User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive41

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 - You are here
2019 - 42:Jan-Dec19
2020 - 43:Jan-Dec20
2021 - 44:Jan-Dec21

2018-02-02

Meetup

Hi there - In the early stages of planning an Adelaide Meetup for Fri 19 Jan 2018 in CBD. Does this work for you? Pru.mitchell (talk)

@Pru.mitchell: 5pm is a bit too early. (I don't work in town.) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention. I won't be making it, but if you do could you mention to Bahudhara that I was thinking of him when I started Category:History of Port Adelaide and am adding to it sporadically. Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old Adelaide families

Just was looking at User:Pdfpdf/Old Adelaide Families. Where did you get to with this? It's an interesting point you make about how the European settlment of SA was privately financed. As a resident with exclusively very-early SA immigrant ancestry I've only just understood how it happened and each investor got to pick a city and country block based on their investment (just as soon as overworked Col. Light got around to surveying the place). I suppose this is a somewhat unusual beginning for a city. Is there any publication you know of that discusses or lists old Adelaide families with relation to their very early (financial or cultural) contribution? I mean, is there a list drawn together that's not your original or some other Wikipedia editor's original research. Or have you published outside Wikipedia for that matter? Donama (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at User:Pdfpdf/Old Adelaide Families#2017-January Pdfpdf (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure aspects of Perth western austraia establishment have echoes or similiarities and contrasts, (nowhere the nice road grid of the cbd) JarrahTree 13:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ian Allison (disambiguation)

The article Ian Allison (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS; hatnotes are best in this situation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the "heads up".

What I'd like to do is:

move Ian Allison to Ian Allison (basketball) - done
move Ian Allison (disambiguation) to Ian Allison - needs an admin Done
update Ian Allison (disambiguation) in preparation for move to Ian Allison - done
modify the template {{Footer 1936 Olympic Silver Medalists Basketball Men}} - done

and anything else I may have missed. However, I need to be an admin to move Ian Allison (disambiguation) to Ian Allison.

Anyway, what do you suggest? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-02-11

"Watchlist"

whoosh/poke

I just noticed my whiteman park magpie on your very notable clean user page ! whoosh JarrahTree 00:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I stole it years ago. You're getting a bit slow-off-the-mark sunshine! Its a nice photo. BTW, in addition to magpies, I now have two locally resident kookaburras outside my bedroom and bathroom windows.Pdfpdf (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yup the getting slowdown, therefore denial on my user page that its dementia - probably is :). JarrahTree 08:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thats not bad for a retiring shy editor such your eminent self JarrahTree 12:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've done it, I can become truly retiring ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-02-26

Commons:Category:Lieutenant colonel ?!

Hi. About this. There are not Commons:Category:Lieutenant colonel. Regards. --. HombreDHojalata.^talk 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're right. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC) (There is, however, Commons:Category:Lieutenant colonels)[reply]

Chief of the Defence Force (Australia)

Check out the 'new' table on Chief of the Defence Force (Australia) and give me your thoughts. Nford24 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nford24: WP:I just don't like it, but sadly that's not a sufficient argument. Here are some of the reasons I don't like it:

It's 3 tables, not one - you can't do a proper sort on the data.
Overlinking
Overbolding
The flag icons look stupid, particularly given they're so overdone.
Probably others, too, when I stop cringing and start thinking.

(However, not sure if they're sufficient to make a difference, particularly given that "everybody else does this". Old proberb - "Eat dung! 10 billion blowflies can't be wrong!!") Pdfpdf (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you've hit the nail on the head with that one. I'll try and find a way to link the tables at least, otherwise the article will have to be rewritten to separate the three tables into three separate sections. I honestly woulnt consider it an "improved table". Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nford24: Abraham, B.S may have absolved you of the effort by reverting back to the original one-table solution. Maybe you want to contribute to the talk page "discussion"? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Shoppee

I don't understand how Charles Shoppee was "a direct copy" from HRAS, but nevertheless I have changed it so that I don't think it could now be considered to be. Could I bother you to look at User:Pdfpdf/Charles Shoppee and tell me if you still think there is a problem? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I feel it would be more useful if the template said something like "fragments of the article are identical to fragments of xxxx". I found the statement that the article was a direct copy very confusing. (Because quite clearly, the whole article is not a direct copy.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's still some copyvio; I've made some further amendments to the draft to reduce the overlap, particularly in the final paragraph. I look at several factors when deciding how to handle each violation. In your case, since you have already been warned twice for copyright violations, I thought nominating the article for deletion was the best course, since I could not remove the copyvio without destroying the article, and a deletion nomination might serve as a wake-up call that copyright violations are not tolerated. You are reaching the point where you will be blocked from editing if the copyvio continues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making further amendments to the draft. Is it now fit to be moved into the main space? Pdfpdf (talk)

Obviously I don't want to be blocked, and given that I've created dozens of articles that haven't had any problems, I don't see how wikipedia would benefit from me being blocked. You are strong on being dictatorial, and rather weak on explaining yourself. If you continue to harass me without explaining what I'm doing wrong, I'm likely to just go away and wikipedia will lose another editor with 11 years experience who has performed over 50,000 edits and created dozens of articles, and you appear to be doing this on the basis that three of the articles I've created upset you. Bullying me with unexplained threats is not a wake-up call. Explaining what I'm doing that upsets you, and how I can avoid doing what upsets you, is much more likely to achieve the desired result for both of us.

I repeat, I don't understand how Charles Shoppee was "a direct copy" from HRAS. Please explain. Is the problem that fragments of the article are identical to fragments of HRAS? Is the problem that I'm too closely paraphrasing the source? (If so, I can address that, and in fact you have already seen that having been told that by another editor, I made changes which made the article more acceptable to you.) Or is/are there (an)other different problem(s)? As I've said, I really don't understand just what it is that I'm doing that is causing you problems.

BTW: I draw to your attention that one of the admins at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Charles Shoppee said: It was claimed to be a copy of HRAS and thus a copyright infringement. However I can't see a violation there. A second comment was that Earwig's Copyvio Detector, it came back with (I think) about 50% matching data. When you consider that the names of the positions, the universities, the awards and the molecules are going to be identical to the source, it's hardly surprising that there's going to be a high degree of matching.

