User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive35

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive35 Jan-Jun14

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

Toorak Gardens

Where is YOUR reliable source regarding Toorak Garden's affluence? There are far more affluent areas in Adelaide - most of the houses in TG are occupied by the elderly and are singer storey. It may be moderately wealthy but I don't think it's affluent through and through. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The question was, do you consider yourself a WP:RS? You've provided no relevant answer to that question, and personally attacking me also provides no relevant answer to that question. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bahudhara. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 2011 ABS Census Quickstats for Toorak Gardens gives the median weekly income for all persons over 15 as $858, compared with $577 for Australia. This page also has:

In Toorak Gardens (State Suburbs), 17.0% of households had a weekly household income of less than $600 and 26.7% of households had a weekly income of more than $3,000.

You can also download an Excel spreadsheet with a 2011 ABS Census basic community profile for Toorak Gardens from here, which gives a breakdown of data by income level and by household type (by number, rather than by percentages).

Of course, there is also the value of real estate assets, which needs to be considered in terms of levels of home ownership, mortgages, etc, which rather complicates the issue of wealth, as it isn't necessarily correlated to income.

However, please also note that the common definition of "affluence" (as per Wiktionary) includes both "an abundance of wealth" as well as "a moderate level of wealth" - so since the averages for Toorak Gardens exceed the mean for Australia as a whole, the suburb can be considered "affluent". Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Bananasoldier's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bananasoldier (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Australian Army generals

Just a courtesy notice, I have moved List of Australian generals and brigadiers to List of Australian Army generals. My reasoning is that the list no longer contains "brigadiers", so the previous title did not quite reflect the contents anymore. Also, the list itself is based around those who held general rank in the Australian Army, as opposed to Australian-born generals of foreign armies—such as John Hackett (British Army officer). That, and it also brings the article in line with several other, similar, lists (e.g. List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals, List of United States Army four-star generals, List of British Army full generals, etc). If the move causes any issues, just let me know. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Stevo.Lexysexy (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

ACs

Nice work fixing this up! I hesitate to suggest improvements to this huge work, but this should be search-replaceable: shouldn't abbreviations that cut the ending of a word (like "Prof" and most of the military rankings) have a full stop after them ("Prof.", "Gen.")? Frickeg (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Thanks! ("Flattery will probably get you exactly what you want.")

b) shouldn't abbreviations ... " - No.

(Happy to expand if you wish, but currently it's 11:53pm aka "bedtime") Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't have your talk page watchlisted for some reason so missed this. The manual of style does suggest a full stop in these circumstances. Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Doug Jones (international arbitrator)

1)I note your revision - Undid revision 599224379 by Special:Contributions/Tmyk85 (User talk:Tmyk85) - not consistent with quoted references, and not particularly informative - to say that "today" he's doing something he's done since 1995 is somewhat misleading. I take your point that it is not informative to say what he is doing today. All I know is that he is today the head of both International Arbitration and Construction & Major Projects and would be grateful if you could point me to the reference of the dates he was appointed these positions. Would you kindly point me to the reference that he became the head of the International Arbitration group in 1995, and Construction & Major Projects in 2000? I may be missing something but I can't find this. Also this is inconsistent with the previous sentence that he has been the head of Construction since 1993 so I'm not sure what the change was in 1995.Tmyk85 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

2) Also I appreciate how you have clarified the abbreviations in the final paragraph of the "Careers" section. In international arbitration practice, institutional rules are often known by their abbreviations (eg AAA Rules, ACICA Rules, UNCITRAL Rules). This can be seen on the wikipedia page of other international arbitrators such as William W Park (see second paragraph of "Education and career" section of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/William_W._Park). I hope that clarifies why my initial approach was to leave them as abbreviations but I have changed this a little bit to be more meaningful. Grateful for your comments.Tmyk85 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased to receive your feedback, most particularly because you're politely asking "Huh?" rather than rudely saying ... well, I'm sure you can imagine what one in your position might be motivated to comment!

I'll eventually respond to each of your points/issues/questions. In the interim, if my response is inadequate, please point out what you'd like clarified/expanded/whatever. Thanks!

Very-briefly-in-response: 1) OK, I'll be more specific about which references say what. 2) Regarding the abbreviations, you're probably quite correct/consistent/etc. but the simple fact is that they meant/mean nothing to me and/or the casual-but-interested-reader i.e. you can't assume that everyone reading the page knows as much about the subject as you do.

Yes, (now that you've explained it), I understand your rationale, but as I said, you can't assume that everyone reading the page knows as much about the subject as you do.

(Trying to clarify and trying to avoid any misunderstandings) I'm not opposed to what you're written, I'm just trying to make it less cryptic to morons like me that know nothing about the topic, and yes, I DO appreciate that you seem to recognise this and seem to be supportive. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Between us, it appears to me that all of what you have raised has been resolved. What am I missing? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regarding 2), it seems that this is resolved. Thought I leave a comment to check if we're on the same page. 1) remains unresolved as I am not sure where you got the information regarding the 1995/2000 positions. As far as I know, Doug Jones has been the head of the group since joining Clayton Utz in 1993 which was then known as just "Construction". Not sure when the "International Arbitration" group came into place, or when the group became known as "Construction & Major Projects", but as far as I know he has always been the head of these groups and therefore my initial approach was to just simply state that "today" he is the head of both.Tmyk85 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

<smile>Yes, I subsequently noticed that! I am in the process of addressing it. So far I've got to this point:

http://www.accl.org/FellowsRoster/tabid/87/Detail/True/UserID/96/Default.aspx

• 1969 Articled Clerk - Morris Fletcher & Cross
• 1972 Employed solicitor - Morris Fletcher & Cross
• 1976 - 1992 Partner - Morris Fletcher & Cross. Law Department, Head, National Construction and Engineering Group
• 1989 - 1992 Opened Morris Fletcher & Cross Sydney office
• 1992 -1993 Partner - Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher. Law Department. Head National Construction and Engineering Group
• 1993 - date Partner - Clayton Utz
• 1993 - date Head National Construction & Engineering Law Group
• 1995 - date Head International Arbitration and Private International Law Practice Group
• 2000 - date Head National Major Projects Group
• 2002 -2006 Elected Member Clayton Utz Board

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So while you're at it...

Did you want to simplify the 2010 result table coding too? Timeshift (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

First answer: No. Second answer: OK. Are you in a hurry? i.e. How long before you would like it done? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Third answer: (buggerit.) "OK Chief, I'll get on it right away." Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I find your response amusing considering how important you thought the 2014 change was :) Timeshift (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As I've been saying to you, I didn't think it was important - I was pissed off that you reverted it without any understanding of what I'd done, or why I'd done it. To tell the truth, I'm still pissed off, but I can see that together we are a very competent pair who can (and do) make very good quality improvements to WP, and have lots of experience in doing so. So I'm looking forward to a productive future collaboration with you, to our own mutual gratification, and to the benefit of WP. So I have severely backed of from telling you how annoyed I am that I have had to put so much effort into making you realise that someone with a completely different focus from you is not a threat or a problem - they're just different, and they're actually useful and helpful to your own objectives. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I never saw you as a "threat or problem". But you decided to ask me why I "reverted" your change when it wasn't your change, it was another table entirely. As I asked, did you look at the diff you provided me and the version prior to it? And we are all helpful to each other's same objectives - a collaborative encyclopaedia that constantly improves. It's the nature of the beast. How do you think I got 2006 SA election to featured article status? By doing it my way or the highway...? Timeshift (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in continuing a topic that I hoped was dead.

