User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive12

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

Question (re listas)

Hi! (It's been quite a while since our last interaction.)
Of no great importance, but regarding this edit, if my understanding of "listas" is correct, (and it's entirely possible that my understanding is NOT correct), its main use is to treat the page (in certain circumstances) as though its name is as specified in the "listas". If that is indeed the case, then what's the advantage achieved by "listas" with the same name as the page?
Signed: Easily confused from Adelaide. (Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is a category of biography articles without "listas" - this is meant to be used to patrol, clearly nearly all biography articles need a listas, adding it to those which strictly speaking could do without (maybe 2%) will help make maintenance feasible. Rich Farmbrough, 10:15 2 March 2009 (UTC).

re: Hollywood

I changed the three as I am the primary contributor to them and they are all on my watchlist. Also, it isn't very good to have uncited material in an article, especially as two of these are a little higher up on the quality scale, so I found and added the cite to them. I might get around to addressing the others a little later, but either variant of wording is grammatically correct. Sorry, but Smart is quite an obscure figure, it seems, as I have seen very little about/on him. I'm working on Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wells myself. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I can think of that you may find further information on Smart is at the AWM website. It might be worthwhile to search for him in their First World War recommendations for honours and awards section for information on why he was awarded the DSO and MC. I haven't really come across anything discussing the limitations of the CCOSC position; I'm still working on his Second World War service at the moment actually. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but ...

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the AIV process, and there are a few things I don't understand.
Having written what's below, I realised that the reason I'm writing is to ask two questions:

  • How do I know that the IP has been blocked?
  • How does the IP know that they have been blocked?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, having written all this, I'm loath to delete it, so I'm leaving it here so that you know what I'm talking about:
I noticed an IP editor's vandalism, and a final warning on their talk page. I'm afraid I have a "thing" about toothless-tiger warnings, so I decided to do something in the hope that the warning actually did have teeth.
So, I did this and this.
Soon after, I noticed this. I understood what it was saying, but I don't understand the implications, (if any).
(Comment: It would be useful if this bot explained itself better. Or, at least, I think it would be useful if ... )
The next thing that I noticed was this with the comment: HBC AIV helperbot2 m (3 IPs left. rm 204.174.129.204 (blocked 1 day by Toddst1 (AO ACB)). 1 comment(s) removed.) AO means "Anonymous users blocked only". ACB means "ACB: Account creation blocked". OK. I'm not sure what it means, but OK ...
I looked at User talk:204.174.129.204 and the revision history. No changes there. I thought to myself: "What's going on? Has anything happened? It doesn't look like anything's happened."
So I looked at the block log. It says: 11:45, 6 March 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) blocked 204.174.129.204 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ ({{schoolblock}}). What does that mean?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good question - one I've never been asked before. Good sleuthing! Basically, I blocked the editor with a normal {{schoolblock}} and forgot to leave a note on the talk page. I'll do that now. AO means that if someone already has an account, they can log in from that school and it's ok - we're only blocking anonymous editors. ACB means they can't create an account from that school during the block to get around it. Toddst1 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tool we use to block someone doesn't automatically leave a note on the talk page - probably a hack that's needed. Toddst1 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well! This is an unexpected pleasant surprise. Thank you! (It is nice to be appreciated. Very nice.)
(Oh, and by the way, thanks for answering the questions.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hollywood

Yeah, it's probably better like that. If you're going to change 3 of them, you might as well change all of them.
(And while you're at it, it's probably better grammar to say: The xxx ward at Hollywood Private Hospital is named in his honour?)
Pdfpdf (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW:

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smart

"Sorry, but Smart is quite an obscure figure, it seems, as I have seen very little about/on him." - Yes. I find it interesting that a person can get to be LtGen yet still have a "low profile". If you come across anything useful, I'd appreciate it if you brought it to my attention.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only place I can think of that you may find further information on Smart is at the AWM website. It might be worthwhile to search for him in their First World War recommendations for honours and awards section for information on why he was awarded the DSO and MC. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wells

"I'm working on Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wells myself." - That could be interesting. Have you come across anything discussing how well/badly the COSC worked with the Chairman being a 3* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs? Also, Wells was only in the CCOSC position for a year; does anyone discuss that?
I notice the VADM Dowling article doesn't say anything much at all! It doesn't even mention that he was CCOSC. And the CDF article makes no mention of the 4 years Scherger spent in the position as a 3*, why he was promoted to ACM, or the period 1965-1976 when the incumbents were 4*. Do you intend to touch the 3* CCOSC issue?
(I seem to remember that Ian Rose is a bit of a "Scherg" fan ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really come across anything discussing the limitations of the CCOSC position; I'm still working on his Second World War service at the moment actually. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've got another decade to cover before you get to CCOSC ...
I had a quick look around but didn't find anything even vaguely relevant, much less useful. I'll have a look in the library catalogue at work tomorrow. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Pdfpdf (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3* CCOSC

Hi Ian. Young Bryce tells me that: "I'm working on Lieutenant General Sir Henry Wells myself." As Wells was the first incumbent of a position nominally senior to the 3* single service chiefs, I wondered if Bryce had come across anything discussing how well/badly the COSC worked with the Chairman being a 3* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs.
I seem to remember that you're a bit of a "Scherg" fan. Have you any knowledge/thoughts/opinions on how well/badly AM F Scherger managed for 4 years in the CCOSC position as a 3*, and/or why he was promoted to ACM, and/or if "being a 4* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs" was a better or different situation than "being a 3* with no command authority over the 3* single service chiefs"?
(I notice it was another 10 years after Scherger before they abolished the COSC and created CDF with command authority, but never-the-less, the CCOSC remained a 4* position during those 10 years ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No major revelations about Scherger in this position I have to admit. He was extended in the position twice, on both occasions by unanimous vote of the powers-that-were, to serve for a total of five years, and only in his last year was he given the 4-star rank. So clearly he did what was expected of him and, just as clearly I think, he seemed to enjoy doing it. However you're quite correct that, even after being promoted to ACM and clearly being senior to the service chiefs, the CCOSC position still had no statutary authority over those chiefs - who, I understand, also had no personal authority over their respective services, exercising their powers as effectively chairmen of boards, e.g. the Air Board had the legislated authority over the RAAF, not the Chief of the Air Staff himself. However, if you look at the way the RAAF operated from the beginning, the Air Board was basically a glove and the CAS the hand within the glove - the Air Board generally seems to have moved the way the CAS wanted it to... Perhaps the COSC operated similarly, if not to the same extent. Remember also that Scherg was described by John Gorton as a "politician in uniform" and probably made things happen as much through the government as through the service chiefs - look how he influenced our early commitment to Vietnam...!
I expected you would have something interesting to add. Thank you. Personally, I found that very interesting. The "penny hadn't dropped" that the COSC was simply a reflection/extension of the single service model - recognising that analogy goes a long way towards explaining numerous "mysteries". (However, it doesn't provide Bryce with the answer to the bit of history as to why "they" decided there was a need to create a CCOSC, and why "they" decided it should happen then rather than at some other time. I guess I still have some hunting to do ... )
So, it would seem to me that Scherger's promotion to 4* was probably independent of anything to do with what rank CCOSC "should" have; it was probably much more about the fact that he had the abilities of a 4*, and was successfully "doing the job" that "they" wanted done. Would you agree?
Cheers and Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my turn for the penny to drop. I should've added that the catalyst for the creation of CCOSC was the Morshead Committee report of 1957, which recommended merging the individual service departments with the Department of Defence, amalgamating the Departments of Supply and Defence Production into one, and creating an overarching ADF commander role. In the event, the first bit had to wait till the early 1970s, the second part was implemented soon after its recommendation, and the third resulted initially in COSC and Chairman of COSC (I think I've got all that right, Nick-D or Hawkeye could verify). I might echo Jeffrey Grey in A Military History of Australia, who notes that in the early years the effectiveness of the CCOSC position at any given time was directly related to the personality of the incumbant, given its lack of legislated authority. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! I expect Bryce will find that information useful! (And incidently, given what you also said above, I find it very interesting.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ribbons

