User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive40

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

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive40 Jan-Dec17

Archives

2007 - 00 Jan-Feb07 00 Mar-Apr07 01:May-Jun07 02:Jul-Aug07 02:Sep-Oct07 04:Nov-Dec07
2008 - 05:Jan-Feb08 06:Mar-Apr08 07:May-Jun08 08:Jul-Aug08 09:Sep-Oct08 10:Nov-Dec08
2009 - 11:Jan-Feb09 12:Mar-Apr09 13:May-Jun09 14:Jul-Aug09 15:Sep-Oct09 16:Nov-Dec09
2010 - 17:Jan-Feb10 18:Mar-Apr10 19:May-Jun10 20:Jul-Aug10 21:Sep-Oct10 22:Nov-Dec10
2011 - 23:Jan-Feb11 24:Mar-Apr11 25:May-Jun11 26:Jul-Aug11 27:Sep-Oct11 00 Nov-Dec11
2012 - 29:Jan-Feb12 30:Mar-Apr12 31:May-Jun12 32:Jul-Dec12
2013 - 33:Jan-Jun13 34:Jul-Dec13
2014 - 35:Jan-Jun14 36:Jul-Dec14
2015 - 37:Jan-Jun15 38:Jul-Dec15
2016 - 39:Jan-Dec16
2017 - 40:Jan-Dec17
2018 - 41:Jan-Dec18
2019 - 42:Jan-Dec19
2020 - 43:Jan-Dec20

Xmas[edit]

Merry Xmas to all.
File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

What a contrast! Yesterday, Adlade was the hottest capital city on the planet. Happy New Year to you and yours!! Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Greetings[edit]

Thanks for the good wishes, and all the best for 2017 to you and yours. That was quite a seam we opened up all those years ago, and continues to yield little bits of colour, even today (literally). But I don't understand what you found surprising about the reference to PAC.
A year ago down Chesser Street I came across a tome I didn't know existed — Adelaide's Dissenting Headmaster; John Lorenzo Young and his Premier Private School, so naturally had to have it. An excellent read, but failed to find it before we left for Bathrust and Canberra so was maybe lent or left on a bus. I wonder if our little article played any part in its production — I hope so. Doug butler (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian manufacturing businesses[edit]

PS. Any additions to List of South Australian manufacturing businesses you can think of would be welcomed.Doug butler (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First pass:

Pdfpdf (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass:

"It does not include food and beverage companies or pharmaceuticals and toiletries." Why not?
Presumably not mining or oil & gas, either?
Bricks, paving, concrete casting?
Hides and tanneries?
Roads and bridges? Rail-roads?
There must be a collection of places around Mooringe Ave.
Ditto Edwardstown, Mile End, Thebarton, Hindmarsh and "greater" Port Adelaide.

Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


hahaha[edit]

once is enough in the heap of s---- someone should put the article out of its misery JarrahTree 10:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I cared enough to fix it. At one time 5+ years ago it was actually quite a decent bare-bones article ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to know where to start on such an execrable mess as it is now JarrahTree 11:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's probably a more relevant comment - I probably actually do care, but it just looks too hard. Ho hum. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Australian Institute of Management[edit]

Hi, thanks for message. Mine was actually the third deletion, although the first was way back in 2009. I deleted the article because

  • it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. The article had no references of any kind, nor any verified facts that support notability. No location, number of employees, income or expenditure
  • it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: largest membership... provided training to at least half a million people... a trusted training partner to over half the companies on the ASX200.... For more information about AAMO and its members please visit www.aamo.net.
  • the article was a copyright violation of the company's LinkedIn page. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by the organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain.

Because of the copyright issue, which on its own triggers speedy deletion, I can't restore the text, but you're not missing much. It's probably notable, so all you need to do is produce something neutrally phrased and referenced to proper third-party sources. Let me know if you have any further queries or if you want me to look at a draft (entirely your call). Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Dowie[edit]