You say: "I look at several factors". What are these factors?

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of each editor's length of service or number of valuable contributions, copyright violations are never okay. It's a violation of the copyright policy of this website and copyright law. Factors I look at when deciding on a course of action include the experience level of the editor and the number of copyvio warnings they have already received. Are they a long-term editor or are they an employee of a corporation or school visiting our site at the behest of their employer? It's true that in biographies there's going to be a certain amount of overlap such as the names of schools attended or lists of books written, and even for a violation-free article the copyvio detector can give a deceptively high percentage. Your draft at User:Pdfpdf/Charles Shoppee still shows a 33% overlap for example, though it is now clean. But there's no reason to include unique phraseology such as "moved to Melbourne to be closer to family" like you did in your original version. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any such unique or creative wording from the source material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the draft now fit to be moved into the main space? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but you have answered very few of the questions I asked you. Again I repeat, I don't understand how Charles Shoppee was "a direct copy" from HRAS. Please explain. Is the problem that fragments of the article are identical to fragments of HRAS? Is the problem that I'm too closely paraphrasing the source? Or are there other problems? It appears to me that your sole criterion is the percentage returned by the copyvio detector tool. If so, it would appear to me that a simple solution to our problems is for me to test my drafts with the copyvio tool. Or are there other criteria? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By-the-way: I've never said or implied that copyright violations are okay. In fact, I've gone to considerable effort to avoid them. My major problem appears to be not understanding what your problems are. Henceforth, rather than bullying and harassing me, should anything cause you a problem, can you please WP:AGF, bring the problem to my attention, and explain to me what your problem is? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I already explained myself pretty fully. Here's some more details. The wording "direct copy" comes from Template:Db-copyvio-notice and there was some direct copying from the source webpage. Whether or not there's enough overlap to warrant G12 deletion is a judgement call. For this particular article I felt there was enough overlap to warrant the speedy deletion nomination. My sole criterion is not the percentage shown by Earwig's tool. Each case needs to be manually assessed, as list material, names of schools attended, and titles of books written will give an artificially high reading. Testing your drafts with the tool is not the best approach, because copyright material is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes and drafts. The problem is that not only are you too closely paraphrasing your source documents, but also in some instances you are copying unique phrases that could easily be re-written such as "moved to Melbourne to be closer to family". Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. The draft is now clean and can be moved to article space. I have to go to work and will later be taking my mother shopping so I will not be available again until circa 20:00 UTC (3 pm MDT). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I now have a much better understanding. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-04-12

I noticed you've been doing SA electoral district article updates...

Might you be willing to address their outdated suburbs/areas? Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timeshift9: That sounds like a big job! I notice there's been a bit more discussion at [1] since you posted here. Is there still a problem? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Electoral district of Mawson and see for yourself... still a bunch of suburbs no longer in the seat, and no rural coast/island areas. Where there's smoke there's fire... Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> OK. Thanks.

I don't want to step on Canley's toes. (User:Canley/Redistributions/South Australia 2018 is an impressive piece of work.) I'll leave it a couple of days before making a nuisance of myself. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user

Can I please get a hand with this user's disruptive edits? They are also blanking their talk page. Timeshift (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do what I can.

The Steele Hall photo she uploaded is copyright. It'll be interesting to see how long before it's deleted from Commons.
She didn't say the Weatherill image is better - she said it's a "Better lead image". I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not going to get involved in that conversation. Make sure you don't confuse fact with opinion.
List of Premiers of South Australia by time in office - you seem to have fixed it.
Premier of South Australia - you seem to have fixed it. ‎

What more is needed? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. One more attempt seemed to have ceased it. Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. (That could have been harder!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:George Cummins Morphett 1951.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are flagging Australian images for which the copyright has expired. The images are NOT being used under a non-free content criteria. Please explain why you think they are. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright may have expired in Australia, but the reason you received this message is because the file were not necessarily out of copyright on January 1st 1996, which means they are still copyright in the US (per URRA which restored the copyright in the US. (i.e. 1951+50=2001). I appreciate that this is frustrating, and to some extent ridiculous. If you can explain why you think URAA doesn't apply, I am more than happy to review.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Basically, what Shakespearefan00's trying to say is this: since the servers here are based in the United States, and the Wikimedia Foundation is an American-based nonprofit, we must follow United States law regarding copyright, free use, and public domain images, graphics, papers, etc. In short, because the Uruguay Round Agreements Act demands that copyright be extended, and does so with the force of US law, we, the editors and contributors here on Wikipedia, must follow it. — Javert2113 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 and Javert2113: Eavesdropping in to this conversation, it appears that you are concerned that photographs published online by the Australian War Memorial clearly displaying "Copyright expired - Public Domain" that would have originally been taken by an employee of the Commonwealth of Australia, published on a website where the text is licensed with CC-BY, should not be used in Wikipedia because one of those agencies might choose to enforce a hypothetical copyright that was reinstated by the United States, and only applies in the United States. Can anyone here seriously imagine that is a concern??? The link under copyright expired leads to a page that says "You do not need permission from the copyright owner to copy this image from the Memorial's web site, or to reproduce it elsewhere." --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg => File:Four officers of Support Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment in Korea.jpg

Regarding File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg, I found the new location of the URL. (https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01813.718) What do I need to do to fix the problem with this photo? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File renamed to File:Four officers of Support Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment in Korea.jpg Pdfpdf (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Cummins Morphett 1951.jpg

http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/12500/B12409.htm says "No known copyright restrictions" and displays a Public Domain logo. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