While we're on the subject of Scherger, it's been quite a while since we've discussed the service ribbons in military bios and I see that section is still in the Scherger article. As you know, I believe that such sections/pictures don't belong in articles because they constitute list- and image-cruft, and over-balance the article in favour of reletively trivial elements, given that the vast majority of the ribbons are for service or campaign medals that everyone gets for showing up at a particular place and time. I proposed a compromise in the infobox that was more than I think was warranted, yet no-one else seems to be prepared to come to the party on that. The fact is, the Scherger article sticks out like a sore thumb in this respect - none of the simlar CAS or senior RAAF officer articles I've been involved with include it. Note also that all the Australian military bios that people like myself, Bryce and Hawkeye have taken to A-Class and FA over the past few months have eschewed such sections/pictures, which should say something in itself. I have plans to expand and improve the Scherger article to A- and perhaps FA-Class, and I'd like to do so without the encumbrance of the Honours and Awards section. It would be great to have your acquiescence or, even better, your support on this point - for the sake of consistency if nothing else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know your pov. Similarly, you know mine. (viz: People see the string of medals above the left pocket and wonder what they are, what they mean, and what they tell you about the person.) I think we've been around that circle too many times already.
"I proposed a compromise in the infobox ... yet no-one else seems to be prepared to come to the party on that." - I don't think that's quite right; my memory is that both I, and the people with similar pov to me, were quite enthusiastic about it, but somebody came up with a technical hitch to that solution, and the conversation didn't continue past that point.
My recollection is that you said you were going to look it or other possiblities and come back to the discussion, but that didn't occur - perhaps I misundertood something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right, and no, I don't think you misunderstood. Yes, we did go off and investigate some options, but we didn't come up with anything we were particularly happy with, and so had nothing to add to the discussion ... Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of what actually did happen, let me clarify my pov by saying: I thought, and still think, your proposal was/is a great idea, and I advise that I will enthusiastically accept any and all invitations to any and all parties on the matter. In case there is still some doubt, I will enthusiastically support any practical solution involving "show & hide" in the infobox. (It's unfortunate that this particular line of communication failed ... )
"The fact is ... which should say something in itself." - Well yeah, but I would have thought you would have realised by now that getting articles to A-Class and beyond is neither one of my interests nor one of my priorities. My priority and interest is to provide easily accessible interesting and useful information in obvious places where people can find it easily and quickly without having to wade through pages and pages of irrelevant "noise".
Nor do I think WP needs to be entirely made up of A- and FA-Class material to be worthwhile, however Stubs and Start-Class article are, by definition, of pretty limited use, so I think our baseline should at least be B-Class, and I don't think I've seen many B-Class articles with these sections either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Nothing to add.) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I do NOT believe our aims are incompatible; in fact, I think they overlap, and where they don't, I believe they are complementary.
Never-the-less, I realise that I am a member of a very small minority group in your realm, (perhaps a group of size one?), and that these are both high priorities and of high interest to the majority. (Vast majority?)
Therefore, given your direct request, I feel it would be churlish to obstruct you.
However, I'm resistant to the idea that this must result in a "win-lose" outcome. Your infobox suggestion sounded like a "win-win" solution to me (until someone seemed to kill it.) If it can't be practically implemented, then I feel there "must" be some other method to address the wishes of both parties, don't you?
I'm also not particularly interested in 'winning' the argument, I know you're just as keen as I am to see that WP is the most useful online encyclopedia there can be. I think the technical concern that was brought up must be pretty rare, as the show/hide-in-the-infobox method is or has been also used by WP:Album to incorporate multiple critical reviews without resulting in an infobox as long as one's arm (that's probably where I got the idea). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. (And you know I'm supportive of the show/hide option.) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One idea that occurred to me was to have a separate page with a title like "Sets of medals", and a separate section for each person with the ribbon bar and descriptions. Then, in your A-class article, there could be a sentence that is something like "ACM Scherger's medals are described at [[Sets of medals#Frederick Scherger]].". What do you think?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, have to admit that even this suggestion brings me back back to my contention that the textual bio is the place to explain where someone served and what they did, rendering the list of service/campaign medals redundant. If your goal is to use the complete set of ribbons and the identification of each medal to serve as shorthand for their career, I can understand that in an article at Stub or Start-Class, where there's little in the way of textual exposition. However, when you've achieved the comprehensiveness of a B, A or FA, you definitely should have been able to describe all that in the body of the article.
Well, I only largely agree with you, not completely, but as I have gone off this idea, I don't mind! (Because it would be rather wierd for me to now try to discourage you from it!! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To cut to the chase for this article at least, what I propose is that the present Honours and Awards section be removed and the show/hide in the infobox be instated (per my example here), to at least serve as a test case for ACR when it gets there. If we want to develop policy on this in the wider community, I think it needs to go to the main MILHIST page, not the Oz Task Force one. Back to Scherger, I realise that PalawanOz and perhaps others have been involved in the section here so the second thing I propose is moving this discussion to that artcile's talk page so they have a chance to comment before I change anything in the article. If that gets us back to square one, then we just take it to the main MILHIST page for wider comment then and there, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable plan, but before you/we implement it, I have one more alternative I'd like to investigate. Do you mind holding off for a day or two? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With bated breath...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post script:

I'm just looking for a brief response, not a detailed analysis:
What do you (personally) think of the Peter Cosgrove article?
(Briefly), what would be the major issues to address to get it to B-class?
Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get to B-class I'd suggest the following:
  • A longer lead section, say one 10-line para hitting all the highlights.
  • Standard bio structure including: an early (pre-military) life section; the military career section (broken down into a few subsections on early career and/or Vietnam, then post-Vietnam and Interfet, then post-Interfet and CDF); and finally a post-military career and/or retirement section. Personal life can either be worked into appropriate spots in the rest of the article or stay as a separate section.
  • Citations look good, just keep that up as the article develops.
  • Be great to get a publicity shot from Defence for the infobox - Nick-D may have advice for fair use methods; alternatively I have prised free-use agreement from Defence for some non-public-domain RAAF portraits and might try that as well.
  • Goes without saying what I think of the Awards section - you see what I mean about over-balancing the article I think - it's as long as the rest! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and with tongue in cheek, I could say "It makes it look great, doesn't it!", but perhaps I won't - I'll just leave well-enough alone ... ;-)
Thanks for that. That's quite a bit more than I would have guessed. I think I'l leave such higher pursuits to you experts who know what you're doing, and get back to my experiment! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
label

