User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive19

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

Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia DFSM Rosettes

Is this really needed? This article is a summary of ODMs and doesn't really benefit from the added detail of the additional rosettes. Should we also add all the Rosettes for the DLSM, NM, and associated bars, MIDs etc to all decorations? This sort of detail is covered in the internal links to the ODM in question. Respectful Regards, --Oliver Nouther (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing in or about wikipedia that is "needed". (Either really or otherwise.)
Even wikipedia itself is not needed - mankind managed perfectly well for many thousands of years without it.
So, the answer to your question: "Is it really needed?" has to be "No."
But that doesn't mean anything with respect to the presence or absence of rosettes on the page in question.
Just because some people may share an opinion, that doesn't make the opinion into a fact.
I interpret what you have written as: "I don't think the article benefits from the added detail of the additional rosettes".
Well, the fact that I put them there indicates that "I think the article benefits from the added detail of the additional rosettes".
So my response is: Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't share it.
Perhaps if you have a proposal for a better way to illustrate that some ribbons have "attachments" (or whatever the correct terminology is), and that those "attachments" vary quite widely, then perhaps I would think your proposal was a better idea and even more beneficial to the article?
"Should we also add all the Rosettes for the DLSM, NM, and associated bars, MIDs etc to all decorations?" - Just like I don't like the word "need", I don't like the word "should" either. "Should" asserts something without explaining why; there is always some unexplained underlying assumption attached to the word "should".
"Should we also add all the Rosettes for the DLSM, NM, and associated bars, MIDs etc to all decorations?" - I don't know. I expect that if it was not done well, it would not look particularly appealing. However:
  • I believe the DLSM rosettes and star are identical to the DFSM rosettes and star. However, if you look at the page, they don't look round ...
  • Adding the National Medal sounds like a good idea because the rosettes on the NM are very different from the rosettes on the DFSM and DLSM.
  • The RFD rosettes are oval - that's also different.
  • "associated bars"? I've never heard of "associated bars" on ribbons. Please tell me more.
  • Adding the MID also sounds like a good idea. I've never actually seen a ribbon with oakleaves on it. Which ribbons are the ones that oakleaves are placed on? Yes, I rather like that idea.
"This sort of detail is covered in the internal links to the ODM in question."
a) Not always.
b) Where it is, it's not always complete, and/or not always clear.
c) Why is that a reason for not having them on the Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_Australia page?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was an unexpectedly long and emotive answer to a simple question! It was not inteded as a personal afront.
I didn't take it as an afront. (But you did press a few of my "buttons" - particularly my "need" button!) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my objective opinion the article does not benefit from this edit. In my humble opinion for what it is worth, it clutters the article with additional detail that can be found on the relevant specific article. The article in question is a summary of Australian ODMs not a duplication of other articles. If this info isn't on the specific article page then that would be the better place for it.
Fair enough. I'm convinced. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my sacrcasm but I was implying that the article would become overly cluttered if every ribbon had every possible rosette etc included.
Yes, you can see that I agreed with you on that point. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DLSM Rosette is exactly the same as the DFSM.
  • Associated Bars refers to rosettes worn on a ribbon to indicate the additional award of the medal eg DFC and Bar, CSC and Bar etc.
  • The MID Oak Leaf is attached to the Campaign Ribbon in which it was awarded. This is a red herring though because it in no longer an Australian Award.
Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about cleaning up that article?
That depends upon what you mean. I don't think the article needs "cleaning up". I'll just revert my edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers,--Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your a champ. Sorry for the sarcasm! --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS The rosette on the DLSM page does appear ovular like the RFD and RFM. The last two are supposed to be oval shaped representing their actual medal whereas the DLSM rosette should be circular. Strangely there seem to be different colours on some of the ribbons on those pages too. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Crew Europe BAR.svg & Air Crew Europe w clasp BAR.svg

Outer stripes colour corrected. It's unusual that I haven't noticed that ;o) Best regards. Mboro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.41.111 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Saw your comments on the Guinea Pig's page about your use of rollback. You might want to just read WP:Rollback as it says to only use it for edits that shouldn't require an edit summary. Also, I've found that if you enable Twinkle, then you get three rollback options above the diffs, Good faith, standard or vandalism, and it also gives you the option to add an edit summary. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stars

It is a pleasure to hear from you again. Yes, on reflection you are correct. How embarrassing; an Ozzie officer with stars. But then again, I guess any sensible OZ officer will do whatever s(he) can to impress an ally who controls several thousand nuclear weapons, when the land of Oz has somewhere between zero and none! ;-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind me butting in... He's not trying to 'impress' them... he merely understands that they are utterly incapable of working out an allies rank insignia (even an ally who they have worked with for over 60 years) and hence is helping out the lowest common denominator... ;) PalawanOz (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! What's that phrase? "Never a truer word spoken in jest". (Really, it's rather sad.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Impress' was a poor choice of word. 'Mimic' would be a better one. Or 'Kowtow to' if you were feeling nasty. :-)