As I said, I'm more interested in fostering a mutually enjoyable future collaborative partnership. Also as I said, I have the impression that we both agree with each other, and both have similar objectives, so I'm not sure why you're carping on about the past, particularly so when you asked me if I would do something that I didn't want to do, and I couldn't really see any point in doing, but I did it because I wanted to promote a positive relationship.

Do you want a positive future relationship? Or not? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So you admit you made a mistake from the start when you flew off the handle at me when presenting me with incorrect evidence. Apology accepted. Isn't it past 11:53pm? :) Moving on. Timeshift (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on! Of course I don't admit that!

Never-the-less, if it makes you happy and satisfies your ego, but most importantly, fosters a positive future relationship ... whatever.

So once again, I ask yet again:

Do you want a positive future relationship? Or not? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And yes, it's past 11:53. It's 12:37. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I want a positive relationship with everyone, but when they refer to 'satisfying my ego' amongst other things, one has to wonder about the sincerity. And yes, it's past 11:53. :) Timeshift (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

None of this equivocating "yes, but" crap. Do you want a positive future relationship? Or not? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what answer you're looking for considering your accusations tonight. Not everything is black and white. But I want a positive relationship with everyone. I'm off to bed now. Goodnight and sweet dreams. Timeshift (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I wait in hope that one day you'll give an answer to the question you've been asked.

Quite simply, I've made it obvious, several times, that I'm prepared to walk away from the past events. Past events that I'm not happy about, but never-the-less, I'm prepared to walk away.
You, on the other hand, seem to want to continue to carp on about them.
I've asked you several times, Do you want a positive future relationship? Or not?
If you really need me to dot the i's and cross the t's (which I doubt - I have formed a higher opinion of your abilities than that), in response to "I'm not quite sure what answer you're looking for", I'm looking for "Yes" or "No".
But that's not what you asked. You asked: "I'm not quite sure what answer you're looking for considering your accusations tonight."
I replied: None of this equivocating "yes, but" crap. Do you want a positive future relationship? Or not?
I continue to wait for your answer. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ACs

Nice work fixing this up! I hesitate to suggest improvements to this huge work, but this should be search-replaceable: shouldn't abbreviations that cut the ending of a word (like "Prof" and most of the military rankings) have a full stop after them ("Prof.", "Gen.")? Frickeg (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

a) Thanks! ("Flattery will probably get you exactly what you want.")

b) shouldn't abbreviations ... - No.

(Happy to expand if you wish, but currently it's 11:53pm aka "bedtime") Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't have your talk page watchlisted for some reason so missed this. The manual of style does suggest a full stop in these circumstances. Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK! In principle, you're completely correct. In practice, the page has become excessively voluminous in terms of loading time and reasonable editing response time, so long term editors, (e.g. JackofOz and me) have been making concerted efforts to reduce the page size, including splitting off "extra stuff" to a separate page and splitting the table into three in order to save 2,500 bytes. In the year 2014, "one" (failing that, "I") would have expected that computing resources could easily handle a page of 150,000 bytes. But the simple fact is that a Wikipedia page of that size is a pain. As I've acknowledged, in principle, the MOS suggests they should be added. In practice, they add nothing other than cosmetic value, and contribute to the degradation-of-performance of a page that is already painfully slow.
In summary, yes, you're "right" but being "right" is not always the only issue. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Never-the-less, happy to engage in further discussion should you wish. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. That sounds very sensible. I was about to suggest you split them alphabetically (say an A-M page and then N-Z), but the Civil/Military/Honorary stuff etc. complicates that. Although maybe they get separate pages too? I don't know, it's a tricky one. In the meantime, as a frequent user of uncomfortably large pages (most of the electoral results ones are pretty huge), I completely sympathise with this. Perhaps it's something to revisit if the computing resources ever catch up and/or a split is agreed. :) Frickeg (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (Appreciated, but sadly, I don't have an answer to the current problems, and I particularly appreciate that you understand this.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Doug Jones (international arbitrator)

I have assumed this is now resolved and have archived the conversation. If not, please advise. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So while you're at it...

Did you want to simplify the 2010 result table coding too? Timeshift (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

First answer: No. Second answer: OK. Are you in a hurry? i.e. How long before you would like it done? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Third answer: (buggerit.) "OK Chief, I'll get on it right away." Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I find your response amusing considering how important you thought the 2014 change was :) Timeshift (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have archived the rest of this discussion on the basis that it's never going to produce a useful result. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Thank you for tagging an article as a stub. ... blah, blah, blah ... using WP:SST ... Of course, ... you can always use the {{stub}} --I dream of horses ... my talk page. 19:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've created dozens (hundreds?) of stubs. You are the FIRST person in 7 years to bring WP:SST to my attention. Thank you! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. "Don't template the regulars"

In response to you refactoring my message and your PS: I think that if anything, it's the newer editors that deserve the time that one needs to create a custom-made message, but in some situations, custom-made messages end up being repetitive, anyways. Therefore, I will, at times, template the regulars; even the don't template the regulars says "They [the editor who left a templated message] may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template". --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(Conversation transferred to User talk:I dream of horses)

{{talkback|I dream of horses|ts=22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)}}

{{talkback|I dream of horses|ts=14:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)}}

{{talkback|I dream of horses|ts=16:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)}}

New Order of Precedence

Good Morning, I don't know if you have seen it yet (I only found it this morning) but the new DHAM lists the AOSM positioning (mainly entails to the Civilian variant) - http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/ Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 22:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't know. But given past history that you always see/find these things WELL in advance of me, and that YOU only found it this morning, I reackon you'd be fairly safe in assuming I hadn't seen it! (And you'd be right!!!) i.e. Thanks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a new / updated "Order of Wearing" document? If so, do you know where to find it? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is and, a BIG 'My Bad' here because the link I put above was incorrect, see - http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/Content/+050%20Honours%20Policy/+005%20Manual/_DHAM/04A.pdf

This is the Order of Wear as issued by DHAM. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 13:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Two hats

( ... and while I have you on the line.) Are you OK with the WP coverage of the fact that the double-hatted VCDF/CJOPS split into two during Gillespie's appointment?