Speaking of which, what am I doing wrong here? (It's nearly 10 years since I wrote any html!)

test
a
b
c
{

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fools' Day archive

Rick Neigher article

Hi Pdfpdf, need any help with this article? you can send me a message at daphneho_seattle at yahoo dot com. I emailed Rick Neigher to introduce myself. He appreciates your creating the wikipedia article about him, he said you can contact him at rickneigher at gmail dot com any time if you have any questions. Happy Valentine's Day! Daphne80smusic (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Rollback

After your question, I did some checking. You're a pretty solid editor. We need more like you around here. Sort of to encourage your participation and hopefully expand it in the way of vandal fighting, I've added rollback to your list of capabilities here on the English Wikipedia. I strongly recommend practicing here before doing it in a real scenario. Any admin can remove the privilege for any misuse, but I'm confident you'll use it carefully and only when appropriate. If for some reason you don't wish to have this privilege, please let me know and I'll back it out. Otherwise, keep up the great work and happy editing. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiki table in show/hide section?

{{helpme}} I'm trying to put a wiki table in a show/hide section. I am not having any success. Here's what I'm doing:

{{hidden|test|
:a
:b
:c
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|row 1
|-
|row 2
|-
|row 3
|}
}}

Here's what's happening:

test
a
b
c
{

Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong please? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking into your question, and will answer here very soon. --  Chzz  ►  12:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK; the two templates don't play well together. One solution would be to use HTML table syntax, like this;

{{hidden|Title text here|
<table>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>6</td>
</tr>
</table>
}}
Title text here
1 2
3 4
5 6

For more info, see Help:Table#Other table syntax

Hope that answers your question, if not please put another helpme on here.

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk. --  Chzz  ►  13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes

Thanks - as you can see this fell off my radar!! Only just got round to noticing. Also a bit worried about the text in the main body of the article about sexuality. I thought we had reached consensus amongst ourselves in June last year that we wouldn't go into too much detail but set out the issues as a marker. Comparing text to what we settled on then and what we have now it all looks quite different. There's a lot more repetition for example that says the same thing several times - not conclusive evidence etc. Also reduced the references to Pickering even further. Would appreciate your advice on whether it's worth me trying to argue for a reinstatement of what we had or if you think on balance the thing's not worth pursuing? Many thanks. And here's the June 2008 text below:

Rhodes never married, pleading that "I have too much work on my hands" and saying that he would not be a dutiful husband. However, several writers have suggested that there are convincing reasons to believe Rhodes may have been homosexual, although admittedly the amount of direct evidence is scarce. In particular, in discussing this issue the scholar Richard Brown observed: "there is still the simpler but major problem of the extraordinarily thin evidence on which the conclusions about Rhodes are reached. Rhodes himself left few details... Indeed, Rhodes is a singularly difficult subject... since there exists little intimate material - no diaries and few personal letters."

Brown also comments: "On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality... there is, once again, simply not enough reliable evidence to reach firm, irrefutable conclusions. It is inferred, fairly convincingly (but not proved), that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical. Neville Pickering is described as Rhodes' lover in spite of the absence of decisive evidence." According to a biography by A. Thomas, the "greatest love of Rhodes' life" was Pickering, also the son of a clergyman, who had moved to South Africa with his family. Rhodes and Pickering lived together in a cottage in what one government official referred to as an "absolutely lover-like friendship".[13] Rhodes’ devotion was evident when he rushed back from important negotiations for Pickering's twenty-fifth birthday in 1882; on that occasion, Rhodes drew up a new will leaving his entire estate to Pickering. Two years later, Pickering suffered a riding accident. Rhodes nursed him faithfully for six weeks, refusing even to answer telegrams concerning his business interests, yet Pickering died in Rhodes' arms; at his funeral, Rhodes wept hysterically.''

Contaldo80 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the slow reply. When I get a chance, I'll have a look - probably tomorrow. (Oh. It's past midnight. - probably later today.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables - a solution

Hi,

I thought about your problem, and have a possible solution.

If you use the actual code generated by the {{hidden}} template instead of the template itself, it would work.

You'd put this bit before all the medals; 

 
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border:none; "><div class="NavHead" 
style="font-weight:bold; background:transparent; 
text-align:center; ">Title text here </div>
<div class="NavContent" style="font-weight:normal; 
background-color:transparent; text-align:left; 
">

And this bit after them; 

 
</div></div>

I've made an example in User:Chzz/table

I hope this helps.

--  Chzz  ►  14:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've also just found Help:Collapsing

--  Chzz  ►  14:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Pirie

Hey Pdfpdf, I see you reverted an edit like this- I've also done it twice but the user keeps on adding it, and I'm in danger of violating the 3RR. Blatant POV- can you help in this at all? Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. With pleasure. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonython Hall

I've been saying to myself for months that I really should create that article. Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I was a bit surprised that it wasn't there already. I was going to ask if you had more pics but as I can see you've already added some pretty good photos...The Hack 00:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Defence article naming

Probably not, since point 4 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) says that "United States government units and officials" are grandfathered against that policy since they already have a neat and tidy organisational system. - htonl (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! Adelaide must be represented for its ioof architecture, and otherwise.  :) doncram (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Have you ever thought of being an admin? We need some solid folks like you. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply probably tomorrow when I have some more time. Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda

I deleted my comments since they were useless: no one responded to my comment and its been up for a while. The part I was talking about was removed by someone else which kinda made my comment irrelevant. Looking back at my comment, it doesn't really make any sense to anyone looking at the page since no discussion took place and the affected areas are gone anyway. You can undo my edit if you really want to, I'm not too worried. Tej68 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Admiral

I disagree. 'Stars' is a term originating in, as far as I am aware, the USA (or United States of America/All). And as is the American way, they sometimes attempt to impose their beliefs on all other nations. In navies in which the number of stars or pips differ from the American set up (as submissively adopted by NATO and the Commonwealth forces), the one-star, two-star etc basis of ranking is not relevant. B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wonder where this common interest in ranking (definitely with an 'r') comes from...

Photos

The next set are up! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coord elections

Hi there, just wanted to say that given our strong disagreements on some subjects, your vote of support in the MILHIST coordinator elections was perhaps the most welcome of those I was fortunate enough to receive, and one I certainly didn’t/don’t take for granted. Should I ever fail to behave in the proper manner expected of a coordinator, please feel free to metaphorically rip one off my arms and slap me about the head with the wet end...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Private Hospital

Thanks for cleaning it up it looks good.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking

Well, well, there you go - Sir Thomas Blamey 1951, Lord Birdwood 1925, and the Duke of Edinburgh 1954. I had no idea. Thank you for your correction. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who was it who said...

"I won't be responding. Good night. And good bye"? Whoever it was doesn't seem to have the strength to stand by what they say. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to my categories and edit history?