Actually, I disagree (and so would PalawanOz). I can't imagine any Oz General doing any of those things. Oz Prime Minister, yes, but not Oz General. Have you had a chance to look at Jim Molan's book? [1] I think you would find it an "entertaining read"! He paints both nice and entertaining word pictures, particularly of people and their attitudes and personalities, and doesn't mind taking the mickey out of himself - e.g. it includes some pictures of him with his SAS body-guards (plural!), and he gives you the impression that he's rather embarassed to be surrounded by so many able men who he feels would be MUCH more usefully employed "doing their real job". Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Molan? Whozat? Ah - a retired senior officer in the Australian Army. If I see his book I will follow your recommendation and purchase it.
No, no, no, no, no. I recommend you look at it. (Actually, it would be a better idea to look inside it - if only at the photographs.) Whether you buy it or not is up to you, but there's an excellent chance your local library has a copy. 13:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you read Colin Powell's book 'My American Journey'? It is interesting to see how an average-performing son of Jamaican immigrants gets to the highest spot in the US armed forces. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no, I haven't. (There are libraries full of books I haven't read. So many books, so little time.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with many Americans there is an unfortunate tendency to only understand (or want to for that matter) their own way. I think this stems from their deeply ingrained belief that they are always right and everybody else is wrong. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But I think the big issue is the "Golden Rule": The one with the gold, rules. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or the "Oil Rule": The one with the oil sells it for gold and drives the one who had the gold deeper into debt. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Hence the "Global Financial Crisis" and the "Truly Spectacular American Debt"? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But getting back on topic, what I meant was that the American Military seem to have access to almost unlimited funds, and its allies don't. Hence its allies are often more than happy to adopt an American standard, system or process so that they can latch onto the economies of scale achieved by the size/volume of American military demand and spending. Hence the RAAF has F-111s, F/A-18s and those huge Boeing transport planes (which we needed so we can move around our huge Abrams tanks), and hence we're involved in the JSF program.

Generals

Brigadier vs Brigadier General. It raises the question of whether or not a Brigadier is a junior executive officer, or a very senior normal officer.

No. Read those 3 pages I left you links to; they answer those questions, and many more.
A Commonwealth Brigadier is a "Senior Colonel" (not an official term - just my shorthand), as shown by the insignia being a colonel's plus 1 pip. A Commonwealth Brigadier is specifically NOT a general.
A Commonwealth Brigadier General was (until 1922) a "Junior General" (again, my terminology), as shown by the insignia being a Lt Gen's minus 1 pip.

The American army decided that a Brigadier is an executive officer.

The American army decided that a Brigadier General is an executive officer, so they made it unambiguous by calling him a "Brigadier General".

British, Australians and etc are not so sure.

The Commonwealth is quite sure. I find the history interesting.
Before WWI, brigades were commanded by Colonels.
Some time during WWI, ALL the brigade commanders got promoted to "temporary Brigadier General".
"Brigadier General" was never a permanent active rank - on completion of the command, the officer resumed the rank of Colonel. However, on retirement, many of these officers were appointed "Honorary Brigadier General"
"They" (not sure who "they" were) didn't want too many Generals!
In 1922 "they" "solved" the "problem" by abolishing the rank of Brigadier General and replacing it with the rank of Brigadier - same status, same job, same pay, but different insignia and no longer a "General".
Surely only the British Civil Service could come up with a "solution" like that?!
But the plot thickens!! The Canadians abandoned the Commonwealth insignia and gave the Air Force ranks the same name as the Army ranks. The new insignia mimics the American insignia, but with maple leaves rather than stars. And their lowest ranked General is, once again, a Brigadier General. Pdfpdf (talk)

In the navy, Americans got around the question of whether or not a Commodore is an executive officer by renaming the rank 'Rear Admiral (Lower Half)'. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.
Another interesting think about the Yanks is that 2* is the highest permanent rank. ALL 3* and 4* appointments are temporary, and on completion the officer reverts back to 2*. I think it has something to do with getting a good rotation through the 3* & 4* positions without having to demote anyone to get rid of them, and it also saves on the retirement pension bill! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - actually 2 of them

Admirals

In the navy Americans got around the question of whether or not a Commodore is an executive officer by renaming the rank to 'Rear Admiral (Lower Half)'. It seems a curious choice of words for the title, Rear and Lower Half. Maybe they would have been better off saying Junior Rear Admiral. Then again, what can you expect from sailors. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're having the same problem that I frequently have - you're trying to apply logic to a situation where logic does not apply!
Maybe they would have been better off saying "Commodore"?
Actually, they did at one stage. I'll see if I can find it. Back in a mo' Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was easier than I thought: Commodore (United States) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-05-21