As a result of your post, and on reflection, I'm not so happy with the way WP has (i.e. with the way I have) covered it. Your thoughts? (Thanks in advance.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not too concerned about its coverage, I just was not sure why Gillespie had (VCDF/CJOPS) seeing as Gillespie never held the position (within the stand alone department) of Commander Joint Op's. Though on reflection I can see what you were trying to get at by doing so. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 13:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(Good - no further discussion on THAT aspect required. So please:)

If you have a good/better way to address the topic, I'm "all ears". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

approved foreign awards

I believe I may have stumbled across the list of approved foreign awards as issued by the GG - http://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/honours/ScheduleOfForeignAwardsApr2013.pdf Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 04:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me! (You're full of surprises, aren't you.) What an interesting document! It has no header to say what it is, who wrote it, what status it holds - nothing. Just "as at April 2013". 15 pages of them. And I love the concluding paragraph: As governments and countries change from time to time, some awards may no longer be bestowed by a given country. These awards do not represent a comprehensive list of awards, but only those bestowed on Australians over time. In some cases such awards may no longer be bestowed by the current government of any given country.

It would have to be the most un-official-looking "official" document I've ever seen. Fascinating. Thank you very much!!

On which page did you find the link? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you had any thoughts on how to use it? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I wondered about creating a new category - for example: category:Foreign awards approved by the Governor-General of Australia, but firstly, the category name is very long, (perhaps too long), and secondly, does such a category add any value to Wikipedia? (And if so, what value?) Your thoughts on my thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

AK/AD restored

The Queen has signed letters pattent and has today brought back the AK and AD, Bryce and Cosgrove are to the the first two recipients. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/knights-and-dames-back-in-australia-20140325-35fy0.html Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 05:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My goodness me! (Not really all that surprising I suppose, but most certainly NOT something I was expecting!) Wonders never cease! Thank you!! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When I edited AK a few days ago to remove the word "defunct", I didn't realize just how accurate I was! To repeat myself, most certainly NOT something I was expecting!

I suppose you realize the reason why Bryce & Cosgrove are the first two? It's the same reason that Kerr was the very first. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the GG will always be the 'Principal Knight/Dame of the Order of Australia (formally the Principal Companion of the Order of Australia) Bryce was made a Dame automatically this morning at 9:40am when the papers were signed, Cosgrove will be automatically as well on Friday. However I assume during the Duke of Cambridge's visit he will be doing the sword thing. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 11:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Abbott late last year said he was not bringing it back, so I was not expecting it to happen at all, though I did suspect Cosgrove would be knight (though as a KCVO because of all the good he has done). Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 11:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he still will be! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Honorary AKs and ADs

I've seen some discussion about this, with people apart from yourself wondering if such a thing exists. My immediate thought was, why not? I've never seen anything that says honorary awards apply only to ACs, AMs and AOs. The fact that there have never been any honorary AKs or ADs doesn't mean there won't be. There are no honorary OAMs, but that's because the other levels are all "appointments" to the Order, but the OAM is simply an award. It can be given to Aussie citizens and non-citizens alike.

Now I know we all like positive evidence of stuff, so I've managed to track down this (my bolding):

Designations of Members of the Order Of Australia and of holders of the Medal Of the Order of Australia

3 A member of the Order of Australia or a person awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia is entitled—

(a) in the case of a Knight or Dame—to use the title "Sir" or "Dame", as the case may be, before his or her name;

(b) in the case of a Knight or Dame, or honorary Knight or Dame—

(i) to have the letters "AK" or "AD", as the case may be, placed after his or her name on all occasions when the use of such letters is customary; and

(ii) to wear as a decoration the prescribed insignia for Knights of the Order or Dames of the Order, as the case may be;

This is from the Designations and Insignia Ordinance, which starts at p. 38 here.

So, the only question now is: Who will be the first honorary AK and honorary AD? Rupert Murdoch and Miley Cyrus, perhaps? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(Pause while I stop rolling on the floor laughing.)

(You're obviously in fine form today - at least two of your edit summaries have made me laugh out loud ... )

Dame Miley Cyrus AD. Hmmm. Who knows, it may catch on! (For AK, I'm putting my money on Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.)

Thank you for that comprehensive reply. Thank you very much. (I was in the middle of reading through http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/docs/RKDOA_Factsheet.rtf and was wondering if How many appointments will be made? There will be a maximum of 4 appointments a year, excluding honorary appointments of non-Australian citizens. was sufficiently definitive. Now I don't need to think further!)

Again: Thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I just reread 3a)&3b). Oh :-(, what a disappointment! No chance of a Dame Miley unless she becomes a citizen. C'est la vie. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Honorary OAM

of course there are honorary OAMs - Interesting you mention that - Sometime in the last week I saw the comment "no honorary OAMs" somewhere else, and wondered why. I'll have to try to remember where I saw it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(I'm still disappointed by the impossibility of Dame Miley ... )

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Cosgrove may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Order of Australia (Military) ribbon.png|50px]] || {{nobreak|[Companion of the Order of Australia]] (AC)}} || {{nobreak|25 March 2000}}<br>{{nobreak|<small>(Military division)</small>}} || For

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So now that you've changed results table coding...

Can you please do what's needed to get the list of MLCs on the right of the results table at Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014 as per what's done at Full results of the South Australian state election, 2010? Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Upper house quotas

I've never been a fan of including upper house quotas on election result pages. If we're going to give one rule, why not the rest of them? And just because we indicate a quota, then why do people on half a quota get elected? There's a page for that, the upper house page. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

6 April 2014

On a wiki-break (There are too many WP:Dicks around at the moment.)

So now that you've changed results table coding...

Can you please do what's needed to get the list of MLCs on the right of the results table at Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014 as per what's done at Full results of the South Australian state election, 2010? Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out to you that it's extremely rude and very hypocritical to personally request someone to do something, then revert what they have done with an edit comment that says they have "No consensus" to make such a change!

(This one will go down in the annuls of "amusing stuff on Wikipedia", and will be widely quoted.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed it's 1 April. What an amusing coincidence! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes on my talkpage, but please do not construe my post on Timeshift9's userpage as vindication for your actions - I think both of you are doing the wrong thing by edit-warring. --Surturz (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. Timeshift9 has made it clear that he does not want you posting on his talkpage. Please respect his wishes per WP:NOBAN --Surturz (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisting

You might find the discussion at [1] explains why some links have recently been blacklisted and even find it productive to join that discussion or follow up on it. NebY (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And pigs will fly! NebY (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Timeshift

Hi, Pdfpdf. You really shouldn't post on Timeshift's talkpage when he's specifically told you not to multiple times, especially to leave snarky comments about an ANI. (And, as you can see, he's already been notified about the meetup.) Frickeg (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply

It's kind of hard to reply to you when you delete the section from your talk page, but anyway. I don't care in the slightest about your little feud with Timeshift, but he's asked you to stay off his page. He's entitled to do that, and you're obliged to comply, otherwise he's well within his right to take you to ANI. My only interest in this is that I think you're both productive editors and I think you both have better things to do with your time, so just stay off his talkpage. Frickeg (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and I understand (but do not necessarily agree with) your point of view. But when someone (anyone) asks you to stay off their talk page, you're actually not entitled to ignore them. That's really all there is to it. (I've just spent a good fifteen minutes looking for the guideline where this is explicitly stated, but I can't find it. Let's just say I've definitely seen people blocked for not respecting requests like these.) You're not being steamrollered, you're just not escalating the situation. But anyway, I was just trying to head off a drama before it happens. It's up to you what happens from here. I personally find Timeshift easy to work with, just as I find you easy to work with, but clearly not everyone agrees. Frickeg (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam-webpage-Blacklisting

You might find the discussion at [2] explains why some links have recently been blacklisted and even find it productive to join that discussion or follow up on it. NebY (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess what?