→ in re: {{db-f8}}, images uploaded by Pdfpdf, moved to commons and tagged {{NowCommons}} by GerardusS

It seems that somebody has uploaded a lot of my pictures to commons, and you have deleted the originals.
Because you have deleted the originals, the edit history has gone, so I can't find out what happened.
Further, I can't find out what was on the original pages.
But the most annoying thing is that ALL the categories have been removed, so I no longer can find my pictures!! And if/when I do, I'm going to have to manually add all the categories back in.
This sucks.
Who decides that a picture should be moved/copied to commons?
Why can it be moved without me being notified?
How can it be "F8" without me being informed and given the opportunity to say "hangon"?
Why is the category information destroyed?
And none of it is your fault - you just happen to be the only person who has left any traceable evidence! You have to laugh, don't you. I'm looking forward to you waving your magic wand and solving all these issues. (I mean, all admins have magic wands, don't they?) Failing that, I'm looking forward to your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I format deletion summaries as I do: I don't want the original page creators to be left with no clue about what happened to their work and why. GFDL (that "irrevocably agree to release" stuff) applies here, but notification (and a magic wand ;-) would be cool. As far as I can see, the categories are visible in the upload summaries on the commons pages.
(Special:DeletedContributions/Pdfpdf is an additional record of upload summaries and other edits.)
I don't have answers to all of your questions, but Template talk:Db-meta and the administrators' noticeboard might be good places to raise the issues of procedure and consideration for uploaders who are not expecting deletion and are blindsided by the event. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All sorts of interesting & useful stuff!! (BTW: Clicking on Special:DeletedContributions/Pdfpdf results in "The action you have requested is limited to Administrators." for mere mortals like me.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (Gee, that's really bad news about the magic wand ... )[reply]

Sun 12 April

Rick Neigher article

Hi Pdfpdf, need any help with this article? you can send me a message at daphneho_seattle at yahoo dot com. I emailed Rick Neigher to introduce myself. He appreciates your creating the wikipedia article about him, he said you can contact him at rickneigher at gmail dot com any time if you have any questions. Happy Valentine's Day! Daphne80smusic (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiki table in show/hide section?

Both archived and moved to User:Pdfpdf/Tools and references#wiki table in show/hide section? --  Chzz  ►  14:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last quarter

When I said beginning, I was referring to the left side of the page. The repeated use of the ":" was so large that it tripped my filter. It wouldn't in most conversations because people regularly outdent. - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully my latest response makes things clearer.) - Mgm|(talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

User_talk:Ged_UK#How_did_I_miss_that.3F
--GedUK  11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--GedUK  10:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--GedUK  11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fisher

Nothing pejorative was meant by the templates, apologies. The biog needs turning into prose rather than lists per Wikipedia:Layout#Paragraphs and expanding to include news sources. The article should also include the views of others, per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Also see MOS:BIO The resume template doesn't presume a COI, but it does warn against it, but I've found a better template, prose. Fences and windows (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up

Hi pdfpdf. I have done a clean-up of my talk page, placing the most recent conversation at the top of the page. Also had a go at removing some of the trivia, hopefully without reducing content. Feel free to provide constructive criticism if you are displeased. (not that you ever needed permission ;-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I hardly removed anything - just compacted the group items and paragraphs. I notice your talk page is much smaller than when I first visited it, so I guess you are a lot more ruthless when it comes to spring-cleaning. B. Fairbairn (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is often the case, the response to a seemingly simple observation can become quite involved.
Appearances can be deceptive! Yes, the volume of "stuff" on my page is less, but that's because I moved it "somewhere else". That immediately begs two questions: Where? and Why?
Where? To "Archives". What does that mean? Up the top of my talk page underneath the box saying "Despite initial disbelief ... ", there's a section labelled "Archives:"
Why? Good question!!! Bad answer: Because that what everybody else seems to do, and (sometimes) I'm a good little sheep.
Personally, I think it's a completely pointless exercise and a waste of disk space and my time. Every past edit and every past version of every page is accessible via the page history. Why it's necessary, or even useful, to make yet-another-copy of "stuff" is beyond my comprehension. But nevertheless, it seems to be "the done thing".
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Have re-ordered my talk page by date and time, with newest last. Makes sense. If it starts getting too big I will have a go at organising an archive. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you dislike show-offs! B. Fairbairn (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In small doses, they can be entertaining. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in large doses, irritating. B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - I did not know any of the 'new tricks'. Cheers. B. Fairbairn (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Curci

Greetings.

I'll be away for a couple of days so I just thought I'd let you know so you don't think I'm sulking if I don't respond to any further discussion on this :-)

I still haven't had any luck finding out about the longest vocal note in a pop song record: it would be really helpful if someone could tell us the year. If I find myself in a public library with too much spare time on my hands I might check through all the Guinness World Records books from c.1989 onwards, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. I've asked about it on YouTube but nobody seems to know: I get the feeling those who've mentioned it got the information from Wikipedia in the first place!

As I mentioned on the article discussion page, while the Guinness World Records home page might arguably qualify as a reference, I really can't see any justification for including the Wikipedia Guinness World Records article as a reference. However, I have no wish to take an adversarial approach so I have left your questionable references untouched this time and merely reinserted the [citation needed] tag in addition to these. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss this further in the future so that we might agree on a permanent solution.

All the best,

Irene Contains Mild Peril (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we've been able to come to an agreement about this, and I hope we find some more information at some point in the future. For the time being I think your current edit is the best we can do. Thanks for your helpful information: the [not specific enough to verify] tag is a useful one which I'll remember for future use. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I hope you realize that I was the one that started the discussion. My first comments were to identify the specific policies and guidelines that I referred to in my edit summaries. It would be helpful for you to respond with specifics as to why you think those specific policies and guidelines are not being violated, but that is your decision. It would help move along the discussions more quickly.

The linkspam [1] from my perspective is a very simple, gross violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. Reformatting these as references doesn't change this at all, nor does your restoring them without addressing any of my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message. I'm hopeful that a good nights rest will allow us to settle this quickly and amicably. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

"Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't have time for editors that aren't able to follow the above. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for Rick Neigher

Firstly, remove all duplicates from the tables. Then, a biography is needed. Even a few sentences in enough, but right now, the tables are the only informative pieces in the article. Guy0307 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

File:J150W-Florey-statue-text.jpg - Radiant chains (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC) - Thanks. --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:J150W-deLissa.jpg - Radiant chains (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) - Thanks. --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:J150W-statue-lady-text.jpg - Radiant chains (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) - Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

A list of the common abbreviations can be found near the top of Wikipedia:Files for deletion

Obsolete =OB ; Orphan =OR; Unencyclopedic =UE; Low quality= LQ; Copyright violation =CV Skier Dude (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soundvisions1

Hi. I was about to ask Soundvisions1 if he would also make a contribution to the Heart1973_BC.png deletion discussion when I noticed your edit. And then "the penny dropped" that no, I hadn't seen him around for a while. [It's disturbing when someone on the other side of the planet that you expect to be there just suddenly disappears - you feel you want to help, (well, I do), but you don't even know how to communicate with them, much less help.]

