User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive21

Interests

Continued from the discussion on my talk page, I just discovered your userboxes page, and it appears we do have overlapping interests! I enjoy chess, photography and classical music. I'm currently trying to get through all Beethoven's symphonies. Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 00:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Union Hall

Looks like it won't see out the year. We might not be able to get a picture of it in spring after all.  -- Lear's Fool 07:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lear's Fool's talk page.  -- Lear's Fool 08:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated Copyright on File:Australian $1 note paper front.jpg

Hi Pdfpdf, I've just updated File:Australian $1 note paper front.jpg with an Australian Note-specific copyright template. I'd encourage you to check your free-use rationale, given that the Reserve Bank of Australia provides a general exemption for note reproductions under certain conditions, as you've already noted (I've merged the text into the template - hope you don't mind). twilsonb (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And other images... twilsonb (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up".
I'd encourage you to check your free-use rationale - Why? i.e. Can you see a problem?
hope you don't mind - No, I don't mind.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No particular issues with your free-use rationales. (I've noted them on other talk pages where they were obvious.) I placed the comment because the generic currency copyright statement {{Non-free currency}}, and the Australian Notes statement {{Non-free currency-AU-Note}} are quite different, so I wanted users to be aware of the change and how it may affect their images. (Btw, {{Non-free currency-AU-Coin}} is quite similar to the generic template, but with more text added.) I'm also keen for some comments and a review of the two new templates as I created them recently.

Do you think that {{Non-free currency-AU-Note}} needs a free-use rationale paragraph like {{Non-free currency-AU-Coin}}, or is "the Bank will generally not raise objections to the use of banknote reproductions in advertising or other material" enough? twilsonb (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My last changes

Ciao! Are you talking about the insertion of (⇧) and (⇩)? I was just trying to give a sense... probably the best solution will be to re-organize the Italian Army template like the Belgian Army... who have two OF-2 epaulettes side by side. Can you do this, please? --Nicola Romani (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you for your help ^_^ ...now about the lower-case, its an Italian grammar rules, all titles (obviously written in Italian language) like the Nobilities ones, political charges, onorific, ecclesial, military ranks etc. must be written with the lower-case even if they are the starting words or they appear after a full stop. This is a very common mistake, in example, dott. Nicola Romani is correct, Dott. Nicola Romani is wrong. If you want I can cite you 2 references:

1. the book of Roberto Lesina, Il nuovo manuale di stile. Guida alla redazione di documenti, relazioni, articoli, manuali, tesi di laurea, 2ª ed. Zanichelli, Bologna, 1994. ISBN 9788808096029;
2. it:Aiuto:Manuale_di_stile#Minuscolo (point nr.2)

--Nicola Romani (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces

Almost, if not entirely, redundant with the infobox. Things like this go -below- the infobox anyway. - I disagree, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it.
Given that you are making (have made) a fuss about it, you may like to think of how to incorporate the unique information into the current info box. Or how to put it " -below- ".
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of other examples (like most other national military pages). The first thing to do would be to edit the template so it doesn't 'float'. That would allow it to be placed below the infobox. But beyond the tri-services flag, and one or two wikilinks, is there anything in the template that isn't already included in the infobox? And there's room for additional images and wikilinks in the infobox anyway. What does it really add to the page that isn't already there? I'm not 'making a fuss', just asking a rational question. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm a little puzzled as to why there are two different infoboxes with overlapping, but not identical, information.

"The first thing to do would be to edit the template so it doesn't 'float'." - I'm not sure that I understand what you've said. By "the template" I'm guessing that you're referring to the one that I added? And by 'float'ing, I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that if you locate it in the text below the infobox, it displays itself to the left of the infobox, rather than below it?

If so, my opinion is that I think it would be more useful to add the "missing info" to the infobox, and dispense with the use of the template.

Your thoughts?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)

P.S. Somewhat tangential, but: Can you tell me, or point me to, some information about the technical details of 'float'ing? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it was originally created for the page before the standardized, all-purpose military infobox was added to the page. Either that, or it was meant to be used on pages that were relevant to the Indian Armed Forces, but didn't require a full military infobox. At any rate, the figures between the two should be synched on whichever has the best (in this case, only) citations - that would be the main infobox on the armed forces page. Citations should also be added to the template.

