User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive37

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive37 Jan-Jul15

Archives

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

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! And to you and yours!! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFP/A

Having just patrolled a few of your new pages I'm struck by how dumb it is to be checking the contribution of someone with 3 times my experience. Please apply for Autopatrolled and save us from pointless work. Happy New Year. Bazj (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bazj: Thanks! I must admit I don't pay a lot of attention to that sort of stuff, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

And Happy New Year to you, too - Enjoy the fireworks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You flatter me! (To which a) I don't object. b) I don't object.) I've only been on WP for a few months more than you have. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(But yes, I did get your "message" thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC))

No flattery. It's pleasant to come across decent articles at Special:NewPages rather than autobiographies, adverts and copyvio. Bazj (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oddfellows

Hi Pdfpdf! How has your year of 2015 started rolling? :-) Anyway, I have just a tiny little question concerning the "Oddfellows" article: Southwark, Hatton Garden.

What I meant by changing the linking, was to follow WP:LINKSTYLE (cf. [[Riverside, California|Riverside]]). There is no need to linking to the both, whereas Southwark already serves as a more specific one. I corrected the linking one more time, but if you choose to revert it, I won't change it again. I'd suggest that we can ask a second opinion in that case, what do you think? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Again you confuse me. Southwark is SE1. Hatton Garden is EC1. Neither page mentions the other. They appear to be two different separate places. You appear to be saying that you think one is a subset of the other. Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I live in England and I have been to London. Southwark and Hatton Garden are distinct places on opposite sides of the River Thames. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I see! Indeed, I thought that one is a subset of the other. Sorry, my mistake; you are totally right here.

Anyway, I noticed a much larger issue with the article: the sources. The article is largely depending on the very website of the organisation (which itself would not be considered independent, and therefore valid, source), which also would fall under or . I was wondering if you liked to help me to find new sources to replace that one? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you may find it useful to read all of the Talk:Oddfellows page. I think you will find that it discusses all and addresses some of your concerns. (It may even answer some of your questions ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But in answer to your questions/comments/etc.

The article is largely depending on the very website of the organisation - Yes. This is discussed at length, and several times, on Talk:Oddfellows (BTW: Note that MU is just one of the Oddfellows organisations - it is not "the very organization".)

which itself would not be considered independent - Agreed.

and therefore valid, source - I probably disagree. It depends on what your definition of "valid" is. As discussed on Talk:Oddfellows, I certainly agree that it is NOT an ideal source ...

which also would fall under or . - Disagree. A less-than-ideal-source is not a deadlink; nor does it fail verification.

I was wondering if you liked to help me to find new sources to replace that one? - I've been looking for other sources for the last 7 years. I've found a few; other people have found about half-a-dozen. It would be delightful to have help finding new sources.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf! I took the time to read through the past discussion at Talk:Oddfellows. I could find, though, only two sources: "BOB LINDOP looks at"THE STORY OF THE GRAND UNITED""[1], and "Skocpol, T., Liazos, A. & Ganz, M. (2006). What a Mighty Power We Can be: African American Fraternal Groups and the Struggle for Racial Equality[2]. The previous one is not an independent source, and the latter ... well, out of 19x {{dead link}} / {{fv}} / {{or}}, which statements does the latter verify?

I strongly recommend that we will keep the tags in the article; "hiding" one tag in the footnotes is certainly not enough. The tags help to catch other users attention and invite them to search for better sources. Also, the tags are very helpful to those with healthy amount of "source criticism"

Pdfpdf, I clearly belief that "Odd fellows / Oddfellows" meet all the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, and in fact I am surprised that this article hasn't found any better sources in eight years time period (whereas some of the existing references have gone dead already). I don't believe that this article could handle a mass-deletion of the "unsourced material" ({{dead link}} / {{fv}} / {{or}}), and that's why I really recommend restoring those tags.

I believe that restoring those tags is reasonable, and that's why I will one more time restore them to the article. After that' I'd like to propose that we'll ask for a second opinion by an experienced user. I won't be involved in any more reverts/restorations myself though. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't look up your latest changes with the references. I must say ... the current references are highly confusing... :O Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do your homework more thoroughly. You are repeatedly making bad edits, I am repeatedly politely pointing this out to you, and you are repeatedly apologizing.

It's rather strange that you haven't woken up to the fact that I am a very experienced editor and know what I'm talking about.

It's equally strange that you continue to repeatedly make bad edits.

