User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive13

Hello again

I replied to your comments on my talk page. Have a great one! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PDF/pdf

Thanks for the note. No problem. I made my initial edit to PDF (disambiguation) because (a) it seems to me that uppercase/lowercase does not in fact (in the real world, in which authors are not nearly as careful as we might like to think) distinguish probability distribution function from probability density function; (b) the function of a disambiguation page is simply to refer the reader to possible meanings and the locations of further information, not to discuss such niceties (see WP:MOSDAB); (c) on my fist visit to the page I actually failed to spot these two meanings of "pdf" because they were hidden in the body of the text rather than in a lead position. I'm quite happy with making the distinction between pdf and PDF - but I will argue strongly to keep the meaning at the beginning of the line in each case. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an argument about this recently too (not this particular topic). MOS says "if someone has got to a disambiguation page, it is unlikely they are looking for the primary topic", and at the same time (in subsidiary articles) says the primary topic should be defined in the DAB. Which seems entirely contradictory to me.

To throw my penny into the pot, I'd know both a probability distribution function and a page description format when I saw them, and maybe a pervert with devious fumbling or a parrot of devout faith, but I very much doubt any would be genuinely confusing to me in language or in life. The page description format let's face it is primary. (And sodding hard work to get right.) SimonTrew (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botanic garden etc

Well, thank YOU.

The more serious problem here is Botanic Garden squatting on a topic that to me seems DAB more appropriate.

SimonTrew (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, it's those itricacies of WP that elude me.

To have "Botanical Garden" go straight to an article, though I think primary, and "Botanic Garden" go to DAB, seems absurd because I would say their use is fairly equally balanced.

But it seems natural to me to use the shorter title for the article if you are going to DAB it like that.

BTW just for your information I got here through copy-editing Medellín and got distracted as often is the case with me. Just for your info.

If you do a request for move (WP:RM) or something of that kind I'd suggest copying your and my conversation from our talk pages into a coherent whole. I've no objection to you moving/removing stuff from my talk page to do so.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Because I am not sure there would be consensus which page should go where.

By the way I've translated Léon Gard a new Picture for the Day for there might be nice!

Best wishes ((talk) 22:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hey,

I noticed that your recent report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism was formatted incorrectly. I have fixed this for you, but I suggest reading Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism to learn how to report correctly before trying again, as this will make it easier for everyone. That page is also linked to from AIV. Thanks! Ale_Jrb ^talk 13:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The format to use is: "* {{vandal|Gabrieltn}} ~~~~")

Et al.

Indeed et al., e.g., i.e., etc., loc. cit. and ibid. are all better known than their fully spelled out equivalents. Rich Farmbrough, 08:32 17 May 2009 (UTC).

Exeunt

Regarding your edit of Exeunt: wouldn't the plural of exeat be exeant? And isn't exit the singular of exeunt? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that my 40-year-old memories of High School Latin are not perfect, but I can still "see" the image of the Latin master flourishing his gown (in a similar manner to the way Dracula and his cape are often portayed) and exhorting that the boarders (plural) were actually going on Exeunt, not Exeat(!) Perhaps it was his Welsh accent and he was actually saying Exeant? Perhaps my memory of his gestures are better than my memory of his pronunciation? Perhaps I need to dig out my "real" Latin dictionary? (My Collins Latin Gem dictionary (first published 1957, printed in Great Britain) is surprisingly un-helpful on the matter.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better? HoldenV8 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sout h Australian politicians

Duplicate categorization. An article shouldn't be filed directly in Category:South Australian politicians if it's already in a subcategory such as Category:Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Barker or Category:Premiers of South Australia. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Soccer clubs in Adelaide

I have nominated Category:Soccer clubs in Adelaide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. timsdad ^(talk) 12:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the auto 'heads up', it's Twinkle, not me. It was my understanding that categories could not be moved, and therefore the only way was to create a new one, changing all the links to that category in pages in the category, then marking the old category for deletion. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide GAN

Hey, have you ever thought of nominating Adelaide for GA Status? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha fair enough :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no. Yellow Monkey recently posted "Last year there was a bit of an informal New Year's resolution on getting the 16 state/territories and capitals back to GA and beyond but this seems to have stalled. Does anyone want to revive it?" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, but plans seem to have stalled, as no one was very motivated. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 22:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Coates (admiral) - copyright violation?

