User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive33

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archives

Jan-Feb07 Mar-Apr07 May-Jun07 Jul-Aug07 Sep-Oct07 Nov-Dec07
Jan-Feb08 Mar-Apr08 May-Jun08 Jul-Aug08 Sep-Oct08 Nov-Dec08
Jan-Feb09 Mar-Apr09 May-Jun09 Jul-Aug09 Sep-Oct09 Nov-Dec09
Jan-Feb10 Mar-Apr10 May-Jun10 Jul-Aug10 Sep-Oct10 Nov-Dec10
Jan-Feb11 Mar-Apr11 May-Jun11 Jul-Aug11 Sep-Oct11 Nov-Dec11
Jan-Feb12 Mar-Apr12 May-Jun12 Jul-Dec12
Jan-Jun13 Jul-Dec13

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Once upon a time there used to be an entry in the list down the left side of User and/or User Talk pages saying something like "email this user". I can't seem to find anything like that, (even on my own pages). Can someone please bring me up to date? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Emailuser ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too easy! Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Pdfpdf! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I find that the image is very pretty and have had a few comments from asking people to look at the Adelaide Wiki page, that photo frequently came up as the favourite. Bitumen is bitumen, every road has it, and to the average viewer it just looks like a road. I really hope it can stay, as it adds colour to the articles illustrations and makes our public spaces look nice and well kept. Jonah112 (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any adelaide-wiki-meetups planned? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing trying something for mid-February. One of the suggestions was to try out something a tad more formal: I have this great space at City West that is under utilized, and both near a pub and with a good pizza supplier. :) So we were discussing a regular event with a bit of a talk about something wiki-related every month or so, along with pizza and/or beer. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a proper reply on my talk - sorry for the delay getting back to you, but 'm a bit stressed over a software demo due on Monday. I keep finding bugs still, and can't be sure I can have them fixed in time. :(

I think we just need to set a fate and decide if we want to try a talk. In which case we also need someone to give it. One suggestion was to go over the state of SA articles, but that would take a bit to prepare. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I just put a copy here to remind me of the event. (i.e. otherwise it will be "out of sight - out of mind".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a heads up, i've started the Warrant Officer of the Air Force page. there is terribly little information on the subject. I can't see it advancing from 'Stub' anytime soon though haha. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pdfpdf. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Picnic at the Quarantine Station on Torrens Island on Sunday.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

Humpf. My wikipedia email isn't working - neither send, nor receive. So no, I don't have mail (dammit!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When sending the email, I had checked the box for having the content of my email to you also sent back to me - but that hasn't happened - but I have received an emailed notification of your posting on my talk page - twice. It's possible the WP email system may be playing up - but have you tried editing your preferences? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at my prefs last night - they "look" OK. (But I haven't changed them.) Pdfpdf (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pdfpdf. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is email test.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

- plain text email test. Bahudhara (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

(edit conflict)

Thanks!

"Manual" email received. (Along with two from MediaWiki Mail saying you'd changed my talk page.)

(I manually replied - did you receive the reply?) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just received an email from WP with the content of my test email to you - so that side if it is working. Bahudhara (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try sending via WP again. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. From this end it looks like it worked. Could you try sending something to me via WP, please? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		Pdfpdf, you've done a great job over the last year, keep up the good work.
		this WikiAward was given to Pdfpdf by Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) on 11:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww. Shucks. Thanks Nat, much appreciated! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you were being ironic in this edit summary. Fortunately I've got a thick skin. Nevertheless, I would note that your edits cleaning up the duplication were much better and comprehensive than mine, and that the overall improvement to the article was significant. So - thanks for the help in finishing what I started. Yours, 2.101.36.57 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Good. Thank you. You're welcome. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this picture is a copyvio lifted from a website. Can one do a search of an image? How? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TinEye is a website that does that sort of thing. However, judging from this users uploads this appears to be one of many photos that they have uploaded that appear to be from scans of old photographs and slides taken on their travels in the USA, Australia etc over many years, so I don't believe its a copyvio.--Melburnian (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you! That's two new tools to put into my toolbox.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pd,

Thanks for your interest in these uploads. The photographer, Roy, has been taking pix for many, many, many decades. This includes historic sites - some of which have since been torn down - in almost every county in the US and in over 150 countries! I think it's quite important to help him upload the pix and place them in appropriate articles so that he can see the fruits of his efforts. I haven't been able to keep up with the trimming of the black borders, but have been able to get a bit of help there.

Would you care to pitch in? You might do this by trimming the black or by placing some of the Australian pix and coming up with proper categories for his pix on Commons. He's uploaded over 900 pix so far - mostly going alphabetically by state through US sites on the National Register of Historic Places, and is now going alphabetically by country. He's going to give us a break in March - while he goes out and gets more pix.

Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to pitch in? - I don't know about "pitch in", but I'd be happy to give you some help.

You might do this by trimming the black - Well, I've already done two ...

or by placing some of the Australian pix and coming up with proper categories for his pix on Commons. - Yeah. I'm capable of doing that. That could be interesting.

He's uploaded over 900 pix so far - Gulp.

and is now going alphabetically by country. - Where do I look to find the Australian ones?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

1) It would be useful to know the date that each picture was actually taken.

2) Why does he use ALL-BLOCK-CAPS? (shudder)

It's past 1 a.m. here - "'till the morrow". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last 3-4 days he's been "doing Australia". Almost all his pix are placed except for some from yesterday and today. The black border backlog goes back much longer however. One guy is starting from his earliest pix (in September) and moving forward. Perhaps you could start with his latest (from his user uploads on Commons) and move backwards.

Unfortunately, I think he gets overloaded with new-fangled technology, but I think the pix from the 1980s on are approx. correctly dated. I'd guess the ALL CAPS has to do with eyesight and small computer screens. Get some sleep. Cheers. Any help appreciated! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any pictures requiring cropping. (Does there?) Pdfpdf (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued interest. The dates for his Australian uploads was Feb. 6-8 which you can find at uploads if you "page back" (look at the bottom of the page) you can find these by date. I've put at least one category on each of these, but you'd probably be able to find more or better cats. After that there are always his newest uploads (now in Belgium). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping

There doesn't appear to be any pictures requiring cropping. (Does there?) Pdfpdf (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user working on cropping the images from User:KLOTZ on Commons. I have made it up to December 28 (IIRC), plus some of the more urgent recent ones. What I look at is the gallery of his uploads here. I use User:Cropbot on Commons and I add the Caetegory:Photographs by User:KLOTZ after I crop a pciture. On a good day I might crop 20 or 30. Just looking at the most recent page of uploads, there are several that need to be cropped (most scanned slides with a black frame / edge). Any help would indeed be appreciated ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your posting. It's past bedtime here - I'll have a look tomrrow. Cheers & Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - if you are able to place / use the Australian photos, that is a better use of your time and skills (at least until they are taken care of). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up after me, Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia‎. It is appreciated. I have noted that the Defence Honours and Awards inquiry is still ongoing as of February 2013 but will try and get some more information. I think they have finished their hearings (including my 15 seconds of fame on the ABC TV) but I do not know whether they have written and submitted their report. I hope that Mike Kelly who has been bumped upstairs as Minister for Defence Materiel is no longer the responsible Minister. I am also trying to pin down exactly when and what agreement led to the decision not to seek imperial honours in the future. I am not sure what is involved in changing the title to ‘Australian Honours System’. Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia is a subtitle not a title. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also trying to pin down exactly when and what agreement led to the decision not to seek imperial honours in the future. - That would be a useful addition - good luck with your pin!