Reverts

Are you even reading what you are reverting? Not only is every change you made with this edit contradicted by the cited sources, but the third change you made is so obviously self-contradictory (It was not until 1947 that all prisoners held by the Allies were repatriated. As late as April 1949, China still held more than 60,000 Japanese prisoners.) that I'm starting to wonder if you even bothered reading it before reverting. Raul654 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Yes I am reading them.
(I suppose I might ask "Are you paying any attention to what I'm saying?")
I gather I need to address them one by one. I'm not sure I have the time to do that at the monment, so this answer will be in several parts. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do you want to collaborate on an article about John Balfour (ambassador)? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am paying attention to what you say. But to be frank, in this case, your claims about what the article should say do not match reality. For example:
The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with the Western Allies. You want to remove the word "Western" from there, claiming that because the Chinese signed the Potsdam declaration, the word Western should be removed from this sentence. The problem is, the fact that the Chinese signed the Potsdam declaration is completely irrelevant to this sentence. I am not aware of any intent on the part of the Japanese to negotiate with the Chinese -- in fact, I've never seen any evidence that they were considered more than an afterthought by the Americans, British, Soviets, and Japanese. If you have some citations to show that the Japanese did want negotiations with the Chinese, I'm all ears.
First, thanks for starting this - it's been a strange and busy day. (Engagement party - no not mine, other than financially!)
Back on topic:
Asynchronous communication is not always successful. This is a good example.
From my POV, a portion of what you say is fact, but you are looking at it from a different angle to me, and hence arriving at a different conclusion which, often, is unrelated to the point that I'm unsuccessfuly trying to communicate.
For example: What is your definition of "Western Allies". It is WP's definition of Western Allies that I'm objecting to. Perhaps I should have been more expansive, but there's a limit on how many characters you can fit in an edit summary. Perhaps I should have asked you, rather than assuming you were using the WP example. Perhaps you should have asked me, rather than automatically assuming I was wrong. Perhaps.
My current interpretation of what you are saying in this sub-case is that "Western Allies" means "Americans and British", which are but two members of the group defined in "Western Allies". That is why I don't think "Western Allies" is correct.
On reflection, and after discussion with you, my choice of "Allies" isn't any better; it now appears that it does NOT resolve MY problem, and, well, we both know what you think about the use of "Allies".
What do you think about replacing "Western Allies" with "Americans and British"? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take the second change you want to make:
On July 30, Ambassador Satō wrote that Stalin was probably talking to the Western Allies about his dealings with Japan - you again removed "Western" from this sentence. The cable in question explicitly names the US and UK: If it is to be understood that Stalin was completely unable to influence the intentions of America and England on this point, the fact is that he will be unable to accept our proposal to send a speical envoy."
"Western" Allies is correct; "Allies" is not.
Yes, "Allies" is not correct. But neither is "Western Allies".
What do you think about replacing "Western Allies" with "Americans and British"? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And on the third point, the repatriation of prisoners, I've already pointed out above that your edits introduced an obvious self-contradiction into the article.
Again, the communication has not been successful.
However, this one is a little different.
First of all, let's make sure we're both talking about the same thing.
"It was not until 1947 that all prisoners held by the Western Allies were repatriated."
Actually, maybe it's not as different as I thought. Who are the Western Allies?
I don't think the French held any Japanese prisoners, but I thought the Dutch did. And I know the Australians and other Commonwealth nations did.
The Commonwealth were members of the Allies. Were they considered members of the Western Allies?
Had the Dutch released all their prisoners by then?
If relevant, had the Commonwealth released all their prisoners by then?
Do you really mean the Western Allies?
Or do you mean the "Americans and British"? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-05-31

John Balfour

I couldn't find a reference with his date-of-death. I gather you did? If so, could you tell me the citation please? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here and here, among others. Raul654 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do you want to collaborate on an article about John Balfour (ambassador)? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding John Balfour, yes, I was planning to write the article. But it should probably be John Balfour (diplomat) rather than a member of the diplomatic core is not always an ambassador but all ambassadors are diplomats. Raul654 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you had something planned, I don't want to get in your way.
I had in mind to do a "quick-and-dirty", and felt that if we collaborated we wouldn't get into the endless stupid mis-understandings we've been going through recently.
If you were planning to do it anyway, then that will achieve my purpose of an article being created.
As to name, is there a word or two missing from your sentence? I'm assuming you are saying something similar to: "But it should probably be John Balfour (diplomat) rather than John Balfour (ambassador); a member of the diplomatic core is not always an ambassador, but all ambassadors are diplomats." Except for the fact that some of Australia's ambassadors are "retired" politicians, (that's meant to be amusing), I agree with your definition of the depency relationship. However, I believe the page naming guidelines say to use a name that reflects what he was known as, and/or notable as. I believe his notability was for being an ambassador, rather than "just" a diplomat. So it could be argued either way.
You choose. (And have a supporting argument available in the case that someone is polite enough to challenge you, or rude enough to move the page without discussing it first.)
It's past bed-time here - I'm retiring. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stars

archived

6+ stars

(In particular reference to 6 star rank and Talk:6 star rank, but see also Six star (disambiguation) and Category:Star ranking systems.

Ha - George Dewey, funny. I guess in the US the Secretary of Defenc(s)e is 6 stars, the Secretary of State 7 stars, the Vice President 8 stars, and the US President must be at least 10 stars... B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know about that. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are 10* - I reckon the President would have to be at least 11* ...
(It throws a new light on the Queen being a regimental colonel, doesn't it!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the Duke of Edinburgh being Admiral of the Fleet. It's the first time Phil has outranked Elizabeth! B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And probably the only time! (She Who Must Be Obeyed) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that is just silly.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the intention. But which bit in particular are you referring to? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole discussion in general! Interesting arguement that DofE outranks EIIR, the only rank she wears is honorary Colonel. Maybe as monarch she outranks the DofE and is therefore a 6 star? No No I won't start! --Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can start if you wish, but I hope you won't be upset that I won't participate.
If you are really keen, you should read Talk:6 star rank - I'm sure you can find a selection of conversations there to address all sides of every aspect of every related (and maybe unrelated) issue. For example, where else will you get an opportunity to discuss Huey, Dewey and Louie? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I won't start... it was after reading the talk page that I decided it was all silly! --Oliver Nouther (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What I find sad is that you (and I, and B Fairbairn) seem to be in the minority. Well, there goes my latest definition of "normal" ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Thanks! XLerate (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Rhodes

Hi -

No problem. I'm a stickler for that sort of thing. Talking of that, in his resting place, should it really link to Rhodesia as the it directs to the country founded in the 60s? The Madras (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point!
So what do you suggest? (At the moment, I haven't tracked down what that piece of the earth was labelled in 1902. Did Cape Colony extend that far north?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be truthful, I'm not sure, Wiki re-directs to the British South Africa Company, which isn't too helpful. I don't think it would come under the juristiction of Southern Rhodesia, would it? The Madras (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Rhodesia sounds convincing to me.
The territory was originally referred to as 'South Zambezia' but the name 'Rhodesia' came into use in 1895. The designation 'Southern' was adopted in 1901 and dropped from normal usage in 1964 on the break-up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and Rhodesia became the name of the country until the creation of Zimbabwe Rhodesia in 1979.
Why do you say: "I don't think it would come under the juristiction of Southern Rhodesia, would it?"
Please correct my edit if you think I've got it wrong. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: What re-directs to BSAC?
On Southern Rhodesia article, the part of the infobox at the box stated "1923", if you click on the flag indicating what preceded that, it sends you to BSAC. The Madras (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