When performing some tweaks on Nigel Coates (admiral), I found that most of the text of the article appears to be copypasted from his Department of Defence biography page, a website which is copyrighted to the Australian government. As such, I have tagged most of the article as a copyright violation, and have listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 May 25.

I've avoided giving you {{Nothanks-web}}, the templated response to these situations, because I respect you and your other contributions too much to template a regular. That said, reviewing the template text may help you decide what to do next. -- saberwyn 09:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

-- saberwyn 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hi Pdfpdf! Further to your edit here, the instructions for the page are actually in the edit screen - visit WP:AIV and click "edit this page" and you'll see a deceptively easy way of listing vandals using a simple template. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Use of "Victoria Cross recipients" template

Replied –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 June 2009

Adelaide GAN

Hey, have you ever thought of nominating Adelaide for GA Status? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha fair enough :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no. Yellow Monkey recently posted "Last year there was a bit of an informal New Year's resolution on getting the 16 state/territories and capitals back to GA and beyond but this seems to have stalled. Does anyone want to revive it?" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, but plans seem to have stalled, as no one was very motivated. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 22:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj from User talk:TheJazzDalek/2009-06

For reasons I can't explain using a logical or rational arguement, I'd like to see this article "stay" this time. (I have a similar penchant for Wayne Static and his wife Tera Wray - I can't explain those, either.) As you are more than well aware, this could be difficult, particularly given the various contributors' approaches to copyright, etc.
I really don't have much doubt that she's sufficiently notable for a WP article, (e.g. have a look at "what links here"), but I also acknowledge that demonstrating it is a "challenge", (particularly given the poor handling of past attempts, and the fact that the "deletionists" and "pedants" now have this article name on their watchlists).
I get the feeling that you're prepared to be flexible about it if the transgressions are not too blatent. I'd be happy to work with you to get this article to a state where it is "acceptable". However, I'm not altogether sure how to achieve that. Your thoughts/opinions? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You don't need to post a "talkback" if you're not in the mood - this page is on my watchlist. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article, as it is now, passes WP:MUSIC—she's received sufficient coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. I did a bit of work and removed the more questionable sources. I wouldn't be surprised if someone took it to AFD but I would certainly vote keep; I also think that it would survive an AFD. I plan to, for the near future at least, keep an eye on it and remove any dubious material that may get added, which might serve to make the article more "deletable". TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. If you want/need any assistance, "drop me a line". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's beginning to look like maintaining this lady's pages is a full time occupation! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just a quick revert every now and again. Looks like you can stick a {{db-author}} on your saved copy of the old version of the page. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Mixtape"

Before I get to the subject in hand, let me mention that I like to see dates in the format "dd MMM yyyy". The majority of Americans seem to prefer "MMM dd, yyyy". If I format dates as "[[MMM dd]], [[yyyy]]", then my preference settings display it to me as dd MMM yyyy. (i.e. M & D swapped, and comma removed.) I like that. So yes, turning yyyy into [[yyyy]] does nothing for me. (In fact, if you really want to know, it irritates the crap out of me.) But for me there is a benefit in [[MMM dd]] and [[MMM dd]], [[yyyy]]. So, I would appreciate it if you did NOT undo that particular class of edits.

Regarding the mix tape article itself, well, to be honest, I'm not about to "die in a ditch" over it. Yeah, the notability of the mixtape is debatable, but I'd be interested to know why you seem to care. (Perhaps you'd prefer to email me rather than answer here?)

However, despite the fact that I have, in the past, spent a lot of time creating wikitables, I must say your latest edit certainly simplified that chunk of data!! Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to always wikilink dates, specifically because of the whole dd mm vs. mm dd display thing, until someone pointed out to me that it's actually against WP format to do so. So while I understand your preference, please realize that, according to MOS:UNLINKDATES, most dates should not be wikilinked. As for the notability tag, it's my hope that someone will add enough to show notability. It passed the AFD only because no clear consensus was reached, not because notability was proven. Regarding tables, sometimes they are definitely an improvement, sometimes they are ok, and sometimes they unnecessarily over-complicate things. More often than not for track lists, no table is best (format example at WP:ALBUMS). The problem is people try to cram too much info in there (e.g. no need to list the producers for every track (use a "credits" section), especially if the whole album was done by the same person/group). TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re dates: Fair enough.

Re the mixtape: "One can but hope ... "

Re AFD: I think it was more a case of "didn't fail", rather than "pass"! Yes, I agree with your summary.