I am not sure what is involved in changing the title to ‘Australian Honours System’. Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia is a subtitle not a title. - Good question. Short answer: a) It needs consensus. b) In this case (for technical reasons, not political) it will require an admin to "do the deed". Because I think it is a good question, I've started

Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia#Rename to "Australian Honours System"?

.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(From User talk:Jesse V.#AWB)

Hi! I'm fascinated by this edit - I've never used AWB, but I gather you do.
Have you been using it for very long? How useful do you find it?
How much of what it does is automated? For example, in the abovementioned edit, what did you actually ask it to do?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. AWB is a very useful tool for making repetitious edits. It has many tools built into it that are very helpful to many editors. One of these is auto-tagging, where it suggests changes to an article's tags based on a certain set of criteria. In the example you provided, AWB recognized that the article was of medium length, and technically no longer met the requirements of a stub article (although the article could be expanded more) and so it suggested removing the Stub tag. This made sense to me, so I approved the edit and it went through. I've used AWB for about a year now. Lately I've modified some of it's CSS so that I can see the suggested edit in a more concise manner, which makes it easier for me to judge it's suggestions.
2. Here are the main things I've enabled it to do:
   general fixes. These are maintainance things that it suggests. I'm shown a window of the proposed diff, and I either choose to hit "Save" or "Skip". I've added rules to AWB to make it certain pages that it has a difficult time correctly understanding (such as List of minor planets: 1001–2000) so now its suggestions are very reliable and approve its edit almost all of the time. Hopefully that answers your questions. :) • Jesse V.^(talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

From Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Technical question about wikitable column widths

{{

This is a question about table column widths, not about the data in the tables.

In the Past versions section, the table has 9 columns - viz:

Here is a copy of the first two and last two rows of the table:

Note that columns 2-8 are the same width as the widest piece of data displayed in them.

However, in the table in the Past versions section, if I roll the page down to the bottom of that section (i.e. to just before the "Userboxes" section), I see that columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the same width as the data within them, but columns 6, 7 and 8, are wider than the widest piece of data within them. I see the same thing in both Firefox and I.E. (Is anybody not seeing this?)

Can anyone explain why this is happening? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. (Note that in the "Past versions" section, although the 5th column at the top of the table is very wide, at the bottom of the table it is only as wide as the data, whereas the 6th column is wider than the data. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Pdfpdf! Normally I don't see what you're seeing. However, when I make my browser window bigger than the table itself, I can replicate what you see. It seems that column 6 ends in exactly the same place as the "Only main namespace edits" notes from the March-April 2004 rows, and that column 8 ends in exactly the same place as the "List ends at 4000 with xx,xxx edits." from the notes in the rows above. Maybe something about how the "colspan" functionality works? GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a few minutes of checking this out, I'm stumped. Everything appears to be good in terms of table parameters; for some reason, one of the earlier entries is making everything stretched out. Chalk it up to code magic! m.o.p 20:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I cut down the table until it stopped happening. It turns out that the key cell is the one containing "This links only to the list, which has been transcluded in this page since December 2006. List goes up to #2483 at 4588 edits". This is long enough to, at most window widths, wrap, and when there's more room available for the table than is strictly necessary otherwise, the several-colspan cell and it's correpsonding rows are expanded equally to match. The rows that get the unusual enlargement are precisely those underneath this cell. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you fixed that one cell, cells like "the one two above it would also cause trouble. So long as the width of that larger cell is linked to the sum of the four lower rows, you're going to get that sort of problem. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is more clear if you look at this, and expand your window width (and decrease your text zoom factor!) to the point where the cell in question stops wrapping and beyond. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (I guess MoP's "code magic" was closer than I thought; there does feel like there's an element of "slight of hand" involved.) I assume I've never noticed it before because such a situation rarely occurs? Again, thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so Daniel Keighran was awarded the Diamond Jubilee Medal in December and according to the rather brief article posted on the GG's website (http://www.gg.gov.au/events/presentation-queens-diamond-jubilee-medal-corporal-daniel-keighran-vc) the Cross of Valour recipients also receive the jubilee medals. The medal is awarded to Australians who are living holders of the Victoria Cross for Australia, the George Cross and the Cross of Valour. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 07:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Sherlock!

BTW: I know assume what I put against the Golden Jubilee is incomplete, but like 3 dobermans on a lawyer, I thought it was a good start ... Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did receive a list of Australian recipients of the Golden Jubilee Medal from Warren Truss maybe a year ago(?). It consisted of four names; Edward Kenna, Keith Payne, Michael Pratt and another which I have forgotten (maybe a GC?), although that does put into question CV eligibility which the GG seems to believe exists. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 10:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed! And also, if the CVs are eligible, why didn't she invite them to join her, Julia, RS, Payne, Keighran & Pratt?

Can you track down that 4th name? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling I threw the letter out rather recently, I might just re-contact his office. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Golden Jubilee Medal. Depending upon the cut-off date, the fourth name may have been Sir Roden Cutler who died in 2002. Re the Diamond Jubilee Medal. The VC and GC Association nominated all surviving VC and GC recipients for the medal and also the VCFA and VCFNZ recipients. This was a bit naughty since they are not imperial awards. However, the British rectified the matter and granted the medal to the Cross of Valour recipients. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Surname lists are not disambiguation pages, but set indices as noted in

Does splitting it cause some sort of problem? —Xezbeth (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy change; discussion on surname articles is fragmented across lots of different talk pages so it's hard to determine conensus anyway. By my understanding given names and surnames are regarded as partial title matches, so while it's fine if they're part of a disambiguation page it would be better if they were in a separate index/list article that can be expanded on and referenced as necessary. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the page be "userfied" or emailed to you. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, have reverted my speedy tag, I looked into it a bit more and can see that you've made quite a lot of changes to the page since it was deleted. Have a nice day :) —Noiratsi (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each WikiProject has its own assessment page, based upon

1) It is my understanding that the lede summarises the contents of the article. Can you please explain to me why mentioning Phthisis & Consumption in the lede is not a good idea?
2) Why did you remove the "See also" section which mentions Miliary tuberculosis?
I'm looking forward to reading your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1)We already state in the second paragraph "the latter giving rise to the formerly prevalent term "consumption"" and we mention the Greek term phthisis in the history section. Giving greater prominence IMO is undue weight.