As for floating, yes, that's what I mean. Usually elements in web design (anything that's encased in 'tags' - images, tables, divs, etc etc. The 'tag' represents an element) are vertically aligned by default, and don't share the same horizontal space. When something is set to float, it will be allowed to 'float' on the same horizontal line as the preceding element. If you look at the code used to create the table on the Military of India sidebar, you'll see this:

{| class="toc" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="float:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em; border:1px #798050 solid; border-collapse:collapse; background:#ffffff; font-size:95%;"

If the CSS style in bold were removed, the table would no longer float.

And I can agree with adding missing relevant information to the existing infobox. At first glance, I see that the coast guard is missing from the service branches, and the 'Triservices crest' doesn't appear anywhere on the page (though I have no idea how official it is). If you look at Template:Infobox national military you can see that provisions exist for adding a second image to the infobox (again, it's arguable that, if official, the Triservices crest would be more representative of the Armed Forces Page than the generic seal which doesn't specifically represent the armed forces - but you'd probably be in for a fight if you tried to change it), and it's easy enough to add the unmentioned branch in with the other branches. Hope this helps. - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hope this helps" - It does. Thanks. (It also provided me with a chuckle and a smile!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of concerts in Adelaide for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of concerts in Adelaide, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of concerts in Adelaide until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Melaen (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

reaction

Do you need any help? I got some small bits last night... but SatuSuro 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. See your talk page. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

From my time on this ole golefish bowle - sigh deeply, and usually walk away - there's a lot more damned un tagged cat talk pages that dont ever talk back :) SatuSuro 11:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dont despair - keep a copy of it somewhere - will discuss some issues by email in the next day or so about recovery of items despite the afd process - cheers SatuSuro 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The world won't end. I made a copy a couple of days ago.

I guess we go back to maintaining a dozen separate lists. Ho hum.

(I wish someone articulate had come along a week ago and saved me the effort ... )

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Gillespie

In 2010 Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie outlawed the wearing of berets on the grounds that they led to an increased risk of skin cancer however the special forces were controversially exempt from the ban. Uh, actually that is true. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied

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

Appearances can be deceptive?

Hi! A couple of questions. Except for the colour of the shirt epaulette, these two look the same to me.
File:Navy slip-on Capt(N).png>>>>>File:Navy slip-on Capt(N).png File:Army slip-on Col.png<<<<<File:Army slip-on Col.png
[And for comparison] File:Air Force slip-on Col.png>>>>>File:Air Force slip-on Col.png
Q1: Are they the same? (i.e. How are they different?)
Q2: Are they meant to be the same? (i.e. Given that the Air component insignia has a blue background, why do the sea & land components both have a black background?)
Canadian Forces ranks and insignia implies that they are the same, so I'm interested to learn :

• If they are the same
• If so, why they are the same, particulary given that the air component is different.

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied to on Pdfpdf's Talk page.    ¥    Jacky Tar  01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in answering your question! That said, if you download both images and compare them, you will see that the Navy one is gold insignia on black, whereas the Army one is gold insignia on dark green (the colour is officially known in the CF as 'rifle green', and is the same colour as the material of the Army's dress uniform). They might appear both black to you if your monitor's colour adjustments are different. In fact, in sunlight, the rifle green uniforms often do appear as black, so you're by no means the first to think it is black :D    ¥    Jacky Tar  01:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (That explains quite a few things!!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Union Hall

Looks like it won't see out the year. We might not be able to get a picture of it in spring after all.  -- Lear's Fool 07:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

VC recipients renaming

Hi Pdf, I don't know whether this is a bit cheeky to ask but would you mind updating User:Woody/Sandboxes/Victoria Cross/All Recipients when you rename the VC recipients. I use this page to keep an eye on all the recipients articles through: Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Woody/Sandboxes/Victoria_Cross/All_Recipients but it doesn't follow redirects. If not, no worries, but it would help me out. Thanks, Woody (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Woody. Yes, it is a little bit cheeky, but on the other hand, I'm stuffing up your well established system, so it's not an entirely unreasonable request. I'll see what I can do - hopefully it will resolve your problems. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being a bit cheeky! In terms of your edit comment, I went through just now and fixed all the ones from the past two weeks, it was simply if you were doing anymore in the future if you could update it as and when you do them. Thanks, Woody (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being a bit cheeky! - I agree!! After all, if you don't ask, they can't say "Yes". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

6 star rank

My view is that the article ought to be re-named along the lines of "ranks senior to 5 star rank" because I doubt that there is a reliable source that than backs up the statement that "Six-star rank is a term used to collectively describe the ranks superior to five-star ranks". Greenshed (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re the matter on my talk page

I don't want to be or sound too cynical, but my reaction to the rest of your response is: "Why would ANYBODY willingly want to become a WP Admin?" I'm not soliciting an answer, but if you wish to provide one, I'll be fascinated to read it.