On File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg you've established it's copyright free. - I'll detag if it hasn't been already. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On File:George Cummins Morphett 1951.jpg, http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=959, says NOTHING about US status, only that it's "out of copyright under Australian copyright law", That's it's out of copyright in Australia is not disputed. The issue is that there's no confirmation of it status as PD in the US. I'm not however going to argue if you think it's acceptable to continue to host. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way to settle it once and for all is to get the source to confirm that it (and other images in that archive) are not subject to copyright in the US, and to have them confirm that via WP:OTRS ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as Do not move to Commons, I am not prepared to continue an argument with people that don't respond to pragmatic approaches... @ShakespeareFan00: a) I wasn't aware we were having an argument. I haven't disagreed with or disputed anything you've written. b) What pragmatic approach are you proposing? c) What response / what sort of response are you seeking from me? I am not an expert on this topic, and at no time have I pretended to be. I have simply tried to understand the rather cryptic comments that you and others have made, and tried to respond to them in order to satisfy your not-very-clear-to-me requirements. Your proposal that "the source confirm that it (and other images in that archive) are not subject to copyright in the US" might address the problem, but what possible incentive is there for them to do so? After all, it's not their problem. Do I need some sort of fair use statement on the file? If so, what template do I use on the file? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pragmatic approach was to convert it to 'Non-free use' and ask for a Non-free use rationale. However, you reverted the F6 tag based on additional information provided by a third party. Based on that, I consider that you 'disupted' the F6 tag, and thus you might have more information than I did. Thus you were not responding to the pragmatic approach being pursued, on the basis that you had a stronger position or alternative approach. Given past experience with Commons, that deletes all manner of images for the most obscure of reasons, I wasn't prepared to let it be moved to commons, however.

I'm sorry, it was a bit strongly worded. It could have been more less confrontationally worded with a better indication of good faith on my part. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, remembering that I'm not an expert in the area, what's the easiest solution to this? (I don't see that there's currently any need for it to be moved to Commons.) In other words, how does one convert it to 'Non-free use'? Is there a template? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The soloutions in order of ease -

Convert the license to {{PD-Australia|restored}}{{Non-free biog pic}}, Fill out {{Non-free use rationale biog}} rationales for both uses. I am very confident both uses would meet [[[WP:NFCC]].
Contact the archive concerned, and ask them to specfically confirm that they are able to grant an appropriate release under an appropriate 'free' license. See WP:DONATE and WP:Consent for more details. ( I am basing this suggestion on something in the terms of use linked from the source that suggested some copyrights were granted/transferred to the archive.)
(Most difficult) Lobby your Federal Senators for 'fair' copyright terms with the US. ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the instructions from option 1. and the laugh from option 3. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added draft rationales in comments, you might want to review, and amend... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Like Scott (below) said, Thank you for writing the draft rationales. Could you cast your eye over the page and check that I didn't stuff it up? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "skin in the game" (I have distant Morphett relatives, but from Joseph at the bottom of Morphett families of South Australia), so have no immediate problem with it being tagged as not to move to Commons and given a defensive fair use justification. Thank you for writing the draft rationale. I think this is unnecessarily cautious, and note there are other early 1950s photographs from SLSA collections that appear on Commons tagged with the Commons equivalent of {{PD-Australia}} (which doesn't show the third column) in commons:Category:Files from the State Library of South Australia. I apologise if I appeared argumentative - the intended tone was annoyance or frustration that US law might act to protect an entity that believes its copyright has expired. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Shoppee

A tag has been placed on Charles Shoppee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.science.org.au/fellowship/fellows/biographical-memoirs/charles-william-shoppee-1904-1994.

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 "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 deleted 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia
User:Pdfpdf/Charles Shoppee
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Charles Shoppee

I don't understand how Charles Shoppee was "a direct copy" from HRAS, but nevertheless I have changed it so that I don't think it could now be considered to be. Could I bother you to look at User:Pdfpdf/Charles Shoppee and tell me if you still think there is a problem? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I feel it would be more useful if the template said something like "fragments of the article are identical to fragments of xxxx". I found the statement that the article was a direct copy very confusing. (Because quite clearly, the whole article is not a direct copy.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles William Shoppee

Hello Pdfpdf,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Charles William Shoppee for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Rfassbind – talk 02:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

if you take a look at the submissions, you would indeed know that over 100 of the record 130 submissions were about this.

First, it was me who wrote "over 100" - [2]. As this was uncited, and I thought counting them would be WP:OR, I changed it to say "numerous". Yes, I did look at the submissions. No I don't know that over 100 of them are about this.

Do you know that over 100 of them are about this? How? How do you say it without it being WP:OR? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the related submissions is not OR in itself. Second, it wasn't you who wrote ~100 of 130 submissions, it was me, at the time, in mid 2016. And yes, I read through all the submissions before I made that edit, so yes, i do know. Timeshift (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I did write it. It's just that you also wrote it, and you wrote it well before I did. Do you know why yours was removed? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I think your latest version is an improvement. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we both thought it was noteworthy, however I added it long before you did (and when you added it on 1 April 2018, it was probably you involuntarily remembering either a) reading my long-standing contribution at Rachel Sanderson and/or b) reading it in the electorate article on/before I removed it on 26 March 2018). As for why it was removed, I removed the whole thing after the election had passed, as I thought the huge paragraph block was no longer so worthy that it was warranted in this article too, so I removed it in favour of just leaving it in the Rachel Sanderson article. However, as per User:Alex Sims querying with me, it was mutually decided that a shortened version might be warranted. The more I saw of the shortened version, the more I thought little bits here and there were important to re-add. Even now, it reads with a far more suitable brevity than it did. And i'm not quite sure which wording i've just changed for you to say that it's an improvement...? If anything it has simply been expanded a little further. Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-04-16

Recent links

Test div col

{{Div col}} / {{Div col end}} gives two columns.

x
x
x
x
x

{{Div col|colwidth=5em}} / {{Div col end}}

mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm
mmmmm

{{Div col|colwidth=5em}} / {{Div col end}}

mmmmm
12345
mmmmmm
123456
mmmmmmm
1234567
12345678
1234567
12345678
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

{{Div col|colwidth=10em}} / {{Div col end}}

mmmmmmmmmm
1234567890
mmmmmmmmmmm
12345678901
mmmmmmmmmmmm
123456789012
mmmmmmmmmmmmm
1234567890123
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
12345678901234
123456789012345
1234567890123456
12345678901234567
123456789012345678
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

{{Div col|colwidth=15em}} / {{Div col end}}

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

{{Div col|colwidth=20em}} / {{Div col end}}

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

{{Div col|colwidth=25em}} / {{Div col end}}

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

{{Div col|colwidth=30em}} / {{Div col end}}

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

{{Div col|colwidth=35em}} / {{Div col end}}

x
x
x
x
x

Learn something new every day?