216.x vandal

FYI, this is serial vandal named Swamilive. In the future, you might want to add this to AIV requests. Elockid (Talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Useful to know! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Socks
216.26.2xx.xxx
216.211.xx.xxx
216.211.xxx.xxx
Pages vandalised

More

You may also want to look at the following, whose behaviour has been similar to the most recent edit from User talk:216.26.202.187:

  • 216.26.202.110
  • 216.26.213.34
  • 216.26.214.39
  • 216.26.219.104
  • 216.26.223.175
  • 216.211.45.190
  • 216.211.56.184
  • 216.211.72.66
  • 216.211.73.24
  • 216.211.95.252
  • 216.211.97.11
  • 216.211.102.216
  • 216.211.117.165

and

  • Garrison is another of the regular targets for this vandalism.

David Biddulph (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesbreadth

Raised at WP:EF/R. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I didn't know such a page existed!) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page interruptions

I refactored a series of talk page entries you made, ones in which you trivially and casually interrupted entries made by others. At WP:TPO, the guideline recommends against interruptions to entries except in unusual circumstances, and asks the interrupting editor to maintain original authorship of orphaned entries by using {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} just before the break, before your own interruption, or by copying and pasting the original signature and timestamp. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rann

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

Image vs File

G'day Pdfpdf, apologies for not adding additional edit remarks, I am usually pretty good at leaving them but this one obviously slipped through. My changes were aimed at a level of consistency and my belief (perhaps mistaken?) was that Image: was preferable in the context of displaying images (it was the predominant form in most of the materiel that I have seen recently). Having read your reversion comments, I went hunting for the difference between using Image: and File: and the rationale for using one over the other. Whilst Help:Visual file markup did seem to indicate that File: was the more recent term, I was unable to find anything that made the distinction between them clear (if there is a practical distinction). Are you able to help? AusTerrapin (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Terrapin - which edits are you referring to? (Both yours and mine please).
As I'm not sure what you're referring to, I can only make guesses.
FYI, the "classes" of page on WP are called "namespaces" (by WP)
You can see a list of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=
You may notice that "image" is no longer in that list.
Some time in the last couple of years, some WP comittee/cabal/consensus decided that, because "Images" were not the only types of file saved under the "Images" namespace, the namespace should have its name changed to reflect this. So "they" renamed it as "File".
Personally, as long as it works, and continues to work, I couldn't care less.
If I made an edit or edit comment suggesting that "Image" is/was "wrong", I apologise. My intention would not have been that; it would have been something else.
"My changes were aimed at a level of consistency and my belief (perhaps mistaken?) was that Image: was preferable in the context of displaying images." - Well, logically, I agree with you. (I wish I knew what I said!) wrt your belief, yes, I think it may be mistaken, but really, it's "No Big Deal" - as I said, I couldn't care less, and I expect most others don't.
"Are you able to help?" - I'd like to think I can, and I hope the above is helpful to you. If not, ask some questions, and I'll be very happy to supply you with what I hope are useful answers. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping into the discussion.... Help:Visual_file_markup shows that the preferred term is now File (vice Image) PalawanOz (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion was to Australian Honours Order of Precedence‎ 23 May 10 02:38 Pdfpdf (WTF? - Please use the edit summary - Undid revision 363442947 by AusTerrapin). Thanks for the background - that was exactly what I was after. When I checked [[Help:Visual file markup] after the fact I did glean PalawanOz's point, but there was no context to it, however you have helped provide that now. Don't worry, I am not taking any of this personally and don't regard it as a big deal either. I just like to understand why I am doing things a particular way - it makes it easier to replicate in the future and to understand when it may be appropriate to vary an approach hence the motivation for my original question. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I just like to understand why I am doing things a particular way" - Yes. (I suffer from the same disease.) Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 RAR COs

Hi Pdfpdf, if you are wanting to expand the commanding officers table on the 1 RAR page, the incomplete list of 1 RAR COs can be found in Appendix 2 to Annex A to Chapter 6 of the RAR Standing Orders. This can be found at: [2]. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jeffery article

Please don't continue your contentious edit-warring on this article. The policy has been explained to you and all editors are expected to edit according to policies - *not* their personal preferences. Afterwriting (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pot. See your talk page. Regards, Kettle Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-06-21

216.x vandal

Socks
216.26.2xx.xxx
216.211.xx.xxx
216.211.xxx.xxx
Pages vandalised

Guinea pig warrior removing reference requests

Hi. You noted on Guinea pig warrior talk that the editor had a habit of making changes without explanation. I've just had a recent experience with them which indicates they aren't being responsive. I answered your comment, and added two other sections problems with their edits in three other articles. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Is there anything you'd like me to do?
In future, I suggest you just revert the edits saying something like - "Reverted unexplained edit - see your talk page". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference source for TPR Donaldson's Medals

