User talk:Pdfpdf: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my talk page! If we started talking on your page, then I'm watching there. If we started talking here, then I'm watching here. This avoids fragmenting the discussion, and it makes it much easier to follow the flow of conversation.

I hereby acknowledge and declare that mean-time-between-replies-by-me is a random function. If it's urgent, please feel free to send me email.

Most recent archive: User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive19
To mark a page for deletion: Add the text "{{db-g7}}" anywhere on the page.

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

Here and here and here, among others. Raul654 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you want to collaborate on an article about John Balfour (ambassador)? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding John Balfour, yes, I was planning to write the article. But it should probably be John Balfour (diplomat) rather than a member of the diplomatic core is not always an ambassador but all ambassadors are diplomats. Raul654 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you had something planned, I don't want to get in your way.

I had in mind to do a "quick-and-dirty", and felt that if we collaborated we wouldn't get into the endless stupid mis-understandings we've been going through recently.

If you were planning to do it anyway, then that will achieve my purpose of an article being created.

As to name, is there a word or two missing from your sentence? I'm assuming you are saying something similar to: "But it should probably be John Balfour (diplomat) rather than John Balfour (ambassador); a member of the diplomatic core is not always an ambassador, but all ambassadors are diplomats." Except for the fact that some of Australia's ambassadors are "retired" politicians, (that's meant to be amusing), I agree with your definition of the depency relationship. However, I believe the page naming guidelines say to use a name that reflects what he was known as, and/or notable as. I believe his notability was for being an ambassador, rather than "just" a diplomat. So it could be argued either way.

You choose. (And have a supporting argument available in the case that someone is polite enough to challenge you, or rude enough to move the page without discussing it first.)

It's past bed-time here - I'm retiring. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

archived

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

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

Well I don't know about that. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are 10* - I reckon the President would have to be at least 11* ...

(It throws a new light on the Queen being a regimental colonel, doesn't it!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the Duke of Edinburgh being Admiral of the Fleet. It's the first time Phil has outranked Elizabeth! B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And probably the only time! (She Who Must Be Obeyed) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is just silly.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the intention. But which bit in particular are you referring to? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion in general! Interesting arguement that DofE outranks EIIR, the only rank she wears is honorary Colonel. Maybe as monarch she outranks the DofE and is therefore a 6 star? No No I won't start! --Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can start if you wish, but I hope you won't be upset that I won't participate.

If you are really keen, you should read Talk:6 star rank - I'm sure you can find a selection of conversations there to address all sides of every aspect of every related (and maybe unrelated) issue. For example, where else will you get an opportunity to discuss Huey, Dewey and Louie? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I won't start... it was after reading the talk page that I decided it was all silly! --Oliver Nouther (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What I find sad is that you (and I, and B Fairbairn) seem to be in the minority. Well, there goes my latest definition of "normal" ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi -

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

You make a good point!

So what do you suggest? (At the moment, I haven't tracked down what that piece of the earth was labelled in 1902. Did Cape Colony extend that far north?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be truthful, I'm not sure, Wiki re-directs to the British South Africa Company, which isn't too helpful. I don't think it would come under the juristiction of Southern Rhodesia, would it? The Madras (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Rhodesia sounds convincing to me.

The territory was originally referred to as 'South Zambezia' but the name 'Rhodesia' came into use in 1895. The designation 'Southern' was adopted in 1901 and dropped from normal usage in 1964 on the break-up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and Rhodesia became the name of the country until the creation of Zimbabwe Rhodesia in 1979.

Why do you say: "I don't think it would come under the juristiction of Southern Rhodesia, would it?"

Please correct my edit if you think I've got it wrong. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: What re-directs to BSAC?

On Southern Rhodesia article, the part of the infobox at the box stated "1923", if you click on the flag indicating what preceded that, it sends you to BSAC. The Madras (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks. Useful to know! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

• User:Swamilive

216.26.2xx.xxx

• User talk:216.26.202.110 contributions
• User talk:216.26.202.187 contributions blocked on 16 & 21 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.211.12 contributions
• User talk:216.26.213.34 contributions Blocked 15 April 2010
• User talk:216.26.213.69 contributions blocked on 26 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.214.39 contributions Blocked 12, 14 & 28 April 2010
• User talk:216.26.219.104 contributions Blocked 10 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.222.47 contributions blocked on 16 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.223.38 contributions
• User talk:216.26.223.175 contributions

216.211.xx.xxx

• User talk:216.211.52.170 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
• User talk:216.211.52.232 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
• User talk:216.211.53.205 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
• User talk:216.211.72.66 contributions
• User talk:216.211.73.24 contributions
• User talk:216.211.93.108 contributions blocked on 29 April 2010
• User talk:216.211.95.252 contributions
• User talk:216.211.97.11 contributions Blocked 7 & 9 April 2010

216.211.xxx.xxx

• User talk:216.211.102.216 contributions
• User talk:216.211.117.165 contributions

Pages vandalised

• Brigadier
• Brigadier General
• Charles Edward Merriam
• Extra time
• Garrison
• Garrison Sergeant Major
• Rear admiral

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry Terrapin - which edits are you referring to? (Both yours and mine please).

As I'm not sure what you're referring to, I can only make guesses.

FYI, the "classes" of page on WP are called "namespaces" (by WP)

You can see a list of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=

You may notice that "image" is no longer in that list.

Some time in the last couple of years, some WP comittee/cabal/consensus decided that, because "Images" were not the only types of file saved under the "Images" namespace, the namespace should have its name changed to reflect this. So "they" renamed it as "File".

Personally, as long as it works, and continues to work, I couldn't care less.

If I made an edit or edit comment suggesting that "Image" is/was "wrong", I apologise. My intention would not have been that; it would have been something else.

"My changes were aimed at a level of consistency and my belief (perhaps mistaken?) was that Image: was preferable in the context of displaying images." - Well, logically, I agree with you. (I wish I knew what I said!) wrt your belief, yes, I think it may be mistaken, but really, it's "No Big Deal" - as I said, I couldn't care less, and I expect most others don't.

"Are you able to help?" - I'd like to think I can, and I hope the above is helpful to you. If not, ask some questions, and I'll be very happy to supply you with what I hope are useful answers. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping into the discussion.... Help:Visual_file_markup shows that the preferred term is now File (vice Image) PalawanOz (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion was to Australian Honours Order of Precedence‎ 23 May 10 02:38 Pdfpdf (WTF? - Please use the edit summary - Undid revision 363442947 by AusTerrapin). Thanks for the background - that was exactly what I was after. When I checked [[Help:Visual file markup] after the fact I did glean PalawanOz's point, but there was no context to it, however you have helped provide that now. Don't worry, I am not taking any of this personally and don't regard it as a big deal either. I just like to understand why I am doing things a particular way - it makes it easier to replicate in the future and to understand when it may be appropriate to vary an approach hence the motivation for my original question. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I just like to understand why I am doing things a particular way" - Yes. (I suffer from the same disease.) Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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