The above is a very bad idea. Please don't do it. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's 4:30am here. If you find it confusing, then tell me exactly what you find confusing, and I'll answer you during daylight hours. Until then, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey hi! I asked advice from another editor (Cullen328)[3], and his opinion was that the dependent sources aren't a problem per se, but we should favour independent ones whenever available. He also said that: "I see more clearly now what you mean, and I do not think I have ever seen that citation style before. My instinctive reaction is "one citation for one source", but I do not know if there is a specific guideline against that type of citation.'".

I'd recommend using separate citations for each source as well. I think there are many obvious reasons to do that. I hope this helps to clarify my point! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

and his opinion was that the dependent sources aren't a problem per se, but we should favour independent ones whenever available. - I agree completely. That is exactly what I was trying to communicate to you, but it seems I failed miserably. Never mind - I gather you now understand what I was unsuccessfully trying to say.

Regarding the "multiple references in one": Thanks for the clarification. (i.e. Now I understand what you were getting at.) OK. No problem. Easily addressed. I need to get to the shops before they close, so I will make the change later today. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Pdfpdf! I remember to have read somewhere in the talk pages that this article was mainly about (or from the perspective of) the Manchester Unity, is that right? I might be wrong too here, of course... Anyway, I was thinking about clarifying that hatnote in the article, and making it linking to Societies using the name "Odd Fellows" or variations (as a kind of disambiguation page) instead of the current Odd Fellows.

Anyway, having a second look over the current article, to me it seems to be more of a "general article about Oddfellows / Odd fellows", comprehending the many other branches as well. Excuse me, I'm a bit confused here. :P

In my humble opinion, however, disambiguation notes like this[4] should be handled by a hatnote. It seems we have only two other Odd fellows organizations (Independent Order of Odd Fellows[5] and Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America[6]) aside the very Oddfellows that are covered by Wikipedia publicity, so I think a simple hatnote might do. However, for the {{about}}, I was thinking what to write. "This article is about ______"

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm a little confused by some of the bits in your posting, but never-the-less, here goes ...

I remember to have read somewhere in the talk pages that this article was mainly about (or from the perspective of) the Manchester Unity, is that right? I might be wrong too here, of course...

You are almost, but not quite right. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

To start my answer, I'll first go off on a tangent and state some facts to use as "background" for later statements:

(By-the-way: I'm assuming you know almost nothing about Oddfellows and Odd Fellows. I am assuming this because your past Wikipedia contributions do not display any knowledge of the organisations. If I'm wrong - my humble apologies.)

• There have been, and still are now (but to a lesser degree than in the past), numerous organisations with either "Oddfellows" or "Odd Fellows" in their name.
• One of these organisations confuses the issue by using the trading name "The Oddfellows". The confusion occurs because "The Oddfellows" is NOT the actual name of that organization, and that organisation is NOT "THE" Oddfellows; it is just one of a number of organisations that have "Oddfellows" in their name.
• I am unaware of any organisation that claims to be "The Odd Fellows"
• Although there were organisations (and pubs) in England (and possibly the UK) using both names - i.e. some using Oddfellows and others using Odd Fellows, by the 20th century the major UK organisations seemed to use only "Oddfellows", and the major U.S. derivatives seemed to use only "Odd Fellows".

Hence, neither of these is (to use Wikipedia terminology) the "primary name" - the primary name is "Oddfellows or Odd Fellows" (or perhaps "Odd Fellows or Oddfellows". To get some appreciation of this fact, have a look at Odd Fellows#Societies using the name "Odd Fellows" or variations. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So, to commence my answer:

I remember to have read somewhere in the talk pages that this article was mainly about (or from the perspective of) the Manchester Unity, is that right?

You are almost, but not quite right. I won't go into great detail, so if something is unclear, please ask and I'll clarify.

We now move from the realm of the real world into the Wikipedia universe. (Sub-universe?)

When I first came across Oddfellows, it was in a parlous state. I did some searching, and came across a delightfully written MSWord document hosted by the MU site. Although mostly about the history of Oddfellowship, [Digression: Maybe the Primary Name should be "Oddfellowship"???], it did, not surprisingly, concentrate more on MU than on other Lodges. The bit of the talk page you quote is (was) the opinion of a GUOOFS member who had read the updated (by me) page. He complained that the updated page was mainly about, and from the perspective of, the MU. You may recall that I agreed with him and pointed to the statements on the updated page that said this. He subsequently provided a GUOOFS source, and information from this was added.

So, although for a short period about 7 years ago that was (past tense) the case, soon after this was addressed, and the page gained a wider perspective drawing from sources from both of the major UK Oddfellows' organisations. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I was thinking about clarifying that hatnote in the article, and making it linking to Societies using the name "Odd Fellows" or variations (as a kind of disambiguation page) instead of the current Odd Fellows.

