User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive22

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

Brigadier

I think your edits were fine. Uncited material may be challenged and removed at any time. Greenshed (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

(I didn't want to put this on the relevant talk page until I knew what I was talking about.)

If you have the relevant switches turned on, you can see that this edit has been automatically tagged: (Tag: possible conflict of interest). I'm puzzled by this. In fact, given the page in question, this edit is remarkably balanced and unbiased. On what basis has it been tagged: "possible conflict of interest"? Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must be because they added a reference to the website www.southelevation.com, which matches the username. Favonian (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Too obvious!! Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-12-04

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide moves

Hello, as I proposed them I havent commented, but as all has gone quiet it would seem to mean consensus. I will sort out the ones outside Adelaide and the ones that are already moved. Do you want to have a think about some of the Adelaide ones? Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

E&WS

Hi. Almost 20 years (what's 5 years amongst friends.. sorry). Yes sadly they have completely demolished the buildings including some very substantial stone ones, the lawn bowls club etc. It's currently a pile of rubble and churned up earth as of 5am last Friday (I saw it when I was on my to West Lakes to coach rowing). Google maps doesn't even show the tramline down Port Rd. Ozdaren (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Sync from User talk:Jafeluv#Move request

Hi! Regarding Talk:University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide#Relisted move discussion

  • Can you tell me, what is the process to request an admin to move a page (because I can't perform the move myself)?
  • I'm of the (no doubt biassed) opinion that there is consensus to move University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide to Park 12. Do you agree with my assessment?
    • If so, please close the discussion, and while you are there, could you perform the move please?
    • If not, please advise what further action is required.

Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The usual process is either to ask an admin directly on their talk page or to post in the "uncontroversial" section at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If it's just a redirect that's preventing the move, you could also tag it for deletion with {{db-move}} and move the page yourself once an admin comes along and deletes the redirect.
I didn't really see a consensus either way between the titles Park 12 and University Oval, Adelaide, so I relisted that one to get more input on the matter. Of course, that could be speedily closed if everyone agrees on the proposed name (although I would prefer to keep it up for at least a few days to be sure). Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in arrears!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on AN/I re:Yellow Monkey

See here and here. I've no position on this, just wanted to answer your question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor command of the English language

Just happened to see your "questions cannot be accusations" debate on ANI, and feel I have to point out your error. You have fallen into the logical fallacy kown as the loaded question. Why are people harassing X? presupposes that people are harassing X. It's along the same lines as, Did you use a knife or a gun to murder that prostitute? – this is an accusation of murder, effectively, since the question only has any basis and any context if the allegation it contains is true. If I didn't murder a prostitute, then it is impossible for me to answer the question.
Equally, if X isn't being harassed, then how could anyone possibly answer your question as to why?
I think you should probably be careful of suggesting that others have "poor command" of English in future, since your "Questions are questions. Questions are not accusations," notion is simply inaccurate. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was reading the same thread and I have to agree that "Why are people harassing YM?" is an accusation and poisons the well of discussion. Similarly with "I don't understand the unpleasantness and the intollerance." and "You are rude, arrogant, don't listen, have a poor command of the english language and are only interested in being "right". Further, you are wasting my time." I am therefore asking that you strike out those comments and refrain from such behaviour in the future. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 December 2010

Ashes

Why? The differentiation between tests is much clearer with "==" (level 2 headings?) rather than "===". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the section links to each Test in the table of contents get lost when you use Level 2 headers. It's better to have the matches under a separate level 2 header, because then it makes them more obvious in the TOC. – PeeJay 10:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. (Most appreciated.)
Well, I follow your logic. But I don't agree with you.
(By-the-way: Please prefix statements like "It's better to ..." with "I think/feel it's better to ... ", or alternatively provide a supporting reference to show that it is not just your opinion.)
As I said, "The differentiation between tests is much clearer with h2 rather than h3." In other words, I think clarity in the body of the article is more important than clarity in the TOC. But I acknowledge we're talking opinions here, not policy or facts.
However, I'm not about to start an edit war. If you are that determined in your POV, I'll let it slide. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured Boxing Day Test "tradition"

I agree. If "we" want to talk "traditions" (whatever that may mean), the Boxing Day test was "always" held at Adelaide Oval, (until "they" decided they wanted the higher attendances that the MCG could provide.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I find it ironic that those who call the Boxing Day Test a tradition are also probably keen on shortened forms of the game, but don't realise that what is now recognised as the first One Day International was held as a way of getting some attendance money from a washed out "traditional" New Year Test Match at the MCG. The other part of that tradition was a Sheffield Shield match between Vic & NSW over Christmas at the G. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Humpf! Yeah well. What's that one liner? "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC

2010-12-26

WP:MOSDAB & policy on duplication of entries

I was surprised that MOS:DAB said nothing about duplication. It can definitely cause confusion and entries will usually only be added to one or other of the dabs. However, if I was looking for all people with that surname, I'd rather they were all listed on the one page than have to click on dab links, so perhaps it is more user-friendly in a way. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any clear guidelines on surname pages, it even seems unclear if they are dabs or articles. If I was you, I'd post this question on the Wikiproject and see what others think - it may well be worth adding to MOS:DAB about dabs which duplicate, especially as so many have sprung up which are Sam Jones, Sam S. Jones, Sam S.R. Jones, Sam Jones (born 1989), Sam Jones (American football) - I can't remember what name it was that someone helpfully created dabs just like these, with some belonging on 3 different dabs. The policy should be clear. It would also be good to have clear guidelines on pages which are surnames or given names only, MOS:DAB says it doesn't apply to them, but what does? If you start a discussion there, I'd certainly add my opinion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I was you ... - Hmmmm. Good idea. Thanks. I agree.
If you start a discussion there ... - Thank you! It being Summer here, I'm about to spend the next week doing as little as I can get away with whilst walking along the beach, swimming in the Southern Ocean, and/or eating delicious seafood. (And sleeping.) I'll give it a go after New Year, and will drop you a note when I do.
In the interim, Merry Xmas, and best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2011, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Boleyn summarises my "issues" very nicely. I hope others will express their opinions whilst I am laying on the beach. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored John Waterhouse. If you wish to avoid duplication you could transclude John Waterhouse to Waterhouse, using noinclude round the headers/footers. I don't see, and have never seen, any consensus to combine all people with same surname at a single page. I think its pointless, and makes navigation to the correct page more difficult. Tassedethe (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also reverted Charles Waterhouse. Andrews (surname) is a page which uses tranclusion to bring all dab pages to one location. Tassedethe (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart, poorly written

1. Improperly made hatnote. You don't use the colon to make them. 2. No sources. 3. "X's song was used in an episode of Y" runs the risk of turning into a sprawling list of other such entries; best to kill this kind of listcruft before it spreads. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-12-28

Huh?

When you click on "show", why is it displaying {{{2}}} rather than the data?
(The one above seems to be working as expected.) Pdfpdf (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was missing a closing "|", but I'm guessing it's a mismatched or unclosed bracket that's causing things not to display now. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Putting in the "|" at the end just caused it to have a value (of nothing/blanks) for {{{2}}}, hence the "{{{2}}}" went away.
The {{{2}}} is saying "you haven't specified a 2nd parameter value" Pdfpdf (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff
{{{2}}}

Workaround #1

Here is a workaround, but it doesn't explain what's wrong with the above. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The workaround is to replace "{{hidden|Stuff|bg1=#ccccff|" with "{{hidden|Stuff|bg1=#ccccff|content=")
Stuff
To do
Recreation - Things I like looking at
So-called "useful" stuff - Tools and references
It's because your content contains equals signs. The parser thinks there is a parameter named "; To do (etc etc) ?title" with value "Special (etc) (etc) references]]". -- John of Reading (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (I would never have spotted that.) Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia University

I just got your note on my talk page. Hilarious! "It's the one with the school shooting!!! The Netanyahu incident!!!"

The Canadians are too powerful.... they can't be stopped. I gave up a long time ago. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Cheers.

--Uac1530 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier College

G'day Pdfpdf. Just a note regarding your recent edits to Xavier College. I'll insert this into the talk page for the article also so that the discussion can begin, if you like.

(1) With regards to Fees, it was discussed at length over quite some time at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Template:Infobox_Australia_school_private and Template_talk:Infobox_Australia_school_private#Fees. The consensus was to remove fees from Australian school infoboxes.

(2) With regards to adding extra information such as their post-nominals and so forth, I disagree that this is necessary, and it seems to detract from consistency across the site. There is no other Australian school article at the moment where this is included.

(3) With regards to the other position holders in key-people, I don't believe that these people are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, which, after all, is meant to be brief. Again, this is also an issue of consistency across the other infoboxes for other schools. Following WP:BRD, you've been bold, I've reverted, we're now at the discussion phase, and my stance at the moment is not to include that information.

I've also responded to your post on my talk page. Cheers. :) -danjel (talk to me) 13:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mate. From WP:BRD:

1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.) 2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.

3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

You've made your edit, I reverted it. We have to discuss it before we come to a compromise and re-add it to the article. -danjel (talk to me) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind the suggestion, I'd really like for you to revert your latest couple of changes to reflect where we are at in the above process. -danjel (talk to me) 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what time it is where you are, but it's bed-time here.
Why does this sort of thing always happen at bed-time?
I'm not interested in edit-warring.
It can wait until tomorrow, can't it?
I'll assume you will act in good faith whilst I'm sleeping.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good oh. I'll let you make that revert tomorrow, or I'll make it if you get busy with RL. Then we'll continue the discussion. :) -danjel (talk to me) 13:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Agree with Danjel. Minor school officials are generally not needed in school articles. I think we set a bad precedent if we start this and should try to keep to named positions in the infobox parameters. ie. headmaster, principal, chairman, chaplain and not much more. For one thing, whose going to keep these up to date and how can we be sure they are up to date. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Same for fees - they are so varied in structure and there's really no way to apply a consistent way of presentation that isn't misleading. They are also ever-changing. I've no objection to some appearing in prose BTW, as long as its well sourced and expanded to not mislead. It must also be relevant - is there something noteworthy about the fees at a particular school?
WRT postnonimals - there's a MOS guidance on this somewhere but I cant find it just now. –Moondyne 13:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought the same thing regarding a MOS policy on pre/postnominals, but yeah, I can't find it either. -danjel (talk to me) 13:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREDENTIAL "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." WRT national honour post-nominals, eg. AC, it seems they can be included. –Moondyne 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy pasted the above (with my reply) over to Talk:Xavier_College -danjel (talk to me) 14:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive22&oldid=1145712593"