users can set their preferences so that they can see dates that are "autoformatted" in a certain way (day before month, month before year, etc.). Unfortunately, the only way (currently) to "autoformat" dates is through wikilinking the dates, which is considered overlinking because the links to the dates and years almost never have relevance to the articles they are linked from. In addition, the current method of autoformatting only works for the minority of registered users who have their preferences set. The vast majority of readers (IP and users w/o preferences set) do not experience these "benefits". Furthermore, autoformatting hides the inconsistencies in date formats within articles from those with their preferences set; IP readers see these inconsistencies but registered users with preferences on don't because autoformatting hides them.

Many users, including me, don't believe that the order of the day, month, and year make a difference large enough to outweigh the caveats of format inconsistencies, overlinking, and other disadvantages of autoformatting hidden below. There is a software patch in the works that would autoformat dates without links; the viability and time of implementation of this patch is not known. Once again, thanks for asking and please contact me if you have more questions. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for registered (Wikipedian) users who have set their date preferences and are logged in.
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how it differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
If you're interested, I replied on my talk page. I like to keep discussions together. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aluf

I'm not sure where you got the idea it should be spelled "Alúf", but as I wrote in the edit summary it's firstly a Hebrew word "אלוף‎" not "Alúf", which contains the letter vav with a shuruk, and this almost always transliterated with a u. "ú" is not even a letter in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) is the guidline on how do inline naming of Hebrew words, familarize yourself within it if you're any bit familar with Hebrew. Epson291 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Benson Hall, Jr.

I resolved the red link for this person. I had encountered biographical information for him when I was looking into his father. In hindsight, I should have left a note about where to find out more. --Big_iron (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain (land and air)

I added the links because they were on the Captain (naval) page.

Basically, I agree with you; however, I also think that the "Common military ranks" info boxes ought to also be deleted because they are not necessarily common to all nations, they have a footnote about the UK, etc. Therefore, I think that the info box ought to be deleted also. This was also a concern of an anonymous user back in Sept see Talk:Captain (land and air)). Thoughts? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to give you a coherent response(!), so here, in no particular order, is a brain-dump of my rambling thoughts:
In general, if something is relevant, then I'm an "inclusionist".
However, (for a number of reasons, including the ones you have mentioned), I've never particularly liked that box.
On the other hand, it's a reasonably concise summary of the ranks, and shows where a rank fits into "the grand scheme", so it does serve a useful purpose.
I suppose that raises some questions: 1) How well does it serve that purpose? 2) If you removed it, would you be able to replace it with something that better serves that purpose? Although I can't find anything to disagree with in what you say, it would seem that I think it serves a useful purpose, and I can't think of a better way to serve that purpose. Therefore, I seem to be saying, "I agree with you, but I don't think removing it is the best way forward unless you can find something better to replace it with."
If I were you, I wouldn't be very impressed with that response. Sorry! I'll have a think about it and see if I can come up with a better response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the laugh and the response. I understand where you're coming from. I, myself, feel like Two Face, one of Batman's nemeses. LOL Perhaps some of it rests with the division of ranks. I looked at List of comparative military ranks and "Military rank]] a bit, see the same/similar info box, and wonder why
  • "ensign" is missing but "sub-lieutenant" is there
  • "lieutenant colonel" is there but not "lieutenant general"
  • "Field marshal" is there but not "General of the Army",
  • "warrant officer" is shown for the air force but not the army,
  • Coast Guard is not mentioned (yeah, I know, it's probably nearly unique to the US) :)
  • etc.
I, in my US Army (retired) "finest" (debatable LOL) tradition, would probably say "private, sergeant, sergeant major, warrant officer, lieutenant, captain, major, colonel, general" for the Army and "seaman, petty officer, chief, warrant officer, lieutenant, commander, captain, admiral" for Navy, and so on ad nauseum for the rest of the info box -- basically using maybe 3 or 4 generalized and/or summarized ranks for enlisted and officer, and then have the footnote reading something like, "there are various national permutations, variations, and sub-division of ranks and various names for equivalent ranks within this generalized structure, to include ranks for trainees, officer candidates, etc."
I haven't yet commented on the talk page as you did, but perhaps that is where I should've laid thisout and let others join our fun! Of course, like you did, that'd make me keep my responses/comments more "formal" LMAO
Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on 10k

Well done, sir! jmcw (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term "apparent"