No. Don't agree. Happy to discuss it further. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(BTW: Note that Odd Fellows is a "{{SIA}} <!-- Set index article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Set_index_article -->" - not my idea, but I don't disagee. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

Anyway, having a second look over the current article, to me it seems to be more of a "general article about Oddfellows / Odd fellows", comprehending the many other branches as well. Excuse me, I'm a bit confused here. :P

Yep. That's the intention. What is it that you are confused about? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, however, disambiguation notes like this[7] should be handled by a hatnote.

Hmmmmm. To quote someone MUCH wiser than me: "The problem with a 'one size fits all' solution is that you end up with one size that doesn't fit anybody". In general, you are probably right, but I'd like you to convince me that such a solution is appropriate for these circumstances. (Obviously, I'm not currently convinced.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems we have only two other Odd fellows organizations (Independent Order of Odd Fellows[8] and Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America[9]) aside the very Oddfellows that are covered by Wikipedia publicity, so I think a simple hatnote might do. However, for the {{about}}, I was thinking what to write. "This article is about ______"

As I think you have probably worked out by now, I don't agree. I'm not sure what you mean by "we" - I'm assuming you mean Wikipedia. In which case you're not completely right there either. As I said earlier, there's the real world, and there's the Wikipedia sub-universe, and the latter is not always an accurate reflection of the former. In particular there are MANY more than three organisations embracing Oddfellowship. Many. OK, many of them may not be "notable" in Wikipedia terms. But some of them may be. Remember: just because nobody has written a Wikipedia page about something does NOT mean it is not notable. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Have you had a look at Category:Odd Fellows? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oddfellowship - 2

(Arbitrary break to facilitate editing.)

So where do we go from here? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Pdfpdf. You are right, I have no prior knowledge about the organization. I don't think that's all bad though. It gives me a certain outsider perspective, and helps me to notice many things that people who are more familiar to the topic might take for granted. I am glad the article has some good sound expertise like yours on hand though!

Anyway, please forget most of what I said in my last post. I'll try clarify my point from a clear table now after having read your reply. So, the current hatnote says the following:

This article is about the Oddfellows in the United Kingdom.

1. It seems, however, that the current article covers - no just the UK - but also the international affiliations (like IOOF), i.e. the article is not just about the Oddfellows in the United Kingdom. That's why I find the current hatnote misleading.
2. Because we have only two more Wikipedia articles concerning Oddfellowship (Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America) where one could link to, I think we could have a nice and neat hatnote linking to those in disambiguation purposes.

I understand your point that the "Wikiverse" doesn't reflect the Universe accurately, and I know there are many more organizations than these three. What I am trying to say, is that the lede is not be the right place for disambiguation. We can deal with the disambiguation concerning the existing Wikipedia articles with the "hatnote" (Wikiverse), and the real-life organizations (Universe) by a own section in the article even.

I think a new section to disambiguate between the different Oddfellow organizations would be highly justified. I am sure it'd help many a noobs like me to get a better picture about Oddfellowship and it's diversity. :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Once again I don't seem to have been completely successful in my communications to you.

The mention about your lack of background was an apology-in-advance in case I was telling you stuff of which you were already well aware. It was not intended to be negative.

I agree that "that's (not) all bad though", and I agree for pretty much the same reasons as those you stated.

Regarding "the article has some good sound expertise ... on hand", sadly you are overstating the situation. Yes, I have quite an amount of background knowledge, but expertise? No, none really.

Regarding This article is about the Oddfellows in the United Kingdom, I have a number of problems with your line of reasoning and subsequent conclusions.

The hatnote actually says "This article is about the Oddfellows in the United Kingdom. For other countries, see Odd Fellows."

• There is already a sort-of-disambiguation page - an "SIA" page - named Odd Fellows
• I disagree that "the current article covers - no just the UK - but also the international affiliations (like IOOF), i.e. the article is not just about the Oddfellows in the United Kingdom." It does NOT "cover" anything other than the UK. Yes, it mentions the children. Would you expect an article like Queen Elizabeth to not mention her children? Of course not. It mentions them; but it does not "cover" them.
• Because we have only two more Wikipedia articles ... - neither accurate (see the category), nor relevant.
• I think a new section to disambiguate between the different Oddfellow organizations would be highly justified. - I disagree. I think the Odd Fellows article already does that, and does it better than anything added to the Oddfellows article could, because the Odd Fellows page is the dab/SIA page, and that's where one would hope & expect such information to be.
• I am sure it'd help many a noobs like me to get a better picture - Why are you "sure"? a) What is it about Odd Fellows that did not "help you get a better picture"? b) What could/might you add to Oddfellows that doesn't duplicate what is already said in Odd Fellows?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

In an attempt to address your concerns, I have created Odd Fellows (disambiguation) and Oddfellows (disambiguation). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Pdfpdf. Don't worry, I didn't even consider it in a negative manner. :-) Anyway, it seems that I might have been wrong here. I was first thinking of a neat hatnote, similar to one mentioned at Wikipedia:Hatnote#Linking to a disambiguation page (the second example). I was thinking of a hatnote that'd just mention the Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America.