I have re-raised this issue at Talk:Mark Donaldson#Citation requests for honours and awards section and have provided a rationale justifying the use of photographic evidence. Abraham, B.S. was unconvinced by my initial rationale, so I have provided a more expansive one. He is also waiting to see the response of others. If you could drop by and comment, I would appreciate it. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I can't think of anything useful to add that you didn't say, or that other editors (including me) haven't already raised (many times) before!
I'm happy, perhaps even keen, to drop by and comment, and have done so, but I'm unconvinced that I've added any value, and for that I'm most apologetic and also rather uncomfortable. Perhaps you may want to suggest some avenues where I can add value?
Meanwhile, please keep up the good work - I'm most impressed by your thoroughness. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I didn't need additional argument, although it would certainly have been welcome if you had thought of any. My primary reason for asking for comment was that I wanted to re-establish a majority consensus and all that was needed was for others to indicate that they supported my position (with or without a small degree of qualification). Any more than that would have just been a bonus. I also didn't want to suggest that you should take any particular position, I wanted to let my argument on the talk page stand for itself. So once again thanks for commenting, it was much appreciated.
Interestingly, I have subsequently seen in an older conversation on the ODM Project talk page (I think) that there has previously been some concern about interpretation where the image is of poorer quality - particularly black and white or with poor colouration. It didn't fundamentally change my view, but it a scenario where care would need to be taken about whether there was enough certainty to make an unambigous interpretation. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows

Sorry that I hadn't noticed you took a break from editing for over 24 hours between when I commented on the talk page 2 June, and removed the list on 3 June.

I've collapsed your subsequent comments in the hope that it will de-escalate the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply re "SIA?"

Reply for you at User talk:Jerzy#SIA?.
--Jerzy•t 02:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stung by an Elvis Backlash

I hesitated for several days but I could not resist. I knew if I touched the Elvis article, there would be recriminations.[4] jmcw (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"recriminations"? Hardly! A polite question on the article talk page hardly qualifies as A recrimination, much less "recriminations".
I think reaction so far has been quite restrained, particularly given what either of us might expect!!
Soldier on! (But don't take your body armour off yet.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at IngerAlHaosului's talk page.
Message added 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Allegation: Wrong colours on File:UK Order St-Michael St-George ribbon.svg

You edited description of this file: . Please, compare the colours with this photograph (Ryszard Kaczorowski coffin at Belweder).
GCMG insignia are third... Best regards. Mboro. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I've compared them with this: . They're not the same.
I've been looking for a definitive source, but haven't found one yet. Do you have one?
Why do you think they are so different?
Where do you think the grey-blue & brown-red came from?
(Although the colours in File:UK Order St-Michael St-George ribbon.svg may not be right, there seems to be lots of annecdotal evidence that they are closer than the colours in File:Order of St Michael and St George UK ribbon.png - but as I said, I haven't found anything definitive yet. These: are better.)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for such difference can be explained by the different photos used for creation those files.
File:Ord.St.Michele-Giorgio.png is a pure copy taken from ODM site. On the other hand, Mr. Gaszewski's project shows ribbon bar simillar to File:UK Order St-Michael St-George ribbon.svg.
The Orders and Medals Society of America shows two photos of the Order with two different shades (maybe it's just a case of the camera adjustments): CMG & DCMG.
Recapitulation: meanwhile I won't change my file. I believe that it should not be a problem.
Warm regards. Mboro. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well! That was more easily and more quickly solved than I expected! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I think that the updated colouring is pretty good. Overall, this is a problematic ribbon for which to get the colours right. The official colouring is Saxon Blue and Scarlet. I have seen a variety of shades used in practice. Peter Duckers, British Orders and Decorations, pp 25-27, 30 shows four different images, all of which have different shading (although to be fair, one appears to have suffered deterioration due to UV exposure), as does the image in the photo linked above. From the many different images I have seen, the best contemporary colour match I have seen is that of the sash on Duckers p 26. The ribbon, particularly the blue, is more intense than the sash (silk vs cotton?) - the image at [5] provides a good example with the blue particularly vivid. I suspect that the ribbon is particulary susceptible to fading and hence the number of very pale examples that one sees. However it is also clear that in years gone by a darker shade was used. A good example of the contrast is located at [6] More images are available at Google images. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Terrapin. My main concern was the very big difference between this: and other evidence. Once we get back to red & blue, although there are notable differences, they are far less significant than all of those with the grey/brown. I think I'll now bow out and leave the determination of the blue/red shades to "the experts" in such matters, a domain in which I go to some effort to profess a LACK of expertise. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great to me.
Another promblem can occure with the Order of Merit ribbon bar. Temporarily I won't upload vector variant. Mr. Gaszewski & ODM versions are different. Commons' ribbons are the ODM's copies: .
Cheers. Mboro.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.41.111 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lukasz Gaszewski's images should not be relied upon for anything other than a very general indication of what the ribbon looks like. His colours are frequently too bold (or, less often, too washed out). In the Australian ribbons section he has got a number of ribbons wrong (completely incorrect shades (eg brown for the CSC/CSM rather than sage green and orange for the Aust Sports Medal instead of yellow). In some cases he even has bands of colour that don't exist (eg the Iraq campaign medal). Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Terrapin. As you warned, the Oz medals displayed at http://www.medals.pl/bc/ do indeed seem to have "problems"! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider refactoring