2)You will notice that miliary tb is linked in this section [1] Thus it does not need to go in a see also section. See also sections are not recommended per

talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

2) No, I had not noticed. Yes, I now see that it is. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) It seems I did not make the intent of my question clear enough. Yes, what you say is accurate. But it does not address my intent. Hence, I will attempt to be clearer in communicating my intent.

It is my understanding that the lede summarises the contents of the article. Although not currently used widely, the terms "consumption" and "phthisis" were once widely used. Although I am familiar with the use of the term "consumption", when I was reading William Townsend (mayor)#Personal I had not previously heard of the term "phthisis". When I searched for the term, I found a disambiguation page which I cleaned up, and then linked the article to it. I then looked at the Tuberculosis page and found nothing about either consumption or phthisis in the opening paragraph. Thinking this rather strange, I considered the various options (e.g. "hat notes", redirection, etc.) and decided that editing the opening paragraph was the least bad of the alternatives. As I have acknowledged, "Yes, what you say is accurate". However, it is not very helpful to a reader coming to the article wondering what, if anything, phthisis &/or consumption have to do with tuberculosis.

Hence: Can you please explain to me why mentioning phthisis & consumption in the lede is not a good idea?

I'm afraid that I don't understand how adding "which has also been referred to as Phthisis and Consumption" is giving those terms undue weight, but I'm open to explanation. I would prefer a reason rather than a statement of opinion.

Thank you for your time. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption is mentioned in the second paragraph. I do not think it needs to be mentioned twice in the lead. Phthsis is in the history section. People can search the article for these terms. Not everything can go in the lead.

talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm disappointed that you have completely ignored my request and questions, and simply repeated yourself without adding any new information. Oh well, "c'est la vie" I guess. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on! jmcw (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwwww. Thank you! Just returned from a very nice dinner with my daughters and friends. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
User:The Banner (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pdfpdf, I'm not entirely comfortable with what you've done in this deletion discussion. Modifying other editors' contributions to the discussion, even if it's just to format and reorganize them, is risky. It could subtly alter the context of the discussion, and there's always a possibility of accidentally removing content. Also, adding the summary table implies that the discussion is a vote, which it is not. Pburka (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments. I've reverted the table. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Fixed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There is a general consensus that academic qualifications including fellowships are not included in the infobox or lead.

Thanks for your concern. Interesting conundrum. There are two types of fellowships: those that are functionally academic qualifications (e.g. FRCGP/FRCOG/FRCP/etc); and those that are elected in recognition of the excellence of their contributions to their fields (e.g. FRS/FAA/FTSE/FIE/etc.) Yes, I agree about the "academic qualifications" group, but the other group are "Honours and awards".

Did you have any particular examples in mind? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So soon? Certainly not in styles, Ref her Official Website. Honours and awards are by nations not by institutions.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sorry, but I must be on a different wavelength tonight. (i.e. I don't understand some of your response)

So soon? - Don't understand.

Certainly not in styles - I'm prepared to admit that it is possible that there is a gap between what I think is logical/reasonable, and reality. (i.e. I don't agree, but who cares what I think!)

Honours and awards are by nations not by institutions. - No, sorry, that's just a bit too broad. But I'm not about to die in a ditch fighting over it. If somebody else agrees with me, then I'm prepared to participate in a talk page discussion, but until then, I'm not sufficiently prepared, or willing to spend the effort getting prepared, to disagree with you.

i.e. Do what you think best - these days you have enough skill, knowledge and experience to justify your actions.

As I said earlier, thanks for your concern. And thanks for bringing it to my attention, and thanks for the discussion.

Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is FTSE an agenda of yours? I expected more of you!--Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! That's a pretty loaded comment!!

Is FTSE an agenda of yours? - No. In fact, I'd never heard of it until a couple of months ago. I am interested in the Australian Academy of Science, and its Fellows. But when working on that I kept coming across ATSE and FTSE, so I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone.

I expected more of you! - Uh huh. What does that mean? I'm not offended - just ignorant.

Just checked, she is an Honorary FTSE so like Honorary doctorates does not warrant the postnominal. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you check, and where? As far as I know, and as far as I can determine from the ATSE literature, they don't award Honorary Fellowships. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was a bit preloaded, but I have come to respect your wikiing. I too don't have the time or inclination to get too heated over this issue. The only reference to Bashir receiving the Honorary FTSE on the Governor's website, I found nothing on the ATSE website or elsewhere about it. I am not a fan of the historic "styles" section but they are referenced to different areas post the honorary fellowship and does not include them. I apologise for the accusation, that was an incorrect late night assumption while sipping a Laphroaig Quarter Cask. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laphroaig. I'm envious. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pdfpdf,

I owe you an apology for taking down three of the pictures you put up on the Right Said Fred page without leaving an explanation. That was sloppy of me.

I removed the pictures because Fred Fairbrass, with whom I'm in contact, asked me to. I'm not quite sure why he's not keen on them, but that was his request. I leave it up to you whether to comply with his wishes - which of course you're not obliged to - or not.

best wishes - Ken Macdonald

Ken Macdonald (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ken MacDonald,

Thank you for your note, apology and explanation. On the one hand, I think the photos you removed are better pictures than the one you left behind. On the other hand, your request is reasonable, and very polite.

If you choose to remove the photos with an edit comment briefly explaining what you are doing and why you are doing it, I'll continue to "sit on the fence" and do nothing.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I agree the photos are good, but presumably Fred has his reasons. best wishes - Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Macdonald (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recommend a good admin?

John McDouall Stuart‎; 08:53 . . (-1,333)‎ . . ‎120.88.128.83 (talk)‎ (→‎Early life) (Tag: section blanking)

Doug butler (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(That might depend on what your definition of "good" is, mightn't it?)

It seems I don't use admins much these days. (I've just discovered that my favourite and most used admin "retired" 2 years ago!)

• Worm^TT · (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC) was very helpful 18 months ago. He's still active, (but I've had no need to seek his help in the last 18 months.)[reply]
• I've had several brief interactions with the LadyofShalott - the most recent being 15:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC). She's always been polite and helpful.[reply]
• There is a local lass who seems to be held in high regard:

(From User talk:Riana#You're baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!)