I must say, I wasn't even familiar with {{sia}} before, but taking a closed look, it seems to be the right one here instead of a disambiguation page. As it says:

A set index article is not a disambiguation page: A disambiguation page is a list of things, possibly of different types, that share the same (or similar) name, formatted for best navigating the reader to the sought topic. A set index lists things of only one type and need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages; however, many do by convention. A set index article is meant for information as well as navigation: just like a normal list article, it can have metadata and extra information about each entry. It may contain red links to help editors create articles on notable entries.

Taking into account the rich variety of Oddfellows / Odd fellows organizations (as expressed at the {{sia}} page), it seems to be the right one to use. I am sorry for the inconvenience, it's clearly been a question of my lack of knowledge here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I restored the previous version of the disambiguation page. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"History of the Oddfellows"

Greetings! How important is the "History of the Oddfellows"[10] reference for the current article? I was just wondering since now the sentence is backed up by several other sources. I tried to see if the document is still available through http://archive.org/web/, but I wasn't able to see it. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the article says, and as the talk page says, it was the basis of the major revision to the article in 2007. I emailed MU head office a week or so ago asking for a copy; no reply yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Pdfpdf,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you kind sir! And the same to you!! Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminders

• Talk:Order_of_the_Phoenix_(fiction) - history

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your edits to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thitu Island

(See also User talk:STSC#Pagasa rename

"Strongly support a speedy move". Yes, me too, but I don't know how to achieve it other than what I've done. If you know a better and/or quicker solution, I would enjoy learning how to achieve it. With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the only way now is by the requested move, we'll just wait for an admin to move it back to "Thitu Island". STSC (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually there's the other way: speedy delete the "Thitu Island" page first, after that you can freely rename the article back to "Thitu Island". I have done the speedy delete request now. STSC (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! (I'm impressed!!) Please keep me posted. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

3rd federation star clasp

Hey, check this out. http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Jan2015/People/1716 Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! We better archive that page before someone "reorganises" that website.

I haven't perfected the process yet. (Actually, to tell the truth, I haven't even tried it!)

Have a look at User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive36#Web archive, and if you have time, (please) go for it. (I'm annoyingly busy at the moment.)

If something's unclear, ask her - she's a delightfully friendly and helpful lady.

BTW: Happy New Year! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PERM Request

I've left your autopatrolled nomination open for others to close, but have updated your rights log to show a clean slate as far as past copyvio issues were concerned - even if you don't get flagged I hope this will be of some consolation. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

General Post Office, Adelaide

The page is here and you can copy it all across if you want to. If you need a hand with how to do the CC-by-SA attribution correctly, Barwon Sewer Aqueduct (and Talk:Barwon Sewer Aqueduct) is one I did from the same source. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for the CC-by-SA pointer. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Post_Office,_Adelaide&curid=44617105&action=history - hahah - happy new year, and etc....

always better at being more elusive and allusive - leave the gender and age ambiguous - you never know here, .... satusuro 11:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

just the facts mam, nothin but the facts mam - the radio serials or the send ups - is something that never really caught on here (sic) (or should that be hic) satusuro 11:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. On the one hand, you have at least one point.

On another hand, none of the 7 other alternatives to grumpy old man have any "street cred".

Oh dear. I've run out of hands.

Anyway: happy new year, and etc.... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

STY - ie same to you, may the sms anagram grab you by the hand and shake a new year friendly grasp whichever hand might it be.. satusuro 12:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that requiring that I have one of the legs of my trousers rolled up? (Or am I off on an irrelevant tangent?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

nothing to do with legs or what the imagination might profer... rolf harris and his demise has killed the three legged entertainer for good, relevance, tangents and arcs are what warring editors excell at with fervour and waste gigabytes of online space, spare a thought for all the over-used electrons, which have no hands to speak of, they can never be greeted... usefully tibetan deities have statues where they have either 4 hands or even the big daddy has 1,000 arms... so the grasp is in the hypervole, the hyperbole, and les patterson's half a jar of vaseline satusuro 12:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dammit! I was enjoying this conversation until Optus made it impossible to effortlessly reply to you. (MORE grumpy old man evidence.) Happy New Year! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

lets hear it from the hands behind the scenes, the escapees from les pattersons grip of yesteryear, the telcos of great australian reverse - where the rate we are going we will have the slowest internet connections in the planet, all in good time and blue ties...satusuro 12:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear! (I see that you are AT LEAST three steps ahead of me.) And you're from WA where "it's all happening". God help Australia! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I must not blaspheme, I must not blaspheme... in WP:AGF I think its too late, but that is not an on wiki discussable topic... satusuro 13:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Paracels