Anyway, I don't think Soundvisions1 would want that picture deleted, so I'm trying to save it. (The fact that I don't want it deleted either may also be motivating me.) May I bother you to have a look there and tie up any loose ends that I have missed? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned. For a highly motivated editor like that to just stop doesn't seem like a good thing. (Of course, it might happen all the time, of course, but I've never seen it to.) There's a conversation at the music notability guideline where I used to primarily encounter him, and his absence there was kind of glaring. I sent him an e-mail as well, and I'll let you know if I get a response. I've looked at the FfD, and it looks good, I think. I don't believe that the deletion rationale is a compelling one, though if he chooses to press the point of WP:NFC it could be more difficult. Perhaps changing the caption of the photo would help to strengthen its need? "Heart promotional photo (1973)" doesn't quite nail the significance of it, I think, if it is the birth of the modern band. It might also be helpful to add a sentence or so to the text establishing more about the band after its official formation, before Nancy joined. What did they do in those four years? Tour locally? Nationally? Globally? Radio play? Releases? Such material, helping to illustrate that the band was a stable entity for a substantial period of time, might be helpful in establishing the need for the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course, it might happen all the time ... " - Yes, I suppose it might, but until February this year I hadn't seen it. Then in mid-Feb a charming lady from Seattle "disappeared" (also disappeared from myspace and facebook) and now Soundvisions1. I'm uncomfortable about it ...
Thanks for the advice on the picture; I don't know the answers to many of those questions, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out. As usual, you are very helpful and a pleasure to talk to. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sun 19 April

heart pic

Response. --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. --Pdfpdf (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I understand your motivations, and I appreciate the effort you are going to, and your non-agressive approach. (Believe me, I appreciate it quite a lot.) Speaking for myself, I'm not taking it personally. I'm just having difficulty understanding some of the statements being made, and some of the inconsistencies between statements. However, unlike the other two gentlemen, you are at least polite enough to answer questions, and you are trying to help me understand things. That, too, is very much appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW: I haven't quite given up - yet ... )
Wouldn't expect you to... :-) BTW, I'm not offended by your aggressiveness and thoroughness. Nothing wrong with presenting your best case. — BQZip01 — talk 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. The thoroughness is intentional. The agressiveness is not. Hmmmm. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aggressiveness is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it is confined to a discussion. Personally, I can see it being a positive trait as long as it is kept in check. — BQZip01 — talk 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting food for thought. I think I'll ruminate on that. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing subject:
Pdfpdf (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV is your next avenue if you still disagree. Quadell is an excellent admin in this area, so I'd consider his opinion pretty highly. Nothing in the diffs provided seems out of order. Should you decide to use the DRV route, I recommend doing a little research first and examining the criteria under which copyrighted images can be used. Like I said before, I don't think this image meets the criteria. In any case, have a good night sleep on it. I always find I edit more clearly in the morning. — BQZip01 — talk 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info and advice on DRV. Re: Quadell, it was the fact that it was done without warning (when I was assuming that there would be warning, and was expecting that nothing would happen while the matter was under discussion), that surprised me. The facts that you trust his opinion, and that both of you have concluded the situation is unambiguous, leads me to feel I would need to have a well prepared and exceptionally strong case. Personally, I think it would be easier to get the copyright holder to change the copyright.
Again, thanks for your help and explanations. Best wishes. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart1973_BC.png