Re tables and related comments: Agreed.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also section compromise proposal

I have been think about a way to incorporate a wikilink to List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients and cutting out the see also section and think I have come up with an idea. Basicly, all of the articles on Australian VC recipients have the phrase "was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross" following there name in the lead, so I though it might be a good idea to instead have the link under "Australian recipient". It would be presented as thus: [[List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients|Australian recipient]]

As an example, Badcoe's would read:

Peter John Badcoe VC (11 January 1934 – 7 April 1967) was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross ...

In my opinion, it seems the best way to link to the list without a see also section or template box. Thoughts? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have been think about a way to incorporate ... " - Good to hear.

"Basicly, all of the articles ... so I though it might be a good idea ... " - Sounds good to me.

"In my opinion, it seems the best way to link to the list without a see also section" - Given your (to me, still incomprehensible) dislike of "See also" sections, it sounds like a good idea to me, too.

Extended content

"or template box." - I don't understand this one. Have you a dislike of template boxes too?

My opinion is that the template box is an obvious addition. It never occurred to me that you would disagree.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular dislike of template boxes, but I disagree with the addition of the VC template as it deals more with the actual medal rather than recipients and it is inconsistant to add it to only a few recipients articles. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) "but I disagree with the addition of the VC template as it deals more with the actual medal rather than recipients" - I am completely confused by this sentence. The template is called {{Victoria Cross recipients}}. It contains pointers to lists of recipients. It is beyond my comprehension that you could come to the conclusion that "it deals more with the actual medal rather than recipients". Please have another look at the contents of the template - I have added it below for your convenience.

2) "and it is inconsistant to add it to only a few recipients articles." - Another strange statement. It is inconsistent to remove "See also" sections from only a few recipients articles, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you from doing it.

Your inconsistent behaviours are very confusing. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template was original intended purely to tie together the lists and top level articles User:Woody has done the most on these, and was the creator of the navbox, so it might be an idea to ask him for his input. Generally "See alsos" are a last resort, in general the links should be worked into the article if relevant, so the suggest of putting it right up in the lead seems a good one, though as ever with lists, the question of to what extent they are redundant to categories is an interesting one, since that provides an alternative way to navigate and find additional recipients. From a usability opint of view, one draw back of the nav box is that per WP:LAYOUT, it should be placed after notes, references etc, leading me to wonder how many casual readers will actually scrolldown far enough to find it. Ultimatley, I think Woody intends to create a portal, which would also probably be helpful, a single link to the portal would give the interested user a great way to find their way into all things VC. David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I'm not sure I follow all of what you're saying, but ...
"I think the template was original intended purely to tie together the lists and top level articles" - Your point being?
"so it might be an idea to ask him for his input." - Agreed. However, there are also other considerations ...
"Generally ... " - Yes ...
"the question of to what extent they are redundant to categories is an interesting one" - Also agreed.
"From a usability opint of view, one draw back of the nav box is that per WP:LAYOUT, it should be placed after notes, references etc, leading me to wonder how many casual readers will actually scrolldown far enough to find it." - ~~Why don't you ask an easy question?~~ Yes. And I have similar thoughts ...
"Ultimatley, I think Woody intends to create a portal, which would also probably be helpful, a single link to the portal would give the interested user a great way to find their way into all things VC." - Errrr. Maybe? I don't have enough information or knowledge to make a useful comment.
I'm dis-satisfied with the vagueness of my response, but that's the best I can do at the moment ...
Pdfpdf (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I emant that the nav box was inteded purely to help navigation amongst the recipient lists, rather than being intended to be placed on all recipients, I think it's also related to the articles that form the WP:Featured Topics on the VC. On portals, typically you get a nice small link to the portal, placed under a "See also" (I guess I'm contradicting myself to a degree now, but that's where layout says these things should go, for reasons not entirely clear to me), and the portal itself gives you a well-structured way in to a particular topic, you can also present randomised selections of featured content and things like that if you so desire, so it potentially gives users a much "richer" experience.