You're welcome! — LlywelynII 14:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Mixtape of the Masses on WoW fm

(From User talk:DjScrawl

NB: You might be interested pitching-in / listening-to this FB/Adelaide-based weekly collaborative radio show Mixtape of the Masses on WoW fm, I occasionally contribute/listen to. – Best, DjScrawl (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Adelaide Stock Exchange

Is this you? Doug butler (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And Happy New Year to you, too!

In answer to your entirely reasonable question: "Not at the moment." (I'll think about it, but it sounds like to me that, to do it justice, it requires more than just a perfunctory passing interest. I'll think about it.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oddfellows

(Earlier sections archived)

"History of the Oddfellows"

Greetings! How important is the "History of the Oddfellows"[11] reference for the current article? I was just wondering since now the sentence is backed up by several other sources. I tried to see if the document is still available through http://archive.org/web/, but I wasn't able to see it. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the article says, and as the talk page says, it was the basis of the major revision to the article in 2007. I emailed MU head office a week or so ago asking for a copy; no reply yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good! I was actually thinking just the same! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do. If they receive two emails within a couple of weeks on the same topic, they may actually respond to them. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll email them tonight! Cheers and Happy Weekend! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Hi there! I left a message at Talk:Oddfellows#Problems with the lede. When it comes to my earlier posts about disambiguation pages or {{sia}}, it seems I've been completely off the track there. In short, I think the whole problem with the lede culminates into a proper hatnote: we should avoid {{or}} in the lede, and for disambiguation purposes a hatnote is the perfect option. You can see that one being used across the articles.

Indeed, a separate disambiguation page was unnecessary when there was already a {{sia}} page, but also a {{sia}} page is not necessary when there are only two Wikipedia articles where to link to. We can remove the {{or}} from the lead by simply adding a hatnote as suggested at Talk:Oddfellows#Problems with the lede. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Adelaide Stock Exchange

Is this you? Doug butler (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And Happy New Year to you, too!

Sorry; brevity was intended, not rudeness. Thanks for your help in past years and all best wishes for 2015. Doug butler (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your entirely reasonable question: "Not at the moment." (I'll think about it, but it sounds like to me that, to do it justice, it requires more than just a perfunctory passing interest. I'll think about it.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW: Y'know, I have this vague memory of seeing a very nice history of the AdelaideSX ... somewhere. (Can't for the life of me remember where it was.) Maybe it'll come back to me at 3am one day ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox military operation

Template:Infobox military operation has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox operational plan. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 16#Template:Infobox military operation. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Heads up" - Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AC (Mil)

Good morning my friend. Your reaction is exactly what I did a few days ago as well. But as it turns out, it is correct as part of the Order of Australia Ordinances. There is however an active discussion on User:AusTerrapin's talk page. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Australian MSM

Concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AUS_Meritorious_Service_Medal.png

Hi and sorry I did not respond earlier. I simply missed your message. The colours of the Australian MSM ribbon were based on the Medal Yearbook (can't remember the issue right now - I will check and will let you know) and on the webpage http://www.mhsa.org.au/QldBranch.html, where Keith Payne's medals are depicted. The stripes on his MSM ribbon are definitely green, although in a very dark shade. I will say that the stripes on the Australian War Memorial web page also come out dark green, at least on my screen.

What regards the year 1985, I first thought I had just mistyped the year, but then I looked back at the picture page and could not find the year anywhere on it. Where did you find it?

Best regards LukGasz (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: I like very much your Wiki page about the Australian MSM.

Howdy. Thanks for responding. Yes, despite the "darkness" of various renditions, the stripes are indeed green.

With regards to the year:

• The AWM site (wrongly) states 1985 at http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL36101/?image=1#display-image
• "It's an Honour" at http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/imperial.cfm#msm_0275 gives one more confidence that 1975 is the "magic year".