Hi. I'm wondering if you can spare me a few moments? I was scanning my watchlist and your edit comment caught my eye. "This article is written in British English, which commonly treats collective nouns as plural. DO NOT change "WERE" to "WAS"." What is the definition of a collective noun, and why is it plural? (I always thought a collection of coins or stamps or whatever was a single entity, and hence singular.) With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just copying the existing hidden note from the article, into my edit summary, of course. Many of the articles for UK bands have that note or something very similar. And that's because band names are an exception in British English - normally, as you say, collective nouns are singular. There's a definition of "collective noun" here. Hope that helps. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Australia

Hi. There's no Template:PD-Australia/doc. Can you tell me what the "restored" in {{PD-Australia|restored}} means, and what it does? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, while I'm here: There's no Template:PD-AustraliaGov/doc either. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

@Pdfpdf: - It means that the file was still copyright in the US, due to it still being in copyright in Australia at the URAA date (1st January 1996). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I've recently been trying to add {{Non-free use rationale biog}} to relevant images when found. It is of course silly that the US doesn't accept shorter term on stuff that whould have expired in Australia several years ago. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, the "restored" doesn't actually cause the template to "do" anything - it's just documenting a situation? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It changes what's displayed in the template's lower portion, and the categorisation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. (Not very observant, am I!) Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC & Bar (Australia) ribbon.png

References

Image of medal: File:Australian Distinguished Service Cross.png
Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)
{{Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia}}

File:DSC (Australia) ribbon.png	On commons since 2010 & in template
File:AUS Distinguished Service Cross & Bar ribbon.png	On commons. Created 2017-01-29 by EricSerge
File:DSC & Bar (Australia) ribbon.png File:DSC & Bar (Australia) ribbon.png	On en.wikipedia - no pages use it

Discussion

What was the concerns about it being inaccurate? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: In 2014 I wasn't sure if it had the correct thingumy on it. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nford24: Heads up. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all of Australia's previous decorations using the Tudor rose device, and not having seen (at the time) any of the current devices that would/was used for the new decorations, I naturally assumed the tudor rose device was still being used. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Batting (cricket)

I note you have reverted some of my disambigiuation edits from cricket players to Batting (cricket). I dind't make the original change - I'm just trying to clean up after them as Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig identifies 1872 links to Batsman trying to make it gender neutral (womens cricket) and includes Batting (baseball).— Rod ^talk 10:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Was writing a message on your talk page - will do it here instead.

@Rodw:I'm confused.

1) All three of batsman, batsmen and batter (cricket) (eventually) redirect to Batting (cricket). Why change batsman into [[batter (cricket)batsman]]?

2) Why are they classed as disambiguation pages rather than redirect pages?

3) 1872 pages - Hmmm. I think I'll stop doing manual changes!!

4) Yes, a female batsman seems rather clumsy, but:

5) I've never heard of anyone playing cricket referred to as a batter. (But then again, Australia used to have 8-ball overs ... )

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems to have been changed now, so hopefully has dealt with the issue.— Rod ^talk 11:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw:Welllll. Not really. You've changed dozens (hundreds?) of batsman into [[batter (cricket)batsman]]. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to my contributions list to change to Batting (cricket), but because of the change to the redirect I only see the ones you have reverted.— Rod ^talk 11:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Is "What links here" on Batter (cricket) any use to you? i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Batter_(cricket) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - starting to revert myself.— Rod ^talk 11:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now undone all the edits which you (or others) hadn't already reverted. I suspect there will be future attempts to try to make a gender neutral term in future.— Rod ^talk 13:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that your suspicion is correct. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You raised my curiousity:

Most articles try to avoid both words
England women's cricket team mainly uses batsman, with a couple of batters
New Zealand women's national cricket team uses batswoman/batswomen
India women's national cricket team uses batswoman/batswomen
Pakistan women's national cricket team - "the highest total by any batsman in Women's Test cricket"(!)
South Africa women's national cricket team uses batsman
Bangladesh women's national cricket team uses batter

Yes, I have no doubt that your suspicion is correct. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an issue to raise at WikiProject Cricket to try to get consensus and consistency. Unfortunately I do not have enough knowledge of cricket (or gender neutral wording) to be able to advise. — Rod ^talk 14:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I can see endless heated discussion down that path. I think I'll just sit back and watch from a distance while I edit pages not involving cricket and/or gender. (I'm off to bed.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suspect any wording will be controversial. For cricket issues I normally refer to User:Harrias. I will go back to writing about the architecture of churches (but even that has its controversies). Sleep well. — Rod ^talk 15:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note in the archives of the project talk page Harrias commented "However, batsman is more common than batter, and is generally considered gender-neutral, despite the obvious." & also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 28#Style question. For a non cricket person "Batsman" doesn't appear to be gender neutral & I suspect whoever played with the redirects etc yesterday doesn't think so either.— Rod ^talk 15:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-04-29

Recent links

{{PD-Australia|restored}}, {{Non-free biog pic}}, {{Non-free use rationale biog}} {{PD-Australia}} {{PD-AustraliaGov}}
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia
User talk:Moon God, File:Robert Askin.jpg, Commons: User_talk:Moon_God, File:Robert_Askin.jpg, source, Deletion request

cripes

it all looks bigger than ben hur! trust you survive your machinations, or come up for air every now and then JarrahTree 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

877 live ones, plus the dead ones. Not sure what I'm going to do with it. I had thought that maybe I'd keep it as a reference database, and just put the blue links into the main space. And then having done that, go work on the red links in List of Companions of the Order of Australia. (I'm surprised by how many red links there still are in that article.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing subject: "They" don't seem to be updating "It's an Honour" any more. (But that doesn't really intersect with your area of interest, does it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh - its a jungle out there - keep forgetting that.... JarrahTree 08:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of it's desert. (And then there's Antarctica ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ahh my favourite subject = the indian ocean passing below the south of south australia - hahahahaha JarrahTree 08:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection, there's even more ocean than jungle, desert and/or Antarctica. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol

there's a vast amount of talk page space that most main space eds rarely even venture into ....

here and there I must come over as quite rude - my infinitely apologetic apologies... JarrahTree 12:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Never. (I often do, however, find you cryptic - that's why I often phone you.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least your west coast of south oz is known as permanently white shark territory - our surfing region has recently been taken over by white sharks - enough to make all the south west surfing breaks potentially closed off - getting closer to what south oz is anyways JarrahTree 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Honours search

Selected sentences extracted and copied from Talk:List of recipients of the Star of Courage:

In recent years awards have not been gazetted and it needs to be made clear which awards were gazetted and which were not.