You don't get to pull the strings. It's my talkpage. It's already been made crystal clear to you, many times which you've ignored, that if a user doesn't want another user on their talkpage, then they must respect and obey that or they will get blocked from wikipedia. So unless you want disciplinary action taken, I highly suggest to steer clear of my user talk page now, and forever. I win, you lose - always. Now feel free to remove this from your talkpage if you so wish. Timeshift (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'll leave it here - it serves to emphasise 1) my lack-of-opinion of you 2) my lack of opinion of your messiah complex 3) the fact that, quite simply, you just don't get it 4) your lack of appreciation that YOU don't pull the strings 5) you can't avoid your responsibilities by throwing a tantrum 6) you can't bully other users simply because it suits you 7) etc.

Quite simply, I'm quite tired of your arrogance:

You don't get to pull the strings - Ah ha. And you do? (Pull your head in.)

It's my talkpage. - So what?

It's already been made crystal clear to you, many times which you've ignored, that if a user doesn't want another user on their talkpage, then they must respect and obey that or they will get blocked from wikipedia. - It's been stated, but similarly, I could repeatedly state some irrelevant/false statement. Again, so what?

I'll emphasise, I don't have to respect ANYTHING, particularly if it's done nothing to earn respect.

I win, you lose - always. - ROTFLMFAO!! You honestly believe that, don't you. How sad. Well, your problem, not mine.

Pdfpdf (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth

Pardon the intrusion, but I've never seen anything good come from a Wikipedian posting on another's talk page after being asked to stop. It can't possibly be productive, and others will see it as poking the bear (not meaning to call anyone a bear, but I don't know any synonymous analogy).

Meanwhile, apologies for not replying yet re meetup... Will consult with the boss tomorrow. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess what?

You don't get to pull the strings. It's my talkpage. It's already been made crystal clear to you, many times which you've ignored, that if a user doesn't want another user on their talkpage, then they must respect and obey that or they will get blocked from wikipedia. So unless you want disciplinary action taken, I highly suggest to steer clear of my user talk page now, and forever. I win, you lose - always. Now feel free to remove this from your talkpage if you so wish. Timeshift (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'll leave it here - it serves to emphasise 1) my lack-of-opinion of you 2) my lack of opinion of your messiah complex 3) the fact that, quite simply, you just don't get it 4) your lack of appreciation that YOU don't pull the strings 5) you can't avoid your responsibilities by throwing a tantrum 6) you can't bully other users simply because it suits you 7) etc.

Quite simply, I'm quite tired of your arrogance:

You don't get to pull the strings - Ah ha. And you do? (Pull your head in.)

It's my talkpage. - So what?

It's already been made crystal clear to you, many times which you've ignored, that if a user doesn't want another user on their talkpage, then they must respect and obey that or they will get blocked from wikipedia. - It's been stated, but similarly, I could repeatedly state some irrelevant/false statement. Again, so what?

I'll emphasise, I don't have to respect ANYTHING, particularly if it's done nothing to earn respect.

I win, you lose - always. - ROTFLMFAO!! You honestly believe that, don't you. How sad. Well, your problem, not mine.

Pdfpdf (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Adelaide meetup

Thanks for the writeup and editathon suggestions. Yes, I'm afraid I couldn't make it. It's a tricky time is all. I'm just a couple of weeks off giving birth and so anticipate potentially a lot more time for Wikipedia over the coming months, or at least a lot more access since Wikipedia editing is blocked (probably rightly so) in my workplace. I'll try and keep up with what's going on WRT the editathon once I'm actually off work. Cheers! Donama (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Web archive

Hi! I was looking through William Refshauge, and saw something I hadn't seen before which raised my level-of-interest enough to cause me to ask you a question - actually, a number of questions.

(The main reason for my interest is that, with defence.gov.au continually changing its website structure, this looks like a way to "prevent" links to defence.gov.au references going "stale".)

You have expanded

http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

into

|url= http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

|archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20140423064138/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

• How did you know this page had been archived?
• How did you discover the web.archive url for the page?

Or is it more the case that you "forced" the page to be archived? In which case, how do you "force" a page to be archived?

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf, thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words.

To archive pages, I use http://archive.org/web/web.php I just go to that page and type in whatever page I'm looking to add to wikipedia, then it either tells me the dates that the page has been saved on, or else I can chose to save the url to the wayback machine. The machine generates a permanent web-archive url for users. It's a US nonprofit organization.

I try to use web archiving for all references I add to wikipedia because it helps to prevent link rot. You can read more about other options at Wikipedia:Link rot. One bit of info is that you can choose to add a parameter |deadurl=no to your citation template if you want users to go to the live version of the page, it just alters the way the citation appears. Also, you need to include the archivedate parameter if you use the archiveurl parameter.

Hope this helps! Clare. (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It does! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spratly Islands dispute may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jean Roussel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[http://www.discogs.com/artist/261041-Jean-Roussel Discography], discogs.com

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Donna Jones (singer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[http://mickflinn.com/ Mick Flinn's website]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dreamboat Annie

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Dreamboat Annie article, which I'm trying to upgrade. There is no unexplained removal of content here. The essential content is all there, only more navigable, especially on Wikipedia Mobile. The table must have been a lot of work, but its presence is not in accord with the Manual of Style (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Personnel) and I find it more difficult to navigate than a list. The list can be updated or divided with a by-song method, but I think that the table should go or be radically changed. What do you think about this matter? Lewismaster (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What a pleasure to receive a well-mannered logical (rather than self-opinionated) posting! Thank you.

With respect to "unexplained" removal, please note that none of your recent edits to Dreamboat Annie contain any explanation, and hence all of them are "unexplained" ...

I noticed that you reverted my edit - I reverted one, and only one, of your recent group of excellent edits.

which I'm trying to upgrade - And on the whole, I'd say you're doing an excellent job. As I said, I only reverted one of them.

The essential content is all there, only more navigable, especially on Wikipedia Mobile. - Several points there:

• The basic content of information by artist is there, but the table provides MORE than just the basic content; removal of the table removes the additional content that the table provides (i.e. access to information by instrument, and access to information by track.) As I think all three dimensions are equally important, I disagree with your use of the word "essential".
• only more navigable, especially on Wikipedia Mobile. - Perhaps it is, but removing content simply to make something more navigable sounds (to me) a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think a MUCH better approach would be to make ALL of the information more navigable - not just some of it.
• its presence is not in accord with ... Personnel - Well, given that it also addresses information by "instrument" and by "track", I'm neither surprised nor concerned that it isn't totally in accord with "personnel" ...

but I think that the table should ... be radically changed - I'm unlikely to be completely averse to that suggestion. What do you have in mind?