Cheers, and glad you like the Oz MSM page, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Post Script

Dear Gentlemen (aka User:101.98.211.117; User:CambridgeBayWeather; and User:Lexysexy. And also User:JackofOz - due to your (enjoyed-by-me) post on 101's talk page.)
Thank you for your good faith edits to my talk page. ALL of them are appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bolivar railway station

Have you noticed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bolivar_railway_station? -Arb. (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

propose merge from Adelaide–Crafers Highway to South Eastern Freeway

As a past editor of at least one of the articles, you may wish to comment at Talk:South Eastern Freeway#2015 Merge proposal for a new proposal to merge these two articles as it appears the government now considers it to be all one road. As there will be quite a bit of work, I decided to consult before being bold. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

George Morphett

Good morning pdf; Hope you're OK and not too busy to do a little editing. I started to compile a bit on George Morphett before I discovered you had done quite a lot of research on the guy. I'll leave it as a stub, but if you could put some flesh on the bones I'd be mightily pleased. Best regards, Doug butler (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• George Morphett
• User:Pdfpdf/George Morphett
• Tranmere, South Australia
• John Morphett

DK1 rigs

User:Pdfpdf/DK1 Rigs => DK1 rigs

Spratly's reclamations

• Sean O'Connor, Indianapolis and James Hardy, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly (15 Feb 2015). "Imagery shows progress of Chinese land building across Spratlys". IHS Jane's 360.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jamie Fullerton, Beijing (20 Feb 2015). "China builds fortress on disputed reef". The Times.
  • Satellite images have raised concerns about the scope of China’s military ambitions in the South China Sea after they revealed that an island fortress has been built on a disputed shoal.
  • The images, released by the military analysis company IHS Jane’s, show that within the past nine months China has built a 63,000 sq m artificial island at Hughes Reef, with two piers, a cement plant and a helipad.

List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands

Hi Pdfpdf, regarding your current area of interest List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands, I dare to ask whether this lemma is correct. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I think an island is not a maritime feature, or is it? In the case of most features, such as submarine banks, shoals, and coral reefs that are temporarily or permanently awash, we talk about maritime features. But in the case of islands, reefs and rocks that are permanently, even at high water level, above water, perhaps not. What do you think?--Ratzer (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ratzer, I don't actually know if your lemma is correct.

As I don't know of a collective noun for a group of "stuff" that includes islands, reefs, rocks, submarine banks, shoals, coral reefs and any of the other "stuff" in the South China Sea, and as they are in a maritime environment, I chose "maritime features". I couldn't think of a better name that was not much longer.

Examples of names I rejected include "List of stuff in the Spratly Islands area" and "List of islands, reefs, rocks, submarine banks, shoals, coral reefs, settlements, barracks, radar stations, weather stations, oil rigs, lighthouses, DK1 rigs and EEZ stations in the Spratly Islands area".

Do you have a suggestion for a different name for the page? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf, no easy task, but let me suggest a non-exhaustive list of alternate lemmas to choose from:

• List of islands and maritime features in the Spratly Islands
• List of geographic objects in the Spratly Islands
• List of geographic names in the Spratly Islands

There is no compelling need to change anything, so if you are not convinced of any alternate suggestion, leave it like it is.

Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. No, I'm not finding it to be an easy task, either. I'll give it some more thought and get back to you next week. In the meantime, if you have any thoughts, please don't hesitate to communicate them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Another, perhaps better possibility might be List of atolls and islands in the Spratly Islands, since atolls may be coral rings with islands, or completely submerged at high tide, or even sunken reef formations. Islands may be solitary islands like Spratly Island, or islands within atolls. I would find it desirable to group the individual islands by atolls. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree. There are a lot more than islands & atolls, and the features are indeed grouped. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I would be interested to learn about the "lot more than islands & atolls" that there is in the Spratly Islands. I haven't worked through the whole bunch yet, but I haven't encountered any feature that could not be classified as an atoll, part of an atoll, solitary island, and, ok, perhaps something like solitary reef (e.g. Discovery Small Reef). Apart from that, the groupings do not appear to be systematic: What the atolls Tizard Banks or Union Banks contain, seems clear enough. But then Western Reef, Discovery Great Reef, Discovery Small Reef appear to be grouped as belonging to one atoll or other larger feature West of Tizard Banks, just as Reed Bank; Nares Bank; Marie Louise Bank appear to be grouped to a larger feature called Reed Tablemount. In fact, Reed Tablemount redirects to Reed Bank, which is alright, but neither does contain Nares Bank, which is a sunken atoll in its own right, separated from Reed by deep water. Also Discovery Great Reef is an atoll of its own, although without natural islands. A similar case is Fiery Cross Reef. If it has further named features within it, I haven't researched yet. I could go on further, but this should be enough to explain you where I see deficits within the current list. It will take me a long time to work through all of the Spratly Islands. So far, I have created the article de:Tizard-Bank in the German Wikipedia, and the article Union-Bank is under construction here. In the course of this work, I have updated the corresponding articles of the en-WP. In the months (and years?) to come, I am planning to work myself in that manner through the whole Spratly Islands, atoll by atoll, and then see what's left over, that is not covered in any atoll article. At the end, there should also be navigation bars, to move conveniently between the atolls, islands and reefs of the Spratly Islands. Pardon me for taking a long time with these plans, but I have a full-time job, and many other areas of interests in Wikipedia. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderful reply! You seem to summarise very nicely many of the problems I have encountered and issues I have struggled with and tried to address and deal with.