Per WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and WP:NPA, please remove or refactor [7], [8], and (first paragraph - second paragraph is fine and appreciated) so you are focusing on content and the topics under dispute, rather than focusing on other editors. I'm happy to provide further explanation. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm happy to provide further explanation." - Yes please.
However, first, please consider separating comments on the behaviour from comments on the person.
There are certain aspects of the behaviour that are completely independent of WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and WP:NPA, and I see no reason to remove them.
Conversely, please identify those aspects that you feel are relevant to WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and WP:NPA, so that I can refactor them.
Also, regarding: "(first paragraph - second paragraph is fine and appreciated)", I'm glad I have written something that you appreciate, but I'm disappointed that don't know just what it is you are referring to! Please clarify.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment on the content, not on the contributor." "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." - WP:NPA. See especially Wikipedia:NPA#Avoiding_personal_attacks, Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying_incivility, Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable.
I should have linked WP:BATTLE as well.
"please consider separating comments on the behaviour from comments on the person" I find it better to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, by avoiding comments on either. When behavior obviously or persistently violates policies, I try to deal with it as a dispute separate from any content disputes. As you're probably well aware, behavioral disputes are addressed quite differently than content disputes. While there are many ways to deal with behavioral problems, the first steps should always refer to or directly identify the relevant guidelines or policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst, in principle, I agree with all that you say, I feel I must warn you that I am not as pedantic as you are, and feel I must also bring to your attention that WP is a recreation for me, and that I'd rather do something I see as productiive than spend my (to me precious) spare time being involved in wiki-minutia. Never-the-less, I will exercise my abudent good faith and address your concerns, hopefully to your level of comfort. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Not what I'd hoped, but progress. Obviously, we prioritize civility differently. Wikipedia prioritizes it as policy. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I have already answered ALL of your questions. You have answered very few of mine. The only thing I can see to do is repeat myself step by step and hope you engage in discussion. So let's take things one step at a time, and clarify things as we go, because we don't seem to be particularly good at communicating with each other, and I don't understand many of your statements."

Funny, I believe I've addressed all your points, while I don't feel you've done the same. I don't feel the necessity to go through your questions one by one, making sure each detail has been addressed. Of course, I'm always going to prioritize comments you make about content and issues of dispute. When you personalize something like the above, I tend to ignore it other than asking for something more civil. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we prioritize civility differently. - I don't agree.
First, I don't agree that it's obvious.
Second, I don't agree that we prioritise civility differently.
As our conversation progresses, I have come to realise that our definitions are different - I don't know what your definition of civility is, and it seems clear to me that you don't know what mine is.
What we do prioritise differently is wiki-minutia.
As this particular conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere, (much less anywhere useful), I will conclude my bit of it by saying & asking:
You asked me to consider refactoring. I did.
I then refactored.
Has this solved your problem?
If it hasn't, please state explicitly what your problem is.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-06-25

Please consider reality

See User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive19#Please consider refactoring

You asked me to consider refactoring. I considered it.
I then refactored.
Has this solved your problem?
If it hasn't, please state explicitly what your problem is.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply responded here to comments you made on the article talk page that I had wished you would have refactored or removed. Your keeping them intact made me believe you wanted them discussed. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about.
How about answering my question? viz:
Has this solved your problem?
If it hasn't, please state explicitly what your problem is.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the article talk page, "I have already answered ALL of your questions. You have answered very few of mine. The only thing I can see to do is repeat myself step by step and hope you engage in discussion. So let's take things one step at a time, and clarify things as we go, because we don't seem to be particularly good at communicating with each other, and I don't understand many of your statements."

I asked you to remove of refactor this. You left it intact.

I then responded here with, "Funny, I believe I've addressed all your points, while I don't feel you've done the same. I don't feel the necessity to go through your questions one by one, making sure each detail has been addressed. Of course, I'm always going to prioritize comments you make about content and issues of dispute. When you personalize something like the above, I tend to ignore it other than asking for something more civil."

I previously wrote, "Obviously, we prioritize civility differently. Wikipedia prioritizes it as policy."

My conclusion is that you're just not one to follow WP:CIVIL. This, of course, makes me wonder what other policies you choose to ignore. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't attempted to answer my questions.
  • Has this solved your problem?
I'm guessing your answer to this is "No." (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)
  • If it hasn't, please state explicitly what your problem is.
You haven't mentioned anything specific - just general WP:I just don't like it type statements. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, despite your frequent use of [[WP:alphabet]] tags, you don't seem to be very good at practising what you preach!
  • I find most of the above indistinguishable from a personal attack.
  • It also contains a number of false statements.
  • You also seem to be calling me a liar.
per se, this doesn't bother me. (I really don't care what rubbish you put on my talk page - It's the useful and informative stuff I'm interested in - though I have to admit that getting any of that is quite a challenge.)
However, by doing the above, you have significantly reduced your credibility. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any offense. None was intended. I'm happy to refactor and clarify. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mis-understand. I am not offended.
However, I must thank you for your apology - Thank you.
None was intended. - I happily accept that it was not your intention.
But seriously, I do not understand how you could make the above statements and expect the recipient to agree with them! It is extremely difficult to read them and understand how you did NOT intend them to be offensive. Never-the-less, I will WP:AGF and accept that None was intended. As I said: per se, this doesn't bother me. Unlike you, I really don't care what rubbish anyone puts on my talk page - It's the useful and informative stuff I'm interested in.
"I'm happy to refactor and clarify." - Thank you for the offer, it is appreciated. But I really would prefer you devoted your efforts to more effective communication regarding the topics you are complaining about.
I don't forsee anything useful ever likely to arise from this conversation on this page.
I'm only continuing it for two reasons: 1) To point out that your penultimate response significantly reduced your credibility. 2) To be "polite".
Conversely, I feel that useful additions to Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows would be a MUCH better way to employ your time and efforts.
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is closed.
If, however, there are matters you wish to pursue, by all means do so. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By-the-way: (I think this is my fourth attempt?)

You still haven't attempted to answer my questions.
  • Has this solved your problem?
I'm guessing your answer to this is "No." (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)
  • If it hasn't, please state explicitly what your problem is.
You haven't mentioned anything specific - just general WP:I just don't like it type statements.

I've changed my mind. I don't see any value in you explicitly stating your list of problems.
However, if you have an opinion on this matter, I'm happy to read it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

See Wikipoodling. jmcw (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AGF --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Assume no clue. jmcw (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick with policies and guidelines, thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, that's a wonderful cop-out, but the facts of the matter are that you happily ignore "policies and guidelines" when it suits you. Like John, I suggest you: See Wikipoodling; and see Wikipedia:Assume no clue. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

I've read your responses above and on Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows. I responded on the article talk page, then removed it all because I feel it is futile to continue.