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

Howdy! I have no idea who you are, (or were), but I find the fact that "they" restored you to "god" status as a routine matter is pretty impressive! On another level, ... I've decided to get involved with placing Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Invite on certain talk pages. It will be nice to meet you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I did go to one of the Adelaide meetups back in... oh, gosh, yonks ago now. My return is primarily motivated by a few Adelaidean articles I saw were missing, so I'd definitely be interested in coming to a meetup but I don't know how much time I can spare (Mad March/Mad-Mid-Feb). But keep me posted, I'll need to have a think! ~ Riana ⁂ 08:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other polite and helpful still-active-admins that I've only had one brief interaction with (and hence I know very little else about them), are

• WilyD 07:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to other polite and helpful still-active-admins that I have forgotten to mention - no offence intended.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks pdf. I guess what I was really asking was what one does about such pests. Doug butler (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That's a very different question!

Short answer: It depends how much of a pest they are.

Longer answer:

If it's just a single edit, revert it and put something simple in the edit comment. (e.g. "rvv" or use one of "Common minor edit summaries") If you're annoyed enough, also put one of the "standard warnings" on their talk page.

If it happens again, use a more descriptive and pointed edit comment, (e.g. "rvv - repeated vandalism will lead to you being prevented from editing wikipedia"), and put the next higher level of "standard warnings" on their talk page.

If it continues to happen, and you revert it again, you risk getting involved in an edit war, but worse, you risk being accused of violating

WP:3RR

and getting blocked yourself - if it's blatent vandalism, the risk is low, but if it can be interpreted otherwise by someone with a bee in their bonnet, they probably will, and the risk is higher.

So at this point it gets more involved. Have a look at

WP:AIV - with luck that will lead you to the information you might want. If not, have a look at the Welcome message on the top of your talk page - there are many relevant links in the "Getting help", "Policies and guidelines" and "Miscellaneous" sections. If you're still at a loss, rattle my cage. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Getting help

Frequently asked questions • Tips • Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention

Policies and guidelines

... Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry • ... • Vandalism • ...

Miscellaneous

... Vandalism ... Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Aha, I didn't realise such warnings were applied by humble foot soldiers. This guy has a gallery of 'em Doug butler (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. And the fact that this guy has a gallery of 'em illustrates that most deliberate vandals simply ignore them, because humble foot soldiers have no ability to enforce them. i.e. The warnings are generally a waste of your time.

It's not until he's made a big enough nuisance of himself over a short enough period of time that satisfies the requirements of

WP:AIV

, that REAL things can, and might, start to happen.

If the person is logged-in, and thus is using a user name, action is usually fairly swift and effective - the user name gets blocked, for a period that ranges from 24 hours to permanent, depending on how much of a nuisance they are now and have been in the past. If the person creates and uses a new account whilst they are blocked, AND it's obvious that they are the same person, they are classes as a "sockpuppet". Unlike vandalism, WP takes sockpuppetry very seriously. Any mention of obvious sockpuppetry on

WP:AIV

usually gets quick and severe attention - usually, both accounts are blocked permanently.

However, if they are not logged in, the effectiveness of Administrator Intervention is limited. "Anyone" may be assigned that same IP address when they connect to the internet, so blocking the IP address means that the admin is blocking everybody else who may one day be assigned that IP address when they connect to the internet. Hence it is very rare that an IP address will be blocked for very long, because it gives WP very negative PR when innocent people find they can't edit wikipedia. You may occasionally come across Range Blocks, where a range of IP addresses are blocked or restricted - this often happens to schools where lots of the students frequently and endlessly make nuisances of themselves. (Hmmm. I wonder if that's a citerion parents should use when selecting schools for their offspring?)

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

That's what this userbox is about.

But whatever you, or administrators do, there is very little that can be done to prevent the determined nuisance. e.g. Sockpuppet "Swamilive" thinks it's all a wonderfull game and likes to show the world how easily he can thumb his nose at wikipedia. He has set up dozens, probably hundreds, of accounts, all of which eventually get blocked permanently. Undiscouraged, he just creates a new account, and uses it until it gets blocked. Have a look at User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive31#Swamilive Pdfpdf (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks pdf; most enlightening. It puts my annoyance into perspective. Doug butler (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edmund Ralph Brockman (1828-1908) (grandfather) ADB
• Elizabeth Deborah Brockman (1837–1915) (grandmother) obit
• Frederick Slade Drake-Brockman (1857-1917) (father) ADB obit
• Grace Bussell (1860–1935) (mother) obit

Three daughters and four sons:

• Edmund Drake-Brockman (1884-1949) ADB obit
  • Constance Drake-Brockman (1889–1946) (wife) obit
• Geoffrey Drake-Brockman (1885-1977) (brother) ADB obit
  • Henrietta Frances Drake-Brockman (1901-1968) (sister-in-law) ADB
• Deborah Vernon Hackett (1887-1965) (sister) ADB
  • John Winthrop Hackett (1848-1916) (brother-in-law 1905-1916) ADB obit
  • John Winthrop Hackett (British army officer)
    (nephew)
  • Frank Beaumont Moulden (1876-1932) (brother-in-law 1918-1932) ADB
  • Basil Buller Murphy (d. 1963) (brother-in-law 1936-1963)
• Karl Edgar Drake-Brockman (b.1891)

Category:Drake-Brockman family

Hi Pdfpdf, I was just wondering where you came across

I found it amongst the papers of my parents when selling their house. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pdf, FWIIW, the postcard is late 1930s, the tourer coming towards the camera is a 36 or 37 Chevy I think, the car semi obscured car behind the bus looks like a 36 pontiac, the two-tone in front of Chandlers is perhaps a 37-8 Mercury.CheersLexysexy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's "ca. 1940". Thank you! (Fortunately, that's still well before the 1955 Australian "copyright expired" cutoff) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their Teahouse .

What's the easiest way to rename a file? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(File:Townsville_flinders_street_1920s.jpg should be named File:Townsville_flinders_street_c.1940.jpg If/when I try to use move, it responds: You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: You do not have permission to move files.)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! (That was quick AND effective.) Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! So I gather the answer is: "As you can't do it yourself, the easiest (and only) way to do it is to ask an admin."? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as admins, some others have the WP:File mover permission. There is a {{Rename media}} template you can use to ask for a file to be moved (I only found that out just now, by reading about File movers - you learn something new every day!) JohnCD (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes, some of it is useful! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Hi,

You have reverted a change in the Nancy Wilson article on the grounds that it was unexplained content removal. In fact, there is no need to explain removal of unsourced content. There was a citation needed tag on that which has not yet been fulfilled.