That sculpture you link to the photo of is not the one I was referring to by John Dowie – isn't that one at the University of Adelaide, not the airport? The sculpture Dowie did is a sandstone sculpture not bronze, and is actually four figures (Ross Smith, Keith Smith, Bennett and Shears, who were the crew of a Vickers Vimy flight from the UK to Australia). Pic of it here, the page says it is hidden away near the disused domestic terminal in a memorial building with the Vickers plane, however Adelaide Airport have set up a Vimy Walk from Terminal 1 to the memorial. Looks like the title refers to Keith Smith as well, so I'll update that to distinguish it. I believe I referenced the list of works to Dowie's Senior Australian of the Year citation, which just refers to it as the "Ross Smith Memorial at Adelaide Airport". --Canley (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that one at the University of Adelaide, not the airport? - I'll be honest; I have no idea where it is. I don't recall seeing it at the Uni. I don't know why I assumed it was at the airport. Never mind; given it wan't the one you were referring to, it's all a bit academic. (Though now you have me wondering!)
Yes, I know exactly the one you are referring to. It is part of one of the walls of the building that houses the Vickers Vimy - or at least, it used to be. I didn't realise that was Dowie's work. I haven't seen it for years. Thanks for that; I'm tempted to drive down there and see if it's accessible. (I bet there's no parking anywhere nearby!) Cheers (and thanks), Pdfpdf (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake, it's not at the university – it's in Creswell Gardens near Adelaide Oval. There's a PD photo here: http://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/resource/B+4974 --Canley (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which vs. that[edit]

This edit caught my eye. I'm not a grammarian, but I have seen other which<->that edits in WP, and your edit summary there motivated me to go looking for information. This seems to be explained pretty well at English relative clauses#That or which for non-human antecedents, which says "for 'polished' prose, many American style guides, such as the 16th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style, recommend generally avoiding which in restrictive relative clauses." Other sources (e.g., [1], [2]) support this. This source indicates that British english is less picky about this than American english. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help re citation tags please[edit]

I can't sort out the templates I want regarding citations, and would appreciate some help please.

  • {{cn}} means "this fact needs a citation"

What are the templates for:

  • This section has no citations
  • This section needs more citations
  • This article has no citations
  • This article needs more citations ({{refimprove}}?)

Are these summarised somewhere?

Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are {{Unreferenced|section}}, {{Refimprove|section}}, {{unreferenced}}, and {{refimprove}} respectively. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion[edit]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Archibald Prize winners
added a link pointing to Paul Jackson
Robert Hannaford
added a link pointing to Max Harris

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30-Apr-2017[edit]

The chemistry is right![edit]

Experimental results are looking promising!
Thanks for your efforts on List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science! Keep up the good work! Kerry (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It feels like a long hard slog, and is seems like I'm the only person with any interest in the page, but if I can maintain 10 per day, it may only take 2 or 3 months to make some progress ... ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism[edit]

You need to be very careful classifying edits made in good faith in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines as vandalism just because you may not like the edit. It's OK to disagree with the edit made by Ronz and ask them to engage in discussion, but labellng it as vandalism when it clearly wasn't is not appropriate and may even be considered a personal attack in some cases. If you disagree with Ronz, then try and explain you reasons why based upon relevant policies and guidelines and not by casting aspersions in edit sums about another editor or editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe Ronz should explain his edits better than simply saying "redundant"? i.e. It is not up to me to justify Ronz's edits, and it most certainly is NOT up to you to attack ME for Ronz's edits. i.e. Pull you head in! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen either you or Ronz contribute ANYTHING positive in your interactions with me. Given that we've all been involved in wp for about 10 years, that disappoints, depresses and demotivates me. I'm going out to find some people to interact with who are not miserable negative narrow-minded people. Good night. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what in my above post was an attack directed at you. You are free to bring it up for discussion at WP:ANI if you like, but discussing another user's conduct or history in is not in itself a personal attack, especially when done in a civil manner in a place appropriate for such discussions. All of the comments or edit sums made by myself or Ronz regarding the article focused on article content or relevant policies/guidelines, not you personally as an editor. The same goes for my response to your question about non-free image use on my user talk page. Ronz did give reasons for removing the links in his edit sums here, here, and here as well as in this talk page post prior to the "redundant" edit sum; moreover, even the "redundant" edit sum was about removing content, not about you as an editor. You were actually the one who for some reason started discussing others in your edit sums. Regardless of all of this, if you feel that having all those links in the article is justified in some way and feel further discussion is needed, then please clarify how so in terms of relevant policies and guidelines on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Companions of the Order of Australia[edit]

Martin Albrecht[edit]

  • Missing birthdate

Tony Beddison[edit]

  • Missing birthdate
  • Missing article

http://beddison.com.au/staff/tony-beddison/
http://beddison.com.au/about/ (distinctly similar to the above)
The Australian - behind a paywall
https://www.recruitment-international.com.au/blog/2016/04/japans-outsourcing-inc-acquires-stake-in-australias-beddison-group
www.bloomberg.com