(And just in case my comment above "got lost in the conversation", thank you for your excellent work in upgrading the page.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A few considerations on the remarks you made:

On the format-

If I can give you some hints from my experience as editor, during recent assessments for GA articles the format of the article comes under deep scrutiny. What happened to me is that I was requested to change formats not clearly visible in Wikipedia Mobile for an article to attain GA status, like columns and tables. Dreamboat Annie is not a GA article, but I think that we should take format in consideration, given that Wiki Mobile is becoming an important part of this enterprise.

On the merit of the table-

A section discussing the production and recording of the album is completely missing in the article. Personnel changes and external contributions would be addressed there, making this discussion virtually useless. However, waiting for improvements in the article structure, I think that the Personnel section should provide information on what a musician or technician did on the album and that this info should be presented in the easiest and more accessible way. In my opinion, access by instrument or by track is not what this section is about. I always prefer to stick to the style guidelines for these topics. You can introduce a discussion on the use of tables for the Personnel section in the appropriate forum, but still I can't see the utility of knowing the use of the instruments by "track". It's repeating the same info in another manner. It's not very interesting to know that every track has lead vocals, guitar, bass and drums, what matters is who played them! On the contrary, in a track-by-track personnel listing or in a complete list, all the information are accessible at once in a cleaner and simpler way, without the need to cross-reference names and instruments.

On the structure of the table-

• The line on top of the table about Ann Wilsons's contribution is redundant, the data are already in the table or in other sections.
• The column "song writer" is redundant; the topic was already addressed in the "Track listing" section.
• Abbreviations like "timp."," perc.", "orch. arrang." are just plain ugly.
• The "Tracks" line is not on-topic and the lines with the repetition of all the instruments are useless.

I don't plan to do many more edits on this article for the time being and won't change the table, but please, think about my objections and eventual changes if you want to improve it to B or GA status.

Cheers, Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

images of Adelaide
Thank you for quality articles and images of Adelaide, such as Adelaide city centre, for inviting to talk rather than edit war and for thoughts on Wikipediholism, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 496th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

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.

Jean Roussel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pieces, Shooting Star, Now Hear This, Live & Learn, Pressure Drop and Not a Little Girl Anymore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

TSWLM

Care to outline exactly what "content" your talking about? Next time, consider WP:BRD and don't edit war over something so stupidly petty. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ROTFL!

Dear Pot,

Thank you for your wonderful display of hypocrisy - I haven't had such a good laugh for days!

Regards, Kettle.

P.S. I am assuming that you meant "what you're talking about?", and that the request was rhetorical. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear [[WP:DICK|Pdfpdf]], glad you fin it amusing, I'm still bemused by the stupidity of the "content removal" comment. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Do you make a habit greeting people with Dear WP:DICK?

If you want to post on my talk page I advise you to do so with civility and manners. Although I have found your hypocrisy highly amusing, I do not find your rudeness, arrogance, bad manners, bad grammar and typing errors at all entertaining. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and if you are not prepared to follow those guidelines, then don't bother to post on my talk page. (BTW: The tag I used says "Reverting unexplained content removal". Think about it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't edit the comments of others: I suspect you already know this. I note that throughout you have not explained why you edit warred to re-impose spaces, but quite frankly I don't really care to discuss anything more with you anyway. Finally, if you are arrogant enough to quote policies to me, you should try reading a few of them yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to censor criticism, have the decency to delete the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

a) You are the most astounding hypocrite I have ever come across.

b) Given your behaviour, I can only assume that you don't know what a hypocrite is.

c) This is MY talk page. If you don't know the rules, then you may find you don't like the consequences of not following them, which include being reported for disruptive editing.

It being 2am, I will leave you to entertain my colleagues. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALKO: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." (Emphasis as per original); I am sure that if you can't understand it, one of your colleagues may like to point it out to you. And you have the gall to call me a hypocrite? It would be funny if you actually understood what it means. And, again, well done on dodging round the reason I came here in the first place: your rather silly revert. Have fun, I won't be back to see whatever "pithy and humerous" comment you try and leave. I do hope our paths won't ever cross again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care to discuss anything more with you anyway. - As you haven't "discuss"ed anything at any time to date, it is a truism that you can't "discuss anything more".

Dear [[WP:DICK|Pdfpdf]], - Do you make a habit greeting people with Dear WP:DICK?

Don't edit the comments of others: I suspect you already know this. - As you point out, WP:TALKO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." (My emphasis). As you can see from my edit summary, my edit is to clarify the meaning, not to change it. (And yes, I was under the impression that I could do what I liked on my own talk page. Thank you for indirectly bringing to my attention that this is not quite the case.)

And you have ... - Yawn.

well done on dodging round the reason I came here in the first place - Unlike you, I haven't dodged around anything. I quite explicitly addressed the issue, and I copy it from above to here:

(BTW: The tag I used says "Reverting unexplained content removal". Think about it.)

Also, I requested: "Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and if you are not prepared to follow those guidelines, then don't bother to post on my talk page." You ignored this request.

On the other hand, I will WP:AGF and assume that you actually do mean Have fun, I won't be back to see whatever "pithy and humerous" comment you try and leave. I do hope our paths won't ever cross again.

• Have fun - Thank you. I edit Wikipedia for enjoyment; I do tend to "have fun".
• I won't be back to see whatever "pithy and humerous" comment you try and leave. I am assuming you mean "I won't be back to see whatever "pithy and humorous" comment you leave." If so.
  • I won't be back - Yeah, well you implied that before, but nevertheless, you did come back.
  • I do hope our paths won't ever cross again. - They haven't crossed before in the last 7 years; this suggests that there's a good chance they won't cross again in the near future. Personally, I'm indifferent on the matter. I've rather enjoyed watching you make a fool of yourself without leaving the comfort of my talk page - as I said above "I edit Wikipedia for enjoyment".

I genuinely wish you well for the future. Farewell, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Web archive

Hi! I was looking through William Refshauge, and saw something I hadn't seen before which raised my level-of-interest enough to cause me to ask you a question - actually, a number of questions.

(The main reason for my interest is that, with defence.gov.au continually changing its website structure, this looks like a way to "prevent" links to defence.gov.au references going "stale".)

You have expanded

http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

into

|url= http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

|archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20140423064138/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

• How did you know this page had been archived?
• How did you discover the web.archive url for the page?

Or is it more the case that you "forced" the page to be archived? In which case, how do you "force" a page to be archived?

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf, thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words.

To archive pages, I use http://archive.org/web/web.php I just go to that page and type in whatever page I'm looking to add to wikipedia, then it either tells me the dates that the page has been saved on, or else I can chose to save the url to the wayback machine. The machine generates a permanent web-archive url for users. It's a US nonprofit organization.