"It's an Honour" has moved to https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/its-honour. While it is a brilliant source it is not a primary source.

The primary source until awards ceased being gazetted is the Commnwealth of Australian Gazette. It is online but only has the name of the recipient.

Today, it is best to use https://www.gg.gov.au/australian-honours-and-awards/australian-honours-lists for the media releases with full citations.

Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new Australian Honours search facility is at https://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/search Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Recent links

{{PD-Australia|restored}}, {{Non-free biog pic}}, {{Non-free use rationale biog}} {{PD-Australia}} {{PD-AustraliaGov}}
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia
Commons: File:Robert_Askin.jpg, source, Deletion request

Australian Honours search

Selected sentences extracted and copied from Talk:List of recipients of the Star of Courage:

In recent years awards have not been gazetted and it needs to be made clear which awards were gazetted and which were not.

"It's an Honour" has moved to https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/its-honour. While it is a brilliant source it is not a primary source.

The primary source until awards ceased being gazetted is the Commnwealth of Australian Gazette. It is online but only has the name of the recipient.

Today, it is best to use https://www.gg.gov.au/australian-honours-and-awards/australian-honours-lists for the media releases with full citations.

Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new Australian Honours search facility is at https://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/search Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the source of a copyvio

From User talk:Diannaa
A (short) while ago (21 April 2018) I spotted what I thought was likely to be a copyvio on Rodney Brooks, but I couldn't identify what it was a copy of. In what felt to me was almost no time at all, (it was actually 20 hours), you'd identified the source. Could I bother you to tell me what tool(s) you used to identify the source? With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pdfpdf and thank you for your interest. I was led to the Rodney Brooks article when another article Baxter (robot) was listed at CopyPatrol and I checked that editor's contribs. Here is a link to the Copypatrol report, which lists that url as a potential source. Another way is to do a search using Earwig's tool, or sometimes I check sources listed as references in the article, or sometimes I copy snippets of likely-looking prose and do a Google search and see what turns up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parklands cats

G'day Pdfpdf, not sure that the SANWM or South Africa Memorial qualify as being in the Adelaide Parklands. I don't think either is in a numbered or named parkland as defined by the ACC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: The SANWM is most certainly within the same Park as Govt House et al. Why wouldn't the South Africa Memorial also be in that same park? Then there's J150W - what's your feeling about it? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a rather odd cat in general. None of these buildings etc are in gazetted parklands to my knowledge, unlike the Cross of Sacrifice in Pennington Gardens, which definitely is. Perhaps a renaming of the cat is in order? Not sure what it should be, but the current one is misleadingly imprecise. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: My first reaction is to disagree. All of the north side of North Terrace is "Government Reserve" in the Adelaide Park Lands. Where can one find what has been / is "gazetted parklands", and why is the "Government Reserve" not Park Land? There are many parts of the Park Lands for which the City of Adelaide is not the title holder, but nevertheless they are still part of the Park Lands. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the cat isn't even vaguely descriptive of the places in which these things are placed, which are really in the wider CBD. For example, in what way is the corner of North Tce and King William Rd in the parklands? It is counter-intuitive. I acknowledge that some locs in the cat are probably in the parklands, but that doesn't mean all the locs are properly in this cat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: You're getting a bit unpleasent; keep it civil and factual please. Also, it might be nice if you made an attempt to answer my questions. Current outstanding questions are: "Then there's J150W - what's your feeling about it?" and "Where can one find what has been / is "gazetted parklands", and why is the "Government Reserve" not Park Land?"

For starters, the cat isn't even vaguely descriptive of the places in which these things are placed - First, that's simply your opinion, and second these things are located in the Park Lands area, so the name is entirely appropriate.

which are really in the wider CBD. - I have no idea what the "wider CBD" is defined as. If you mean, "they are on the opposite side of North Terrace from the town acres of the City of Adelaide", yes, I'd agree, but I'd also point out that "the opposite side of North Terrace from the town acres of the City of Adelaide" is the definition of where some of the Adelaide Park Lands are. Note that: "definition", not opinion.

in what way is the corner of North Tce and King William Rd in the parklands? - It is included in what is the definition of the Adelaide Park Lands.

It is counter-intuitive - That's your opinion; it's not a fact.

I acknowledge that some locs in the cat are probably in the parklands, but that doesn't mean all the locs are properly in this cat. - That's your opinion; it's not a fact.

As far as I've been able to determine, the fact is that the "City of Adelaide" consists of 700 town acres south of the river, ~340 north of the river, and 2,300 acres (930 ha) of Park Land. Of these 930 ha, about 230ha have "other stuff" on them, but they're still part of the Adelaide Park Lands. If you have other factual information that says otherwise, please supply it. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what is unpleasant or uncivil about questioning the placement of articles in a category. But if you are so wedded to it, good luck to you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Tain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It). Further, I've asked you some questions; you've made no attempt to answer any of them, hence I'm unable to determine if you just don't like it, or there is some factual basis for your questioning and opinions. I'm not wedded to it, and I don't want or need luck. I'm doing what is supported by the factual information I have found. If the information I have is wrong or out of date, I would like to know. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

old nautical chart of some Spratly Islands atolls and reefs

Hi Pdfpdf, I'm not sure if you know this map, but hold on in case you contemplate cutting out individual maps (such as Tizard Bank on the bottom), because I'm not satisfied with the resolution. I asked for help to get Zoomlevel 6 uploaded, this would provide best legibility of all entries. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ratzer: No, I've not seen this one. There are three more recent NGA Charts that cover those areas - 94042, 93061 & 93043 - but I've never been able to find hi-res copies of them; the best I've found is http://www.oceangrafix.com/chart/zoom?chart=93044 Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I think your Zoomlevel 5 copy is pretty good. Zoomlevel 6 is going to be very impressive! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map mentioned by you, http://www.oceangrafix.com/chart/zoom?chart=93044, and other maps of the area (93045, 93046, 93047, 93049) cover most if not all of the Spratly Islands in the widest sense. I shall try to get all of them in good resolution on commons. They would lend themselves for smaller cut-out maps for specific atolls and reefs and their articles, such as Bombay Castle and London Reefs. But one step after the other... Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratzer: Yes, but ...