Marcus Besen[edit]

  • Missing birthdate
  • Missing article

The Besen family, The Australian, 15 May 2012.
About us, www.besenfoundation.org.au
Tammy Mills (26 January 2016). "Melbourne billionaire Marc Besen's long love of art recognised in Australia Day honours". The Sydney Morning Herald.
Marc Besen, www.bloomberg.com
Uncovering Australia’s 'hidden' billionaires, The Australian, 10 September 2014.
Leonie Wood (11 November 2003). "Sussan heiress takes control". The Age.
Australia Day Awards 2015, 30 January 2015, J-Wire, Digital Jewish news daily for Australia and New Zealand.
History, TarraWarra Museum of Art.
Elizabeth Redman (12 April 2017). "Besen family mall stake for sale". Herald Sun.
Tarrawarra, Victoria

David Block (AC)[edit]

  • Missing article

BLOCK, David Greenberg - 13 June 1988 - In recognition of service to governments and government administration
Born 1936 - 21 October 1936
This guy seems to be anonymous - there's more on the internet about me than him, and I'm not even in the minor zones of "notable".
HOWEVER, when you realise he may be the South African Astronomer, perhaps things change: http://www.davidblock.co.za/professor.html - except he never mentions the AC, and given his obvious narcissism, it seems unlikely he wouldn't.
So: Still looking for evidence of "David Greenberg Block" and "service to governments and government administration" and AC.

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Art Gallery of New South Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joshua Smith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Archibald Prize winners. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. [3] [4] [5]

Please note that you've apparently overlooked the subsequent discussion on the talk page on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 June 2017[edit]

Message at User talk:Notdangerousclaw[edit]

Hi there. Responding to your message at the aforementioned talk page: Use WP:AIV to report vandals after they have been warned sufficiently without stopping after the last warning (you might find Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism an interesting read). Regards SoWhy 11:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits reverted on List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science[edit]

Hi Pdfpdf, you recently reverted my edit on List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science. I thank you for the same, however, the manner in which the edit was made was unfair. I linked it with a disambiguation page so as to find a suitable user to fix the same and it was reasonably expected to do it by editing the said page. -Jn045 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you recently reverted my edit on List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science - No, I didn't revert your edit. Look harder. What I did is change Feldman to Feldmann. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the manner in which the edit was made was unfair. - How was it "unfair". Please explain.
I linked it with a disambiguation page so as to find a suitable user to fix the same - Well, your edit worked. I fixed it.
and it was reasonably expected to do it by editing the said page. - I don't understand. do it - Do what? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Sam Jacobs (judge)[edit]

Some of the material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.santfreemasons.org.au/home/news/most-worshipful-bro-sam-jacobs-ao-qc-passes-away. I have paraphrased and removed some of the material to remove the problem. The material will remain visible in the page history temporarily so that you can review what I did. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking your unreviewed new articles, I also found some copyvio in Jack Roderick, Bonar Dunlop, and Jack Ellerton Becker. Everything you contribute needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article edit[edit]

This is the specific text that I deleted, (and some confused wikipedia editor has said Johnson South Reef despite the fact that there is no airfield there.[2]), except for the reference. I did this because wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic and addressing another editor in the article is not encyclopedic. I left the reference that backs up that there is no airfield on Johnson South Reef and did not add any other mention to it. Alex the Nerd (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years![edit]

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info about blocking IP vandals[edit]

Re: List of former Special Air Service personnel - Thanks.
More specifically, re: your edit and your edit comment: "probably not necessary - I've protected the page"

  • Yes, you're right
    • I really didn't want to make that edit, but ... I'm getting really tired of user talk:Eddiebow, and his socks, and their disruptive edits ...
    • "Protecting the page" is an "obvious" solution I hadn't thought of. (I'm glad you DID think of that alternative.)
  • No, I hadn't realised that you had protected the page. (and BTW: Thank the Lord that you have!)

Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Well, looking at the page and edit history, I have to tell you, I'm somewhat confused. The data says:
  • a) Protected "List of former Special Air Service personnel": Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC))))
  • b) Configured pending changes settings for List of former Special Air Service personnel: Persistent sock puppetry [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 04:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)))
I'm not sure of the relationship between a) and b).
  • If a) & b) are dependent, that implies to me that "the date" is 28 September 2017.
  • If they are not, then I'm confused.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. What's the significance of adding "{{pp-sock}}"? (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pdfpdf. Sorry about all the confusion. Wikipedians that have been here before I joined have sometimes said that "things were simpler back then", when there was only one kind of protection: the kind that prevents anyone expect administrators from editing it. Nowadays, Wikipedia has myriad levels of protection that restrict different users from editing in different ways.