I try to use web archiving for all references I add to wikipedia because it helps to prevent link rot. You can read more about other options at Wikipedia:Link rot. One bit of info is that you can choose to add a parameter |deadurl=no to your citation template if you want users to go to the live version of the page, it just alters the way the citation appears. Also, you need to include the archivedate parameter if you use the archiveurl parameter.

Hope this helps! Clare. (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It does! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dreamboat Annie

...

"A few considerations on the remarks you made: ... "

...

" ... please, think about my objections ... "

Cheers, Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do / have done. Pdfpdf (talk)

(Full conversation archived at User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive35#Dreamboat Annie)

Precious again

images of Adelaide
Thank you for quality articles and images of Adelaide, such as Adelaide city centre, for inviting to talk rather than edit war and for thoughts on Wikipediholism, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 496th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,

Again, unexpected, and again, a pleasure to receive. Many thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

TSWLM

" ... I don't really care to discuss anything more with you anyway. ... " - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

" ... I won't be back ... " - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Should anyone wish to continue this conversation, they can do so at User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive35#TSWLM. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

House of Reps

I don't know, he at least has half a leg to stand on this time since it's been there over a week and no one has expressed any objections. I will leave a note at WT:AUP encouraging people to have a look, and will keep an eye on the page. Frickeg (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

John Howard SSI removal

An Australian could receive permission to use the post-nominal letters, any future inclusion of the post-nominal letters on John Howard's page should perhaps be referenced to a source demonstrating he does use the letters. The Tepes (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that! Thanks. From whom could/would an Australian receive permission?

And yes, I agree that a supporting reference would be necessary. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I recall permission is granted by the offices of Governor General, and the State Governors. I imagine Howard easily got permission.

I had a look online, (granted it was only for a few minutes), and all information I could find referred to Howard with the post-nominal letters SSI, these references were mostly information about speaking engagements. However, when he received an honorary doctorate, the university refered to him with SSI. I would have liked to find something more solid then that, but honestly I didn't look too hard. The Tepes (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you. Yes, I imagine he would have, if he asked. (And by the sounds of your brief search, it would appear that he did ask.) I guess that from this point I'll just sit back and watch ... Cheers (and thanks), Pdfpdf (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that it's included on his honorary doctorate it's safe to presume that he has the post nominal letters. It should really be included in the article, especially when you consider how long it's been included. SultanNicole (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Never-the-less, there is no general entitlement - if there is a specific entitlement, then a supporting reference of this specific entitlement is required.

BTW: This is not my requirement; I'm not deliberately trying to "be difficult" - it's Wikipedia policy.

(And just because it hasn't satisfied policy in the past is no justification for it to continue to not to satisfy policy in the future.)

I will see if I can find a relevant reference. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we have election links in leader infoboxes?

Based on your Andreas reverts, are you going to comment here? Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up".

(FYI: My Andreas edits, including the reverts, are about his recalcitrance re WP:BRD & WP:Consensus, and his failures to use edit comments and sign his posts.)

Other than saying "me too", I'm not sure what I could add - you and others seem to have already stated my views much more eloquently than I could have. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can add "agree/me too" to the discussion it would be helpful. Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

The more I think about a certain difficult editor we both know well, the more I am drawn to this definition:

"Asperger syndrome...is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction..., alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development." (My bolding, of course.)

That I see this as an appropriate label makes it difficult to publicly discuss the person involved, hence my reluctance to leap in.

I'm not sure where we can take this. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"They" say "great minds think alike". (Failing that: I must admit that similar thoughts have occurred to me over the last month.) And yes, I've not been sure where to go from here, or how to proceed - so far the best I can think of only address(es) the symptom(s), not the cause(s). I'm taking a bit of a wiki-break from it at the moment in the fond hope that inspiration and/or insight will strike. Nevertheless, feel free to send me email if you wish to discuss the matter - perhaps we can use Skype. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pressure Drop (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to West York Island may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• as '''Likas Island''' {{Lang-tl|Likas}}, {{Zh|t=西月島|s=西月岛|p=Xīyuè Dǎo}}, {{Lang-vi|đảo Bến Lạc}}) and several other names. Having an area of 18.6 hectares, it is the third largest [[island]] of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Irving Reef may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Description of the Spratly Islands and an Account of Hydrographic Surveys Amongst Those Islands'' ([[International Boundaries Research Unit]], 1995, ISBN 978-1897643181, p. 7. [http://books.google.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved article

I moved it to User:Pdfpdf/Clare Valley Film Festival. There were some others up for deletion and you might be able to find them in the deletion log. I didn't delete a whole lot of them since I did want to research them and got sidetracked, so let me know if you see any that you want userfied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

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 maritime features in the Spratly Islands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Flat Island

Reed Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalayaan

Second Thomas Shoal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ROC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Web archive

Hi! I was looking through William Refshauge, and saw something I hadn't seen before which raised my level-of-interest enough to cause me to ask you a question - actually, a number of questions.

(The main reason for my interest is that, with defence.gov.au continually changing its website structure, this looks like a way to "prevent" links to defence.gov.au references going "stale".)

You have expanded

http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

into

|url= http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

|archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20140423064138/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1110124&showInd=true

• How did you know this page had been archived?
• How did you discover the web.archive url for the page?

Or is it more the case that you "forced" the page to be archived? In which case, how do you "force" a page to be archived?

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf, thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words.

To archive pages, I use http://archive.org/web/web.php I just go to that page and type in whatever page I'm looking to add to wikipedia, then it either tells me the dates that the page has been saved on, or else I can chose to save the url to the wayback machine. The machine generates a permanent web-archive url for users. It's a US nonprofit organization.

I try to use web archiving for all references I add to wikipedia because it helps to prevent link rot. You can read more about other options at Wikipedia:Link rot. One bit of info is that you can choose to add a parameter |deadurl=no to your citation template if you want users to go to the live version of the page, it just alters the way the citation appears. Also, you need to include the archivedate parameter if you use the archiveurl parameter.

Hope this helps! Clare. (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It does! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

images of Adelaide
Thank you for quality articles and images of Adelaide, such as Adelaide city centre, for inviting to talk rather than edit war and for thoughts on Wikipediholism, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 496th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,

Again, unexpected, and again, a pleasure to receive. Many thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dummy spit

Thanks for the message. Not sure what this is about - yes, I know, Leader of the House - but it hadn't really engaged my attention. Now there's edit-warring and anger being lobbed around. This is one of those things where I'd look to see what wikipolicy says, and in the event that it's nothing, I'd look to see what we've done in the past or with other articles. Getting upset with other editors seems pointless. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Defence Force Service Medal Sixth clasp

Hey, so in the Navy News today, an article stated a sailor was awarded a sixth clasp to his DFSM. I was unaware of anything after the Federation Star. [3] Thoughts? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 13:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like I have answered my own question. Six or more clasps are denoted by an extra federation star. [4]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 13:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I had read somewhere that 4 clasps = 4 clasps; 5 clasps = 1 Fed star; 6 clasps = 2 Fed stars; but despite searching, I could find no supporting reference. It seems you have.