I agree with pretty much everything you say.

I'm not a professional geographer or professional historian - these are "hobbies" that Wikipedia has exposed me to, and I now find that for me, Wikipedia has become a tool that supports me in my expanding geographical & historical interests. In other words, particularly in the field of geography, I am not an expert - hence my unwillingness to challenge your seemingly entirely reasonable statements.

However, from a platform of ignorance, I would not have though Reed Bank / Reed Tablemount (or any of its other names) was an atoll, island or reef. What do you think?

Similarly, I would not have thought that the vast majority of "features" in the south of "Dangerous Ground", and south and west of Dangerous Ground, were islands, reefs or atolls either. (e.g. Rifleman Bank, etc.)

Please again note that I am NOT offering an expert opinion, just an opinion. And I'm interested to read your response. (And also, I have the expectation that I will probably agree with whatever it is you reply. Maybe not, but I expect that I'll agree.)

Regarding the groupings: In the absence of being able to find anything comprehensive that is systematic or reliable, I was forced to develop a system of groupings for "stuff that wasn't grouped. No, it's not perfect, but in the absence of anything else, if you, yourself have a better system, then please advocate it. Again, I expect that I would support it.

I draw to your attention a few of the problems, and note that you have already mentioned most of them yourself!

(Note that I am not seeking answers from you - I am just acknowledging and/or flagging "problems" that I haven't resolved.)

• Subi Reef - Is it part of the Thitu Reefs, an "ungrouped feature", a group of its own, or part of some other group?
• Western Reef, Discovery Great Reef, Discovery Small Reef - if you don't group them together, how do you categorise them?

There are a number of other features for which I would ask a similar question, (some of which you mention).

• Menzies Reef - To me, it looks like it's the NE extremity of the Loaita Banks. but I can't find anything that either supports or denies this ...
• etc. (i.e. this is only a partial list, but I think it's enough for you to get a feeling for the point I'm trying to make, which, to me, seems very similar to the point that I think you were trying to make.)

but this should be enough to explain you where I see deficits within the current list. - a) Yes, it is. b) Yes, you have neatly identified problems with which I have struggled.

It will take me a long time to work through all of the Spratly Islands. - I would expect so! (I have been toying with the area for a couple of years so far ... )

So far, I have created ... - That's good to hear. I encourage you to continue and am happy to support your endeavours.

I would also encourage others who don't have a national, political or other agenda to push to assist us, but sadly they are few and far between. Until recently, I was the only person seriously working on List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands, and I created that page because Spratly Islands was (and to some extent, still is) a battleground for those wishing to push a point-of-view.

In the months (and years?) to come ... - To me, that sounds really good. As you've no doubt observed, I've really backed off my WP involvement over the last year or so - for a number of reasons, one of which is I'm tired of taking on major projects and having to deal with "fly-in-fly-out-pedants" who pick holes, complain, and contribute nothing positive. Your interaction is a wonderful contrast, and I really appreciate the fact that you are actually trying (and succeeding) to contribute something positive.

Thanks and best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I think copying this discussion to talk:List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands is a good idea. What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm very pleased that my comments are received so well, which shows to me that you are a constructive Wikipedia author. I'll look for some detailed answers later, here just for a start: Here we read The Reed Tablemount (Reed Bank) is the largest feature of the Spratly islands region; at some 8800 km² in area the bank extends 140 km from northeast to southwest, averaging 65 km across and represents a sunken atoll formation with a pronounced rim and an interior basin that is studded with many small reefs.. And this list also mentions Nanwei (Rifleman Bank) as an atoll (last one under the heading SOUTH CHINA SEA, with a total area of 887 km² and a lagoon depth of 82 meters. More references are certainly desirable, but atolls do exist in different stages of development, starting with those that have high volcanic islands in the lagoon (such as Gambier Islands), to those that are totally submerged and do not dry even at low tide, where the rim is just a ring of shoals (such as Macclesfield Bank). But I'm well aware that not everything that looks like an atoll is an atoll (Port Royal Cays), and there may be other cases where there is not yet enough knowledge to decide. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oddfellows

Greetings! Why was the {{third-party}} removed[12]? The only Edit Summary you left was "housekeeping". I've already asked for administrator John's opinion over the matter on April[13], and the answer was: ":I support the action you have taken there in tagging it for primary sources.". And there is hardly any dispute if you take a quick look at the sources. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You know that you and I have different opinions on this.