I know you've done a lot of work on that article, so I did not want to revert your edition immediately. But I guess the person who did that change thought that there was too much POV in the original wording, and I agree with that. Just stating that Heart fans were disappointed when they were not inducted, even if still unsourced, sounds quite logical. Of course, if you have a source for the content you restored, by all means add it and the matter will be settled.--Gorpik (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How remarkably civil, polite, logical, well constructed and well argued! (Sadly, you are a member of a minority.) To disagree with you would simply be vexatious. I hope our paths cross frequently in the future, and I look forward to it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW: It wasn't me who added that sentence/phrase - I guess I must have a "bee in my bonnet" about editors who don't explain themselves ... )

Well, that was the least I could do with someone who dedicates efforts to our common goal of a better wikipedia. I quite understand that most editions by unregistered users are bad and it is easy to overlook that some of them can be worthy. Thanks for that and see you around.--Gorpik (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted another editor's (171.159.194.11) edit:

(cur | prev) 12:32, 17 April 2013‎ Pdfpdf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,691 bytes) (+81)‎ . . (Undid revision 549891542 by 171.159.194.11 (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) (undo)
(cur | prev) 08:43, 17 April 2013‎ 71.237.139.130 (talk)‎ . . (64,610 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (→‎The 2010s: added wiki links) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:15, 11 April 2013‎ 171.159.194.11 (talk)‎ . . (64,546 bytes) (-81)‎ . . (undo)

But I had edited after 171.159.194.11 and thought your revert cleared my changes. No big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.139.130 (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICAT B1) Operation SLIPPER - for the period 11 October 2001 to 30 July 2009 within the area bounded by:

ICAT B2) Operation SLIPPER - for the period 31 July 2009 to 19 February 2012 within the area bounded by:

ICAT B3) Operation SLIPPER - for the period commenced 20 February 2012 within the area bounded by:

IRAQ 2003 i) Operation FALCONER — for the period 18 March 2003 to 22 July 2003 in the specified areas comprising the following:

Bearing in mind our earlier conversation, I thought the above might amuse you. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

;-) You are correct - it does. Thanks! (I'll keep it in mind for the next time one of these pointless "PrimaryTopic" conversations arise.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately lots of these come up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Article alerts. The term I would use to describe these pointless RMs would get me blocked indef...."ego w*nk" --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yes indeed!! "My favourite page is more important than all the others". They remind me of all those "mine is bigger than yours" scenarios of adolescence and mid-life-crises. (Personally, I'd rather have a red Ferarri than "win" an RM discussion ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Which reminds me of an old joke: I'd like to be able to afford to run a Ferarri. I don't actually want a Ferarri - I'd just like to be able to afford to run one. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have just updated the first paragraph of

Background: Several years ago I was involved in discussion about "orders of precedence" vs "orders of wearing" where, to my surprise, I learnt that there are people on the planet even more pedantic than I am! These discussions involved the field at the bottom of infoboxes on medals pages titled "Prededence". (e.g. See VC, OzVC, CV, GC.) I had wrongly assumed that "order of precedence" and "order of wearing" were the same thing, but these boxes continue to contain statements either explicitly stating, or implying, things like "GC is the same order of precedence as VC", when quite clearly they are not the same order of wearing. Despite my requests, I never got, and have never found, a definition of this "Order of Precedence". Thus I gave up on the topic, even though it continues to niggle me - as shown by my addition of the lede in Feb. So, as an aside, in addressing this rename, you need to keep in mind what's in the infoboxes of medal pages, and the general confusion about, or lack of awareness of, the difference between "order of precedence" and "order of wearing". Recent example:

• 23:56, 26 April 2013‎ Nford24(Talk | contribs)‎ . . (fixup based on actual order of precedence)
• 00:02, 27 April 2013 . .Distinguished Service Cross (Australia) ‎ (fixup based on actual order of precedence)
• 00:01, 27 April 2013 . .Star of Courage (Australia) ‎ (fixup based on actual order of precedence)
• 00:00, 27 April 2013 . .Star of Gallantry ‎ (fixup based on actual order of precedence)
• 23:56, 26 April 2013 . .Cross of Valour (Australia) ‎ (fixup based on actual order of precedence)
• etc.

how do I start? - I'd "test the waters" by posting a question on the Milhist talk page and see how much and what response you get. (

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals

)

• If you get lots of positive response, move it, and that should be that. (fait accompli)
• If you get lots of negative response, perhaps you may want to cut your losses and give up before starting?
• However, I expect you'll get neither!

So, keeping in mind what response you get (if any), I'd then put some sort of move proposal on

Australian Honours Order of Precedence

.

If/when you get to any point where you don't know how to proceed, rattle my cage and I'll try to solve your problems, but I expect our recent interlude at

Talk:Australian honours system/Archive 2 will contain examples of how to do, (and how NOT to do!) most things. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Cautious is good advice. I was aware that some have assumed that "order of precedence" and "order of wearing" is not the same thing. Have a smile at the official Canadian pamphlet on the issue http://www.gg.ca/honours/pdf/wearing_e.pdf see page 7. The logical extension is info boxes but that would need to be on a country by country basis. I agree with Nford24’s changes and will see what he thinks. Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm. I think it would be more useful to talk to someone who thinks they are different, and find out why they think they are different. Posting on the Milhist and ODM talk pages may be the most effective way to do that. Alternatively, (or additionally), you could look at the edit history of a page that says two medals are the same order of precedence, and find out which editor said that, and if they're still active (look at their contributions to see when they last contributed), ask them. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your response above suggests/implies that you think there is no difference between order of precedence and wearing. I think you may be wrong - not in the Australian situation perhaps, and by the looks of it, not in the Canadian case either - but I'm fairly confident that it means some thing different to the Brits (even if the pedants can't/won't supply me with a definition. Maybe that's an issue to bring up at milhist too. In fact, I'll do that now. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The British and Australian documents have comparable concepts unlike the Canadian document which groups similar awards together. Although the Canadians phrases ‘order of precedence’ and ‘order of wearing’ seem to be interchangeable, I would not suggest a change to either the Canadian page or the Canadian info boxes. If you run a search for the phrase ‘order of precedence’ in the Canada Gazette you get 63 hits from the ODM warrants whereas ‘order of wear’ has no hits. However, since the phrase ‘order of precedence’ has been superseded in Australia by ‘order of wearing’ I think we first start with updating the page title. I will be delighted if someone can explain to me the difference between ‘order of precedence’ and ‘order of wearing’. I can remember being amused in the 1990s when someone corrected me for wrongly using the term ‘order of precedence’. I actually had a copy of the 1992 version in front of me at the time (and which is still in front of me as I write) and I got the lame excuse it would be updated when next issued. It was but I am not sure if it was 2002 or earlier. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I've had some response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#"Order of precedence" vs "Order of wearing" that you may find interesting.

Yes, that is a difference with the Canadians.

I think we first start with updating the page title. - Well, you have to start somewhere; that seems as good a palce as any. (And better than most others.)