I used the term "apparent" because it is not 100% clear that a candidate has been elected or re-elected. While it is pretty clear that it has happened, there is still some doubt left, so we can't say it is definite. I think that the Cao-Jefferson race is over, so you may remove terminology if I left any there. However, the AP or other sources haven't called the Fleming-Carmouche race yet, so I used the term apparent there, as I would with the Coleman-Franken, Goode-Perriello, or Stivers-Kilroy races. It is not an official term or anything, just how I use it. You could use another term if you can think of it. Thanks for asking. God bless, HUZZAH HANUKKAH (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Static

I changed the wording on the personal life section for the article on Wayne Static. Thanks for the heads up on the information. --Candy156sweet (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured since you took the time to edit the page for Wayne Static, I would inform you that I went ahead and place some cleanup, citation, and improvement tags on the page to invite more editors to help add and cite edits on the page. I hope that you don't feel upset about that, because I really did it to be helpful. I will continue to look for the sources to cite the two citation needed tags on the page. Thank you for hopefully understanding and happy editing. --Candy156sweet (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart

Your edits to Heart (band) are of dubious (if any) value. In fact, they are of negative value, because I have had to waste my time repairing them. You have removed verified information without stating why. You have added opinion without supporting evidence. You have introduced errors of fact and changed the meaning of verified statements so that what they say is no longer consistent with the verifications. Although this isn't vandalism, and I would like to assume that you did them "in good faith" (WP:AGF), in fact, they have been an irritating nuisance. In future, please give more thought to what you are doing - other editors may not be as polite as me and may simply revert your work assuming it is vandalism. This sounds very harsh, for which I apologise, but I'm not very happy about having to expend so much effort to be "nice" - it would have been much easier and quicker for me to have simply reverted your efforts. I'm happy to discuss this with you and explain things, if you wish, both on my talk page, or via email if you prefer a more private forum. (My talk page). (Link to email me). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to start, the Heart page had a bit of a bias towards the band which people failed to edit. All I did was expand on the release of Dog and Butterfly and Bebe le Strange. Furthermore, the discussion on Ann's wight gain is a valid one. It was well known and documented (it was discussed in great detail on behind the music and I can put forth a clip from youtube with Ann discussiing the issue during an interview about her weight). I can understand if you might have an issue with the influence section but both Alice in Chains and Christ Cornell have gone on the record stating Heart was an influence. If I must provide documentation I will do so. The section on them being the first female rock band with women in control can also be validated on Vh1 Behind the Music as can the influence on Pat Benetar and Lita Ford. Finally, I felt the page was way too cluttered and had too much information in the 2,000's section so I combined them together. I also felt it to be appropriate to include in the RNC controversy in the controversy section. I feel the page is fine but if you would like me to put forth sources for the material I will do it. 67.181.182.87 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. As it happens, I pretty much agree with nearly everything you have raised here; I guess my "complaints" are what I put in the edit summaries and above, and you don't seem to be addressing any of those. (I think this makes life easier!) Regarding your reply:
  1. "the Heart page had a bit of a bias towards the band which people failed to edit" - I'm not sure what you're referring to here, so I can't respond.
  2. "All I did was expand on the release of Dog and Butterfly and Bebe le Strange" - With respect, that is not all you did. If you examine my edits, you'll see I did not make any changes to those particular edits. And I have mentioned above the other stuff you have done with which I was not "happy".
  3. "Furthermore, the discussion on Ann's wight gain is a valid one." - Agreed. I made no complaints about that. Or am I missing something?
  4. "and I can put forth a clip from youtube with Ann discussiing the issue during an interview about her weight)." - Yes please.
  5. "I can understand if you might have an issue with the influence section" - I personally don't have the issue; it is an issue that was raised on the talk page, and has yet to be addressed. (Hmmm. I see someone archived it. As it is not resolved, I've put it back. It's now once again at at: Talk:Heart (band)#Bands influenced by Heart?).
  6. "but both Alice in Chains and Christ Cornell have gone on the record stating Heart was an influence" - Well, the AiC reference is there, but neither Cornell, nor the reference, are mentioned, and there aren't any supporting references for any of the others mentioned.
  7. "If I must provide documentation I will do so." - Yes please.
  8. "The section on them being the first female rock band with women in control can also be validated on Vh1 Behind the Music as can the influence on Pat Benetar and Lita Ford." - Yes please.
  9. "Finally, I felt the page was way too cluttered and had too much information in the 2,000's section so I combined them together." - You will have noticed that I did not undo any of those changes.
  10. "I also felt it to be appropriate to include in the RNC controversy in the controversy section." - That was (is) a good idea. (I wish I'd thought of it first ... )
  11. "I feel the page is fine but if you would like me to put forth sources for the material I will do it." - Yes please.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly was your problem with my edits then? Was it the lack or sources? (I put those in BTW)? What I mean with the bias quote was certian sections seemed to give a bit too much praise to the band. It has been cleaned up compared considerably though. Also Cornell did state on VH1: Behind the Music that they were a big influence on him. Many music pages on him,such as rhapsody yahoo and aol music , state Heart was a band that influenced him. Anyway, I do apologize for any inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.182.87 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naval shoulder boards