Hmmm. That has an impact on my pov. However, I'm not sure of the implcations - will need to think about it.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what David has stated above, that the template box's primary use was to be a navigational tool to link the lists and medals together rather than recipients direct. Also, as I have stated to you on my talk page, I think only two of the links contained in the box are really applicable to Australian recipients; that of the VC and the list of Australian recipients, both of which are/will be incorporated into the text. Just adding my 2¢ worth here so we have some more views in the one place, rather than split over a few talk pages. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I expected that you would. (That's why I suggested you might like to read it.)
Well, I still think it's a good idea, but it looks like I'm in a minority of size one!
I guess I'll just leave it alone until I get a brilliant flash of inspiration that all will find convincing. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it might be worth simultaneously adding the link to the Oz VC list per my suggestion and remove the template box at the same time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not surprised to see you say that, either. (Despite the fact that personally I'd rather leave them there), Yes, "it might be ... ".
So how are you attacking this? (It doesn't seem to be alphabetic.) And where do you want me to start / what do you want me to do? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intended it to be alphabetic, but ended up going a bit randomly, editing those I had previously brought up to a decent level but also those where the template box wasn't present. If you are still willing/would like to help, how about I do from Charles Groves Wright Anderson down to William Donovan Joynt, and you from Richard Kelliher to Guy George Egerton Wylly? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;-) - Yeah, "been there, done that" ... (More than once!)
That sounds like a good plan. Tell-ya-wot: I'll start at Wylly and work backwards. OK? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting Columns

I had made "rank" and "term ended" unsortable on Vice Chief of the Defence Force (Australia) and Chief of Joint Operations (Australia) because the ability to sort on those columns really didn't value add in any way (and I was also experimenting with the 'unsortable' function). After all - if I wanted to see all the Generals, I would sort on "Service", an alphabetical sorting of rank really didn't do anything - a more applicable sort would be to sort on 'rank equivalency', eg - number of stars (in the rare event that a 2-star ever temporarily held the position say) . Sorting on 'term ended' was exactly the same as sorting on 'term began'. PalawanOz (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2009

Nicki Minaj

Hi, would you object if I merged the histories of User:Pdfpdf/Nicki Minaj and Nicki Minaj? User:Pdfpdf/Nicki Minaj would no longer exist, hence why I'm asking first rather than just going ahead and merging. :) Thanks, Somno (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, go ahead. No, I most certainly do not object. And thank you for asking first! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilton

Project level discussion now initiated WT:MILHIST#Disambiguators for military biography articles. I started it whilst you were writing on the Wilton page, so sorry I didn't get round to replying there. I think the project wide page is better, since you've brought up the comparison with other miltaries, there aren't a huge numebr of active contribtors on the Aussie page either, so on the basis of previous discussions about medal ribbons and so on I don't think we're actaully anymore liekly to reach a consensus there. David Underdown (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. (Appreciated.)

"so sorry ... " - No worries.

"there aren't a huge numebr of active contribtors on the Aussie page either" - I'm afraid I don't understand; that's contrary to my expectation, so we must be talking at cross purposes. Which "Aussie page" are you referring to?

"so on ... I don't think we're actaully anymore liekly to reach a consensus there." - Sorry, you've lost me. You may be right, but as I said, you've lost me. A concensus where? The Aussie page?? Which Aussie page? Time for some Simon & Garfunkel? "Slow down. You move too fast. Got to ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page edit

Reply. --Jerzy•t 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pdfpdf. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Disambig page edit" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 06:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the following is a test for purposes of soliciting your feedback, not about a new msg from me. You put the notion into my head. (I'm aware that my text half breaks the collapsation template, which i something i may just put up with.)

Hello, Pdfpdf. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the " (Dummy)" section of my talk page.

Clean up this box?

You can get rid of this notice (generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore) at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
At the cost of making these instructions hard to find, you instead can edit this section and remove (the one occurrence of) the pair of the characters "%%" shortly after "", and save the result; the effect will be to eliminate the box, icon, and prose, leaving a minimalist substitute for what you see now.

In either case, it is best to click on the "edit" link at the top of this section, but clicking on this link will always permit editing any part of this page.
|}--Jerzy•t 09:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alert: Abandoned footwear is Nominated for Deletion!

Keep your eyes open all the time here at wiki! jmcw (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I was walking my dog, I was thinking "What's the difference between an overly-serious, humourless young wiki editor and a curmudgeon?" I was thinking that it sounded like the beginning of a great joke - and then I realized the punch line is "Thirty Years." jmcw (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thirty Years, testosterone level, and level of self awareness (or lack thereof)"? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrate on laughing at the absurd - there is more than enough to go around. jmcw (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had the acquaintance of the gentleman User_talk:Colonel_Warden? jmcw (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Abandoned footwear

Regarding your decision: "Closing debate, result was no consensus", what does it mean?

There were/are 9 "keep", 5 "delete" and 1 "redirect". No, there was no unanimous point-of-view, but my understanding is that one does not need unanimous support to reach consensus. So that begs the question, what criteria does one use to decide if consensus has been achieved?
Now that you have closed it, what happens next?