In the case of List of former Special Air Service personnel, I have applied two forms of protection that are different and independent of each other.

  • The first is semi-protection, which disables all editing from unregistered users (i.e. IP addresses), as well as all editing from registered accounts that are less than 4 days old or have less than 10 edits. This protection will expire on 5 July 2017, but it can be extended if the disruptive editing persists thereafter.
  • The second form of protection I applied is pending changes protection, which still allows editing from anyone, but holds back the publication of edits from unregistered users or accounts with less than 4 days and 10 edits until they are accepted by a pending changes reviewer. In this sense, while pending changes won't stop vandalism from being submitted, in most cases it will prevent our readers from seeing it because it will usually be reverted before it goes live. Because pending changes protection is deliberately more lightweight than semi-protection, I have applied it for a longer duration on this article – until 28 September 2017.
  • At the moment, the article is semi-protected, and note that semi-protection disables all editing from the group of users that pending changes would affect. When the semi-protection expires on 5 July 2017, the pending changes protection will take over and remain in place until 28 September, after which the page will return to being unprotected. Pending changes is unique in the sense that it can be applied simultaneously to any of the other editing protection levels.
  • The significance of {{pp-sock}} is that it adds a small silver padlock in the upper right-hand corner of the article. It looks like this: . If you hover your mouse over this padlock on the article, it will pop up with text that says something along the lines of "this article is semi-protected to prevent the sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing it".

I hope this information is helpful. If you are still confused, please let me know, and I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's helpful. (i.e. I am not longer confused!) Thank you very much for the effort you have gone to explain things. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27 Jul 2017[edit]

Bottom[edit]

added

It was a nice idea at the time (trying to not have caffeine at this time of the night JarrahTree 12:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great things about your edits - they lead me into eroneous editing (mine) and marvellous festering waters of tepid red link talk pages where project tags are rarer than ... in the simpson desert or something similar in a mashed metaphor or two JarrahTree 13:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do try hard - it is important that I succeed... a small clue - archibald items were short of a project tag or three - success!!! JarrahTree 13:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
all depends on the mapping me thinks - one thing is the proximity/adjacent thing is something which traumatises the rules at all costs type editors - I reverted myself - but in the parks and gardens article/list it allocated a suburb as where part of the park sections are ascribed to exist... there are some marvelous postcodes in australia that attribute numbers to some very tricky geographical hijinks - but I divert as usual... maybe better to look at it in the cruel light of day JarrahTree 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
maybe better to look at it in the cruel light of day - given that I don't understand what you're saying, I think that's "a really good idea". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok gnight for the moment then... JarrahTree 13:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, what it means is there probably other suburbs that have sufficient articles to put in and there is a whole new family of sub cats -

not submarine or subterranean - but happy landlubber categories of suburbs JarrahTree 13:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald[edit]

I just continue in your footsteps.Kgbo (talk)

This is for John Barry Prescott page[edit]

Hello Sir,

For the photograph of John B Prescott, I am trying to get a credible reference. As soon as I get it, I will replace. However if by Wed nect week I can't, I will remove the photo.

I added 2 paragraphs today and both seem to have been disapproved. Request you to help me understand which part I should work on please. If you can give example, that will be very kind of you.

Thanks Virtualovertake

Thank you very much sir. Apologies again for being somewhat of a slow learner.

28 July[edit]

This is for John Barry Prescott page[edit]

• Bolded "AC". Why? That's not his name. o AC is a post-nominal – ie initials inserted after a person’s name when they have won particular awards, including an order of Australia, as John has. A reference for him winning an OA can be found at http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4367817, and a reference for the fact that AC is inserted after your name in this instance can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-nominal_letters_(Australia)

• Removed link from "AC". Why? o This was to clarify the point made above, that AC is inserted after his name because that is the convention when you have won an order of Australia, as John has.