Yet again it seems you've solved a longstanding issue. (I think you're probably entitled to feel smug and self satisfied.)

Once again, Good Work! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent work on the Spratly Islands articles. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is VERY kind of you, and is appreciated. Thank you. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Swallow Reef

By the way ...

Where did you find the 35 ha area figure? (i.e. A useful reference would be ..., "useful".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Some info on Chinese bbs, no official source.-Lisan1233 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have the URL handy? (I'm interested to read what was written.) Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.godeyes.cn/html/2012/04/16/google_earth_13067.html - Lisan1233 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! (Most appreciated.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Help!

I could hit the google "translate" button, but I have more confidence in your ability to provide a relevant and useful analysis ...

What is this a photo of? (Given that there's no runway, one assumes it ain't Swallow Reef ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That pic is not swallow reef as I see -Lisan1233 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! So the blog text gives no hints as to where and/or what it is? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Although I can bumble through French, Dutch, German & Italian, I've no skill with languages using other character sets. Which bit of the article mentions the area of Swallow Reef? Thanks in advance! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"陆地面积大约0.35平方公里（原有沙洲面积不足0.1平方公里）"-"land covers 0.35 km2 (natural cay less than 0.1 km2)"-Lisan1233 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Humpf. I obviously didn't look hard enough! Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Calm down

You've been pointed to the policies that your edits have been in breach of, and now you need to read them if you want people to continue to assume good faith. Throwing tantrums at me or anyone else will get you nowhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

ROTFL!!!

Ummmm. Get real?

a) It astounds me that you persist in irrelevant bullshit. (I'm dubious that you are stupid, so I'm perplexed.)

b) This is (I think) our 5th interaction, yet you STILL won't (note: not don't, won't) be explicit.

c) Throwing tantrums ... - ROTFLMFAO!!! (Hey - WHAT CAN I SAY? - You, apparently, know everything. Tell me?)

When you are ready to indulge in rational discussion, please reply and inform me. (I'm waiting.)

(Until then: Fuck off.)

At some time when you are prepared to listen an opinion that is not identical to your own, I would be VERY happy to engage in a sensible discussion with you. I know that you are not stupid. Please. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll once again point you in the direction of Wikipedia:Original research and suggest thack's saket you read and familiarise yourself with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

For F***'s sake!!! I addressed that ages ago. I sincerely doubt that you are stupid, so why are you making stupid replies?

Enough!!! (Goodnight; it's past midnight.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(BTW: "and suggest thack's saket you read" is incomprehensible.)

You're now re-adding blatant original research to the article, which you've been made aware of by the otherwise unanimous consensus that it should be removed, and which ten minutes ago, in response to Frickeg, you seemed to have decided to agree with. I've tried twice to point you in the direction of the policy as to why this material needs to be removed, and you've responded with all manner of talk page abuse. This isn't appropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It's quite difficult to determine if you are stupid, if you are a WP:Dick, if you are pushing a WP:Point, or if you have some other agenda.

It's quite easy to see that you are totally unwilling to give a relevant reply to a relevant question.

As I've said several times, if, when I return, there is no evidence to support false your allegations, and no withdrawal AND apology for your false allegations, then I'm off to ANI. Until the morrow. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

All you were asked is not to reinsert blatant original research into an article. I'm not going to edit war with you if you're prepared to edit war to add material clearly in violation of bedrock Wikipedia policies, but clearly that's a position that's ultimately going to wind up with consequences if you persist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Really? Well, I'll take that "on good faith" at the moment, and address the issue "tomorrow" (i.e. later today)

But let me emphasise that I am encouraged by you reply.

Sleep well, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Murray riverboats

I've broken the offending Userspace article into two lists Murray-Darling steamboats and Murray-Darling steamboat people to get over the problem you alluded to. Not sure it's the best way but it's done and reasonably useful. Lots of holes in the second list which I'm hoping will be filled eventually, but I doubt I can get much more from Trove. Doug butler (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you planning to be there on Sunday? If so, I'll discuss it with you there/then. (If not ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't make it unfortunately; family commitments interstate. Catch you later. Doug butler (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Any time, and I'm looking forward to it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ADF Ranks

Hey! I am just after an opinion. A graphic designer has done the various RAN/RAAF & ANC/AAFC/AAC ranks using his awesome skill and I have been given access to the originals and permission to use them on WP. I have added the flag rank hardboards to the RAN page and was wondering (in your opinion) if I should replace the sleeve lace with the SRI (soft rank insignia) versions then add the hard board's as well. I will (in the coming days) add the OR/WO ranks and the WON special insignia to complete the section. Cheers Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversation is (continued at / moved to) User talk:Nford24#Re: ADF Ranks Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide city centre

No worries, although I'm not entirely sure what I'm being thanked for; I only did the same thing you reverted TDW for. Still, glad that the situation has cooled down; it's certainly nothing worth getting worked up over! Frickeg (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're still posting on my talk page. You were re-adding blatant original research to an article, I asked you not to, and then after someone else also did you apparently decided to stop, which is great. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. I have no desire to get into an argument with you though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, you're spoiling for a fight, and you're not going to find one here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New topic regarding a different page

I'd hate to see what "less magnanimous" looks like if this is supposed to be you with manners. Once again, it's a matter of basic policy: you added a page that was essentially a copyvio, I nominated it for deletion. I didn't even realise you were the author under your alt-account. You're lining up an ever larger collection of threats, uncivil language and general abuse on my talk page and I'm still not going to bite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd hate to see what "less magnanimous" looks like if this is supposed to be you with manners. - As usual, you can't follow instructions, and you make unexplained comments out of context. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Once again, it's a matter of basic policy: you added a page that was essentially a copyvio, I nominated it for deletion. I didn't even realise you were the author under your alt-account. - Ummmm. Errr. Bullshit??

You're lining up an ever larger collection of threats, uncivil language and general abuse on my talk page and I'm still not going to bite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC) - I don't care if you "bite or not"!!! But a relevant response would be an entertaining novelty!!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the stuff you posted at AfD is literally about 500 times as inflammatory as the comment you're still upset over for some reason (which was a comment 90% of other editors would have just ignored). I've said before I generally find you productive, but, um, please calm down? Frickeg (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Responded (with respect and thanks) on your talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Confused

It's absolutely a way forward, if you're okay with it! I'm a huge heritage and architecture buff, and I think getting a heritage buildings list for Adelaide (which is way overdue) and including the RAIA's registers into these kinds of articles nationally (which I'd wholeheartedly support as a way of including material we should have that would otherwise get excluded). I'd definitely try and help with it too - though I've been trying to make a start on Wikipedia's really poor coverage of Victorian heritage, I'm sure I can take a crack at SA too if it helps. My concern with the list as it was was absolutely not "I don't think this material should be covered on Wikipedia" but "I'm not sure this particular way of doing it works". The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ummm. Great! Fantasic! (From my POV this is INFINITELY preferable to ... "negative stuff") Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And mine! The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jolly good, but what about reality?