You know that in response to your "opinion shopping", I have gone "opinion shopping" and found people who support my POV.

You can continue to be a nuisance and contribute nothing positive - if you wish.

Alternatively, you could actually do something positive and useful and address and resolve the problem - if you wish.

Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

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

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

Two years ago, you were the 496th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well my dear, I'm confident that I'm not the only person who believes you are a far more valuable gem than the ones you hand out to the mere mortals amongst us who catch your attention.

Please keep up your wonderful work. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, my dear, tell those who released me from prison on a parole of 6 months, two days ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

With pleasure!

If you wish this, please send me an email telling me what you would like me to do. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't serious, sorry ;) - I read (too late, after Teh Case) that arbs rather gnaw their own limbs off than say they were wrong, so I will just sit out the parole time. In case you a very brave: we - the cabal of the outcasts - run a list of infoboxes that have been damaged, - look if you find some whose restoration you might support with a good conscience, - in case of doubt look at the talk page first. I feel much better since one for Beethoven has been added by an arb who wrote Teh Case, one for Die Gezeichneten was restored by a user who typically doesn't like them, and on the Beethoven talk - low and behold! - my name was mentioned in a solution to be pursued (by a user who reverted me several times before)! Rule of thumb: the closer to opera the safer, then composition, - avoid person, it get's very personal ;) - The whole case was a misunderstanding when {{infobox opera}} was introduced, which is now widely accepted. (Don't tell the arbs because - see above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for apologies!

a) ;-)

b) Clearly, there are even more things I know not-enough-about than I already knew I knew not-enough about!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that when a certain editor helped creating said infobox opera he didn't miss to enter his self-portrait in Example 4 (which for a long time was the only one) ;) - (He was supposed to be banned in the case, I successfully ruined that plan and take the punishment with pride.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL! No, I didn't know that. (Thanks for the smile!) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

St. Martin, Idstein

ps: work - I just formatted some prose into a table, a new format, and you are the first person to show for comments, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

(I'm afraid the following might be a bit more "clinically cold" than my usual conversational style.)

1) Well, first of all, fix up the broken "messiah" reference.

2) The sortable list is a great idea, and is my personal favourite, but it only works when the contents are sortable. For it to work best, you need to do a number of things. e.g. To make dates sortable, use the "dts" template. To make names sortable, use the "sortname" template. etc.

More later. (Sorry.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in progress ;) - The more advance one on Marga Schiml disc uses sortname already, - the dates are sorted (days will be added, as several more names) , and the need for sorting is rather limited, - for Schiml, a sort by conductor is desirable, for this one, - the very few mentioned are easy to spot and sort. - Would you know a good way to sort by composer, given that some entries have several? - Comments to the template itself please to {{Classical discography row}}, the others (tl|Cantata discography row}} and {{Classical concert row}}) are place holders and will likely be merged to a general {{Classical table row}} eventually, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh Wow! It looks like you are three or four steps ahead of me! (Good! I wasn't sure how to fix some of those problems!!)

Would you know a good way to sort by composer, given that some entries have several? - Actually, I was looking at that one. Still thinking.

Comments to the template itself ... - I'm not yet familiar with that family of templates. However, it seems that may change in the very near future!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's all brandnew. Classical was a start, then I needed Cantata urgently for last Sunday's TFA, - as a beginner in templates I could only copy, not make if-forks. Same for Concert, - 50th anniversary to be celebrated next Sunday. In the end, we dream of a template where users can define which info they want in which column, under which header and aranged how. I like structured information ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried something: sorting the works by date of first performance. I would like to use sortname for the composers, because most concerts have only one, it makes some sense to go by that alphabet, - but can I show only last the name then? I didn't find it in the template doc and asked there. Date sorting is done. I would like to show somehow - background colour? - which concerts were HIP, - what do you think? - I would like to show the date of a second performance - obviously two in two locations were not the same day, and sometimes we had two one location - but don't see an elegant way yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:General Pak Army.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:General Pak Army.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)