I will be delighted if someone can explain to me the difference between ‘order of precedence’ and ‘order of wearing’. - Yes indeed. Me too. (But I'm not holding my breath while I'm waiting!) However, some of the stuff on the Milhist page is an interesting confirmation of what I already thought. (i.e. Order of precedence has nothing to do with medals; it's about who sits where and on which tables.) No, it's not as good as having the document in front of me when feet are put in mouths, but it's a good start! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're cheap. I didn't mean change them. He was currently adding them, so I thought why not make them go directly to the right place. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21:05, 14 February 2012‎ M.O.X (moved Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Papua New Guinea to Talk:Papua New Guinean honours system: Per naming convention of national honours systems articles)

Where might I find the specification / definition of this naming convention? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW: FYI. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Hi Pdfpdf, please see Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title. Hope this helps! Regards, James ^{(T • C)} • 10:07pm • 11:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What different purpose do they serve? The navbox shows the predecessor, the successor and the year. It links to the award/position etc. The sucbox shows the predecessor, the successor and the year. It links to the award/position etc, it just does it in a really ugly clunky page consuming way. What did I miss? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I get it now, those nav boxes aren't properly formatted, I get why you want to keep them. Mind you, updating those navboxes to be correctly formatted (i.e. chronologically ordered), then they both would serve the same purpose. Why are these nav boxes like this? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what you asked at Doherty, please explain there why the information which is the same in both cases is required twice please. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be careful when you "undo" my so-called "sloppy edits" (

WP:AGF?) that you don't undo other edits I've made which are actually good and non-controversial like tagging dead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh my god, I've just done some digging and found Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, which is staggering to me. And the example of a good use is Winston Churchill. My god. Okay, well if you're on-board with this approach, feel free to revert all my edits, and there's no need for further discussion, I think this doesn't apply at all to the Australian of the Year award, a case of an award given to one/two people once a year with no name change, no positional change etc. However, do as you see fit, I will get on to other things less intrusive to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't pretend to know (or understand, or agree with) everything about wikipedia policy, but I do know some things about some bits, and have had the mis-fortune to cross paths with people who prefer policy over common sense. (OMG! Does this mean I'm becoming one of those people?) I do not disagree with a number of your comments and conclusions. And there are a number of other WP policies that I think are just plain stupid. But, that's the policy ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, this isn't a policy, or even a guideline, it's a Wikiproject. But as I've said, I've drop the matter entirely and do something else. Thanks for your reply. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed this to a redirect to Roman military decorations and punishments; the other article has existed much longer and already has all the content. It seemed so plainly a duplicate that I didn't go through a merge procedure (no content was actually moved to the other article). If I've stepped on toes, please feel free to propose a merge instead, or to take other action. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. (Thanks for asking.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not complaining - just ignorant and confused. I assume you know Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 8 exists(?).
Why did you create Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 8? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its housekkeping issue to tie in pages - we have WikiProject Australia project tamplate/tags on all items related to the project - is that they can then be seen where they are...

At some stages you might even see tothersiders (sydney, brisbane) editors even putting things on the talk pages of 'wikipedians in adelaide' - to get a handle on the larger picture of wikimedians in Australia.

If you not 100% sure - have a look at my edits - [2] and you might see that I do a lot of category/talk page tagging - it is a basic housekeeping venture that organises information. It helps sort out what is what.

I hope that clarified things - please feel free to ask further If I havent explained adequately...

Thank you. (I might still be confused, but I'm no longer ignorant!)

If you are not in the hills of adelaide at the moment - good! the tv shots make it look really scary... and that doesnt take into account that I am a volunteer fire brigade person here in Perth...

Yes indeed. 400ha = 1,000acres - That's a lot of black trees. It's highly fortuitous that so far the tally is 0 lives, 1 house and one shed.

Slightly ironic that the governor's "summer residence", which was almost totally destroyed by bushfire in 1955, was a derelict ruin for 50 years, and has recently been restored, is once again under threat from bushfire ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wildfires have no discrimination when it comes to human heritage - our (ie Western Australia) Margaret Riverfires - of the other year which changed not only the heritage of the area but also the political landscape of fire control in the state - ripped through some priceless heritage with no compunction, so to speak...

sats 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I notice that Municipal Tramways Trust has some details on Adelaide trams that are covered in greater detail at Trams in Adelaide. There was talk some time back to merge the two, which was dropped for good reason, but I reckon instead of the partial duplication there should be just a "see main article". Would you mind looking at this? Doug butler (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm fiddling with beer glass sizes and names at the moment - will get to the trams in about half an hour. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Trams

You ask interesting questions. (Or, perhaps, you ask questions about topics I find interesting?)

I assume you are suggesting that Municipal Tramways Trust#Equipment be merged into Trams in Adelaide#Electric tram types? And that Municipal Tramways Trust#Equipment should say something like "see Trams in Adelaide#Electric tram types for details of MTT's Electric Trams"? If so, I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MTT

Talk:Trams in Adelaide#Merge Municipal Tramways Trust article into this one says:

as the MTT article, when it's fully written, should cover much more than trams. I can see a sections on the personel, staffing practices, regulations (like one where women were fined 50 shillings for having unsafe hatpins), kensington gardens, their contribution to the River Torrens flood prevention schemes, petrol buses, and the 17 years they spent as mostly just a bus company.

I think that would be great, but it was written 6 years ago, and sadly, none of these aspirations have been realised.

Hence, for the reasons mentioned, I think MTT should be retained - but when the electric trams section has been removed, there won't be much left. Maybe at that same time, "place holders" could be inserted to indicate the broader activities of the MTT? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, placeholders is a good idea. I think I could add some useful details. Doug butler (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Redgum and Captain Matchbox Whoopee Band dont make it into the airwaves anymore - they had choice comments about what you might think or dare say about current conditions - the words of the 70's and 80's ring as true today...

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)[reply]

Well! That was unexpected. Thank you! Thank you very much!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sortable list of islands of Western Australia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

Thanks,

" 'tothersiders " ??? - I'm a croweater! (Not one of those easterners!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks!! It's nice to be appreciated. [reply]

arggh grovelling in the black bassendean sand with my dogs, I bow to your ethnicity with humble apologies and profuse expletives that I should tar you with the brush of the eastern seaboard-ness in your identity, etc...

sats 14:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey! You're really good at this grovelling thing. I'm guessing you must have been married for several years and had lots of practise? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC) LOL with a big smile, followed by periodic bursts of chuckling ... [reply]

:)

sats 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

its all too late - Ive answered on my own talk page, gnight

sats 15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

At present Rymill is a redirect page to John Rymill. Assuming you think it a good idea, are you able to convert this to a disambiguation page? I have made all the Rymill links explicit. Doug butler (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pdfpdf (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. I don't know how you do it. Thanks again. Doug butler (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pdfpdf. When you moved

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Dove Island" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why

Dove Island (Canada). The pages in the list do NOT point to Dove Island. What's going on? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=Sortable_list_of_islands_of_Western_Australia

Dabsfix

http://toolserver.org/~dpl/dab_fix_list.php?title=Dove_Island

Disambig fix list for Dove Island

This page is updated daily; the last update completed 6 hours 54 minutes ago. When the list is updated, any dablink that has been fixed will be removed from this list. If an article title is struck through, that means it's been edited since the last update. That way, with a page refresh, you can see what articles you've already worked on. A struck through title hasn't necessarily been fixed yet.

