User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive18

Beer

After the hours I put into fixing this beer page, I'm quite grateful for your recent upkeep. Thank you! (I might tweak the note about Bulgaria to make it more obvious that it's a different year, but it's great that you found another source, even if only one.) Again: Good Job, go team, cheers, and all like that. (^_^) -:- Alpin Wolf -:- 07:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than a barnstar, and most appreciated. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I for one would be pleased to buy you a Czech beer(s) if you ever grace Prague! jmcw (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, too, is better than a barnstar! (Four more years of school fees, then Europe: Here I come!)

In the interim, should you choose to venture to the antipodes, I insist on buying you a Coopers Pale Ale, a Little Creatures Pale ale (check out the website), take you for tours of McLaren Vale, Clare Valley, and the Barossa Valley (A, B), and generally show you around Adelaide, Adelaide city centre, Adelaide Parklands, North Tce, ... , etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds wonderful - added to my fantasy list! jmcw (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Burton

Hello there.. I've modified the note about his uniform to just mention the side cap as prewar militia issue. The full AWM photo (http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/H06785) that the card is based on shows him wearing the standard AIF tunic rather than the militia shirt. Apparently some of the early AIF enlistees were still being issued the old militia headgear. Good reference for uniform here : http://www.grantsmilitaria.com/militariaphotos/militaria_images.asp?key=23 and http://www.grantsmilitaria.com/militariaphotos/militaria_images.asp?key=75 , and the discussion I had on the WWI discussion board here : http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=143056&st=0&gopid=1368532&#entry1368532

regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Good stuff. From my pov, both informative AND interesting. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 star rank

I have responded to your question at Talk:3 star rank. Greenshed (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever to do with "Ownership issues"

It may be helpful for you to review WP:TPG, specifically: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, 'owns' a talk page discussion or its heading." Likewise, "If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings." jæs (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is completely true, and totally irrelevant.

You appear to be deliberately ignoring the fact (not opinion, fact) that no-one has the right to alter somebody else's contribution to a talk page, particularly if it alters their intent. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring sectioning -- we're talking about two extra = symbols in the markup -- along with a clear indication that the segment was originally part of another section, doesn't alter the "intent" of your comment. If you're planning to edit war just to maintain your ownership of that section, fine, you can have it. My goal was to make it easier for newcomers to the move discussion to comment. I am, however, restoring my statement there regarding your badgering of other editors, which I'm assuming you've (presumably accidentally) deleted, twice now, in your rush to revert. jæs (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) My apologies - I did not notice that your reversion was not just a reversion, and that you had added a statement in there. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it, and you are continuing to misrepresent what I was trying to communicate.

3) The intent of your goal is laudable. However, it has consequences that, presumably, you did not forsee and did not intend.

4) Again I will say this issue has nothing to do with "ownership"; it is about you unilaterally deciding to alter my words to convey a meaning different from the meaning I was intending to convey. The fact that you continue to assert your opinion of what you think I said, rather than paying attention to my attempts to clarify my intent, is quite indicative.

5) As for "badgering", again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't share it.

Again, my apologies for paying more attention to your edit comment than to your edit. Mea culpa. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosgrove

Hi,

The previous version had the top row of ribbons off centre due to the Info Box on the right hand side... I merely added lines until it worked! I will read up on <br> a.k.a. <br />?
when I get a chance.

Cheers, --Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unifight

Thanks for jumping in on the Unifight article. I'm in Prague struggling with an undependable but free WIFI connection. I feel bad for first-time wiki author - so much to learn - it is nice when they meet some of the nicer people here as they get their first mauling. jmcw (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help with Unifight section, I am grateful. If I can help with another section, please let me know. I am a Wkipedia beginner but I know some things about martial arts and other. --Simone Nicolescot (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete file

Please advise how one marks a file that one wants deleted. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add the text "{{db-g7}}" anywhere on the page you want deleted. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rundle Mall