Well, I think we should somehow find out what other officers do wear on their shoulder-boards (on the rare occasions they are worn) and then find someone to run up a graphic representation of the insignia to be added to the article. "Somehow" being perhaps the operative word. Opera hat (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kelly (politician)

Thanks for the fixes on the article! Been a rather busy few weeks plus editing images ATM so I didn't really have mush time for those fixes. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing your comment "I'm confused" section. I have had it happen to me in the past but I've never really asked Wikimedia (makers of the Wiki software) but 2 possible causes. 1, Database issue which can cause some data in the tables to be lost/dropped meaning your edits are lost which can happen when updating any type of software (Reason why they say you should back-up before updating Wiki, Forum software and the like) and the 2, Developers may have reverted back to an back-up due to an issue within the database which couldn't be corrected meaning they only thing to do is to use the last good back-up of the database but there could be more reasons for your reverts/edits to go missing. Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arr yes I forgot about the rollback feature (I wished we could add a edit summary to that)! With the edit summary I do add a comment but most of the time it never shows up when I use Firefox (but shows up now and again and I do have issues with the TW tool I use) but if I try IE it crashes do I just deal with what I have (I'm not really a fan on using Google Chrome on Wikipedia). PS. I've added a comment in the edit summary of just "Comment" to see if it will show up. Bidgee (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday (Woo hoo!!)

It's summer down here. I'm off to the beach! Merry Xmas!! See you next year. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!  :) --Candy156sweet (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, back to reality ... Pdfpdf (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit

I am certain that we agree an many vandal - related issues. I simply use the warning template that Huggle supplies. Now, in an ideal world, I would carefully go through many of a suspected vandal's edits, and then issue an appropriate, personalized message that relates specifically to their "problem edit(s)." However, this takes time, and in this time, there is usually even more vandalism to revert, and vandals to warn. So, instead of taking more time to personalize these warnings, I just go 'click' and send a somewhat appropriate message. Huggle takes care of the warning levels, et cetera, saving me time. Naturally, this makes it possible for me to catch even more vandals. Also, 1st warnings are much less severe than the higher level warnings. By the natural progression of things, the automated warnings will become more and more severe, eventually resulting in an admin. reviewing said user for a ban.

I guess.. I don't see the need for me to extend vandals the courtesy of a personalized message when I can catch more of them without.. Call me lazy, I guess. But then, with huggle, on 12/26 I managed to do (I think) over 25 reverts and warnings. If each were customized, the number would have been much smaller. To me, I guess it's about volume. Sorry for going on about stuff you probably already know all about. Frankly, I wish I could deliver my anti-vandalism warnings in person. Cheers! 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: +cats

Hi Pdf, thank you for the very kind comments. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well. I have a few ideas at what uni I would like to attend, but I have already decided on a Bachelor of Arts degree in modern history. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ridley

If you believe the article is a copyright violation, please use the {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} template, and provide a link/information on the suspected source. See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions for more. --EEMIV (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Napier (surname)

Request for an opinion please. What do you think of this vs this? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer having the dab entries included in the main list rather than separate, because it's easier to scan down the page for the given name you're interested in.
Lately I've been working mostly with place name dab pages, and I don't always do that with those because 1) the place name lists are often organized by country or region, and 2) the dab pages can have entries for multiple countries/regions
If you prefer the other way, I'd be interested to hear your thinking. Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I had/have a preference for it - it was more a case thinking that, almost by definition, the dab pages are the more "common" names, so putting them at the start of the list would reduce the average "reader-search-time". (Not hard to spot the statistician, is it ... ) I'm beginning to think that it might be one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" situations. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoot

I've read it - many times. What are you on about? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The guidelines say that only one blue link per line is necessary. There's no need to link an irrelevant term. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, stop using obscure words that the majority of people have to look up.
And/or stop reverting those people's edits when they replace those obscure words with more commnly used words.
"No need" is your opinion, and ONLY an opinion.
a) If there was "no need", I wouldn't have done it.
b) What's irrelevant? Irellevant to what? No, don't answer that.
Over and out - Past experience tells me that trying to have a conversation with you is a complete waste of my time. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely typical, and exactly what I would have expected from you!!!
1) There is NOTHING "crude" in ANY of the above!! If you disagree, then explain what it is you disagree with. However, I am reasonably certain you won't. I am reasonably certain you will avoid answering such a reasonable question. After all, that is your modus operandi!
2) Regarding the topic at hand, the options are:
i) Restore my edit, so that people unfamiliar with the word can easily look up what it means.
ii) Change it yourself to simpler language, so that people unfamiliar with the word don't have to look it up.
iii) Allow somebody else to change it to simpler language, so that people unfamiliar with the word don't have to look it up.
iv) Watch somebody else to change it to simpler language, so that people unfamiliar with the word don't have to look it up, and then revert that edit and use some self-riteous justification that makes you feel smug.
Please advise which option you intend to persue - I do not wish to waste my time fixing it only to have you come along and revert it.
Pdfpdf (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit and your edit comment "remove, this has been settled", please explain what has been settled, and how it has been settled.
As far as I can determine from your edits and lack of answers to questions, nothing has been "settled":
  • You continue to refuse to engage in discussion.
  • You continue to refuse to answer questions.
  • You continue to revert other people's compliant-to-the-MoS edits to your non-compliant versions.
  • You continue to delete from your talk page any comments which point out your unacceptable behaviour.
  • You continue to behave as per your modus operandi and predictable unacceptable behaviour.
I await a relevant answer with interest.
However, given your modus operandi, I'm not expecting to get one. After all, I predicted above that you would not supply any relevant answers, and you haven't ...
Pdfpdf (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sesshomaru:
If you had actually read what people wrote to you and about you, it would be blindingly obvious to you what everybody's "problem"s with you are, not just mine.
So don't come at me with this "I don't know what your problem is with me" rubbish; it has been explained to you many times by many people.
This, and other people's past attempts to communicate with you, are not personal attacks. They are repeated polite attempts by numerous people to explain things to you, and repeated polite questions by numerous people asking you to explain yourself. At no time have I ever seen you provide a relevant answer to a question you have been asked.
"I'm just enforcing the rules" - Rubbish! You have been given opinions by three different and independent people which have told you, repeatedly, that your edits and opinions are contrary to the guidelines. You continue to ignore them.
"that's all." - Rubbish!
"I suggest you stop reverting me for the sake of it." - If you really do think that I, and others, are reverting you "for the sake of it", then you have paid no attention to what people have written to you.
"Now hopefully, we can agree on this." - Sorry, I don't understand. Is that supposed to be some kind of perverse joke? It is beyond my wildest imagination that you could possibly even entertain the thought that after two months of me, and two other people, telling you that your edits are not compliant with the guidelines, that I would suddenly agree with you that they are compliant.
Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You have reverted 3 times in less than 24 hours.

Fed up

From User talk:NuclearWarfare

Hi. I'm fed up with having to put up with a certain editor's irrational, inconsistent, unpredictable, incommunicative, narrow minded, uncompromising, uncooperative, arrogant and stubborn behaviour.
I'm also fed up with how this editor "plays the system" and seems to get away with attrocius behaviour without any consequences.
And I'm also fed up with the amount of my time that is being wasted by this editor.
I see that you have had interactions with this editor, and that you have observed this editor's unacceptable behaviour.
Do you know if anything can be done about this editor's unacceptable behaviour?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I like your quote from "Essjay". Yes, I am completely convinced that improving the behaviour of the-editor-in-question will indeed make WP a better place. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay

From User talk:NurseryRhyme

Hi. I'm fed up with having to put up with a certain editor's irrational, inconsistent, unpredictable, incommunicative, narrow minded, uncompromising, uncooperative, arrogant and stubborn behaviour. (Did I miss anything?)
Also, I'm fed up with the amount of my time that is being wasted by this editor.
I see that you have had similar experiences with this editor.
Do you know if anything can be done about this editor's unacceptable behaviour?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Famous Whale

From User talk:B.Takayama

Greetings!

Regarding your two edits to Mitcham Square and Torrens Park, I have a couple of questions.

  • On one you say "(Fame? - wth?)". Could I bother you to tell me what "wth" means please?
  • On the other you say "('Famous' - no.)". Wiktionary defines famous as
  1. Well known
  2. In the public eye
Our fibreglass friend is both "Well known" and "In the public eye". Hence, by definition, it is famous. Could I bother you to explain to me why you do not think it is famous?

Somewhat tangential, could I also bother you to tell me how a male "born in, of all places, Texas." happened to be reading about a fibreglass playground toy in a suburban shopping mall in the inner southern suburbs of Adelaide? (I freely admit that I have never read about suburban shopping malls in Texas! ;-)

Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive10&oldid=1090438644"