Yes, they do. I'll add some more notes below
I'm not sure about the copyright. Given that NGA is a US Govt agency, and in general stuff from US Govt agencies is not copyright, they're probably not copyright. But ... I'm not sure about the copyright.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NGA Charts

To look at NGA charts

http://www.oceangrafix.com/search/map
tick the NGA (International) box on the left side
drag the map over to the South China Sea
Ctrl-scroll to zoom in
Etc.

But: I've found that if you know a chart number, the fastest & easiest way to get a chart displayed is to modify the URL

Regarding particular charts

93044, 93045, 93046 and 93047 cover most of Dangerous Ground (DG), but the Spratlys extend beyond DG to the south and west.
93048 would be useful (south of 93047), but isn't there, and copies I've seen are very lo-res
93049 covers some of the west, but the depth soundings are sparse. I tried to locate the DK1 Rigs (or their likely locations) - I didn't have much success.
93020 covers more of the west, and is of some use, but not a lot.
93030 doesn't quite have quite the resolution, but it's interesting to compare it with the 4 DG maps
92006 Eastern DG and east of DG - top left of the map isn't all that useful
93042 (Mischief Reef and others) - I haven't been able to find a copy. Similarly, there's a map covering Jackson Reef that I can't find.

Others

91004 is Scarborough Shoal
There's almost no coverage of the Paracels
93006 gives pretty good coverage of Pratas Reef and the North & South Vereker Shoals; 91010 is less good but interesting.
Etc.

Last of all: Although it only covers from the NE of DG to the Scarborough Shoal, my favourite chart is http://www.oceangrafix.com/chart/zoom?chart=91005
(Unfortunately, it's the only bathymetric chart I've come across.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of the Spratly Islands

Well chart 93049 goes as far west as Vanguard Bank and beyond. Isn't Vanguard Bank the westernmost feature of the Spratlys? What would we need chart 93020 for then? The coastal areas of Vietnam are not of interest here, I think.

Whatever, one of these days I shall sit down with all maps, charts and satellite images and determine the easternmost feature, easternmost reef, and easternmost island (both artificial and natural) of the Spratlys, same with westernmost, northernmost, and southernmost. Or have you already done that for yourself? It was always my understanding that the southernmost feature and reef is Louisa Reef, and that one is the only one not covered by the NGA map sheets I mentioned. The Luconia Shoals are geographically not really part of the Spratlys anymore, although some publications say so. Even less so, James Shoal. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of the Dangerous Ground (South China Sea) is much less clear, as it seems. It is fuzzy, and its a fuzzy name, not really a geographic name, is it?--Ratzer (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratzer: I don't have my notes to hand at the moment, I'll look for them tomorrow. The following is from memory and may not be correct, but I think it is.

Well chart 93049 goes as far west as Vanguard Bank and beyond. Isn't Vanguard Bank the westernmost feature of the Spratlys? What would we need chart 93020 for then?

No, Vanguard isn't the westernmost. I believe that prize goes to the Scawfell Shoal.

Chart 93049 goes west to 109E and north to about 9.3N. Charlotte Bank at about 107.5E 7.1N and Scawfell Shoal at about 106.8E 7.2N are part of the Spratlys. Royal Bishop is at about 108E 9.7N - not sure where that's classified. The Catwicks are at about 109E 10N. I believe they're Vietnamese, but a tiny bit east of them is Rocher Julia which, I believe, is part of the Spratlys. [Subsequent information suggests these aren't part of the Spratlys] None of these are covered by 93049.

Or have you already done that for yourself?

Yes. (And I bet you had a suspicion that I had ;-) I'll have to dig out my notes.

It was always my understanding that the southernmost feature and reef is Louisa Reef,

Interesting. That's not been my understanding.

The Luconia Shoals are geographically not really part of the Spratlys anymore, although some publications say so.

Hmmm. I's say more than "some" publications say that. Again, I need to find my notes.

Even less so, James Shoal.

I need to find my notes. I have read at least one source that says it's part of the Spratlys, but I don't remember what that source was. These days there's so much noise about the Malaysia (and Indonesia) vs 9-dash-line issue that people don't seem to say much about whether it's part of the Spratlys or not. I read a nice paper on the issues that came out of somebody's Master's thesis - I'll try to find it and see what it says on the topic.

The extent of the Dangerous Ground (South China Sea) is much less clear, as it seems. It is fuzzy, and its a fuzzy name, not really a geographic name, is it?

You surprise me. The boundary is very clearly marked on 93044, 93045, 93046 & 93047 (and 93048), so the NGA have a definition.

Why do you say "It is fuzzy, and its a fuzzy name"?

"not really a geographic name, is it?" Oh yes, it's a geographic name, and it's been in use for at least a couple of hundred years. NGA's Publication 161 is updated frequently; I think https://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub161/Pub161bk.pdf always gives you the latest copy - curently page ii says it's been updated to 22 July 2017, but doesn't include the updates of 17 February 2018. Have a look at the maps on page v & page 1, and para 1.21 on pages 11-12, and then paras 1.22-1.50 (pp.12-20) for more details about Dangerous Ground and the rest of the Spratlys. (I haven't looked at Pub.161 recently; it's interesting to see the changes. The photos have been added since I last read it, but many of them are already "historic"!)