Whoa! Changing the name to 'List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide' is unwise, as many of the entries may NOT actually be heritage listed! See my comments on the Afd page. Bahudhara (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey! What can I say? (If I agree with you (which is exactly what I do do) ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I posted here before refreshing my watchlist and seeing that it was The Drover's Wife who renamed the list. I've left a message on her talk page, pointing to my comments on tha Afd page. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit late to have further discussion on the AfD page, so here seems like the best place since you're both watching it. (As for the copyright in lists: I'm no copyright lawyer, but lists can and have been deleted before on copyright grounds - it's why, for example, we don't have more detailed music charts on Wikipedia.)

The problem is that this list (pre-move) dives down a verifiability and notability rabbit hole. The SAHRMI example that Bahudhara might be notable for Wikipedia (and really, probably is), but it's not "Nationally Significant" (proper noun) on the basis of that award.

I can see the problems you're bringing up, and I see how List of heritage sites in Adelaide may well be too broad. However, I'm also not a fan of having a muddle of different types of articles - some for types of building, some for time periods, etc. (I also think, for that matter, unless you're setting a fairly high bar for inclusion, statewide or even metropolitan-area-wide articles, even at the existing levels, get incredibly unwieldy.)

What if we went "List of heritage buildings in Adelaide (timeframe)" as a series of articles? This would stop the length being unwieldy, taking the "listings" out would remove any debate over the inclusion of these articles (though still having a clearer basis for inclusion and verifiability than hte article as it stood). It would also avoid winding up with a plethora of "type of building" list articles, which I find (just around Wikipedia generally) tend to get forgotten about. This would take a similar approach to List of heritage places in Fremantle, except covering a broader geographical area.

Alternatively, if you're mostly focused on recent buildings that you don't think fit under a "heritage" framework at all, what if the article shifted to being one on buildings that have won notable architecture awards? This would seem to be possibly more in line with where Bahudhara seems to be aiming, and once again has the advantage that its inclusion criteria are a LOT clearer.

As a third option: what if we did both of those? This would allow for a better coverage of modern architecture and a better coverage of modern heritage buildings, and to better cover both of them where they overlap. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I just need to clarify - the inclusion criteria on the list before was very clearly defined and stated, and as clear as one on buildings that have won architectural awards would be. Moving to "list of heritage buildings" muddles the inclusion criteria, and in that sense is less viable as a general list. It works when we limit it to heritage listed buildings, but if we make it more generic, as is the intent, then what constitutes "heritage" becomes a significant issue. That said, my inclination is to start with the overly broad topic, then spin out subsets when the list becomes unwieldy. It is quite likely that we'll have to end up with a list of 20th century buildings and lists with breakdowns on building type, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to start with a generic list and then spin out groupings as required. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the inclusion criteria on the list - not quite. The initial list had the problem that, to quote Frickeg from the AfD: "For me, the problem is the narrowness of this list. It is basically what one organisation considers important, which is fine for them, but not really for a general encyclopedia." But more problematically, Bahudhara (in his final comment on the AfD) envisaged expanding it well beyond that publication about 120 buildings, which would bring us as I said into a definitional wormhole about what "nationally significant" is. This is why I suggested doing it on the basis of significant awards as something that's a bit more manageable. It also avoids the argument about what is "heritage" (which as you note is another problem we need to avoid) by having another easily-verifiable basis for lists covering significant modern architecture. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Narrowly defined lists are fine - the problem comes when the inclusion criteria is too broad, so that anything can fit. :) Significant awards are problematic, because heritage listing isn't an award. Heritage listing is problematic, because significant modern buildings aren't heritage listed. We'll just need to define inclusion criteria in terms that covers what we want the list to do, and I suspect we'll need more than one standard for inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you, hon. ;) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Woody Island (South China Sea) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• www.cnr.cn/china/news/201104/t20110411_507879011.html 西沙永兴岛调频广播发射台昨天开始试播], [[China National Radio]]}}<br>'''Untranslated references on English Wikipedia are useless.'''{{cn}}</ref>{{cn}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spratly Islands may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Technical Mentors - Unleashed Adelaide, 11-13 July 2014

Free this weekend? Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Future meetings#Technical Mentors - Unleashed (GovHack Adelaide) for details. Alex Sims (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A reply

GMT. STSC (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Paracel Islands

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Talk:Paracel Islands.
Message added Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hidden comments within articles

Please read Help:Hidden text which explains when it is or is not appropriate to use <!-- hidden comments --> within an article. You have been adding hidden comments to the Paracel Islands article when you should be making these comments on the talk page or using templates such as {{dubious}}, {{citation needed}} and similar. Use the |reason= paramater in the template to explain if need be. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for information

I don't make a habit of using WP:AIV etc. (except for sock puppets), so I am unfamiliar with the process. I am experiencing problems with an editor who:

• refuses to discuss things on a talk page
• wants to edit war
• has exceeded 3RR

Please advise (via pointers to the appropriate pages if you wish / prefer) how I should proceed. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANEW would be the best place to make a report, if you use Twinkle it has a good interface for reporting, otherwise use the "click here" button at the top and fill in the blanks.

Or be lucky enough that a passing admin responds to your help request. I've fully protected the article for two days to try and force discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Another request for information

Where should I look to find information about closing article talk page discussions about proposals? (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Details on the technical process can be found at WP:CLOSE. However, if you're thinking of closing the discussion at Talk:Six-star rank then I would suggest that you are too involved to be doing so. A better approach would be to make a request for closure so that a disinterested party can make the call. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

a) Thanks.

b) No, I wasn't thinking of closing any discussions, but again, thank you, and thank you for you pro-activeness.

c) I agree with your advice.

d) (FYI: My question was with regard to the closure of Talk:Six-star rank#Merger)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right. What is it you want to know? Are you looking to challenge the close, or just curious about the process? Yunshui ^雲_水 12:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

More "ignorant" than "curious"! ;-)

(When I have some knowledge, I'll be in a position to form an opinion.)

Again, thank you for you pro-activeness. (Sadly, such behavior is unusual ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, for merger discussions, WP:MERGE would be a useful place to start reading up on the process. Best of luck. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Again FYI - (should you wish such information ;-) - my interest is (apparently!) WP:CLOSE. No interest in WP:MERGE. And again, Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Camp Island

I'm sorry about requesting speedy deletion for Camp Island; I thought that it had never been encyclopedic. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. The world didn't end, and the problem has been sorted out. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Farmers Union (brand)

Hi, the lead section of this article states that "Farmers Union is a brand name" (emphasis added). And considering that it is owned by a Japanese company now, I think that "(South Australia)" is not a proper phrase for disambiguation purpose, and therefore I moved Farmers Union (South Australia) to Farmers Union (brand). If I am wrong, let me know. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What errors are you referring to? Do you read what I explained in my talk page? --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. That's fine. Take your time. And I corrected the order of discussion. Some confusions were caused by edit conflict.--Neo-Jay (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)