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't a vote. As such, I read through the discussion, and determined that both sides had equally valid arguments. In the end I wasn't able to find a definitive consensus, hence "no consensus", which defaults to keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply.

Hence, I interpret that your reply to: what criteria does one use to decide if consensus has been achieved? is, "One uses one's judgement." That sounds like a better alternative to many I can think of! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, spot-on. :) Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle done now, thanks for spotting that. --Nate 14 81 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy vixen

Kill joy! Tell me. How often on WP does ANYBODY get the opportunity to use the noun phrase "Sexy Vixen"?

Cheers (and chortles), Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ;-)[reply]

Well, I, for one, use the phrase "sexy vixen" every day. That may be why I have no girlfriend. :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I think that that phrase, and your response, are going to haunt me for quite a while ...

Is that the Twilight Zone theme I can hear? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2009 - part 2

Copied from User talk:219.90.221.44

Railway stations

Before I start whingeing, I must first say that any useful contributions to WP are ALWAYS welcome, and some of your contributions are indeed useful. So thank you for those contributions. (However, yes, there's always a "but", isn't there?)

"I have changed the links to the all stations in the history paragraph to the names of the suburbs which they are named after because on the template at the bottom, it has the links to those stations.)" - Fair enough. I don't agree with you, and rather you didn't do it, but now that I know what you're up to, I'm not going to revert them.
Please don't put "since" in the "date closed". I do not think any of the closed stations other than the ones you have edited have "since" in them.
You are "overlinking". Please read the relevant guideline. "What is it?" I hear you say. Good question. Wikipedia:Linking#Overlinking and underlinking, in particular, Wikipedia:Linking#What generally should not be linked, but in general, the whole section, if not the page.

Please keep up the good work, and don't let me discourage you. But please note that there are many pedants on WP (not just me); don't let them discourage you either.
And most of all, enjoy yourself and have fun. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

219.90.221.44 - since 23 March 2009 (User talk:219.90.221.44)
219.90.207.118 - since 1 May 2009 (User talk:219.90.207.118)
219.90.232.223‎ - since 31 October 2008 (User talk:219.90.232.223‎, but nothing since 19 December 2008)
114.30.108.198 - since 30 June 2009 (User talk:114.30.108.198)
Others?

Why don't you get an account and use it? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Glen_Dillon#Stobie_pole

"No support or citation for claim that 'some' (who?) have described them as hideous"
Hear hear!! No-one I know ever uses the word "hideous"! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) ;-)[reply]

ha! well - you're right - its not a term one comes across in Wikipedia very often - and there was no citation AT ALL so it had to be culled from the article. I agree with you - though I can't be bothered to look up the term "hideous" and I havn't used the term for about twenty years myself - but I think it basically means "quite ugly" and I presume it is derived from the term "hide" (i.e. so ugly that it should be hidden)- which is a bit unfair and also impractical in regard to those wonderful power poles you have over there in SA. I've visited your state a lot over the years and I've admired the stobie pole as much as the thatch fence. It is obviously an engineering marvel (in terms of being a simple and elegant solution). In comparison - your western cousins (I'm in Perth) have for years littered suburban streets with poles pulled from old-growth and plantation forests which can't be a good idea. It is well known that SA is the most progressive state in the Commonwealth and the stobie pole is but one more example of this. GlenDillon 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"so it had to be culled" - Agreed

"which is a bit unfair and also impractical ... " - You may not be aware just how essential they are to certain parts of the South Australian economy. Their origin was a result of the early settlers denuding the Adelaide Plains for cheap fuel, making wooden poles prohibitively expensive. However, once installed, the steel & concrete poles have provided an ongoing and reliable supply of work for the crash repair industry, the emergency services, the medical profession, and the undertakers.

"It is obviously an engineering marvel ... " - it is unusual for someone to get past their appearance and actually realise this. I agree that Jim Stobie never received the positive public accolades he deserved.

These days, in areas where the power lines are placed underground and the stobie poles removed, the replacement light poles are designed to shear off at the base. This has reduced the workload for the crash repair industry, the emergency services, the medical profession, and the undertakers, but has redistributed those costs to the makers of these "hideously expensive" collapsable poles ...

"It is well known ... " - Well, it's well known by South Australians, but I think it might be hard to find a Victorian who agrees with you. (But what would they know? For heavens sake, they drink VB over there!)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]