BTW:

1.50 Charlotte Bank (7°08'N., 107°36'E.)
1.50 Scawfell Shoal (7°18'N., 106°52'E.)

But on pg 153:

5.5 Iles Catwick (10°00'N., 108°59'E.) mentions Rocher Julia (Julia Shoal)
5.6 Royal Bishop Banks

So I guess 5.5 & 5.6 must not be part of the Spratlys, or at least the NGA doesn't think they are.

Humpf, it's past midnight (again). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Durham University IBRU articles

https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/news/boundary_news/?itemno=31073

prod

How do you WP:PROD a section of an article rather than the whole article? I could be BOLD and delete the section, or polite and PROD it, except I don't know how to. (I'm referring to Lists of Archibald Prize finalists#Notable subjects. See my hidden comments from March 2017.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

from my experience you cannot do what you would like - maybe you need to consider other methods JarrahTree 08:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Like using an AK-47, or White phosphorous? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vietnam war flame throwers (I was in the lottery but missed for nashoes)

blunderbuses used by the Tibetan army at the time of Younghusbands bizarre Himalayan journey

You were lucky! I would have been in the lottery, but Gough stopped it just before it was my turn. What a choice set! For me it's a toss-up between ... nah - flame throwers win.

They might even be in the right order, nor not JarrahTree 09:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't understand. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More questions

How did you get your / How does one get one's talk page into the hidden category "Noindexed pages"?

I see you're a Wikimedia Commons administrator. Could you look at this and tell me if there's a better way to say "you're a liar"? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on this? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the hostilities

After I saw the change you made to capitalize "academy" and before you self-reverted it, it took me about 20 minutes to compose and post my edit to your talk page. That accounts for the fact that my post is a few minutes after your edit. I resent the fact that you are trying to make me out to be some kind of jerk. You are the one who failed to examine and understand my first edit to the article. I examined and understood your edit. Your snarky suggestion that I avoid editing articles that are in Australian English is way off base, and smacks of ownership of Australian articles by Australians. I did not apply American English grammar rules; I only applied capitalization according to MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which pertains to all Wikipedia articles. Chris the speller ^yack 13:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After I saw the change you made to capitalize "academy" and before you self-reverted it, it took me about 20 minutes to compose and post my edit to your talk page. That accounts for the fact that my post is a few minutes after your edit. - Thank you for the explanation. This wasn't obvious.

I resent the fact that you are trying to make me out to be some kind of jerk. - I don't understand why you would say that. Please explain how and where I am doing that. What I have been trying to do is point out to you that you are making changes which are not appropriate. Many others on various talk pages agree with the comments I have made.

You are the one who failed to examine and understand my first edit to the article. - I have already explained to you, and supplied supporting evidence, that I did examine and understand your first edit. Please stop repeating this false and unfounded claim.

I examined and understood your edit. - To which edit are you referring?

Your snarky suggestion that I avoid editing articles that are in Australian English is way off base, and smacks of ownership of Australian articles by Australians. - It's disappointing you respond this way. My suggestion was not snarky, it was a request - a request that has also been made to you by others as well. You have also been asked by others to refrain making such edits while the related matters are being discussed. When this request was first made to you by another editor, you responded that you intended to ignore the request.

I did not apply American English grammar rules; I only applied capitalization according to MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which pertains to all Wikipedia articles. - The very long discussions in several places, in which you are a participant, and thus quite familiar, suggest the situation is not as simple as that.

Pdfpdf (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For (talk page stalker)s, there have been / are discussions at several places, not all of which I can find at the moment:

Pdfpdf (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cool the discussion on our talk pages. I mainly objected to your implication that I was being careless or reckless when I undertook to comment on your capitalization change just before you self-reverted it (why would I go back and double-check the article after composing my comment?), and to your attempt to ban me from making any change to any article that uses Australian English; that was way too broad. Let's proceed with the discussion on WT:MOSCAPS, where I think all the participants are providing good background, observations and suggestions. Chris the speller ^yack 13:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(why would I go back and double-check the article after composing my comment?) - Well, it's not something that I would be likely to do, so indeed, why would you? As I said above, I appreciated you explaining the chronology of your response.

that was way too broad. - Thank you.

I agree with you that the discussion at WT:MOSCAPS seems to have taken a turn towards being productive. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image for Robert Askin

Hi Pdfpdf. I saw your question about uploading a file to Wikipedia of Robert Askin locally to Wikipedia as non-free content in c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Askin.jpg, but that discussion closed before I could add a reply; so, I hope you don't mind me answering it here. The answer is "yes" as long as certain conditions are met.

Wikipedia does allow non-free content to be uploaded and used in articles as long as it can be demonstrated that said usage complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. With respect to non-free images of deceased individuals, the general consensus per item 10 of WP:NFCI is that such images can be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of stand-alone articles about the individual in question, but only as long as (1) the image has been previously published (WP:NFCC#4), (2) information about the copyright holder/origin of the image is provided (WP:NFCC#10a), (3) a separate specific non-free use rationale is provided for the particular use (WP:NFCC#10c), (4) the image is not from a agency such as Getty Images, etc. (WP:NFCC#2, WP:F7), and (5) a reasonable effort to find a free equivalent to serve the same encyclopdic purpose has been made (WP:NFCC#1, WP:FREER). Just for reference, a "free equivalent" does not have to be a free version of the exact same image; it just means a free image suitible to serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose of identification.

Since Askin died in 1981, there is a good chance that a non-free image can be uploaded to use for identification purposes. You should try to find a photo which allows you to provide as much informations as you can about its origin to make it easier to verify its copyright status. Since he was a politician, there may be some official photos of him on government websites that you can use. You should try an avoid anything with a watermark of which is found on a commercial website. When you find an image that you think meets all of the conditions of non-free use, you can upload it using {{Non-free biog-pic}} for the copyright license and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the non-free use rationale. If you're not sure about whether an image you find online can be used, you can ask for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC.