File:Heart1973_BC.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundvisions1 (notify | contribs).
  • Keep - "The Band" in 1970 was a different group of people from "The Band" in 1973, (and different again in 1974, for which as yet a picture has not been located.) It even had a different name! (White Heart vs Heart). I do not understand why "Already have one non-free promotional image of the band in the article" is a problem, particularly given that "The Band" was not (and still is not) a static entity. Please explain. [If it was a second picture of the same group of people, I could understand your concern, but it isn't, so] for those reasons, I do NOT agree that "don't really need a second". --Pdfpdf (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion:
    • I actually contend that both photos are really too small to be of any use; you can't really make out what any of the people even look like, but I'm willing to let the other one slide, since so many people associate Heart with the Wilson sisters. But really, we don't particularly need one photo for every incarnation of the band. howcheng {chat} 04:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the response, but you haven't answered any of my questions, or explained the reasons for any of your points of view; you have just repeated what you've already said. Specifically:
      • Q1) Why is "Already have one non-free promotional image of the band in the article" a problem?
      • Q2) Why "don't really need a second"?
      • "I actually contend that both photos are really too small to be of any use" - Well, that's your subjective opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it is not an objective fact, and my opinion is the opposite. If you are raising that as a reason for removal, I'm afraid I need more than just your opinion.
      • "but I'm willing to let the other one slide" - That's an interesting turn of phrase.
      • Q3) Why "But really, we don't particularly need one photo for every incarnation of the band."?
    • So far, all I have got out of your words are "I don't like it." That is insufficient justification for removal of any photograph. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, non-free images suffer from the opposite: because our m:mission is to spread the use of free content and the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy implores that we use only enough non-free content as is required to make our points, those who wish to keep non-free content in articles must make the case why it is necessary. These goals are then codified into the WP:NFCC: #3a dictates that multiple items are not necessary when one is sufficient (as is the case here). #8 is also applicable: we have the one non-free photo of the band, we have the free photo of the Wilson sisters; this photo doesn't add additional information that can't already be gleaned from what's already available. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Actually, non-free images suffer from the opposite" - The opposite of what? Q4) Are you saying that "I don't like it" is justification for something / anything? Please clarify.
    • "those who wish to keep non-free content in articles must make the case why it is necessary." - The case has been made in the FUR, and re-inforced above. Q5) What is the point you are trying to make?
    • "#3a dictates that multiple items are not necessary when one is sufficient (as is the case here)."
      • First, 3a does not "dictate" anything.
      • Second, 3a does not say "multiple items are not necessary when one is sufficient".
      • Third, once again, "as is the case here" is your opinion, not fact.
      • 3a says: (and I quote) "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In this case, one item can not "convey equivalent significant information". The two images convey different information which is in no way "equivalent".
      • 8 says: (and I quote) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case, it illustrates: that the band membership, at that stage of the band's history, was dynamic; that there were certain "founders" of the band, and certain "core members" of the band. Hence these two photos "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".
    • "we have the one non-free photo of the band" - Refer Q1, which you still have not answered.
    • "we have the free photo of the Wilson sisters" - I don't understand the significance or relevance of this of this statement, or the point you are trying to make. Q6) Please clarify.
    • "this photo doesn't add additional information that can't already be gleaned from what's already available." - As explained at least twice above, this statement is false. It is not my opinion that it is false. It is a fact that it is false.
    • We now have SIX statements that you have made that are not supported by anything other than your opinion. I have previously asked three questions which you have made no attempt to address, much less answer. And now you have raised three more points that have led to questions.
    • You have now said three times "I don't like it". And I have previously pointed out to you that "I don't like it" is NOT sufficient grounds for removal of a photograph.
    • You have quoted two sections of wikipedia policy, and I have explained that these photos are NOT in contravention of these policies.
    • Please provide some reason (other than your opinion) as to why this photo should be removed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally have never said "I don't like it" -- please stop putting words into my mouth.
      • Q1/Q2/Q6) One non-free photo of the band suffices to show what the founding members look like. This leads into #3a. Band in 1973 is easily pictured by seeing people in 1970 photo + Wilson sisters and subtracting those who have left. The other person who joined is rather immaterial because you can't even see his face in the 1973 photo. If you can't even make out what the image is, then it serves no encyclopedic purpose, not to mention that the photo isn't even captioned in the article or on the image description page, so how is anyone even supposed to tell who's who?
      • Q3) Is it so difficult to understand that band members change without actually seeing photos to confirm that fact? Let me flip that back to you: Why do we need one photo for every incarnation of the band?
      • Q4) "Non-free images suffer from the opposite" means that if there is no consensus either way, the default action is to delete. The burden of proof lays on those who want to keep the image, not those who seek its deletion.
      • Q5) Just because a fair use rationale is written does not mean that the image is being used properly. Again, allow me to point to #8: What points are being made in the text that cannot be understood without this photo? howcheng {chat} 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your reply - it is most appreciated. I feel I can address your points, but that would just prolong a conversation that is not necessarily achieving anything, so I'll take a different approach:
      • Obviously, I would like to keep this photo, and I am prepared to do what is needed.
      • Is there ANYTHING I can do which would resolve these problems / issues, or am I wasting my time (and yours)?
    • I would appreciate your help in achieving a situation which would resolve the "issues" and retain the photos. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but I described above how it satisfies 3a. Viz:
      • 3a says: (and I quote) "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In this case, one item can not "convey equivalent significant information". The two images convey different information which is in no way "equivalent".
    • Further information:
      • "The Band" in 1970 was a different group of people from "The Band" in 1973, (and different again in 1974, for which as yet a picture has not been located.) It even had a different name! (White Heart vs Heart).
      • They illustrate that the band membership, at that stage of the band's history, was dynamic; that there were certain "founders" of the band, and certain "core members" of the band.
    • Please explain how and why it "fails 3a". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion is that the images do convey equivalent information, that is what the band looked like and who was in the band. The latter can be conveyed by text, and the former is conveyed by the other picture. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. As I said above, "I would like to keep this photo." Is there ANYTHING I can do which would resolve these problems / issues, or am I wasting my time (and yours)? I would appreciate your help in achieving a situation which would resolve the "issues" and retain the photos. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was on the fence for a little bit here, but the photo's context doesn't show any new information (the members) that PD/GFDL/other fair use images don't already show and it isn't needed in this article. Therefore it fails WP:NFCC#3 and should be removed. Before you ask, no, there really isn't anything you can do unless you show how this photo spread is unique and cannot be replaced. Simply stating the names of the Core members is enough because they are already pictured. — BQZip01 — talk 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion:
OK. Context added, and now, hopefully, describes how it is "unique and cannot be replaced". Problem solved? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Nothing you seemed to add is anything that can't be simply annotated in text in the article. I understand you want to include this picture, but there doesn't seem to be a valid fair use rationale available and its status as a copyrighted image precludes other means. Sorry. — BQZip01 — talk 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing something. "Nothing you seemed to add is anything that can't be simply annotated in text in the article" - Isn't the logical extension of your statement that ALL pictures on wikipedia can be replaced by an annotation in the text? If so, doesn't that beg the question, "Why are pictures allowed in wikipedia at all?" Obviously I must be missing something. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to explain. Allow me to use hypotheticals to make it a little more clear. Image 1 shows pictures of X, Y, and Z while Image 2 shows X, Y, A, B, and C. Image 1 is important to show the beginnings. Image 2 is important to illustrate the eventual change to a new grouping. There is no need for an Image 3 (showing X, Y, Z, and A) which shows an interim change. You can simply state that Z left and ABC (pictured in image 2) joined. Seeing as the composition of bands changes over time (no big shock there) an image of the band then doesn't really add anything to the article that isn't already pictured. Please realize this is all within the context of non-free images. If it were a free image, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You obviously care about the subject, and that is commendable, but Wikipedia's goals aren't in line with what you want (namely, minimizing non-free images). I also have no problem explaining it as Wikipedia's policy maze can be quite confusing. If you have any additional questions, please contact me here or on my talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I can't let this garbage go on without commenting. Did BQZip01 or howcheng bother to look at the Heart (band) articles history or read over the talk pages? If they did there would be no discussion at all on this. There was discussion about the band Heart forming in Seattle and than relocating to Canada in 1974. (Under a heading "Success (1975–1982)" it used to say "By the mid-1970s, some of the male band members who had been eligible to be drafted to Vietnam were avoiding living in the U.S., so the band relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." There was much "text" about the line up and about the move to Canada because as it was worded it implied the entire (as in with Nancy) band, playing as a band called Heart, formed in Seattle pre-1975 and, in 1975, "the band relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada" - all at once - and that, "In 1974 the Heart lineup consisted of Ann, Nancy, Roger Fisher, Steve Fossen (bass), John Hannah (keyboards) and Brian Johnstone (drums)". These facts were wrongly placed in the article and not fully accurate. This information was corrected with "text" however this "text" was questioned by some, Pdfpdf being one. When images showing the band in Canada, without Nancy, in 1973 were placed in the article it established what no "text" was able to. Before BQZip01 or howcheng (or anyone else) make *any* other comments here about the image not having a valid FUR or not being needed do some homework and first read why the image is being used at Talk:Heart (band)/Archive 3#Country of Origin and some other thoughts The FUR is very clear is why the photo is being used as well: To show the Band heart in 1973 in Vancouver BC Canada before Nancy Wilson joined. These facts are more than enough to answer the question "What points are being made in the text that cannot be understood without this photo?" Also this discussion shows howcheng may have a misunderstanding of WP's Fair Use requirements when s/he comments on two low resolution and smallish fair use images by saying that "both photos are really too small to be of any use". Wikipedia:NFCC#3 says, under "b.", that "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used" which would aid to explain why the images are small and of low resolution. Likewise, if reading the "why" on the article does make it clear one can look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, under number 12 of "unacceptable uses", which says "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Clearly the line up shown in this 1973 image is not the same line up now and, clearly, when combined with the "text" that was (and still is at times) questioned as being accurate about Heart already playing, as a band without Nancy Wilson, in 1973 in Canada these images establish what words along can not. And that, as well, leads to a reply to the questions/comment: "...not to mention that the photo isn't even captioned in the article or on the image description page". From what is clearly seen in the image there *are* captions and they show the following - The band name: "Heart" and information on how to book the band: "Bookings: Axis Entertainment. P.O Box 3404. Vancouver 3 BC". We do not need any captions to show Nancy Wilson is not in the band at this time. However if you are concerned with the membership, again if one were to read the actual article's talk page (Talk:Heart (band)), you would see a conversation about who the members are in this image and contains information from the photographer: "As for the players on drums and keyboards, at the moment your guess is as good as mine. I spent a lot of time and made the most money out of bands that kept changing personnel. It was hard to keep up with who was moving where and now they all look like the same bearded hairy kids. The best that I can do is to try and find the original negs from that shoot and see if I can get a clear print of those two and send them to Roger or Ann for an ID." --20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.48.77 (talk)
  1. WP:AGF Assume I read everything associated with the image...I have...
  2. WP:CIVIL Calling others' comments or discussion "garbage" doesn't help in a discussion.
  3. "To show the Band heart in 1973 in Vancouver BC Canada before Nancy Wilson joined" is not valid. Anyone can look at a picture of the entire band (with her included) and clearly realize she didn't join until a year later and no context/accuracy is lost. — BQZip01 — talk 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry BQZip01, I don't understand what you have said.
"is not valid" - What do you mean?
"Anyone can look at a picture of the entire band (with her included) and clearly realize she didn't join until a year later". That doesn't make any sense to me. How can you look at a picture of her in the band (which, by the way, we don't have), and "clearly realize" anything, much less realise "she didn't join until a year later"? A year later than what? How can anyone look at a picture which we don't have? I'm sorry, but you've lost me. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My point is in relation to my earlier statement, not specifically pertaining to the current situation, but being used as an example.
  2. By the same token, you already have a non-free picture including all the people who started the band (including Steve Fossen, Roger Fisher, Mike Fisher) and you already have a free, dated picture of Nancy and Anne. This is more than enough to identify all the members of the band and appropriate for this article.
  3. As for "...for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable," you already have images of the members of this group, which isn't known for an earlier visual appearance. If they were, we'd already have a photo (non-free or otherwise) or text showing it (like KISS...which currently maintains their visual appearance anyway...).
Try not to take this so personally. It isn't directed at you, but at content on Wikipedia. I've had images deleted too, despite convincing/heated arguments otherwise. Our non-free content criteria, much to the consternation of many editors on Wikipedia, rookies and veterans alike, is more restrictive than U.S. law. This also doesn't preclude you from creating your own website and posting these photos in a (though I'm not advocating breaking any laws, make sure you are using fair use images appropriately). Wikipedia isn't designed to be a repository of every single detail, but an encyclopedia. Hell, I don't have a problem with you making your own website and referencing it here, provided it meets our criteria as a reliable source. My point is, losing this single image on Wikipedia isn't a big deal as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It doesn't need to be a big deal for you either. — BQZip01 — talk 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more