The user account User talk:Rundle Mall was an obvious role account, and with that kind of COI should not have edited the article in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal reporting

Hi. I have blocked that one for a week, thanks; but the place to report a vandal who has gone on past a recent final warning is WP:AIV. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I agree it's a confusing maze. One useful technique, if you want to know about something, say Oogles within Wikipedia, is to try typing WP:OOGLE into the search box and see what comes up - in this case WP:VANDAL takes you to the main advice page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 216.243.212.196 (talk · contribs) (now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A216.243.212.196 blocked)

In future, please report such things on WP:AIV. Cheers, 94.197.182.162 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbons

Just wondering what your thoughts are on ribbons sections in Mil Bios. There seems to be some differing opinions. Personally I think they look nice yet it is difficult to confirm the accuracy or completeness. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" you should ask. (I'll warn you now that I am NOT "neutral" on the topic! Amongst the MilHist community, I have a reputation for being a strong and somewhat annoying advocate of them.)

"There seems to be some differing opinions." - I think that might qualify as "understatement"!

" ... it is difficult to confirm the accuracy or completeness." - Not always, but it is sometimes harder to confirm some information for some people.

e.g. Ken Smart, who became a Lieutenant General in 1942. Up until 1920, it's fairly easy to find all sorts of detailed information about him. From 1920-1942, it's more difficult. From 1942-1946, despite the fact that he was a 3* general, it's difficult. Post-war from 1946 until his retirement in 1954, it's very difficult. And post retirement till his death in 1961, it's almost impossible.

On the other hand, for Keith Payne, the modern Defence Senior Leadership Group, and despite SAS secrecy, for Mark Donaldson, it is now almost easy.

My personal opinion has been well summarised by others (e.g. User:PalawanOz and User:Hawkeye7) when expressing their own opinions, so I'll steal some of their words (from here):

... I like 'em (the ribbon bars and explanatory table), as I believe they add significantly to an article. ... My original purpose (in creating articles and images on medals) was because on Anzac Day a year or two ago I saw people wearing ribbons that I wasn't familiar with - I came to Wikipedia to identify them, and found no articles that could help. So I started creating them. For me, a ribbon bar is much more than 'eye-candy' - in many cases it neatly summarises a person's career. It can also lead you down some interesting paths in their life - see for example Keith Payne - trying to track down what his second and third last ribbons were revealed a lot about a little-known part of military history (little known to me anyway).

The 'Awards' section of the Military Person Infobox is stated as being for "any notable awards or decorations the person received." I don't think that Dhofar Campaign Medal (to use the Keith Payne example) could qualify as particularly 'notable', but all the same, it is quite interesting! The full list of a person's campaign medals are unlikely to appear in the Infobox, and they are also somewhat unlikely to appear in the article text (unless it is indeed a very extensive bio).

For me, showing the ribbon bar helps answer a lot of questions (eg, what is the second last ribbon/medal that Peter Cosgrove gets around with?) and reveals interesting facts about a person's career (eg, that Ken Gillespie spent a bit of time in Namibia).

I believe that having this section at the end of an article does not interrupt the flow of words (a common complaint about the 'flag icons'), and if it is deemed obtrusive, we could always reduce the image size slightly (current semi-default is 100x30px for the ribbon bar, and 100x20px for the explanatory table) - bringing it down to 80px (and 60px for the table) would perhaps assist.

In summary - I believe these sections add significantly to articles, are more than simply eye-candy, and should be retained. PalawanOz (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I completely agree with PalawanOz. I recall many times as a child marvelling at the ribbons on the chests of the Corps of Commissionaires at the races, particularly the green one that they seemed especially proud of (which turned out to be the Pacific Star.) More recently, I found myself drawn to the rows of ribbons on Edmund Herring in William Dargie's portrait. There is a good reason why his Archibald Prize-winning portrait places them at the very centre of the painting, where they immediately become the focus of the viewer's eye. So Dargie's portrait is like my article in paint. Later editors added the ribbon bars and links to my article, so equally curious readers will know what they are looking at.