Finally, although non-free images of deceased individuals is usually considered acceptable for primary identification purposes in stand-alone biography articles about the indivdiual in question, the same cannot be said for other articles, such as "List of ..." , "Election of ....", etc. where the person may be mentioned by name or in a certain context, but are not entirely about the person in question. Even multiple non-free images of the same person within their biography article should also not be considered automatically OK. In such cases, the additional images (the ones outside the main infobox) themselves tend to need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. Basically, a non-free image of Askin used in the main infobox of Robert Askin is probably OK; however, the same image used in other article which discuss Askin or mention him by name is, or other images of Askin in his main article are probably not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for (talk page stalker)s, but more particularly me: The above is in response to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Askin.jpg The following is mainly for my benefit:

Possibly expired crown copyright, but I can't verify that this photo was created before 1968. Guanaco (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was his "official portrait" on becoming premier in 1965, but although doing a (not-very-thorough) search, I haven't (yet) been able to verify the (prior-to-1968) date, either. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing subject: I found a colour version, ([https://howold.co/uploads/person/730/500/robert-askin.jpg] at [https://howold.co/robert-askin]), but it's equally useless in answering the above question.
If (when) the above is deleted, may I download this colour version (rather than the B&W version from [3]) to en:wikipedia & put a couple of non-free templates on it for a couple of the more important pages? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Wow! In 11 years on wikipedia that would have to be the most comprehensive and thorough response ANYONE has supplied to any of the questions I've asked. Thank you; I'm both impressed and grateful. I'll read it a couple more times before I start on working out what seems to be the best way to address this. Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about wikilinking to other WMF projects from Wikipedia. Each project has a prefix that needs to be added to the beginning of the page name in order for the link to work (see WP:IW for reference) . You can also add the project name to the beginning of the page name at well. Since the page name pf DR discussion on Commons is technically "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Askin.jpg", you need to format the link as either c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Askin.jpg or Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Askin.jpg for the link to work correctly. The way you formatted the link is telling the software that the page name is "Deletion requests/File:Robert Askin.jpg", so the clicking on it will not take you to the desired page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dickinson

Having just published this article I find you've been working on the same subject. Would you mind filling it out with your finds? Doug butler (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: Hi Doug. Hope you're not freezing to death. (I am - made worse by numerous Europeans posting photos of blue skies on facebook!)

I find you've been working on the same subject. - Wellll, not really. I haven't looked at User:Pdfpdf/Ben Dickinson since I created it on 30 July 2017. I guess I will now!

BTW: If I haven't said so before, please feel free to use anything useful you find in any of my sandboxes - you're much better at creating articles than I am. (Table-of-contents at User:Pdfpdf#Sandboxes. Hmmm, that table needs updating.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stow Smith

Changing subject slightly, I'd like to see an article on User:Pdfpdf/Quinton Stow Smith, but I'm not even sure what his name was - I've only ever seen references to Mr. Stow Smith. (BTW: He was yet another attendee of "J.L.Young's famous school in ca. 1875-1877"). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an OK start. I'm sure he had fingers in lots more pies but got bored and got stuck into Silas Mead instead. How come an atheist who finds horse racing tedious to the extreme spends so much time on sky pilots, jockeys and crooked trainers? Doug butler (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. How does the youngest son of farmers in the 1850s acquire a BA, MA & LLB? How does a Baptist congregation raise £7000 in one year? All rather unexpected.

He got his BA at Stepney College (run by Baptists) and MA and LLB at Regent's Park College (run by Baptists). I see a pattern emerging. Give me a child ... certainly worked in his case. I too was surprised at the £7000. Presumably Angas would have given some out of petty cash, but there's also references, which I didn't follow up, to Mead uniting two rival branches of the sect, who may have liquidated some assets to get a stake in this rather grand edifice.Doug butler (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: The ad in cols. 1&2 caught my eye. I wonder why it is (was?) "specially beneficial to women"? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i thought it was university libraries

the suppository of knowledge - which by all reports are either being flooded (ANU and UTAS) or in general stripped of so many funds and facilities they are indeed excrable in their output JarrahTree 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nah we dont get older or wiser, just decrepit in the face of the idiocy of this place :) JarrahTree 16:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.63% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for May:

Women of the Sea Villains Women in Sport Central Eastern European women #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It flies by, doesn't it! Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I agree! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

just a squint

South_Australian_Chamber_of_Mines_and_Energy JarrahTree 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war: South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy

Your recent editing history at South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 96.41.142.76 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC) (The garmine)[reply]

No, I'm not involved in an edit war, and if you did your homework properly, it would be obvious to you that I'm not. If you did your homework, it would be obvious to you that several editors - not just me - are trying to explain to this nuisance editor with a VERY obvious WP:COI and absolutely NO interest in learning ANYTHING about how wikipedia works that their behaviour is unacceptable. I await your apology. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gawd

my apology. the naive outsiders are wagging the horse by the rear left leg. Please in future ignore requests, for hope that there is some level of understanding by the naive, but the risk that they simply do not get it JarrahTree 13:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The incessant deletion of historical material which is part of what wikipedia articles are about is beyond my comprehension... I really think there is a serious lack of understanding of what WP:ABOUT actually means. JarrahTree 14:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops

wrongtalk page me thinks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilby&oldid=843643420 JarrahTree 14:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You can hear the Deep South arrogance Hey — didn't the French create the litre and the metre ? Doug butler (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, (a skill at which I am experienced), I'm inclined to keep my mouth shut. (Not that I don't have an opinion ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Hi Pdfpdf,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind invitation. I seem to be on an extended wikibreak at the moment. I'll reply when I return to editing. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you are truly missed

come back all is forgotten JarrahTree 14:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: I seem to be on an extended wikibreak at the moment. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case enjoy - and keep the extensions working - the coldness and winds of perth - may they not get to Adelaide! JarrahTree 09:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

get back to where you belong :) ....JarrahTree 14:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge

Hey, when you return to WP, you should consider checking this out Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge. I've already attributed you on some articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dangerous Ground (South China Sea) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dangerous Ground (South China Sea), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Australian Industry and Defence Network

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Australian Industry and Defence Network requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from aidn.org.au//AIDN-Membership/Benefits-and-Features/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. –dlthewave ☎ 00:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12/12/2018

wikibreak

Pdfpdf is on an extended wikibreak.

Nomination of Australian Industry and Defence Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Australian Industry and Defence Network is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Industry and Defence Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scott Davis ^Talk 12:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pdfpdf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]