Dablinks

http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Sortable_list_of_islands_of_Western_Australia

Hello, I'm

I don't understand your recent edit summary about vandalism. I hope you don't think I did any. I recall correcting the spelling of "arose" (which had been "aose"), and nothing else. Your edit seemed to involve the name of somebody in a reference. Lou Sander (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Almost) nothing to do with you. A vandal did two edits - you reverted one of them, saying it was a typo. It wasn't: both the one you fixed/reverted, and the other one, are/were vandalism. Does that address your concern(s)? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It DOES address my concerns.

Good! Sorry to have confused you and/or caused you concern. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I like all things Aussie, though I've never been there.

You ought to. I've yet to meet an American who hasn't enjoyed it here. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated the article Pissant, into which somebody inserted an Adelaide-related comment. I thought it wasn't worth mentioning in the article, but others disagreed, so it's still there.

Also BTW, I was looking at the Odd Fellows article because my girlfriend said (playfully and not inaccurately) that I was "odd". I had heard of the Odd Fellows here in the U.S., but didn't know anything about them. Lou Sander (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have the time and interest, there's plenty of interesting history. Sadly, I don't think there's been much of interest since the 1980s. (But I'm very willing to be proven wrong!). Please feel free to email me if you wish to continue the conversation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable list of islands of Western Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kimberley, Tree Island, Twin Islands, Shag Rock and Turkey Island

A tag has been placed on

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Captain Conundrum's talk page.
Message added 13:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Interested to know why you put an apparently pointless entry of Laplace Island (disambiguation) within the 'See also' of Laplace Island (Antarctica). Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 12:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons. None of them particularly compelling, but basically all of them aimed at making life easier for readers. Obviously, this is highly subjective, and no doubt many might disagree with me, but never-the-less ...

• If you get "here" somehow, and realise it isn't where you want to be, what do you do? Having a link to the dab page gives you an easy option.
• Since the early 1990s, I've firmly believed that if a hyperlink takes you somewhere, then there should be an explicit link visible to take you to related topics, and/or back to where you came from. (Yes, highly subjective.)

And others. Happy to go into more detail if you wish.

Turning tables, why do you consider it to be "apparently pointless"? I'm interested to understand your POV.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I work on the basis of

WP:NAMB - in this example people coming to Laplace Island (Antarctica) do so beacuse the are interested in "Laplace Island" in "Antarctica". The link to Laplace Island (disambiguation) is a link to a disambiguation page which does not further disambiguate "Laplace Island" in "Antarctica". If if did, I would have thought the better approach would in any case be to use a WP:Hatnote. Regards. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 13:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmm. Now you've really confused me. When I had a hatnote there, you didn't like that, either.

And you didn't answer my question: why do you consider it to be "apparently pointless"? (Or if you did, I didn't understand / recognise it as such.)

Further

WP:NAMB is making a MAJOR assumption for which it has no basis, viz: people coming to Laplace Island (Antarctica) do so beacuse the are interested in "Laplace Island" in "Antarctica". I have been to Laplace Island (Antarctica)

MANY times recently, and currently I have NO interest in it, or the Antarctic.

The basic assumption is unreliable and flawed.

Hence, again I ask you: why do you consider it to be "apparently pointless"? I'm interested to understand your POV.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following a Wikipedia guideline, which I see you have a problem with. As for confusion, you haven't clarified why the Laplace Island disambiguation page is of particular interest to this article, over and above all the other Wikepedia pages that are available to choose from. Regards. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a prompt reply, but I'm still a little confused.

Yes, you're following

WP:NAMB

. How does that explain "apparently pointless"? i.e. What essential point that you are making am I missing?

you haven't clarified why the Laplace Island disambiguation page is of particular interest to this article - Not so!

• If you get "here" somehow, and realise it isn't where you want to be, what do you do? Having a link to the dab page gives you an easy option.
• Since the early 1990s, I've firmly believed that if a hyperlink takes you somewhere, then there should be an explicit link visible to take you to related topics, and/or back to where you came from.
• And others. Happy to go into more detail if you wish.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	This is for your readiness to accept criticism on your many contributions to the Nancy Wilson article. Gorpik (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pdf! Before I put too much work into it, would you mind looking at User:Doug butler/Murray-Darling steamboats? Doug butler (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. (Be pleased to.) See User:Doug butler/Murray-Darling steamboats2 and your talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please note I am back from the mysterious bush - please note what i did with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudin_Island_%28Kimberley_coast%29 narrower scopes would be v helpful, trust all is well - cheers

please note I am back from the mysterious bush - Highly cryptic, and ... mysterious ...

please note what i did ... - Do I have to? I'd rather sweep it under the carpet so no-one notices ...

trust all is well - Thanks. It isn't, but there's nothing you or I can do about that.

Conversely, trust all is well with you and yours. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yeah close enough, and no cigars. if youre ever lost for things to do, the task of adding project tags in some interesting and disgusting subjects are always available...

sats 14:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL! (I think we might have similar senses of humour.) I'll keep that in mind. Really enjoyed interacting with you - will endevour to find numerous excuses to continue to do so in the future. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read my contribs and youll see my ghoulish predilictions, who in their right mind late on sat night wants to consider the various forms of barbaric death committed on ancestral soil...

sats 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ummmmm ... Errrr .... Teenage boys? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad tv can bring it on to persons much more aged than teenaged...

sats 14:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

ROTFL! Too many options to respond with! (Or at least, to respond with in public fora.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this - a list of JTFs is needed. Numerical allocations 1-999 appear to be at ACP 113, accessible via the main

Hi Buckshot! Thanks for the thanks. I'm afraid I'm confused by your reference. It appears to me that ACP 113 is assigning TF numbers - not JTF numbers. Am I missing something? (a.k.a. Help!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All USMCEB TFs start as TFs. They can be multi-service TFs, in which case they can be JTFs, or can be multi-national, multi-service TFs, in which case they can be Combined Joint Task Forces. JTF 631 is routinely described as Combined Joint Task Force 631, but it is a number allocated from within the series the U.S. Military Communications-Electronic Board assigned to Australia. Check the number allocations in ACP 113 and you will see they fit virtually all the numerically-designated JTFs that you have identified (the internet copy of ACP 113 may be a trifle out of date).

Also, take a look at

Commander Australian Fleet

- TF 627 is the main Royal Australian Navy-used designator and is not utilised primarily as a *Joint* Task Force. You'll often see references to, for example, CTG 627.1 [Commander Task Group 627.1].