So I too believe these sections add significantly to articles, are more than simply eye-candy, and should be retained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c at the time:

Fortunately for me, PalawanOz and Hawkeye7 have caputured most of my POV, and expressed it in a far more eloquent manner than I believe I can. So, at the risk of sounding lazy, I'll start off by saying: "I completely agree with both of them."

I'm not sure I can add much more. (Do I hear cries of "Thank God for that!!!"?)

By analogy, I'll draw on the result of debates on the Cecil Rhodes page: This information may not be essential, but it adds background, context and depth to the metaphorical "mental picture" that the article is "drawing". As such, it provides a much richer "picture" of the nature and character of the person than the reader would obtain without it being there.

As "they" say: "A picture is worth a thousand words". It is not merely unnecessary or redundant data, and it most certainly is not just "decoration". Pdfpdf (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was about 2 years ago. My opinion now is much the same. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I guess you've noticed my /Ribbons page, which is something of a never-ending "work-in-progress"? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oops - I missed this bit

I don't have a strong view either way, except to say that the section should be based on some evidence. Using a photo is correct for that day it was taken and should be cited as such (eg David Evans Photo does not include any post career awards). --Oliver Nouther (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS What program do you use to create your ribbons? Do you take requests? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(eg David Evans Photo does not include any post career awards)." - Sorry, which David Evans? Which photo?

"What program do you use to create your ribbons?" - Ah ha! Appearances can be deceptive!

The truth be told, I don't "create" ribbons - I take other people's public-domain ribbons and modify the size & shape to suit my then current purposes. In general, that's 100x30px.

I did try to create a few ribbons at one time, but found it a lot of work, and that although there are a lot of people out there doing a bad job of creating ribbons, there are enough people doing a good job and producing good quality reproductions much more easily and quickly than I can. I used to have a lot of interaction with User:PalawanOz, but he seems to have gone a bit quiet over the last year or so.

In answer to your question: I use a very old program - Jasc Software's "Paint Shop Pro" Version 7.04 which, although it was released in 2000, was well-enough-designed to cope with the future - e.g. It recognises my getting-old-now desktop machine as a dual processor, and my newest laptop as a quad processor. I can only remember single-processor machines being around in 2000, so I find that impressive. (But maybe I'm easily impressed?) It also handles Vista and Windows 7 without complaint. However, it doesn't handle .svg files which, at times, is a nuisance.

"Do you take requests?" - Depends what it's a request for. Creating new ribbons from scratch is out of my league, but fiddling with public-domain images is well within my abilities.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Australian states and territories visited

Hello. Regarding your edit to {{User Australian states and territories visited}}, it seems like most of the "this user has visited provinces/states/territories" templates listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel do have the total number listed. Examples include:

This user has visited {{{1}}} of the 10 provinces and 3 territories of Canada.

{{{1}}}

This user has visited {{{1}}} of the 34 province-level regions of China.

{{{1}}}

This user has visited {{{1}}} of the 27 EU Member States.

{{{1}}}

User:World/Userboxes/Indian States Visited User:World/Userboxes/Oceans

This user has visited {{{1}}} of the 50 United States of America

This user has visited all 50 of the 50 States.

50

This user has visited 1 of the 50 United States.

1

This user has visited N of the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

N

In fact, their precedent is what I based {{User Australian states and territories visited}} on when I created the template in 2007. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would prefer we go with something like "six states and two major mainland territories" ... similar to what is used in the first line of the States and territories of Australia article. That said, I do however rather like your elegant solution to the number issue. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite email

Hi Pdfpdf,

Just to let you know, I've sent you an offsite email. I just found your email from December. Apologies for not having replied sooner. Natually, I'll give myself an uppercut. Take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-04-15

Delete file

Please advise how one marks a file that one wants deleted. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add the text "{{db-g7}}" anywhere on the page you want deleted. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbons

This bit archived at User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive18#Ribbons