• Removed "FTSE" and link. Why? o Similarly, FTSE is the post nominal inserted after a person has been made a fellow of the Australian Academy of technological Sciences and Engineering, as John has. Evidence for him being a fellow can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fellows_of_the_Australian_Academy_of_Technological_Sciences_and_Engineering and a reference for FTSE being the post nominal is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-nominal_letters_(Australia)

• Added "is a retired Australian business leader". Is he? Says who? i.e. you need to provide a reference from a reliable source that says he is/was a business leader. o This is fine – happy to say he is a retired businessman and leave it at that I will make that change if you think that is fine.

• Removed "is a retired Australian businessman and corporate bureaucrat". Why? o See above, there should be no problem with this change

• Removed "variously chairman of Queensland Rail and ASC Pty Ltd,[1] executive chairman of Newmont Mining Corporation,[2][3] and managing director and CEO of BHP Billiton from 1991 to 1998.[2]" Why? o The reason he is famous is because he has held these roles – this is what he is known for. Sir, how should we write this otherwise.

• Replaced it with "who joined BHP, the world’s largest mining company[1]". Who cares? o The reason he is famous is because he was CEO of a massive global company. Please guide. o It is widely accepted that BHP is one of the world’s largest mining copany, eg http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bhp-billiton-suffers-6-4-billion-loss-20160816-story.html

• "as executive trainee and rose to become its Managing Director and CEO". Page 7 of quoted source doesn't mention Prescott, much less "as executive trainee and rose to become its Managing Director and CEO". o Footnote 37 directs you to page 2 please. Which reads: “1958. At BHP he joined another young trainee in industrial relations, John Prescott, who was eventually to become BHP’s chief executive officer”..

• Also doesn't mention it was "as position which he held for seven years" o I will replace with this source (below), which states that he was Managing Director from 1991 – 1998 (Ie 7 years) o http://www.ausimm.com.au/content/docs/branch/2017/melbourne_2017_03_speaker_lunch_flyer.pdf Do you agree Sir

• "Mr Prescott has wide experience across the public and private sector, particularly in manufacturing and transport. He has been CEO and Chair of publicly listed companies, and has advised Governments on defence, transport and manufacturing and as a Member of Australia's Remuneration Tribunal." o Who cares? 1. It is important because this is the reason Prescott is famous – the reason people know who he is, is because of his experience across these areas. o No supporting reference(s). 1. Is this reference good for this one. https://business.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/596501/John-Prescott-Lecture-Series-Flyer.pdf Mr Prescott has held roles across the public and private sector, particularly in manufacturing and transport[1]. He has been CEO[2] and Chair of publicly listed companies[3], and has advised Governments on defence, transport and manufacturing[4] and as a Member of Australia's Remuneration Tribunal[5]. If this section is going to cause problems I can cut it. However, as it is factual and adequately referenced. Please guide sir.

With regards to the photo; The picture was commissioned by John Prescott and taken by Van Der Toorren, a prominent Melbourne Photographer. Their address is 20 The Block Arcade, Melbourne.

Is this good to write in reference

And also did you happen to look at my request for an alternate means of communication, unless it does not conform to wiki policies (however I did not find anything on wiki site which says it is a no)Virtualovertake (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Virtualovertake (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8-8-2017[edit]

Category:Australian sculptors[edit]

I just wondered why you are removing this category from a number of articles which I noticed on my watchlist. In one case James Laurence Watts I could see that he was also in the categories for 19th and 20th century Australian sculptors so the edit summary about "dup cat" made sense, but when I look at James White (sculptor) and William Priestly MacIntosh, it's not obvious to me that this was a duplicate category. Kerry (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. I have been replacing the category:Australian sculptors with one or more of category:19th-century Australian sculptors‎, category:20th-century Australian sculptors‎ and/or category:21st-century Australian sculptors (as appropriate). So far I've done this to over 70 pages.
It seems I've made (at least) two errors. Thank you for bringing these to my attention. I have repaired them. If you notice others, please don't hesitate to bring them to my attention, or if you prefer, repair them. Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured I might be seeing "work in progress" but wasn't sure what the end goal was. I'll fix any others I spot.Kerry (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective[edit]

Elderly Wikipedian with rose-tinted spectacles gazing longingly at the original paper copy of the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values, with acknowledgement to Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Road, Adelaide#History ?[edit]

Hi Scott. Regarding your 10 July 2016 edit, you wrote:

  • High Terrace (between Fullarton and Unley Roads)
  • Napier Terrace (Between Unley and Goodwood Roads)
  • South Terrace (between Goodwood and South Roads)
  • Glen Osmond Road (between Goodwood and Marion Road)
  • Plympton Terrace (between Marion Road and Anzac Highway)

When I look at http://www.osmaustralia.org/gregorysmaps.php, I can't get a good enough resolution to clearly read the map, and the download links no longer seem to work (Maybe it's my browser? I'm using Firefox).