Thanks for perservering with this. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to the last bit, I sometimes wonder myself, and it probably explains the decreased number of active admins and the almost complete decline in people putting themselves forward for RfA nowadays. I nominated at a much easier time in WP's history (2007). In 2007, my state project was the place to be - around 15 active users, constant activity, new topics appearing out of nowhere, reasonably frequent meetups. Now, almost everyone has either retired, cut back their activity, or still edits but not on WA topics. Aus Politics used to be a hive of activity, it's one of the few places where there still is activity, but it's pretty much five people. I'm hoping that my sharing of sources (by the old fashioned method of CD-ROMs in the post!) will help that project at least. Oh, and I really got my eyes opened when I got access to OTRS, which is like Wikipedia's "back of house" email system where people write in and make confidential requests - while many of them are rejected due to not being actionable things, I have seen some incredibly sad and disturbing examples there of how this thing we all do for a hobby intrudes on people's real lives. Also what I'd call examples of organised sockpuppetry which exceed anything that was going on when I became an admin in sophistication - much of it related to the Scientology area. Although less active than I was (due in different parts to offline activity but also a level of burnout), I keep my bit for the same reason I nominated - basically to help out where I can. I apologise for my testiness in earlier correspondence - that too comes down to human factors - I'm tired, I'm stressed and I'm busy, mostly for reasons entirely unrelated to WP, and I seem to (as usual) have ended up helping at a time when I had the time and energy, and being asked to account for that help at a time when I don't. (At least it's not like the times I have blocked or unblocked people and watched my talk page go into meltdown and seen dispute resolution measures breeding more quickly than flies - that's an unbelievably common occurrence for some admins, but thankfully I've mostly avoided it.) I'm waiting for an email back before I respond to the original questions, although I must admit I don't understand the need for an answer to them. Orderinchaos 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! It would seem "I don't know the half of it"! Both fascinating and disturbing at the same time.

I'm waiting for an email back before ... From me? Or are you talking about someone else? If me, that implies you have sent me an email - when did you send it? (I don't seem to have received it.)

FYI, I've decided I need to go on wikibreak until the end of the month or I will NEVER get the family's income tax returns done in time. Talk to you next month. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Your bot does NOT check the licence status

The correct way to mark files as copyright violations is using Commons:Template:Copyvio. That way the files are categorised as copyright violations and an administrator will look at them and probably delete them. Blanking description pages or writing COPYVIO does not help much and will just confuse bots. /90.229.129.137 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Same issue: you cv-tagged a lot of prom-photos, but did not provide any "proof", i.e. a source from where they might have been taken or any other evidence. Without that likely nothing will happen. Therefore, please add some evidence. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Xavier College article

Cheers mate, I try to do my best to see guys like that off but generally with articles like this you're almost inevitably going to run into someone who has a bone to pick - a school that is private and Catholic and all boys is most certainly a ripe target!

You've done a great job so far though - thanks very much and keep it up! senex (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuff on LM's page

He is, actually, entitled to remove stuff from his own talk page; your post was a little edgy, to say the least. LM is an expert, but doesn't claim to know more than a fraction of the guidelines WP needs to develop for specific situations. I have in mind that you might negotiate with him (and others) about the specific boundaries that could be expressed in the guidelines on when a unit should be converted into one or the other form. Looks like with microns, it might be industry-related: easy enough to write into the guideline at MOSNUM. Can you take the first plunge and make a suggestion that might make sense of what LM is thinking/doing and what you think he should do? Please, soft language and he'll be a friend. He doesn't mean harm. Tony (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC) "Dubious claims" ... can we get down to tin-tacks about the interface between his view and yours? Otherwise, this issue will occur somewhere else. Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, could I boldly pass on a piece of advice I've been given about my own editing, recently? Post late, post brief. Soothes things, slows the pace and the heart-rates, allows breathing. And write more gently than you want to at the time (it comes out stronger than you think in writing). Tony (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)