I've removed the table from the article. I believe the burden is on you to demonstrate how the material is encyclopedic, appropriately sourced, and presented with an appropriate level of detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the courtesy notice, and the accompanying explanation. I very much appreciate you providing some information. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more

Courtesy notice

I've read your responses above and on Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows. I responded on the article talk page, then removed it all because I feel it is futile to continue.

I've removed the table from the article. I believe the burden is on you to demonstrate how the material is encyclopedic, appropriately sourced, and presented with an appropriate level of detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the courtesy notice, and the accompanying explanation. I very much appreciate you providing some information. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What information would that be? --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ask? If I know why you are asking, I can supply you with a more-useful-to-you answer to your question. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I very much appreciate you providing some information. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)" --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify what? I simply copied the statement I was responding to in order to make it clear what I was responding to. If you don't understand your own statement, then withdraw it and try again. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. Go waste somebody else's time please. I have useful, productive, enjoyable and interesting things to do. You are just a time waster, and have exceeded my good will and good faith. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

end-of-month

John Whitelaw

Hi there. I see you have disambiguated John Whitelaw. I don't think this is necessary and went ahead and moved it back. There are currently no other John Whitelaw articles on wikipedia so why dab? If you disagree please reply here.4meter4 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And I've copied my reply here.
There are.
And there will be even more.
Please wait for half-an-hour and the differences will become obvious.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you are creating some articles then?4meter4 (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on! (Clearly, you are a very intelligent wikipedian!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll move it back then. :-) I'll start the dab page too. Have fun editing!4meter4 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll move it back then." - Thanks.
"I'll start the dab page too." - Jolly good, and thanks for the warning. (Edit conflicts are ALWAYS easier to avoid than to try and fix!!)
"Have fun editing!" - But of course! What would be the point of editing WP if it wasn't fun?
Cheers, and thanks for the useful, effective, polite, enjoyable, and somewhat amusing communication. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :-) Glad to entertain. If you could add your new article names to the John Whitelaw dab page now that would be great. Otherwise it might get deleted by some other editor for not having more than one name. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess great minds think like me. :-) You did it as I was typing. lol4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I agree. Accordingly, I have done so. (Or at least, I think I have done so. Please advise if I've ... errr ... "made some mistakes".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I doubt you're expecting me to disagree with you? ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I love your quirky humor. Well I don't think you waisted too much time really. Just a hint though; it's usually better to create the new articles first before doing any moving/dab page creation. Saves having to explain yourself. 4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL! Well obviously, you are completely correct!! Isn't hindsite wonderful? (I wish I had LOTS more of it - particularly BEFORE the event.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. That is a bit confusing. I personally think it would be better for each general to have their own article. Perhaps you could title the articles John Whitelaw, Sr and John Whitelaw, Jr or John Whitelaw the elder and John Whitelaw the younger. Another possibility would be John Whitelaw (1894-1964) and John Whitelaw (1921-2010).4meter4 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely! However, it seems the first and major problem is, which information relates to which John Stewart Whiterlaw!! When that's sorted out, then we'll know which information to put on which page. THEN we can think about how to title the pages! My posting was intended for your amusement - not for your confusion.
All the best, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am amused... but also concerned with the mess at John Whitelaw (general). It's really not good to have live pages in a state like that. It would be better for you to move the content to User:Pdfpdf/sandbox and work on it there until it is ready to go live. You could stubify John Whitelaw (general) in the mean time.4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You are quite correct. However, it's past midnight here, and I'm about to sign off. I'm fairly confident that such changes can wait 24 hours without the world ending. However, if you disagree, please feel free to create whatever pages you feel appropriate - you have my "authority" (if you need it) and support. (Just remember to tell me what you've done.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and stubified it to the elder general. I moved the content to User talk:Pdfpdf/sandbox which was empty. Thanks for working on these. If you need any more help feel free to hit me up. Get some rest and take care. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelaw-the-elder

Hi Pdfpdf, I've expanded the John Whitelaw (general) article using the Australian Dictionary of Biography Online article and some of the refs you had for the 1894-1964 Whitelaw. I hope you don't mind. I found an image on the AWM site and uploaded that too (on Commons). Please take a look at the article and let me know what you think. Also, I'm happy to help if I can, if/when you want to create the entry for the 1921-2010 Whitelaw. Have a good one. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind. - Of course not! Why would I?
I found an image on the AWM site and uploaded that too (on Commons). - Good. (Well done.)
Please take a look at the article and let me know what you think. - OK. Where do you want me to respond? (i.e. here; your talk page; article talk page?)
Also, I'm happy to help if I can, if/when you want to create the entry for the 1921-2010 Whitelaw. - Thanks!
The three things that are holding me up are:
1) What to name the article for John-the-younger.
2) Just which information in my sandbox relates to John-the-elder.
3) Life outside of WP, including the demands of "she who must be obeyed."
Have a good one. - Only one?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the demands of "she who must be obeyed" usually get in the way of Wikipedia for me, too! One must do a thorough appreciation of the situation, though, and come up with a cunning plan that undermines her centre of gravity, in order to achieve disruption, dislocation and ultimately breakthrough! Basically it usually means giving her some money to go get her hair done...;-) Being serious now, of course, any ideas for John Whitelaw (general) would be best dealt with on that article's talk page, IMO. In regards to the name for the younger Whitelaw, I'd suggest John Whitelaw (1921–2010) as that would be an appropriate disambig. That's my opinion, though. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image

leave a message on User talk:Tim1357 - my owner's talk page.
File:Can Navy shoulder RAdm.png

File:Can Navy shoulder VAdm.png

File:Can Navy shoulder Cdre.png

Subtle differences

copied from User talk:Tim1357/Archive 5#Subtle differences

Hi. There are subtle differences between these three pairs of files.