Anyway, I'm wondering about "Glen Osmond Road (between Goodwood and Marion Road)". First, do you mean "between South and Marion Road"? Second, "Glen Osmond Road" seems a strange name for that part of suburbia, and it also seems a strange name given that there's a Glen Osmond Road at the other end of Cross Road. Just wondering. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The maps still download for me using Firefox/Windows. I have corrected the text to say "South Road" in response to the first question. Map 19 shows "CROSS (Glen Osmond Rd) ROADS" west of Emerson Crossing, which is matched on and Map 18. I guess Glen Osmond Road there is like finding "Adelaide Road" in Mount Barker, or "Sydney Road" in Melbourne. --Scott Davis Talk 15:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. Yes, on those pages it is very clearly Glen Osmond Rd. Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2017[edit]

A page you started (Victor Greenhalgh) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Victor Greenhalgh, Pdfpdf!

Wikipedia editor Mduvekot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Mduvekot's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mduvekot (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Calm down Pusser"[edit]

G'day, firstly, "pusser" is just slang for those in the Navy. Secondly, he made the change to multiple articles stating it was due to seniority, however I did do my homework however can't find a section that mentions this in the military manual of style. Additionally, the United States Armed Forces are not aligned to this format. I had always assumed it was based on size. Can you link me something that mentions otherwise? — IVORK Discuss 13:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the US Armed Forces do is of no relevance to what the Australian Defence Force does, and vice-versa. (Except when they in a joint command situation.)
When you say "I had always assumed it was based on size", what is the "it" you are referring to?
The RAN/Army/RAAF order is indeed based on seniority, (and is probably related to the British Royal Navy being their "senior service", but don't rely on that without a reliable source.)
You ask, "Can you link me something that mentions otherwise?". I don't understand just what it is you are asking for. Are you referring to seniority, or to wikipedia policy? If wikipedia policy, can you link me to something that states that some order other than seniority should be used?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seniority as in age? Both Navy and Army were formed in March 1901 right? And in their current forms the Navy later. I brought up the US article as they're articles of the same type. Yet they don't conform to that standard. Again, I was merely reverting a change as I know it has been in the A/N/AF order for a while. Again, please provide a link that says otherwise. Size in personnel seemed the most likely reason. — IVORK Discuss 12:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I now understand that's what you thought you were doing, but your edit summary didn't say anything that might have led anyone to understand that was your intent. And even now I don't understand why you feel/felt it's a good idea to revert the edit. As for seniority, I'm afraid I'm not an expert - I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous!! No, I don't think (as in: it's not my impression) that Seniority is just a matter of age. Yes, I agree that it had been in that order for a while. Regarding your other comments, you are again assuming I know exactly what you mean - I don't. i.e. Otherwise to what? Most likely reason for what? Can you link me to something that states that some order other than seniority should be used? (i.e. Why do you think it should be in size of personnel.) Etc. I'll ask some other people who should have definitive answers. But really, you'd be better off discussing this with someone with more expertise on the topic.
Or am I missing your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By-the-way: Australian Defence Force#Formation and assorted links from that vicinity suggest a collection of dates, none of which seem to be March 1901. Where did you source March 1901? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but just that from what I've seen the Army does have seniority over the others (gets a bit foggy whether going off initial formation / approval of Royal _____'). And otherwise does for size too. I only gave the reason "Calm down pusser" as I had reverted 2 other good faith edits by the same user in different articles. So yeah, if there is a discussion on this, sure we can change em all back. But don't see why it should be otherwise. — IVORK Discuss 14:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017-Nov-19[edit]

Images[edit]

Hi Pdfpdf, two or more heads are better than one, so you can always leave a note on my talk page if you are finding that you are having another non-productive discussion with and image up-loader. As has been pointed out – trying to edit the image's info box doesn't bring the issue to other editors notice, many of whom may be able to assist. Hopefully, the latest storm-in-a-tea-cup has all been resolved to your satisfaction now. Also, I have added spam-block tag to User talk:SymbolStrategic. Good on you for persisting and here is hoping that you will find it easier from now on to alert others to any other copyvios you may spot or suspect. For the obvious copyvios which you can explicitly explain, you now, know how to use speedy, as your first attempt brought immediate results within hours of posting on WC. Regards. Aspro (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Tao[edit]