Adam von Trott zu Solz, List of Rhodes Scholars, and possibly other pages too ...

Regarding the edit comment attached to your edit, (viz: "see his bio in the de:WP"), there must be some way we can make use of that in en:WP, but I can't think how. Do you have any ideas / suggestions / thoughts / etc.? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in translation?--Kresspahl (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. (Unless you are saying that you don't understand? If so ... )
Is there "stuff" in his bio in the de:WP that we can use in the en:WP? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, that Trott is more a specific German issue and he certainly is deserving the FA there. I believe that most people interested will read the de:WP article then. But you have the possibility to request a translation.--Kresspahl (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_von_Trott_zu_Solz
Maybe. However, I am interested, but I am not capable of reading it at the level-of-understanding I would like.
"But you have the possibility to request a translation". I had not thought of that option. From whom would I request a translation, and how would I do this? --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soundvisions1

Hi. I was about to ask Soundvisions1 if he would also make a contribution to the Heart1973_BC.png deletion discussion when I noticed your edit. And then "the penny dropped" that no, I hadn't seen him around for a while. [It's disturbing when someone on the other side of the planet that you expect to be there just suddenly disappears - you feel you want to help, (well, I do), but you don't even know how to communicate with them, much less help.]

Anyway, I don't think Soundvisions1 would want that picture deleted, so I'm trying to save it. (The fact that I don't want it deleted either may also be motivating me.) May I bother you to have a look there and tie up any loose ends that I have missed? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned. For a highly motivated editor like that to just stop doesn't seem like a good thing. (Of course, it might happen all the time, of course, but I've never seen it to.) There's a conversation at the music notability guideline where I used to primarily encounter him, and his absence there was kind of glaring. I sent him an e-mail as well, and I'll let you know if I get a response. I've looked at the FfD, and it looks good, I think. I don't believe that the deletion rationale is a compelling one, though if he chooses to press the point of WP:NFC it could be more difficult. Perhaps changing the caption of the photo would help to strengthen its need? "Heart promotional photo (1973)" doesn't quite nail the significance of it, I think, if it is the birth of the modern band. It might also be helpful to add a sentence or so to the text establishing more about the band after its official formation, before Nancy joined. What did they do in those four years? Tour locally? Nationally? Globally? Radio play? Releases? Such material, helping to illustrate that the band was a stable entity for a substantial period of time, might be helpful in establishing the need for the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course, it might happen all the time ... " - Yes, I suppose it might, but until February this year I hadn't seen it. Then in mid-Feb a charming lady from Seattle "disappeared" (also disappeared from myspace and facebook) and now Soundvisions1. I'm uncomfortable about it ...
Thanks for the advice on the picture; I don't know the answers to many of those questions, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out. As usual, you are very helpful and a pleasure to talk to. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted? Open discussion closed?

Why was File:Heart1973 BC.png deleted? The deletion of this image is under discussion, and the discussion has not concluded.
Why did you "close" the discussion? The most recent contribution was just over an hour before you "closed" it.
Please restore the image and re-open the discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image had been discussed for over 5 days. After 5 days, images at WP:FFD can be processed by any administrator, even if people are still talking about it. It was clear that the consensus was that the image needed to be deleted, so I acted on that. I understand you're disappointed, and I'm sorry to hear it, but that's just how Wikipedia works. – Quadell (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. What about closing an open discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All discussions are "open" until someone closes them. – Quadell (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously. However, isn't it unusual for someone external to and not involved in a discussion to close it without warning those involved in the discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's better for someone uninvolved to close the discussion. I have no opinion about Heart; if someone involved closed it, there could be accusations of bias. – Quadell (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. I hadn't thought of that reason. Fair enough. Thanks for the answers and explanations. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Pdfpdf. Sorry if I came across as flippant or dismissive. You seem like a reasonable person. I'm just used to people taking it personally and becoming abusive when images are deleted, and I was bracing myself for a personal attack (that never came). By the way, I thought I'd let you know about a new project being started up: a centralized place to discuss and improve images on Wikipedia. If you're interested, it's being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... I'm just used to people taking it personally and becoming abusive when images are deleted, and I was bracing myself for a personal attack (that never came). ... All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's a sad state of affairs that WP seems to have descended into. I used to think it was a fun place; these days I find my encounters with "nice" people have become fewer and further apart. Strangely, however, this episode has exposed me to one of the "nicest" (calmest, most helpful, even kind) Wikipedians I've come across in ages, so "it ain't all bad". Never-the-less, I still have absolutely NO desire to become an admin and turn myself into a target for abuse. Thanks for your note; it's always nice to read something that's not abusive. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. Are you an admin on en:WP? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yes I am. In fact, I was the 137th person to be made an admin, back in 2004. If you need an admin for anything, let me know.
BQZip is quite a busy bee! I see him everywhere. I don't think he's an admin yet, but I'm sure he will be before long.
I highly value those editors who can disagree without being disagreeable, and can keep a sense of humor through everything. User:Drilnoth, a new admin, is a model in that regard, I'd say. (A D&D enthusiast with well-developed social skills? Amazing!)
All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sun 26 April