I'm trying to determine if the differences are important, and if so, which ones are "right", and which ones are "wrong".
Your bot has correctly identified that only one of each pair is currently in use.
I agree that one of each pair needs to be deleted.
The current problem is, I don't yet know which ones.
When I have so determined, I will place "{{db-g7}}" on the others.
In the interim, if you don't mind, I'll remove your bot's tags. Are you OK with that plan?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trustt-noo-1

Hey,
Thanks for your help on the Urrbrae Agricultural High School page, As you can probebly notice, im new here :)
Thanks,
Hamish
Trustt-noo-1 (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of how th page is going?
Trustt-noo-1 (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's going pretty well. Good work! Pdfpdf (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Caligari

Hi Pdfpdf, I've made some tweaks to John Caligari and left some comments on the talk page. If you get a chance, please review my changes. If you don't like them, please feel free to revert. Interestingly a User:Johncal has stopped by. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Yes, I find it VERY interesting that Johncal has stopped by. (There's nothing like getting data and/or confirmation from the source, is there!)
I find it hard to imagine I'd disagree with anything you wrote - you're very thorough and reliable.
Never-the-less, I did review it, and I did review your comments, and as I expected, I agree with all of them.
Keep happy & healthy. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

Your editing is being discussed here. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the "Courtesy notice". I have added my 2c worth. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditties

{{talkback}} but better get there quick before some enthusiast deletes the graphic! :)( DBaK (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again

{{talkback}}

Ah yes

Ah right, you're there, I see! Well have a good Thursday too. On Saturday I shall be joining you, or rather them. What fun eh?

Now you've seen the tune, is it OK if I put it up for deletion? It strikes me that I probably ought to, it having no possible further purpose here. Thanks DBaK (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> Now you've seen the tune, is it OK if I put it up for deletion?
Certainly. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry, thought it was still the 29th. Yworo (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

It's in the Manual of Style. I'll see if I can find it. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. Yworo (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-07-21

Whitelaw-the-elder

Hi Pdfpdf, I've expanded the John Whitelaw (general) article using the Australian Dictionary of Biography Online article and some of the refs you had for the 1894-1964 Whitelaw. I hope you don't mind. I found an image on the AWM site and uploaded that too (on Commons). Please take a look at the article and let me know what you think. Also, I'm happy to help if I can, if/when you want to create the entry for the 1921-2010 Whitelaw. Have a good one. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind. - Of course not! Why would I?
I found an image on the AWM site and uploaded that too (on Commons). - Good. (Well done.)
Please take a look at the article and let me know what you think. - OK. Where do you want me to respond? (i.e. here; your talk page; article talk page?)
Also, I'm happy to help if I can, if/when you want to create the entry for the 1921-2010 Whitelaw. - Thanks!
The three things that are holding me up are:
1) What to name the article for John-the-younger.
2) Just which information in my sandbox relates to John-the-elder.
3) Life outside of WP, including the demands of "she who must be obeyed."
Have a good one. - Only one?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the demands of "she who must be obeyed" usually get in the way of Wikipedia for me, too! One must do a thorough appreciation of the situation, though, and come up with a cunning plan that undermines her centre of gravity, in order to achieve disruption, dislocation and ultimately breakthrough! Basically it usually means giving her some money to go get her hair done...;-) Being serious now, of course, any ideas for John Whitelaw (general) would be best dealt with on that article's talk page, IMO. In regards to the name for the younger Whitelaw, I'd suggest John Whitelaw (1921–2010) as that would be an appropriate disambig. That's my opinion, though. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle differences

copied from User talk:Tim1357/Archive 5#Subtle differences

Hi. There are subtle differences between these three pairs of files.

I'm trying to determine if the differences are important, and if so, which ones are "right", and which ones are "wrong".
Your bot has correctly identified that only one of each pair is currently in use.
I agree that one of each pair needs to be deleted.
The current problem is, I don't yet know which ones.
When I have so determined, I will place "{{db-g7}}" on the others.
In the interim, if you don't mind, I'll remove your bot's tags. Are you OK with that plan?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Star BAR.svg & derivatives...

It wasn't black, but very dark blue (RGB = 271f40), but I've turned it into RGB = 000063. I hope you like it ;) Cheers; Mboro. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitelaw (1921-2010)

Hi Pdfpdf, how are you? Just reading the new article, sorry for not responding sooner, been busy. I was wondering about the lead para, "In retirement we was very active on many councils and committees". Is this supposed to be "In retirement he was very active on many councils and committees???? Do we know what Council's (I am assuming local government) and committees he was on??? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pdfpdf, how are you? - Well, I really hate all the data entry and catchup required before I do the income tax. (Once it's done, the Income Tax itself is easy.) So, I guess you could say I'm bored and unmotivated. It's only the thought of getting the refund cheque now, rather than in 4 months time, which is motivating me.
Is this supposed to be ... - Yes. (I missed that one.)
Do we know what Council's (I am assuming local government) and committees he was on??? - Yes:
Following his retirement from the military, Major General Whitelaw maintained close ties with veteran and Service organisations. On 20 July 1979, he became the inaugural executive director of the National Farmers Federation. He was active with the Department of Veterans Affairs and served on numerous councils including the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, and the Australian Capital Territory Treatment Monitoring Committee.
No, it seems that none of them were Local Govt.
(Back to the tedious data entry.)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive19&oldid=1049677387"