Should also say the U.S. Army sometimes creates TFs based on their own battalion/regiment numbers, which do not form part of the U.S. MCEB allocation series, and to my knowledge Argentina during the Falklands War has been reported to have used TF numbers in the 70s range, *not* allocated by U.S. MCEB. For example, Combined Joint Task Force 82 was the primarily land-based, primarily U.S. force built around the 82nd Airborne Division for an Afghan deployment. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I broke out the USMCEB numbered task forces from the named ones? The numbered ones, and some of the U.S. named ones, operate under a strict series of military techniques and procedures, basically, I believe, JP 3-33 Joint Task Forces and others, plus the ACP 113 allocations. Some of the others - JTF Omega from Columbia for example - have no real relation to that organisation and procedure at all. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the expert. How would you break them out? The advantage of having everything in the one sortable table is that it's sortable; two or more tables reduce the utility - one has to look at two or more lists to find what one is looking for. Could the problem be addressed by adding an extra column to the table? Or other means? Or were you not anticipating two or more tables anyway? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, and to present it to reflect the real organisational protocols, I would break it out in two tables, U.S.-armed forces compliant standard task forces, and non-compliant task forces. Thus, in the first grouping, all the numbered USMCEB ones and all the U.S. named ones, and in the other, the other ones, oddballs like JTF Omega and the Nigerian Joint Task Force in the Niger Delta. How was I anticipating it? If I had created the page, it would be at 'List of USMCEB-standard task forces' and not even include non-standard, non-Allied (Allied for this purpose being the core Western US, UK, Australia, Canada etc) task forces, because though they may use the terminology 'Joint Task Force' they may not have any real relevance to the operating procedures a JTF is supposed to work by. If you want a comparison, look at the List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force, also employing strict DOD procedural dividers to organise an obscure subject. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, "You're the expert". Now that I understand what you propose, that sounds good to me. Go for it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to query this edit. The only way to sort them numerically correctly appears to be the way I did it - line them up in numerical order. Otherwise when you 'sort' it, the order you will get is 1, 100, 101, 102, 2, 204, 214, 3, 373, 4, 435 etc, because the code sorts by first numeral, not by whole number. Were you aware of this?- did you have some other motive? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to sort them numerically correctly appears to be the way I did it - a) No, it's not the only way. b) How did you do it that got them to sort correctly? It appears to me that the way you did it got all the CJTFs before all the JTFs before all the TFs. Or am I missing something?

Were you aware of this? - Yes, but I had forgotten. Never fear! I can fix it (I think). Pdfpdf (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pdfpdf: "I note that you don't necessarily find my contributions to the JTF page useful to your aims. Two things seem quite clear to me: 1) You are perfectly capable of doing this by yourself; 2) My "help" is not necessarily useful to you."

(1) is true, but you set up the page, and I might not have gotten around to doing a list of JTFs for ten more years, so your contribution was definitely valuable. With regard to the sort function, I have no idea of how to do it, so would be lost without you.

(2) Bluntly and honestly, if we're sticking with a purist interpretation of the USMCEB system, some of your contributions are not lined up exactly the way all the others are. But I've got a whole bunch of other things to do as well (you'll see I'm cleaning up ancient U.S. regiments) and when you add all the pre-existing Task Forces with articles, that's helpful. Anytime you find a numbered task force and add it (exactly what I'm doing), that's helpful. I would have never identified all the Australian JTFs by myself. So please continue to contribute - much nicer doing it together. I was just acting in accordance with what I perceived to be your '..that sounds good to me.' Opinions and more violent disagreement very welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm happy with that model. With 1000 task forces to find, plus who knows how many named task forces, the more people the better! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thabks for catching that my edit to AM recently caused some unintended damage. I can assure you I had no malicious intent :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly managed to confuse me! (But there are many who say that's not a difficult thing to do.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed a nice time, cleaning up :) (see my recent contribs... I havent uncovered everything yet...) please note what i have done, just in case you are inspired further to enjoy the western australian coastline. cheers.

semi retired indeed - Fair comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what a pair we make - you put up stuff, I modify, in the end some of it looks almost ok... whats the aversion to project tags?... anyways good stuff, I say...

sats 12:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

a) I'm a male; I can only concentrate on one thing at a time.

b) I know nothing about project tags.

c) Y'know, you're a typical bloody Australian - you'd find something to complain about in Utopia. (As would I, no doubt.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

projects tags are an essential item for assessment of articles - look at the talk pages of the articles that I have dabbled with, bugger utopia (I am sure there is sheep or cattle station with that name) the thing of empty talk pages is an affront to what wikipedia assessment is about - as to my identity and ancestry I would be very careful about that... and if youre in adelaide doesnt that usually mean you have german ancestry that has been angliscised? ... cheers as well, we'll get there, barbs or no barbs (I have a friend doing a phd on barbie dolls if that makes sense)...

sats 13:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

projects tags are an essential item for assessment of articles - If you say so. For your entertainment / amusement / interest / whatever, I've been fairly active on Wikipedia for over 6 years, and you are the first person to mention them to me. As I said, I know nothing about project tags, and I know nothing about assessment.

and if youre in adelaide doesnt that usually mean you have german ancestry that has been angliscised?

There are two types of people in the world: those that divide the world into two types of people, and the rest.

No, it doesn't usually mean that. The English have always outnumbered the Prussians - except in the Barossa Valley and other notable areas (e.g. Hahndorf, Klemzig, etc.) Have a look at the streetnames in Adelaide city centre - not a German name in sight.

I have a friend doing a phd on barbie dolls - My, my! "Another colourful thread in life's rich tapestry"! aka "You learn something new every day." (And sometimes, some of it is useful.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh taspestry. bloody expensive stuff in istanbul. I would say youd have to be very rich to get some.

sats 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

"Regions of Western Australia" looks good to me. If I create something you don't like, please "fix" it and then tell me what I've done wrong. Actually, I might retire now. "Till the morrow", Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - editing going quiet for another week + of damned travel, unlikely to be on that much for editing, thanks for your responses, cheers

sats 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for creating Grange railway station (disambiguation), Pdfpdf!

Wikipedia editor Matty.007 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good

To reply, leave a comment on Matty.007's talk page.

Learn more about

It's in anticipation of the event, which may very well end up with an Abbott caretaker government but it seems less likely, judging by the news sources. I'm keeping them hidden because, obviously, it's not a confirmed thing and would violate WP:CRYSTAL but by having it there at all, it helps preclude people from doing just that (replacing Gillard with Rudd and so on). Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this article, which you created in March this year, is on your watch list. However, I have recently undertaken various additions and edits, which I hope you approve of (or, at least, do not abhor). I am not sure how complete this list can ever be, because I suspect finding sources for the pre internet age years may be tricky. I am also wary of it growing like topsy, with some editors potentially adding people at will.

So, just a head's up really, and a well done for creating the list in the first place. Best wishes from Blighty.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]