Canberra International Airport

Yer well I knew that Tony Snow wasn't the owner after reading a news story about the road duplication to the airport online. ;) With the edits made by the user they could be right but I've not yet read the news stories at The Canberra Times or on Google News. I've also noted the International term has been dropped. Bidgee (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your questions

Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you on your questions. Frankly, over the past couple of months, I have seen a decline in standards and a decline in support for admins on Wikipedia. It's a thankless job and there's plenty of people waiting to criticize. Common sense doesn't seem to be so common any more. Those are the best answers I can give. Hope this helps. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resp

WP:DRV is your next avenue if you still disagree. Quadell is an excellent admin in this area, so I'd consider his opinion pretty highly. Nothing in the diffs provided seems out of order. Should you decide to use the DRV route, I recommend doing a little research first and examining the criteria under which copyrighted images can be used. Like I said before, I don't think this image meets the criteria. In any case, have a good night sleep on it. I always find I edit more clearly in the morning. — BQZip01 — talk 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus

Hi. There was no parade or rain in sight. I did not make the PDF file, I merely provided the link and used the title that was on page one of the PDF file. I will edit the file description. Nice photos on your site. Suzanne (talk) 19 April 2009

Template categories

Huh - I didn't notice it was ambiguous.

It is indeed intended to mean 1) - this category is an automatically-generated list, and only contains people with articles; anyone omitted from the list is almost certainly omitted because they don't have an article, and in most cases never will. It's intended to forestall people editing the category pages directly to add names, or writing to us to complain someone isn't listed - for some reason, I've found that this is surprisingly common with these categories but not with any other set. (This is, of course, a bit less of a problem for things like the VC, where we're likely to be comprehensive; it seems easier, though, to be consistent rather than miss it off "rare awards")

There's some background discussion here which might make it clearer, and I'll reword the description just now. Shimgray | talk | 12:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a hack at the descriptive notes here, but not the template wording itself - if you think it could still do with being clearer, please do edit it! I think I may have been staring at this too long over the past couple of weeks to realise when it doesn't make sense :-)
The second part of the template could perhaps read "It is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of all recipients, only those on whom we have articles" or something, but I'm not sure if that's too clumsily repetitive.
As to people editing categories directly, I think the most extreme example is probably the Purple Heart (which a sizable proportion of all American veterans have) - once every month or two. Shimgray | talk | 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Feel free to add back the links if you think they're valuable.

Actually, I've already spent quite a bit of time in Australia--I studied there for three months! (It was a super great field ecology program so I got to spend the majority of my time in various research stations in national parks--Lamington National Park, Heron Island, Daintree National Park, etc) On the way home, I also stopped over in New Zealand for a week and a half or so and explored the North Island. (Decided the South Island was probably too much like Alaska--where I'm from.) So though I had an amazing time I probably should explore another part of the world! :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Greetings, Pdfpdf. Sorry if I came across as flippant or dismissive. You seem like a reasonable person. I'm just used to people taking it personally and becoming abusive when images are deleted, and I was bracing myself for a personal attack (that never came). By the way, I thought I'd let you know about a new project being started up: a centralized place to discuss and improve images on Wikipedia. If you're interested, it's being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj

Hi. I kept coming across the name Nicki Minaj, so I did a "what links here" and found about 30 articles, so I thought I'd create the page. Then I saw the deletion log, and that you and Orangemike had both deleted it within an hour of each other about 10 days ago. And I thought: "What's going on here? It looks like I'm walking into a minefield."
Would you mind giving me a brief summary of what IS going on, and advise me whether I should go ahead with the creation, or stay well away? With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicki Minaj, so both Orangemike's and my deletion were procedural deletions for recreation against that consensus. If you want to recreate this article, you should do so in your userspace, complete with reliable sources that verify that the artist meets the notability guideline for musicians (because being not-notable is the reason it was deleted in the first place). If you manage to do so, you can move it at its correct location (I suggest you add a comment that this is a new version that is not a recreation of the deleted version when moving) although I suggest you make sure you addressed the previous AFD's concerns before doing so (you could ask someone familiar with such articles to assess this, maybe a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music). Hope that answers your questions, if not, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions and warnings; they look like good advice. The "deletion discussion" didn't seem to involve very much "discussion", did it! The deletion log suggests it has beeen deleted on 5 separate occassions - how can I determine if they were they all the same article, or five distinctly different articles, or something else? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't, not being an admin. To allow you to understand the previous deletions, I have userfied the article to User:Pdfpdf/Nicki Minaj with all revisions restored. You can see the different versions by checking the creation and deletion dates in the history of the article. Basically, except the spammy version, all articles varied a bit in tone and style but none of them established any notability, which is why the previous consensus could be applied to them as well. Regards SoWhy 08:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Thanks - most appreciated. And thanks also for the potted summary and explanation. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 June

Spring Fever

Hi! I think I'm having a touch of spring fever: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oom_Yung_Doe_handbook. Hope you are doing better! jmcw (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course don't miss Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians/Proposal_to_establish_practices_to_be_followed_for_deceased_Wikipedians. jmcw (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is spilling over: Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians/verification#Speaking_with_family_members_of_deceased_Wikipedians. jmcw (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that things are getting out of hand in your part of the world: [2]. jmcw (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chaplains

Hi there. I've had a look at the PACMAN document and I agree - the article was incorrect. I've updated it, but curiously while doing further research I found this, which would seem to indicate that the head of denominations (referred to as Principal Chaplains in the WP article) are appointed at O-7 Brigadier, not O-6 Colonel as PACMAN states. Perhaps something to raise on the talk page. — Manticore 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Street, Adelaide

Second opinion sought: Is Halifax Street really a "major" street? (What is a "major" street?) Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were red links to it on Adelaide city centre. Donama (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was in a hurry and got confused. I created Carrington Street, Adelaide on the same template so I thought you might be questioning that street's notability. Frankly I don't think Halifax or Carrington streets are major streets but they are part of the original city grid planned in the early 1800s. You can see that in the schematic someone has done in Adelaide city centre#Built Environment. Completely agree to drop the word major. Donama (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a "debate" about the naming of Adelaide city centre, and one of the conclusions was that there was more than just the CBD in the square mile, and conversely, the CBD wasn't a good description for the square mile. Hence, you may have noticed me changing some references to CBD to centre. If you feel strongly about it, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
I was aware of that naming debate, but never seemed to form a strong opinion about it. I'll try to remember to use city centre instead of CBD. Cheers Donama (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was really just an experiment. Feel free to copy it and add to it if you like, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. Such navigation really should be done with images these days I suspect. Cheers Donama (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Harbour station at Victor Harbor

I have copies of the plans of the buildings and yard layout from the old SAR map room at Adelaide Station (printed off for me by the obliging ANR/STA staff in the 80s). The prints are ammonia prints from the original blue prints. I also have photos of the station and signs from that period. Ozdaren (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I am mistaken

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at TheJazzDalek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive12&oldid=1143220778"