Hi Pdfpdf. Re this, I noticed that Simons Investigator was mentioned twice, first in the body of the article and then again in the bulleted list of notable awards. I meant to wikilink the first instance before removing the second one, but then I got distracted fixing the ref with the dead link and apparently forgot. In my experience, removing red links from "notable" lists is usually a good idea, and doing so doesn't necessarily conflict with REDLINK. I believe that the first mention is where the red link should go. What do you think? RivertorchFIREWATER 05:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rivertorch Thanks for the response. I probably agree with you, but as I'm about to turn it/them into blue links, then both blue links should be appropriate. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best possible solution! RivertorchFIREWATER 05:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Prescott[edit]

The image is from a website link and i had selected it as a free source. Can you please explain why you deleted the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunnellight (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll respond on your talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aspro[edit]

Re: message on my talk page.
The prose used in the text is very much like that used in sales, marketing and promotion. Maybe Template:Puffery would be more suitable? For example: Including the word “Successful” . As QR National got listed then 'successful' is a form of tautology and thus not needed. Then the text later on states “grew significantly as it successfully” , further on it states “and under Mr Prescott's stewardship” rather than 'during his term in office' (Note: this market sector was surging up at the time, so one could not expect it not to grow significantly , regardless of who the figure-head was, unless the figure-head was complete and utter buffoon). The references also include rather too many primary sources connected closely to the subject, so maybe Template:Third-party ought to be added too. It I not so much a matter of whether this person is 'notable,' as I think that goes without saying. The tag is highlighting that the article needs much cleaning up in order to keep it encyclopedic. Do you agree? Aspro (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert tags until you have discussed it, its maladroit. Aspro (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't place random unexplained tags without expecting people to get annoyed. (Not, it's not "maladroit", it's human nature!) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Talk:John B. Prescott#user:Aspro's opinions Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language redirects[edit]

Usually, if you look at a category page, you will not see all the redirects there along with the target articles. There are some exceptions explained at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Article categories, but I don't see any rules that would apply to this case (Category:Islands of the Spratly Islands or Category:Kalayaan, Palawan). For comparison, see, for example, Category:Islands of Hong Kong or Category:Islands of New Zealand, which include several English names but not the Mandarin or Maori redirect pages. Goustien (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

consider the lil(l)ies[edit]

how hey grow and how they spell (or smell), as more finer than the fish with out a 'c' - dont say you need a sp(m)ell check as well sir JarrahTree 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Dear Pot, Makerel, not Makarel. Yours etc., Kettle ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
try mackerel ? viz. :
Environmental management plan, Mackerel Islands lease, Thevenard Island, The Co, 1998, retrieved 27 October 2017
Mackerel Islands, Onslow WA, Thevenard Island, s.n, 1991, retrieved 27 October 2017
or perhaps the lillies smell as sweet when black, mr pot? JarrahTree 09:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear me! You're not actually confusing me with someone who may actually care, are you? ;-)
If so, you shouldn't do so on a Friday night at the end of an incredibly long and tedious week.
OK: @JarrahTree: Dear Pot, Mackerel, not Mackarel. Yours etc., Kettle Pdfpdf (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt confuse you sir with anything - consider the rolling stones - their early paint it black song - no one gets out of that one free JarrahTree 09:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Thanks for reminding me that I need to archive my talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

three weeks later[edit]

still not harchived... you into fishy stories - check my this ams edits :( JarrahTree 03:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 Dec 2017[edit]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Pdfpdf. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columns[edit]

Hi pdf, and Compliments of the Season!

There must be a way of coloring wikitable columns to make navigation of a large table easier. I've had a good look through what documentation I can find, to Noah Vale. Nor a table I can plagiarize. Any ideas? Doug butler (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you'd like to think there must be, wouldn't you, but off the top of my head I can't think of an easy way to do it. I'll give it some thought and get back to you. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rows are easy:

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
A B C D E
1 2 3 4 5
A B C D E

Columns are untidy. (Example from: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Editing_Wikitext/Tables_Ready_to_Use - Vertical Color Bands and 3D)

aaa bbb ccc ddd Total
North 32 34 43 45 154
East 23 22 11 13 69
South 111 21 4 5 141
West 54 45 34 43 176
Totals 220 122 92 106 540

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive40&oldid=1143220828"